Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202114854)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114854

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 May 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of his reports of Anti Social Behaviour by neighbours. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been considered.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 21 January 2021 the resident reported anti social behaviour (ASB) and gatherings from neighbours at three properties. The landlord provided diary sheets for the resident to log incidents. It also contacted the police, who confirmed that they had disbursed a number of gatherings in the area and said that they would do further patrols in the area.
  2. On 18 February 2021 the resident told the landlord that a neighbour had told him that he was going to set fire to his house. The landlord sent diary sheets to him. The resident told the landlord there had been another ASB incident on 21 February 2021.
  3. The landlord sent warning letters to neighbours at four properties on 23 February 2021. It provided further diary sheets to the resident and contacted the police on 1 March 2021. The police told the landlord that it had completed its investigations and found that, due to no evidence, it had closed the case. The landlord then closed the ASB case on 19 March 2021.
  4. There was another incident of ASB raised by the resident to the landlord on 4 April 2021. The resident told the landlord that he had called the police, but the police had said that it would not take further action. The landlord told the resident that it would investigate the matter. The landlord closed the case on 25 May 2021 on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to take action.
  5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 5 July 2021. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident by the landlord on 28 July 2021. The landlord advised that a police investigation had found that the resident and one of the neighbours had made threats against each other and it was not taking further action. It found that the Tenancy Specialist team had followed the correct procedures and there were no service failures. It did offer the resident £25 compensation for delays in responding to his complaint.
  6. The resident requested that the matter be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure on 28 July 2021. He said that he found the £25 compensation for delay an insult. He stated that the ASB continued and his dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled the matter. He said the matter was now out of hand and he was unable to move due to the reputation the street had. He stated that he had been subject to harassment for over nine months and whilst the “overt name calling” had calmed down other things had not. He stated that false reports to the police had been made about him. He went on to state that the police had given conflicting information to the landlord. He referred to threats made by a neighbour to set him alight and burn the house down. He set out claims of corruption and bias by the police. He also raised issues of an empty property which he had reported and that the tenant of that property was offering a financial incentive to swap, which he said he understood was illegal. He also complained about the landlord’s complaints procedure – and in particular that he was told that the permission of a particular business department was needed to lodge a complaint. He felt that this was an attempt to prevent people from complaining. He stated that he felt that the only reason the main instigator of the ASB had stopped was that he (the resident) “made it clear that … [he] … will deal with anything further with violence”.
  7. The landlord responded to this on 25 August 2021, apologising for the delay in the acknowledgement of his escalation request.
  8. On 25 August 2021 the resident provided further comments that he felt that the landlord had overlooked many points. He submitted photographic evidence that he claimed showed that the tenant of that property was offering to cover moving fees for an exchange. He acknowledged the lack of action from the police and said that the police are biased and had taken over six months to even look at his complaint. He stated that the neighbours had stopped harassing him, but claimed that this was because there was “nothing to stop [him] solving the problem” himself. He said that there was still covert abuse from the neighbour’s children. He said that he could not spend time outside for fear of false reports being made. He said that two allegations had been made about ASB by him which were untrue. The ASB had continued because no action had been taken. He noted that he had made a significant effort to find a property to move to. He concluded by stating that if a potential move fell through this would “probably mean me getting a criminal record putting an end to the asb for good”.
  9. In September 2021 there were a number of internal communications by the landlord discussing how the matter had been managed internally. It noted that there appeared to have been some issues with how the resident’s complaint was logged internally by the Tenancy Specialist team. The landlord took the view that it was time to “revisit” the process for logging complaints.
  10. The landlord sent a stage two complaint response on 23 September 2021. The landlord set out its position that it requires supporting evidence to pursue suitable tenancy action. It stated that “no judgement is made other than what can be determined by the evidence presented”. It acknowledged that this can sometimes seem unfair or unreasonable when there is insufficient evidence to support allegations or issues can not be proved due to lack of evidence. In this case, the landlord stated that it was satisfied that the case had been dealt with objectively and the correct process had been followed. It stated that all incidents which had been reported were investigated and action was taken where appropriate. It noted that it could not provide data relating to other tenants and actions against them specifically. It did confirm that appropriate warnings have been given. However, it said that due to lack of evidence it could not progress allegations further. It noted that it had advised the resident this on several occasions and said that it was sorry that this has mean that little action had been taken. It confirmed that it had been providing the resident with advice on alternative housing options such as mutual exchange. Its view was that the current situation would not meet the criteria for a management transfer. It set out that the resident had acknowledged that the main perpetrators had stopped harassing the resident, but he had reported that ASB persisted from their children. It confirmed that a joint visit with the police had been organised both with the resident and the perpetrators. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint of abandonment regarding the next door property, but advised that it was satisfied that the tenant in that property continued to reside there.
  11. The landlord also addressed the concerns which the resident had raised about being prevented from raising a complaint without permission from the Tenancy Specialist team. It recounted that its records showed that the resident contacted it on 5 July 2021 asking to raise a complaint. It says that in line with its procedure the matter was referred to the business area to give them an opportunity to try and resolve the matter before escalating to a complaint. The Tenancy Specialist Team was therefore requested to contact the resident. It stated that this team then would ask for a complaint to be raised if the resident remained dissatisfied. It apologised if this had not been made clear to the resident. It did note that the resident raised the issue with the Chief Executive subsequently that day and a complaint was raised.
  12. On 31 January 2022 the landlord advised this service that it had further reviewed the case and would like to award compensation for its failure to provide a stage two complaint response within the timescales it stated in its policy. It felt that £50 was appropriate. It asked for this to be taken into account in the investigation.
  13. The resident advised this service on 13 March 2023 that he and his family had moved to what he considered to be a less desirable property. The move took place in November 2021. He reiterated his dissatisfaction with the police handling of the matter. He stated that there were many steps which the landlord could have taken to assist or defuse the situation, but it did not.

Assessment and findings

Handling of ASB reports  

  1. The crux of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord failed to take appropriate steps to address significant ASB by multiple neighbours that was impacting significantly on his family. The resident submits that, as a result of this, he has had to accept an undesirable property exchange.
  2. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  3. This Service recognises that the concerns the resident has reported have affected and caused distress to him and his family. In cases relating to ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts, nor does it decide on what correct courses of action were based on hindsight and later events. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint, and assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  4. The background to this complaint is one of allegations of ASB by the resident and counter allegations by his neighbour. It is relevant for the Ombudsman to acknowledge at the outset that ASB cases involving a number of parties with allegations and counter allegations of the extent presented in this case can be amongst the most difficult and intractable for a landlord to resolve. That difficulty is not the fault of any party, but it is important that the Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s actions recognises this fact.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has referred on a number of occasions to his view that the police involvement in the matter was biased and corrupt. For the avoidance of all doubt, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to consider the handling of the matter by the police and we make no finding on the actions of the police. Further, as a standard position, the Ombudsman would consider it reasonable for the landlord to rely on the outcomes of police investigations to inform its own actions.
  6. The landlord took the following key actions in this case:
    1. It provided the resident with diary sheets to keep a record of the ASB. This is standard practice to support the collection of appropriate evidence and was reasonable for the landlord to do.
    2. It sent warning letters to the neighbours. This is an appropriate intervention to take in the initial stages of an ASB complaint.
    3. It liaised with the police to understand its position on the matter. Given the nature of the resident’s complaints – harassment and abuse – the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to engage with the police on the matter.
  7. Ultimately, the landlord determined that there was not sufficient evidence to take further action. In coming to this view, it appears to have placed significant weight on the police’s conclusion that the parties had made threats against each other and there was not sufficient evidence to pursue action against the neighbours. The resident himself provided the landlord with direct evidence that he was threatening violence against his neighbour.
  8. As said, it is reasonable for the landlord to be informed by the outcome of police investigations. It may be that in some cases there are circumstances which do not reach the threshold for police intervention which nonetheless the landlord should take action over – for example non criminal breaches of tenancy obligations. However, in this case the resident’s primary complaint of ASB was activity which would typically be dealt with by police if there was appropriate evidence. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord was reasonable to conclude that there was not sufficient evidence to take further action, taking into account the police’s position.
  9. In his communications with the landlord after the first complaint response, the resident raised further subsidiary issues about a property being abandoned and a neighbour offering money as an incentive for a property exchange. These may fall within the category of issues that a landlord may take action on, where the police does not. The evidence indicates that the landlord investigated whether the property had been abandoned by a neighbour and whether a neighbour was offering money for exchange. The landlord found no proof of this. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the issues and the position it took was appropriate. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB by neighbours.

Complaints handling    

  1. The landlord has acknowledged that there were some failings with its complaints handling. It acknowledges that it took too long to respond to the resident’s complaint at both stages. The resident’s complaint did not require a complex response and the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failing in the time the landlord took to respond. This was particularly the case for the resident’s escalation to stage two of the complaints procedure. The resident requested the escalation on 28 July 2021. The landlord did not acknowledge the request until 25 August 2021 and did not provide a stage two response until 23 September 2021. The landlord also acknowledged that its communication with the resident about the process for raising a complaint and referring the matter to another team was confusing to the resident. In its internal communications about this it acknowledges that the process should be examined. The landlord offered the resident £25 for the stage one complaint handling failing. It advised this service that it considers £50 appropriate compensation for the stage two complaint delay. It does not appear to have offered this redress to the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure by the landlord with its complaints handling. It took an unreasonable amount of time to respond at both stages. The Ombudsman also considers that the confusion at the initial stages of the complaint with the referral to another team was a failing in the landlord’s complaints process. In particular the Ombudsman has considered section 4.1 of the Complaints Handling Code which sets out that landlord’s must ensure that processes to resolve a complaint should not obstruct access to the complaints procedure.
  3. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident
  4. In this case, the Ombudsman considers that the complaints handling failings in themselves caused the resident distress and inconvenience distinct from his distress at the general situation with his neighbours. Taking into account that there were failings at both stages of the complaints handling process and the length of time for the second stage response, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate that the landlord pay the resident £175 compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of the resident’s reports of Anti Social Behaviour by neighbours.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been service failure by the landlord with respect to its complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the matter and ultimately determined that there was not sufficient evidence to take further action. In coming to this view, it was appropriate to place significant weight on the police’s conclusion that the parties had made threats against each other and there was not sufficient evidence to pursue action against the neighbours.
  2. The landlord took too long to respond to the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaint process. The delay at stage two was particularly excessive. There was unnecessary confusion caused by the process at the initial stages of the complaint. The complaints handling failings in themselves caused the resident distress and inconvenience distinct from his distress at the general situation with his neighbours. The landlord should pay compensation for this.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident £175 compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination.