Clarion Housing Association Limited — case 202403215

Decision Case ID 202403215 Decision type Investigation Landlord Clarion Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Leaseholder Date 24 December 2025 Background The resident is a leaseholder. She said that staff assisted the previous owner with their sales form. She requested compensation for a failure to inform her about antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s report that staff assisted the previous owner with the sales form and failed to inform her about antisocial behaviour by a neighbour.

The complaint. Our decision (determination) There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of: The resident’s report that staff assisted the previous owner with a sales form and failed to inform her about antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. The complaint. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The resident’s report that staff assisted the previous owner with a sales form and failed to inform her about antisocial behaviour by a neighbour The landlord shows that it investigated the resident’s allegations in an appropriate way and in line with what we would expect.

Complaint handling The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 15 February 2024 The resident made a complaint. She said that staff had confirmed to her at a visit, witnessed by a neighbour, that they had helped the previous owner complete a property sales form. She complained that the staff had answered “no” to a question about neighbour disputes, when they knew there was a dispute with another property.

She said that she wanted compensation, as if the form had been completed correctly, she would not have bought the property. 22 February 2025 The landlord responded at stage 1: It said it had discussed the complaint with relevant staff and reviewed its records. It noted that antisocial behaviour the resident had reported was currently being investigated by its ASB team. It said staff interactions with the previous owner was limited. It said it presumed the sales form referred to was from the previous owner’s solicitor.

It said no staff assisted with completion of these. It said it was the solicitor’s role to give guidance about the completion of the forms. It said it could not take responsibility for the previous owner’s answers when completing the form. It concluded that it could not identify any service failings that it was responsible for. 22 February 2024 The resident escalated the complaint. 14 March 2024 The landlord responded at stage 2: It said it had reviewed its records and agreed with the findings at stage 1.

It said it had provided standard information to the seller’s solicitor, such as information about service charges. It said it had no record that staff had provided advice about completing a form with questions about antisocial behaviour. It advised the resident to speak to her own solicitor about the matter. 23 April 2024 The landlord re-sent its stage 2 response as the resident had not received it. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate. She restates that staff told her they helped translate and complete a property sales form for the previous owner.

She says that another member of staff and a neighbour witnessed this. She has explained the impact of her neighbour’s antisocial behaviour on her, including that she has had to take medication. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint The resident’s report that staff assisted the previous owner with a sales form and failed to inform her about antisocial behaviour by a neighbour Finding No maladministration The resident has been informed that if she has concerns about the accuracy of information provided during the sale, she has the option to raise this with her solicitor or seek independent advice. This is because we cannot make definitive decisions about whether sale terms were breached, as this is for the courts.

However, we can consider how the landlord handled the complaint. The evidence shows that after the resident’s complaint, the landlord has discussed the complaint with staff involved, discussed the complaint with its leasehold department, and reviewed its records. The landlord shows that it took the complaint seriously and investigated in an appropriate way, and we can see no clear evidence that there has been a service failing by the landlord. The landlord and resident appear to agree that staff have visited, including at an unscheduled visit, and discussed issues such as antisocial behaviour and service charges.

The resident also says that staff told her they helped the previous owner complete property sales forms, which it is evident that the 2 members of staff allegedly involved dispute. The resident says her contentions are supported by a neighbour. We do not necessarily dispute this. However, where there are 2 different and disputed accounts of an incident, it is hard for us to decide that one account is truer than the other. Instead, we consider the overall evidence. The landlord clearly considered the overall evidence and seems reasonable to say that no staff assisted with the completion of forms.

Reviewing the evidence, including that supplied by the resident, it is not clear that staff were involved in the completion of the property sales form. It is evident that leasehold staff were involved in the conveyancing process, but not with completion of property sales forms. The landlord was also reasonable to say that it could not take responsibility for any answers and to advise the resident to speak to her solicitor. The legal responsibility for the accuracy of a property sales form would ultimately lie with a seller.

Overall, while we understand how upsetting matters have been for the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate to the evidence seen. This does not mean we are saying what the resident says happened did not happen, but that the landlord shows it investigated and responded in an appropriate way and in line with what we would expect to see. As noted above, the resident has the option to speak to her solicitor or seek independent advice if she remains dissatisfied about the substantive issue.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the complaints and provided formal responses at both stages within the timescales set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication The record keeping and communication in the case was positive and in line with our expectations.