Clarion Housing Association Limited (202310607)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310607

Clarion Housing Association Limited

13 May 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.
2. Repair of damage caused by contractors.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 17 December 2018. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. The resident has no known vulnerabilities.

On 23 May 2023, a contractor visited the property to undertake works on the septic tank in the rear garden of the property. On 24 May 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint, the key points were as follows:
1. The resident was unaware of an appointment.
2. The contractor lifted a fence panel to gain unauthorised access to the garden during which it caused damage.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 11 July 2023. In summary, the landlord:
1. Apologised for the delay in responding due to a high volume of customer contacts.
2. Said the contractor had visited to install a new septic tank. Due to receiving no answer when attending, it authorised the contractor to access the rear of the property as an emergency repair to prevent the soakaway from the septic tank overflowing and contaminating the garden. The landlord explained it had the right to access the tank for maintenance in line with the terms and conditions of the tenancy.
3. Said the contractor had agreed to replace a damaged children’s sandpit and provided the resident with a direct number to discuss any concerns.
4. Confirmed the contractor would provide 48 hours’ notice for appointments, which could vary for emergency repairs.
5. Said the contractor replaced the gravel board, and that it would repair the fence and remove debris left at the property after completing percolation tests on 18 July 2023.
6. Provided contact details for its repairs team.
7. Apologised for any concern and inconvenience caused.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 12 July 2023. In summary, the resident said:
1. The 3 workmen who visited tried to intimidate her when she asked them to leave. She said they became confrontational and aggressive.
2. She phoned the landlord in distress following the visit. The landlord, denied any knowledge of an appointment and said it had not given consent for the contractor to lift the fence.
3. The contractor phoned to apologise and said the landowner had given permission to gain access. She said she arranged for someone to be with her for the return visit because she did not feel safe.
4. The contractor fitted a new septic tank, left the old one and raked debris comprising of glass, metal, stones and ceramics over a large area after refilling the area around the tank.
5. The contractor broke her children’s sandpit.
6. At no point did the contractor or landlord say the appointment was an emergency until she made a complaint, which she disputed due to the contractor planning the visit and materials.
7. The stage 1 complaint handler was biased.
8. She could not continue to arrange for someone else to be present when the contractor visited and did not want the contractor returning. The resident said this had made her ‘incredibly anxious’ and the stress was affecting her mental health.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 12 July 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 7 September 2023. In summary, the key points were as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response.
2. It was advised on 15 February 2023 that the septic tank had developed a split, so it instructed the contractor to attend at regular intervals to ensure the tank remained at a lower level. The landlord had since replaced the tank but the soakaway had been reported as a failing, which meant there was a chance of non-settled effluent being released. It explained this could result in the tank overfilling prematurely and the drain from the property becoming blocked, which would require a large and expensive clean up. Therefore, regular tanking was necessary with each visit treated as an emergency.
3. It approved access as an emergency during the visit on 23 May 2023 due to there being no answer at the door and the contractor assuming the resident was out.
4. The contractor said it booked the appointment by phone but accepted the resident’s version of events that she was unaware of the visit.
5. Someone over 18 years old could be at the property if the resident did not wish to be there when the contractor visited.
6. The contractor completed installation of the new septic tank on 7 June 2023 and backfilled this with previously excavated earth. It said it was not unusual for garden earth to contain debris beneath a layer of topsoil once a housing development had taken place. The contractor did not add or cause the debris but agreed to remove this as best it could.
7. It would revisit to ensure it repaired the gravel board and fence post to a satisfactory standard and confirmed the contractor had replaced the sandpit.
8. Explained it did not consider its complaint handler biased due to how it deals with residents’ complaints.
9. Offered £150 compensation, comprising of £100 for inconvenience caused and £50 for its delayed stage 2 response.
10. Confirmed the resident could contact the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 19 September 2023. The complaint became one that we could consider on 16 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters that relate to the processes and decisions concerning a member’s governance structures. For this reason, the Ombudsman has not considered the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s choice of contractor.
The resident says this complaint has impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Policies and procedures

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System, prepared in consideration of the Housing Act 2004, states landlords should provide properly designed soakaways and storage systems for foul sewage.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says an emergency repair is one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. It will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours to either make safe or complete a temporary repair, which may then require further repair.
The tenancy says the landlord may need immediate access to a property in an emergency and might need to force entry in some situations, in which case it will repair any damage caused.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days. Any extension beyond that will be agreed with the resident and not exceed 20 working days.

Landlord’s handling of concerns about the conduct of contractors

The resident disputed that a visit to the faulty septic tank in the rear garden on 23 May 2023 was an emergency due to the contractor planning the visit. The landlord confirmed the visit was planned. However, given that it was unaware of the level of waste in the tank, it was entitled to rely on its qualified contractors to judge the level of urgency of a repair and treat the visit as an emergency.
The resident was unhappy that workmen accessed the property without her permission after she had been unable to answer the door. In line with the tenancy agreement, where the landlord considers a repair to be urgent, it can access the property if it is unable to gain access via the resident. Therefore, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to approve and access the property to complete the repair.
The resident said the workmen became confrontational, aggressive and intimidated her when she approached them and asked them to leave, which left her feeling anxious. She said the contractor later lied about its actions.
Where allegations are made in relation to conduct, we would expect the landlord to undertake a thorough investigation into the issue. In this case, the landlord has evidenced that it did take such action and appropriately contacted the contractor to discuss the concerns raised. This resulted in an apology being issued to the resident by the contractor and a further appointment raised. The contractor also provided a contact number for the resident to phone in case of any issues moving forward. The landlord’s actions show that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and highlights empathy.
The resident asked the landlord to use a different contractor, as she did not want the same workmen to return. The landlord said this was not possible, but it did not explain why. A landlord email dated 29 August 2023 indicated this was due to the contractor being a specialist, although the resident said there were other specialists in the area. It would have been useful for the landlord to have provided a more detailed explanation as to why; not doing so would have frustrated the resident.
The landlord told the resident that she could have someone over 18 years old at the property if she did not want to be present during any future visits. It also provided its repairs team’s contact details in case she had any visit queries or concerns. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed empathy in the landlord trying to reassure the resident in response to her concerns.
Overall, taking into account the above, we consider there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of concerns about the conduct of contractors.

Landlord’s handling of repair of damage caused by contractors

The resident told the landlord that the contractor damaged the fence and gravel board when accessing the garden. She said the contractor damaged her children’s sandpit on its return. While the landlord cannot be held responsible for the actions of its contractor, we expect it to undertake an investigation where damage is caused to ensure a suitable resolution for the resident. In this instance, the landlord appropriately contacted the contractor to investigate the issue which led to it agreeing to repair the damage caused.
On 30 June 2023, the resident reported that the contractor had repaired the fence to a poor standard and that a concrete post was damaged. The landlord appropriately arranged for the contractor to attend and fix the gravel board 3 days after the resident reported this. The resident then cancelled an appointment to fix and level the fence as well as clear debris from the garden due to ongoing concerns about the contractor. However, there is no evidence that the landlord followed up the resident’s concerns, which was not appropriate. We understand that the repairs remain outstanding and have made an order for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss this.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £50 compensation for an oversight regarding debris left on the surface of the garden following the installation of the new septic tank. It explained that new build properties are often left with debris under the surface and that it had agreed to complete further works to clear the debris, which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, we consider that the landlord’s failings represent service failure, and an order has been made for remedy.

Complaint handling

The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 May 2023.
The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it acknowledged the complaint. This is not in line with its complaints process, which states it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 July 2023, which was 18 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that where a complaint response cannot be provided within the published timescales, the landlord must contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay and give a new date to expect the response. The landlord’s failure to do this was not appropriate in the circumstances.
However, the landlord appropriately explained in its stage 1 response that the delay was due to a high volume of customer contacts, for which it apologised.
On 12 July 2023, the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2, which it acknowledged, in line with its policy, on the same date.
Furthermore, it also acknowledged the resident’s further complaints on 21 July 2023 and advised it would respond to these at stage 2. However, the Code sets out that new issues raised should be logged as a new complaint. While the resident may have been happy for the other issues to have been addressed at stage 2, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clarified this with the resident. Not doing so may have denied her the opportunity to have the further issues investigated through a 2-stage complaints process.
The resident sent another email on 24 July 2023, which the landlord did not reply to. The resident twice chased this, with the landlord twice explaining it would issue a response but failing to state that this would be at stage 2. The landlord’s initial failure to reply to the email and its failure to then specify when it would respond led the resident to chase a response and likely caused additional inconvenience.
On 29 August 2023, the landlord confirmed it would respond within a further 20 working days. There is no evidence that it agreed the extension with the resident as per its policy and the Code, which indicates either an issue with its record keeping or a failure to discuss this with the resident. It was not until 7 September 2023 that the landlord issued its stage 2 response, which was 21 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. The length of time taken to issue its stage 2 response and the lack of clarity regarding agreeing an extension with the resident are failings that likely caused the resident further inconvenience and delayed her from bringing the complaint for investigation.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response. In consideration of the above, the landlord’s complaint handling failings represent maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of concerns about the conduct of contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified.
2. Contact the resident to agree a timebound action plan aimed at repairing the damaged fencing, concrete post and gravel board, and removing debris from the garden from the septic tank installation.
3. Pay compensation totalling £500 including the £150 already offered, comprised as follows:
  1. £50 for its failing regarding its handling of concerns about the conduct of contractors
  2. £200 for its failings regarding its handling of reparation of damage caused by contractors
  3. A further £100 for its complaint handling failures
The landlord must make these payments directly to the resident, less any amount/s already paid.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above