From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202219860)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219860

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs in the property prior to letting.
    2. Repairs in the property after letting.
    3. Rehousing the resident.
  2. We also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord at the time of her complaint. The property is a 1-bedroom cottage. The landlord recorded the resident is disabled.
  2. The resident raised various repairs with the landlord since the start of her tenancy. The landlord’s handling of the repairs was the subject of her complaint.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 November 2022 about the ongoing repair issues. She also raised issues about a staff member and said the landlord should not have let the property as it was and there was damp. She said this impacted her mental and physical health and she had to stay with a relative for 4 weeks.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident on 10 January 2023. It said the damp was caused by the leaking guttering and roof, which it had recently repaired. The landlord also said it would rehouse her in an alternative property which would be available in February 2023. It said the property was safe for her to live in. It acknowledged heating and hot water repair failings and offered her £200 compensation for this and £50 for its delayed complaint response.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 February 2023 because she was unhappy the landlord had not rehoused her. She said her belongings were in the property while she stayed with family. She said she was frustrated at its lack of communication and the impact the situation had on her health.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 May 2023. It said it had reviewed the actions it had taken since stage 1. It said it had offered her 6 properties which she refused. It said the resident’s refusals caused delays, it did not have a list of empty properties, but it would continue to support her. It said it would update her by 12 May 2023 about a new property it had found. It said it made an appropriate compensation offer at stage 1. However, it offered her a further £250 for inconvenience and disruption. It also offered £50 for its delayed stage 2 complaint response. The total compensation across both responses was £550.
  7. The resident remained unhappy and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said to put matters right, the landlord should complete the outstanding repairs, manage the damp in the property, and rehouse her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us about the effect the delay had on her mental and physical health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because courts can appoint medical experts to give evidence. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

Repairs in the property prior to letting

  1. The landlord raised a works order on 8 February 2022 to repair the property while it was empty. It inspected and signed off the property as ready to let on 4 March 2022 prior to letting the property to the resident. However, it did not complete the repairs until 29 March 2022. This was after it inspected and signed off the property.
  2. The landlord’s voids procedure says it will complete repairs and safety checks before letting the property. In her complaint, the resident said the landlord needed to fully rewire the property. It is not clear why the resident reached this conclusion. The landlord completed electricity safety checks in the property on 19 February 2022 before it let the property to her. It found the electrical installations to be satisfactory. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident and provide a further copy of the electrical safety certificate.
  3. In its void inspection, the landlord found it needed to replaster walls and ceilings in the property. However, it did not complete these works until 15 August 2022, 4 months after the resident moved in. This further suggests the landlord had not fully completed the works it identified prior to letting the property to the resident. The landlord’s delay completing this work was likely to cause the resident further trouble and inconvenience providing access for the repairs.
  4. On 6 June 2022, the resident reported the landlord had not cleared the shed and bin. She also reported it had not repaired the skirting boards and a roof leak. The landlord was aware of the required clearance works before it let the property. However, it raised a job for these works on 29 July 2022, 3 months after the tenancy started. This was unreasonable given it knew about the repairs prior to letting. The delay completing the works was likely to cause additional inconvenience to the resident.
  5. In her complaint the resident said there was no front door seal and a broken door handle. The landlord found front door repairs were needed during its void inspection. However, it is unclear if these issues were still present prior to letting the property.
  6. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it cleared the shed of the previous tenant’s belongings and the rubble from the bins. It repaired the staircase, handrail and changed the bathroom taps and shower. It said it repaired the front door seal, but the handle repairs were still outstanding.
  7. The landlord did not complete all void works before inspecting on 4 March 2022. Therefore, it was unreasonable for it to accept the property as ready to let if it did not meet its lettable standard. Its housing team raised concerns about the condition of the void before letting. The landlord did not tell the resident it would need to complete work after she moved in. It did not manage her expectations, which was unreasonable.
  8. The landlord’s failure to fully repair the property caused the resident time and trouble pursuing these repairs. It was also likely to cause her inconvenience living in the property when it was not fully repaired. The landlord’s complaint responses did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property on letting and the repairs. Considering this, we find maladministration.
  9. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 in keeping with our remedies guidance for matters where we have found maladministration the landlord has not proportionately addressed.

The handling of repairs in the property after letting

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property including drains, gutters, external pipes, and paving. It is also responsible for keeping in working order the systems for supply of water, gas and electricity, sanitation, heating and hot water.
  2. We expect landlords to keep complete records of its housing services. When there is a dispute about repairs or the condition of a property, the onus is on the landlord to show how it completed repairs in line with its responsibilities. We assessed this complaint based upon the evidence the landlord sent. However, there were missing records and conflicting repair records. The absence of evidence suggests poor knowledge and information management and poor repair handling.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the repairs has caused the resident distress and inconvenience while living in the property. It also caused her time and trouble pursuing the repairs and raising the matters as a complaint. While this investigation looks at the landlord’s handling of repairs overall, we have referred to the different repairs after letting as subheadings for ease.

Heating and hot water repairs

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy says it will complete non-emergency repairs as soon as possible and within 28 calendar days. The resident reported a heating repair to the landlord on 30 May 2022. It attended on 1 June 2022 in line with its policy. As the landlord needed parts, it rescheduled the repair to 8 June 2022. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
  2. The landlord found repairs needed to flooring, pipework and a drain when it attended on 8 June 2022. It booked these repairs to take place on 15 June 2022, but it rescheduled the appointment to 21 June 2022. This was still in keeping with its repairs policy timescale for a non-emergency repair.
  3. The landlord cleared the drain blockage when it attended on 21 June 2022. However, it did not fully complete the works because it needed more parts. It attended again on 29 June 2022 but did not have all the necessary parts. Its contractor also missed a further appointment it made on 12 July 2022 which it rescheduled for 5 August 2022. The landlord did not complete the repairs within its repairs policy timescale. It would be reasonable for the landlord to correctly assess the repairs and parts it needed to ensure it could complete it in line with its repair policy.
  4. The landlord’s repair policy says there may be occasions where it completes repairs outside of its timescales. For example, due to needing parts. However, it also says it will keep residents updated. There was no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated when it rearranged the pipework and flooring appointments. This was inappropriate and likely to inconvenience the resident.
  5. The landlord rearranged radiator repair appointments while waiting for parts. While the delay in supplying parts was outside of the landlord’s control, it should have kept the resident up to date about the repair. There was no evidence it did so, which was inappropriate. The landlord arranged 4 further appointments before repairing the radiators on 7 October 2022. This was 63 calendar days after its contractor told it about these repairs on 5 August 2022. This was 35 days later than its repairs policy timescales.
  6. The landlord failed to remove old radiators and pipes from the property. Its contractor confirmed this in its email of 23 November 2022, a month after completing the heating repair. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mobility difficulties, limited space in the property and that the resident had to climb over the left items. The landlord’s failure to remove the left items was inappropriate and likely to cause distress, inconvenience, and trouble to the resident.
  7. On 23 November 2022, the landlord found a fault with the boiler pump it installed when it repaired the radiators. The pump burnt out due to the operative’s failure to route water through the system. The resident also told the landlord an operative burned a hole in her carpet when completing repairs in the property. We expect landlords to ensure operatives complete works effectively and in keeping with required installation standards. The operative’s poor workmanship caused further inconvenience to the resident in pursuing the boiler repair and compensation for the damaged carpet.
  8. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for its delayed handling of heating repairs in its stage 1 response. This was reasonable and in keeping with its compensation policy. It took the landlord 128 days to repair the heating between June 2022 and October 2022. However, given the heating fault occurred during the summer, the impact of its delay on the resident was reduced. Consequently, its offer of compensation was proportionate to the detriment its handling of the repairs may have caused the resident.

Leaks

  1. The landlord raised an emergency carpentry job on 16 August 2022 to address seals on the front door which let in water. The landlord’s repair records are unclear because the dates it opened, completed and closed the repair are contradictory. For example, it recorded it attended on 2 September 2022 when it raised a new works order for follow up. However, it recorded the end date as 22 August 2022.
  2. On 23 November 2022, the landlord raised another emergency job to repair a leaking downpipe. It completed this on 28 November 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. We have not seen any records to explain why the landlord did not do so. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to add any notes to the repair log to explain its handling of the repair. This is poor record keeping.
  3. The landlord raised a non-emergency drainage job on 29 November 2022. It completed this on 27 January 2023, which was outside its repair policy timescale. It recorded the operative attended for a blocked drain, but the resident showed the operative it was a burst water pipe. The landlord failed to correctly record the repair information, which caused the resident time and trouble explaining the works to the operative. It was also likely to negatively affect her confidence in the landlord’s repairs service.
  4. Following its attendance on 29 November 2022, the landlord recommended further repairs to trace and remedy the leak. There was no record of when it repaired the leak, this was a further record keeping failure. However, the landlord closed the works order 2 months after it raised the work. This suggests the landlord did not keep to its repairs policy timescales, which was likely to cause further distress to the resident given the nature of the work and length of time it had taken to complete.

Damp and mould

  1. The resident reported damp to the landlord on 31 August 2022. The landlord booked a property inspection for 5 September 2022. This was in keeping with its leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy which says it will arrange a property inspection to identify the cause of the issue. However, the landlord cancelled the appointment. There was no evidence the landlord told the resident about the rearranged appointment, which would have been reasonable.
  2. The landlord inspected the property and prepared a report on 16 September 2022 which found conditions regarding mould and condensation were mild. It advised the resident of steps she could take to reduce moisture. The report said the bathroom fan was not working and the kitchen fan was not suitable for social housing. The surveyor recommended replacing both fans and installing a ventilation system in the loft. There was no evidence the landlord completed these works.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the damp was minimal. It said the damp related to the roof and guttering, which it had replaced. The resident disputes the landlord’s comments that damp was mild. The survey report did not specifically report any damp but said the levels of condensation and mould were mild. It gave advice for this, which was fair and in line with its policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out an inspection and rely on its surveyor’s expert opinion. The landlord took reasonable steps to determine the cause of the damp. It replaced the roof and installed a new drain. The landlord did not provide a record of the installation, so it is unclear when it replaced the roof. This is further evidence of poor record keeping.
  4. In summary, there were delays with the landlord’s response to repairs and it did not keep the resident updated. Its record keeping was also poor, and it was not always clear whether it dealt with repairs within its timescales. In its stage 2 response, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £450 for inconvenience and disruption. This was not proportionate to the failings identified and the impact on the resident. We found maladministration and have ordered the landlord to pay a further £150 compensation for its handling of repairs after letting.

The landlord’s handling of rehousing

  1. The landlord completed a housing needs assessment with the resident on 6 December 2022. It found the condition and layout of the property was unsuitable for the resident given her health and mobility issues. It recommended a move to a level access property.
  2. The landlord told the resident on 12 December 2022 it would permanently rehouse her. It said it found her an alternative property in an email it sent on 13 December 2022, and it would arrange a viewing when it was ready to let. It was reasonable for the landlord to find an alternative property following its housing needs assessment. It was also appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s medical needs in keeping with its allocations policy. This says the landlord will allocate direct offers of accommodation to residents depending on their needs. It amended this policy in November 2022 to say it would allocate property using its record of existing residents that require urgent moves.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 December 2022 to confirm it was safe for her to remain in the property while it completed works, and while it looked for permanent rehousing. It based its decision on the assessment of its qualified surveyor which was reasonable under the circumstances.
  4. In its stage 1 response, the landlord recognised the resident had been unable to accept a 1-bedroom bungalow it offered. It said it would continue to support the resident to obtain permanent rehousing, and it was continuing to look for an alternative property.
  5. The landlord assessed the resident’s property in December 2022, it said she needed to move, but her property was safe to live in while it tried to rehouse her. The resident complained the landlord had not rehoused her in her stage 2 complaint. She also expressed frustration she was staying with friends and family while her belongings were still in the property, and she asked the landlord to move her. However, she decided to permanently move in with her family on 13 February 2023, before the landlord was able to do so. This was her decision to make.
  6. The landlord addressed the resident’s rehousing concerns in its stage 2 response dated 3 May 2023. It said it offered the resident 6 properties which she refused. It explained it did not have a list of empty properties but it would continue to support her. On the 12 May 2023 the landlord told her it found another property, which she accepted and signed a new tenancy agreement.
  7. In responding to the resident’s housing circumstances, the landlord completed a housing needs assessment and supported her to find alternative accommodation. It identified and explained that while it looked for a property and completed repairs, her current property was safe. It subsequently looked for alternative accommodation and contacted the local authority to update her rehousing application. These actions were supportive in recognition of her medical needs and in keeping with its allocations policy. The landlord followed its policies and procedures and adhered to its local authority agreement for alternative accommodation. This lengthened the time it took the landlord to find and offer suitable property. The resident’s decision not to accept the properties the landlord offered was also likely to have delayed her rehousing.
  8. We recognise that waiting for the landlord to find suitable alternative accommodation was likely to cause inconvenience to the resident. However, it did not have a ready supply of available property that met her needs, and the surveyor concluded her property was safe to live in.
  9. There is evidence the landlord took reasonable steps to locate alternative accommodation for the resident. However, it missed the opportunity to manage her expectations by explaining its allocation and letting procedures and its obligations to the local authority. This caused her time and trouble pursuing updates from the landlord. In view of this, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of rehousing.
  10. We have ordered the landlord to pay £75 as compensation. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance and proportionately recognises the landlord’s minor failing which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident but may have caused her to incur time and trouble while waiting for rehousing.

The resident’s complaint

  1.  The landlord introduced an interim complaints policy on 17 June 2022. This was following a cyber-attack. For complaints received after 17 June 2022, the landlord’s complaints policy said it must respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days. It must also acknowledge complaints within 10 working days.
  2. The resident complained on 23 and 24 November 2022. It acknowledged the complaint on 30 November 2022, in line with its policy. It also explained the cyber security incident. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
  3. The landlord asked the resident to provide utility bills to support her reported increased energy costs. It also asked for photos of a damaged carpet. It would have been reasonable for it to request this information sooner to give it time to investigate the issue fully prior to its stage 1 response.
  4. It sent its stage 1 complaint response 11 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. However, it acknowledged its poor complaint handling, and it offered £50 compensation. This was appropriate and in keeping with its compensation policy in recognition that this service failure was likely to have affected the resident.
  5. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 March 2023 to apologise for its delayed stage 2 complaint response. Itsaid it would address this failure in its response. It was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident about her complaint.
  6. We have not seen any further communication from the landlord until it issued its stage 2 response on 3 May 2023. This delay may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord recognised this failing in its final complaint response and increased its compensation to £100. This was appropriate in recognition of the further detriment its complaint handling delay was likely to have caused to the resident.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 23 working days later than its 40 working day temporary policy timescale. This was inappropriate given its policy had already extended the response timescale to allow 20 further working days. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says landlords must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  8. The landlord’s complaint responses relied on copying and pasting comments from its contractors which was impersonal and lacked empathy. They were also poorly structured and did not fully address the complaint such as by not addressing the door handle repair.
  9. Taking all matters into account, we found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We ordered the landlord to pay a further £100 compensation. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance where we have found service failures that caused time and trouble to a resident over a short duration.
  10. The landlord’s interim timescales were not in accordance with the Code. We have not ordered the landlord to review its policy because since the resident’s complaint it updated its policy. It now complies with the 10 and 20-day timescale set out in the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property prior to letting.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs after letting.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of rehousing the resident.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its repair handling prior to and after letting.
    2. Pay the resident the £550 it offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident an additional £625 compensation made up as follows:
      1. £300 for any time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience its failure to repair the property prior to letting caused the resident.
      2. £150 for any time, trouble, and inconvenience its poor repair handling after letting caused the resident.
      3. £75 for any time and trouble its handling of rehousing caused the resident.
      4. £100 for any time and trouble its complaint handling failures caused the resident.
  2. The landlord should pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any arrears the resident may owe the landlord, where they exist.
  3. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.