From 13 January 2026, we 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 (202324619)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324619

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 June 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of damaged paving in a communal area.
    2. Response to her concerns about cleaning and grounds maintenance issues.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. It began in 2017 and ended in October 2023. At this point, she moved to a new home with a different housing provider. While she lived at the property, she contributed to the block’s cleaning and maintenance costs through a combined service charge. The property is a flat in a low-rise block. It is located in an estate with several blocks. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to her mental health.
  2. In May 2023, the resident reported a broken paving slab to the landlord. The landlord attended the estate later that month. It was unable to locate the damaged paving. The resident complained about the outstanding repair in July 2023. She felt it was a safety issue. She raised 2 further complaints with the landlord subsequently. These related to antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues and the landlord’s cleaning and maintenance. The landlord merged her complaints.
  3. In September 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It did not identify any service failures in relation to the resident’s main complaint points. However, it awarded her £100 in compensation due to a complaint handling delay. The resident escalated her complaints over a number of subsequent emails. She was unhappy with the landlord’s investigation and the amount of compensation it had offered. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in November 2023.
  4. In its response, the landlord largely reiterated its previous information. However, it also awarded the resident another £200 in compensation. This was to address further complaint handling issues. Later, the resident updated the Ombudsman in February and August 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord’s findings and complaint handling. She highlighted her mental health and requested additional compensation. She did not mention any specific complaint points. We gave her an opportunity to provide another update in May 2025. The resident did not provide any additional information at this stage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. One of the resident’s relevant complaints to the landlord related to its handling of ASB issues. The landlord addressed her related concerns in its responses. It is not entirely clear if these formed part of her complaint to the Ombudsman. We note the resident subsequently made a second ASB complaint to the landlord which contained similar concerns. This completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure in 2024. We also note that she has brought a related case to the Ombudsman (our reference 202346466). Having checked our more recent case, the landlord’s responses appear to be more detailed.
  2. The wording of these responses indicates that they may have superseded the landlord’s previous findings (which are potentially in scope for this investigation). In the circumstances, we think her ASB concerns are better suited to a single report by the Ombudsman. This should increase the accuracy of our findings and benefit both parties in the dispute. As a result, we have not considered the resident’s initial ASB concerns in this report. However, we have taken steps to link our case records and progress her second ASB complaint accordingly (our reference 202346466).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged paving

  1. The resident has said she reported a broken paving slab to the landlord on 12 May 2023. We have not seen a copy of her original report. The landlord raised a related repair order on 15 May 2023. Its corresponding notes said “broken slabs need replacing, photographs in the timeline”. It is likely this brief note reflected the resident’s own description of the issue. The repair record shows the resident had made the report through social media. It suggests she had included a link to some supporting images that were on her social media profile.
  2. The landlord’s relevant repair policy was effective from December 2022. It shows residents can report repairs through various different channels. These are via email, over the phone, through the landlord’s website, and by using its webchat feature. The policy does not say that residents can report repairs via social media. The evidence shows the resident’s report was not raised in line with the landlord’s process. Nevertheless, the landlord accepted it and took steps to respond. This was a positive approach in the circumstances. It allowed the resident to raise the report using her preferred channel at that time.
  3. On 26 May 2023 the landlord visited the estate in response to the resident’s report. This was around 14 days after she had notified it about the repair issue. The landlord’s repairs policy says it should respond to any repairs in communal areas within 28 days. In this case, the landlord responded in line with its relevant timescale. This was appropriate.
  4. However, corresponding repair notes said the landlord’s attending operative had not found any broken paving slabs during the visit. They also said the operative had not been given enough information to locate the reported damage. The notes indicate the operative was unable to access the supporting images on the resident’s social media profile. It is reasonable to conclude this made it more difficult for the landlord to respond to the report. There is no evidence to show the access problem was due to a failure by the landlord.
  5. After the landlord’s visit, there is a short gap in the case evidence. There is no indication that the landlord sought to clarify the location of the repair issue during this period. In mitigation, it is not clear that it could have contacted the resident (to ask for more information) using the brief details that were contained in its initial repair order. In other words, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord could have reasonably been more proactive at this stage.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 July 2023. She said the landlord had not fixed the damaged paving. She also said she had made several attempts to bring the matter to its attention. She said the damaged paving was “a serious safety concern” and she wanted compensation. It is noted the landlord’s initial repair order had not mentioned a safety issue. Similarly, the landlord did not mention any safety issues in its repair notes on 26 May 2023.
  7. Following her complaint, the landlord emailed the resident to ask for more information about the repair. This was a reasonable approach. It may have been possible because her contact details were included in the landlord’s complaint records. The resident replied to the landlord on 24 July 2023. She said the damaged paving slab was located between the block where she lived, and another block in the estate. She reiterated that she had supplied similar information on several occasions. From the evidence both parties provided, it is unclear how or when the resident supplied similar information to the landlord.
  8. The landlord attended the estate again around 1 week later. Corresponding repair notes show one of its managers was present during the visit. Given the resident’s comments about a potential safety issue, it was reasonable for the landlord to send a senior member of staff to inspect the reported damage.
  9. Repair notes detailed the landlord’s related findings. The notes said there were uneven slabs in a pathway near the block. The landlord suspected that cars had damaged the path. It also suspected that a third-party managing agent was responsible for addressing the damage. Records show the landlord emailed the managing agent on the day that its visit took place (1 August 2023). However, there is no indication it notified the resident about its findings. It is reasonable to conclude that she may have benefitted from an update. In mitigation, there is no indication the landlord was obliged to update her at this point. Again, there is no evidence to show the landlord identified a potential safety risk at this stage.
  10. The resident chased the landlord on 8 August 2023. The parties exchanged a number of emails subsequently. The landlord told the resident the managing agent was responsible for the path and gave her its contact details. Later, in its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that the agent was acting on its behalf. Within days, the resident contacted the landlord to expand on her initial complaint. She said it should have told her about the agent from the outset of the repair timeline. It is noted this exchange took place around 3 months after her initial report. Her comment was understandable. However, as mentioned, it is not clear that the landlord could have contacted the resident using the information that was contained in its initial repair order.
  11. Around the same time, the resident raised 2 other complaints with the landlord. These related to other matters. The landlord issued the resident an acknowledgement on 31 August 2023. Its email shows it had merged her 3 different complaints so it could respond to each of these at the same time. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 September 2023. In relation to the resident’s concerns about damaged paving, it said:
    1. There was a lack of information when its initial repair order was raised. This caused a delay. It was sorry for any inconvenience caused.
    2. Since the repair related to a communal area, it would not have updated the resident unless she had requested this. It had no record of such a request.
    3. The damaged paving was repaired in August 2023 through the managing agent. The works were completed in line with its relevant timescales.
    4. It had not identified any service failures in respect of the resident’s complaint.
  12. From the evidence provided, we were unable to identify any inaccuracies or errors in the landlord’s response. Since it reflected the case evidence adequately, we find the landlord’s approach was reasonable at this point.
  13. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on the same day (15 September 2023). She said she was pleased to see that the paving had been repaired. However, she also said the landlord had not addressed its related service failures. She referenced a delayed repair, a related safety risk, and her associated inconvenience. The resident’s comments are noted. We kept these in mind when we considered the case evidence.
  14. On 16 November 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It agreed that the paving had not been repaired in a timely fashion. However, it believed the delay was due to factors that were beyond its control. It said it had not been given enough information to locate the damaged paving in the first instance. It also said it had followed its relevant procedures. Again, it did not identify any related service failures. The landlord’s other key points at stage 2 were:
    1. It had responded to the resident’s initial report. A contact telephone number was not provided and supporting images were “not available in the timeline”.
    2. It had closed its initial repair order when it was unable to locate the repair.
    3. It had resolved matters promptly when it received sufficient information to investigate the resident’s report.
  15. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the context of the resident’s initial report was important. If she had made it through 1 of the landlord’s established channels, it may have captured all the information it needed to resolve the matter at that time. As mentioned, there is a lack of evidence to show it could have reasonably been more proactive with the information it had in May 2023. There is also a lack of evidence to show that the paving presented a significant risk. In addition, there is a lack of information to show the resident was adversely impacted by the damage. Again, the landlord’s stage 2 response broadly reflected the case evidence. Since we have not seen any compelling evidence to the contrary, we find the landlord’s approach was reasonable at this point.
  16. The resident updated the Ombudsman by email in February and August 2024. She made some general comments about the landlord’s investigation and her vulnerabilities. She did not provide any new information about the paving. She did not provide any new information subsequently.
  17. In summary, the landlord showed a positive approach when it accepted the resident’s initial report of damaged paving. This is because it was raised outside of its established reporting channels. The evidence suggests this subsequently caused problems for both parties in the dispute. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that the repair was delayed due to failures by the landlord. Similarly, there is a lack of information to show that it was responsible for failures that resulted in an adverse impact to the resident. Overall, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around cleaning and grounds maintenance issues

  1. On 29 June 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It related to a previous complaint from the resident. This complaint was the subject of a previous report by the Ombudsman (our reference 202323259). In its response, the landlord said it would take various actions to address cleaning and maintenance issues in and around the block. For example, it promised to write to each of the block’s residents about environmental issues such as litter. Soon afterwards, the resident raised another complaint about similar issues. This suggests that the landlord’s actions had not resolved her related concerns.
  2. There is conflicting evidence about the date of the resident’s further complaint to the landlord. In its related stage 1 response, the landlord said she had raised her new concerns on 13 July 2023. Later, its stage 2 response included a timeline of events. This suggested that she raised the complaint on 15 August 2023 instead. Ultimately, the landlord has not supplied a copy of the resident’s complaint. This is concerning and points to a record keeping issue on its part.
  3. On 18 August 2023 the landlord issued another complaint response which addressed cleaning and maintenance issues. In it, the landlord offered to set up a regular contact arrangement with the resident. It made this offer to try and improve communication between the parties. Our previous report also considered this response. For clarity, our current investigation broadly relates to any cleaning and maintenance issues that may have occurred between August and October 2023.
  4. On 20 August 2023 the landlord completed a routine inspection of the estate. It recorded its findings in a detailed inspection report. The report included multiple images. It also referred to issues that were highlighted by previous inspections. It did not identify any ongoing cleaning or maintenance issues that related to the resident’s block. It confirmed a previous fly tipping issue which affected the block had been resolved. In its report, the landlord said the level of litter on the estate was “acceptable”. It also said the estate was in an acceptable condition overall. The report shows the landlord was monitoring the estate’s condition and the standard of its relevant services accordingly. This was appropriate.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 September 2023. It largely addressed litter in the block’s communal areas. This indicates the contents of the resident’s new complaint. The landlord said she had reported cleaning and maintenance issues on numerous occasions from 2019 onwards. It also outlined its routine cleaning, maintenance, and inspection tasks. Ultimately, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. This was on the basis it had not identified any service failures. The landlord’s other key points at stage 1 were:
    1. Its cleaning contractor attended the block’s internal areas every week. Its grounds maintenance contractor attended every 2 weeks. The grounds maintenance tasks included weeding, pruning, and litter picking.
    2. During the periods between visits, litter accumulated and shrubs grew. The litter was caused by individuals. The block was also located near a train station. The station’s proximity contributed to the amount of litter in the area.
    3. It inspected the block every 4 weeks. It would report any issues to its contractors, who would respond to these reports within 2 weeks. During inspections in August and September 2023, the area had met its required standards.
    4. Previously, it had promised to contact the resident every 2 weeks about her various concerns. However, there had been some problems with this arrangement. This was broadly due to the resident’s availability.
  6. In its response, the landlord broadly said that it had robust procedures in place to address any issues with its cleaning and maintenance services. Based on its inspection findings in August 2023, the evidence suggests these procedures were working effectively at this stage. Ultimately, the information in the landlord’s response reflected its recent inspection findings. There is no evidence of any related failures or corresponding adverse impacts to the resident. Given the above, the landlord’s approach at this point was reasonable. Subsequent events suggest it completed an additional inspection during September 2023. This is further evidence of adequate monitoring.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 15 September 2023. At this point, she largely referred to her concerns about the paving. She did not say why she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns around cleaning and maintenance issues. However, the landlord’s internal correspondence confirms that she posted images of cleaning and maintenance issues on social media around the same time. The related images appeared to show an overflowing bin and various items that had been left in bin areas.
  8. On 17 September 2023 the landlord completed another routine inspection of the estate. Its corresponding inspection record was less detailed than before. It did not include any images. It also referred to an ongoing issue but did not say what this was. This is concerning and is evidence of record keeping failures. Ultimately, there is some contrasting information in the report. For example, it said the condition and cleanliness of the internal bin stores was “poor”. This was consistent with the images the resident had posted on social media. It also said the cleaning contractor had not completed some required paper records. However, it said the level of litter on the estate was acceptable along with its overall condition (the landlord gave the estate a ‘silver’ rating). Given the above identified issues, it is reasonable to conclude that its report was less reliable.
  9. Complaint records show the resident made another escalation request on 22 September 2023. The records also show this request specifically related to the block’s communal areas. The landlord has not supplied a copy of her second escalation request. This is concerning and points to further record keeping issues on its part. In mitigation, it was already acting on her previous escalation request. In addition, it received a significant amount of correspondence from the resident during the complaint timeline. It is noted that she raised frequent complaints. At times, these complaints overlapped or repeated previous issues. It is likely this made it more difficult for the landlord to keep track of events.
  10. Subsequent events indicate the contents of the resident’s second escalation request. They suggest that she wanted the landlord to provide information which proved that it had completed various cleaning and/or maintenance tasks. It is noted she had made similar requests to the landlord before (as mentioned in our report about her previous complaint). The evidence also suggests she was unhappy with the landlord’s regular contact arrangement. Aside from the related comments in its complaint responses, we have seen little evidence about this arrangement (such as the landlord’s relevant contact records).
  11. Complaint records suggest the resident moved out of the property in early October 2023. The circumstances around her move are unclear. It is noted the landlord has not supplied a copy of its inspection report for October 2023. In mitigation, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was less affected by any cleaning and/or maintenance issues after she had moved out.
  12. On 16 November 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It accepted there had been quality issues with its cleaning service “in the past”. However, it said it had raised these with the relevant contractor and the matter was resolved. It also said it was satisfied with its maintenance contractor’s litter picking standards. Overall, it said its contractors were meeting their obligations and their work met its required standards. It did not identify any service failures in respect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s other key points were:
    1. Contrary to its previous response, it did not agree that the nearby station had contributed to the litter. It had completed frequent investigations and made multiple visits to the area. It had not found any litter picking issues.
    2. The estate was 1 of its most visited sites. It inspected the area every 4 weeks and recorded its findings. Its records showed the site had passed its recent inspections. These had occurred in September and October 2023.
    3. It acknowledged the resident’s images. However, it was confident any litter shown would be cleared on its next visit. If standards dropped, it would raise this with its contractors. It usually saw an “immediate improvement”.
    4. Since the resident was a former tenant, it was unable to supply her with copies of its inspection records. This was for data protection reasons. In addition, the documents were for internal use and it did not distribute these to its residents.
    5. It did not agree that its communication had been poor. Its investigation showed that various members of its staff had contacted the resident. In addition, she had rejected 2 of its previous attempts to contact her.
  13. The evidence points to several problems with the landlord’s response. It contained contrasting information about the impact of the nearby station. The landlord did not explain why its reasoning had changed. Significantly, it did not apologise for the conflicting information, which may have caused some confusion for the resident. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  14. The landlord reiterated that it had robust procedures in place to monitor its cleaning and maintenance services. As indicated, the evidence points to issues with some of its procedures. Given the problems with its related report, its inspection findings in September 2023 were questionable. The landlord did not acknowledge this. Had it done so, it could have reasonably supplied feedback  to its inspector and cleaning contractor about the importance of record keeping. Ultimately, its response did not accurately reflect the full evidence that was available. This was unreasonable and it may have missed an opportunity to improve its performance. It is noted the resident was concerned that there may be problems with its monitoring processes (she suspected the landlord would find it difficult to show that its services consistently met acceptable standards).
  15. The landlord also said it could not supply copies of its inspection reports to the resident due to data protection restrictions. Its response referenced the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, it is unclear if this applied to her request. If it was unsure, the landlord could have referred the resident to its data protection team. This would have been a proactive and reasonable approach. However, there is no indication it did this. It is noted the landlord’s data team were involved in her previous complaint. It is also noted that the landlord had shared internal documents with the resident before (as mentioned in our previous report). Its response departed from the positive approach it had previously shown. Arguably, the landlord raised a barrier to her concerns and showed a lack of transparency at this stage. This was unreasonable and may have caused some distress for the resident.
  16. In summary, there is evidence that supports some of the resident’s concerns around cleaning and maintenance issues during the period in question. The landlord did not acknowledge this in its stage 2 response. It may have missed a related opportunity to improve its performance. Similarly, it did not acknowledge that it had given the resident conflicting information, and this may have been confusing for her. Arguably, it also raised a barrier to some of her concerns and showed an unreasonable lack of transparency at this point. Its approach may have caused some distress for the resident. Overall, we find there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
  17. The landlord’s relevant compensation policy shows it can pay a discretionary amount of compensation to address service failures. The policy includes some guidance around award levels. In line with the guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right for her. Our calculation also reflects the case evidence and the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident raised her initial complaint on 13 July 2023. She raised 2 further complaints between 13 July and 15 August 2023. The landlord merged her 3 separate complaints and issued a stage 1 response on 15 September 2023. This was 46 working days later. Its most relevant complaints policy (effective December 2020) shows it should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. In this case, the landlord did not adhere to the relevant timescale. There was a corresponding delay of around 7 weeks. Complaint records show the resident chased the landlord at least once during the interim period. It is likely that this was both avoidable and inconvenient for her.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 response. It awarded the resident £100 in compensation to address it. This figure was consistent with the guidance in its compensation policy. It was also proportionate to the duration of the delay and the inconvenience caused to the resident. We find the landlord’s award was reasonable and it did enough to put things right at this point.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on the day the response was issued. She said there had been 3 separate complaint handling delays and she wanted the landlord to compensate her for each of these. Based on its complaints policy and the applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (as published in March 2022), there is no indication it was obliged to do this.
  4. The resident made further escalation requests subsequently. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. This was 44 working days after her initial request. The landlord’s complaints policy shows it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. There was a further delay of around 5 weeks. Again, complaint records show the resident chased the landlord for its response at least once during the interim period. Ultimately, she was adversely impacted by its inadequate complaint handling.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response. It awarded the resident £50 in compensation to address it. It also awarded her another £150 (£50 for each separate complaint) because it had merged her complaints. It noted that it had told her the complaints would be merged before it had issued its stage 1 response. However, the landlord also said it had failed to follow its correct process. The evidence suggests it may have departed from its usual process. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that merging the complaints amounted to a failure on its part. Similarly, there is no indication the resident was adversely impacted by the landlord’s approach. In contrast, she was adversely impacted by the delays at each stage of its complaints process.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord decided to award the resident another £200 in compensation at this point. This award was in line with the guidance in its compensation policy. It was also reasonable and proportionate given the duration of the delay and the resident’s associated distress and inconvenience. As a result, we find the landlord did enough to put things right for her and its approach was reasonable at this point.
  7. In summary, the landlord recognised its key delays and failures at each complaint stage. Having done so, it took reasonable steps to put things right for the resident. In total, it awarded her £300 in related compensation. This was a significant amount. Its awards were consistent with its redress guidance. They were also proportionate given what went wrong. There is no indication the landlord has overlooked any additional failures which adversely impacted the resident. Overall, we find the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in the circumstances. In other words, it did enough to put things right for her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged paving in a communal area.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to her concerns about cleaning and grounds maintenance issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key cleaning and grounds maintenance related failures that are highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 4 weeks.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation within 4 weeks. This is to address the above identified issues with its response to her concerns about cleaning and grounds maintenance issues. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It must share a copy of its relevant internal correspondence with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. In addition to the £100 ordered above, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 which it previously offered her (if it has not already done this). Our finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this payment is made.