Clarion Housing Association Limited (202425093)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425093

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 July 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 response to the resident’s reports of broken communal entrance doors and associated antisocial behaviour (ASB).
This report has also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 3-bedroom flat on the first floor of a block. He pays a service charge to the landlord (the freeholder), for maintenance of the communal parts of the building.
On 31 May 2024 the resident called the landlord to report that one of its repair operatives had left the front and rear communal entrance doors unlocked. He then wrote to it on 10 June 2024 to chase up the outstanding repair. He stated that this was the second time the doors had been left unlocked, which he said was “compromising the safety of all residents” in the building. He added that, on 1 June 2024, he and a neighbour had to “physically remove squatters” from the communal area and asked that the doors “be fixed as soon as possible”.
The landlord responded on the same day to confirm that it has passed the issue onto its mechanical and electrical team. It requested that the resident allowed “up to 28 days” for the repair to be completed before requesting an update. It wrote to the resident again on 12 June 2024 to say it had assigned the job to its specialist security contractor.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 2 July 2024 for when the entrance doors were likely to be fixed. He stated that people were “doing” and selling drugs in the building and that children under 11 had “witnessed addicts smoking crack cocaine”. The landlord responded on 4 July 2024 to say that, as his report contained details about drug use, the resident needed to obtain a crime reference number (CRN) from the police. It added that it was unable to investigate his concerns without a CRN.
On 18 July 2024 the resident raised a formal complaint. He stated that:
1. a member of its staff had unlocked the communal entrance doors, and they had been left open for 6 weeks.
2. every time he contacted it about the repair, it passed the “blame” onto one of its contractors.
3. residents had been “living in fear” and he had a 98 year old neighbour who was scared to open their front door.
4. if it had resolved the issue in a timely matter, the safety of resident would not be in question.
5. he was “appalled by the lack of action and empathy” shown by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 August 2024 to say that he had not received any response to his complaint. He wrote to it again on 4 September 2024 to chase the outstanding repair to the entrance doors and reiterated his concerns regarding the ASB in the communal areas. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 September 2024. It apologised for the delay in providing its response and stated that:
1. it had passed the repair onto its specialist contractor “towards the end of May 2024”. An engineer visited the property “at the beginning of June 2024” and replaced a faulty controller. However, they found that the telephone line was “dead”.
2. the engineer reattended “at the beginning of August 2024” and confirmed that the line had been fixed. However, there were ongoing technical issues with the entry system that the specialist contractor was “responsible” for investigating.
3. the contractor confirmed “towards the middle of August 2024” that the entry system was “obsolete” and required an update.
4. it had passed the repair onto its planned investment team who would upgrade the system. It would contact him “as soon as” it had arranged a date for the necessary works to go ahead.
5. the resident had reported the repair at the end of May 2024 and its engineer had attended at the beginning of June 2024. It had therefore not been able to identify any service failures.
6. it did not “tolerate” ASB and had passed his concerns to his neighbourhood response officer. It told him to report any further ASB to the police, and to then provide it with the CRN so it could investigate.
7. it apologised for delays in responding to his complaint and offered £150 compensation calculated as:
  1. £100 for the delay in repairing a broken window.
  2. £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
On 5 and 12 November 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say that it had been 6 months since the entrance doors had been left unsecured. He added that he had had to remove “a drug user” from the building, and that children would knock on their doors and run away. The landlord responded on 21 November 2024 to say that it had escalated his complaint. It stated that it would review his concerns and aim to send him a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 December 2024, where it stated that it was satisfied its stage 1 response was “fair, accurate and reasonable”. However, while it had confirmed that the “intercom renewal” was included in its 2023-2024 programme, it had not properly explained what this entailed. It added that it:
1. was aiming to complete the work by the end of March 2025 and this would be subject to a section 20 consultation process. It was sorry it was not yet able to provide specific dates but would contact him at the start of the process. It estimated this to be January 2025.
2. had failed to communicate and to properly manage expectations at the initial stages.
3. had visited him on 18 September 2024 and explained that the door entry system was “beyond repair” and needed to be replaced.
4. considered dealing and consuming drugs as criminal offences that should be reported to the police.
5. confirmed that its caretaker had not been required to clear any evidence of drug use from the communal areas.
6. would actively “monitor” the situation while it waited for the doors to be repaired and would continue to work with the police, where necessary.
7. wanted to offer an additional £50 compensation in recognition of its poor communication.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 23 December 2024 to say he felt the landlord’s response was “unacceptable”. He stated that it had initially told him the communal entrance doors would be repaired within 28 days. He stated that the landlord had sent him the same “repetitive” emails for the past 6 months. He added that, although he had made it aware of the ASB within the communal area, it told him the repair may not be carried out until the following financial year.
The resident told us on 3 July 2025 that the landlord was not due to replace the door entry system until 2027. He added that leaseholders were still paying a service charge for maintenance of the system despite it not having been operational since May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns to us about the outcome of a section 20 consultation, which took place around in January/February 2025. As this issue did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that we can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to those concerns. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. He may then approach the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord responded to concerns the resident had raised about a delay in repairing a broken bedroom window. The records show the landlord completed the repair in September 2024 and offered him £100 compensation for the delay. The resident did not raise any further concerns about this during the complaints process. We are therefore satisfied this was not an outstanding matter for the resident when he referred his complaint to us. Therefore, it has not been assessed during our investigation

Reports of broken communal entrance doors and associated ASB

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is required to maintain and repair all common parts of the building. This includes the communal entrance doors to the block.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy set out the expected timescales for repairs. It states that repairs to communal areas “must always be completed within 28 days”. However, it also states that mechanical and electrical maintenance of door entry systems is excluded from the responsive repairs service. This is because they are maintained by specialist contractors. It does not give any timescales for these repairs. The same policy states that major component replacements are not responsive repairs and should be delivered through planned programmes.
In addition to policy timescales, the landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what this constitutes, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had carried out 4 visits to the block between June and August 2024 to inspect and repair the door entry system. Although it gave details on which months it had attended it was unable to provide the exact dates. It is unclear why it did not have access to this information for the purposes of its complaint investigation. This demonstrates a failure to keep adequate repair records.
The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous repair logs or inspection reports. It has therefore been unable to verify that those visits took place, or to demonstrate the steps it took to establish that the entry system could no longer be repaired. It is unclear why it took the landlord 3 months to conclude that the entry system required complete replacement. This was excessive. It has not provided any records to show it had chased its contractor or that it took any reasonable steps to keep delays to a minimum. The landlord has therefore not been able to demonstrate that those delays were unavoidable.
Furthermore, there is no indication the landlord had informed the resident at the time that operatives had attended, or provided him with any progress updates. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to reassure him it was making reasonable efforts to address the fault. It’s lack of communication would have aggravated the impact of the delays, and caused him additional distress and inconvenience.
Our Spotlight Report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ explains that records should tell the full story of what happened, when and why. If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened and why, good records will enable it to do so. Poor quality or absent records result in the landlord being unable to answer questions or being unable to provide evidence to support its explanation.
Under its repairs policy, the landlord is required to carry out communal repairs within 28 days. The landlord was aware of the issues with the door from 31 May 2024. When it issued its stage 2 response, over 6 months later, the door remained unsecured. As mentioned above, its policy states that repairs to door entry systems are not part of its responsive repairs service. It is unclear why the landlord was not aware of this when it advised the resident it would complete a repair within 28 days.
The information it provided was therefore misleading and gave the resident a false expectation that the repair would be completed within this time. Had the landlord properly checked its policy before giving him this information, it would have been able to manage his expectations more effectively. That it failed to do so caused the resident avoidable disappointment. It also caused him distress over the prospect of having unsecured entrance doors for an indefinite period, together with the ongoing ASB.
The Ombudsman published its spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds in September 2020. This states that landlords “must ensure timely and accurate communication with all residents on complaints about communal areas”. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with any meaningful information about the repair between May and December 2024. The evidence shows that the landlord sent automated responses when the resident chased it for updates. It then failed to follow up on the automated responses, despite telling him it had passed his enquiry onto its repairs team.
On 8 November 2024 the landlord asked the resident to provide more information about the outstanding repair, with “specific details”. This was over 5 months after he had first reported the issue, which he had been chasing up throughout that period. That the landlord could not demonstrate it had adequate systems in place to access live repair details was a failure. The landlord’s poor internal communication and record keeping resulted in confusion, and avoidable time and trouble to the resident. This meant the resident chased the landlord repeatedly over a 6 month period. This should not have been necessary given its repair obligations.
Is it acknowledged that the landlord does not handle repairs to door entry systems as responsive repairs. However, it should have explored whether there were any interim measures it could have put in place. Given the security issues the resident had highlighted, this would have been appropriate in the circumstances. That it did not consider any interim security measures was a failing. This left the resident feeling insecure in his property and caused him avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The specialist contractor concluded that the door entry system was beyond repair. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of suitably qualified professionals. However, the landlord could have informed the resident at an early stage that the entry system needed to be replaced. It could also have taken steps to start the section 20 process at an earlier stage, when it was first aware that a new door entry system was needed. It should not have left it for a further 4 months before informing the resident that a planned repair was necessary. This could have helped minimise delays, and shown it was making all reasonable efforts to resolve the issue as soon as possible. Given the nature of the resident’s ASB reports, its lack of urgency would have added to a loss of confidence it was taking the matter seriously.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will:
1. adopt a supportive approach when dealing with victims, and work in partnership with both internal and external partners to tackle incidents.
2. support victims to report incidents to the police. Where they feel intimidated to report them, it will report on their behalf with the victim’s agreement.
The resident was regularly reporting ASB as a result of the unsecured communal entrances. He told the landlord on several occasions that non-residents were entering the communal areas to consume and deal drugs. He also stated that vulnerable residents in the block were afraid to leave their homes. The landlord’s advice to contact the police was appropriate. However, there are no records to show it was taking any action, such as carrying out regular site visits, or liaising with police about the matter. We would expect the landlord to take a multi-agency approach when dealing with these types of matters.
The landlord stated that its caretaker could not find any signs of drug taking in the communal areas. However, it should have been able to demonstrate it was proactively working with external partners to tackle any ASB from non-residents in and around the block. That it put the onus on the resident to contact the police shows a lack of customer focus. Furthermore, it could have asked the safer neighbourhood team whether it could conduct additional patrols.
It could have also conducted site visits to speak to other residents in the block about any ASB they were experiencing. This would have helped it gather evidence, and establish a broader view on the seriousness of the issue. The landlord’s failure to reassure the resident it was taking reasonable steps to address his ASB reports left him feeling unsupported.

Conclusion

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
We note the landlord’s attempts to put things right. It acknowledged that its communication had been poor and that it had failed to manage the resident’s expectations at an early stage. It offered him £50 compensation in recognition of this. It also gave details of how it had learnt from the complaint, along with an undertaking to communicate more effectively moving forward.
However, the landlord gave the resident incorrect information regarding timescales for the repair to the door entry system. In doing so, it failed to manage his expectations about when a repair was likely to be carried out. There is no indication it made any effort to correct the resident’s understanding at any time during the 6 month period before issuing its stage 2 response. The landlord’s poor communication caused the resident ongoing distress about the safety of his property, and uncertainly about whether it would be resolved.
For these reasons, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to be proportionate to the level of failure and impact on the resident. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration and will order it to pay the resident £350 compensation to put things right. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused avoidable delays in progressing the outstanding repair, the landlord’s lack of communication, and lack of support in addressing the ASB reports.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage formal complaints process. This states that it will:
1. acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days
2. respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
3. respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The same policy states that the target time for stage 1 investigations should not be exceeded by more than 10 working days (20 working days for stage 2). The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord must clearly explain to the resident the reason for any extension. It must also provide the details of the Ombudsman.
The landlord took 45 working days to issue its stage 1 response. Furthermore, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. The resident wrote to the landlord 29 working days after raising his stage 1 complaint to query why he had not received a response. Despite this, there is no indication it responded to apologise for its oversight or that it provided any kind of update until it sent its response on 19 September 2024. This demonstrates a breakdown in its complaint handling system, and a failure to communicate. It was also a departure from the landlord’s own complaints policy, and the Code.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in providing a response and offered the resident £50 compensation for this. However, it did not properly recognise its failure to acknowledge the complaint, or provide any updates or explanations for the delay prior to issuing its response. For this reason, we do not consider its offer to be proportionate to the impact caused.
The resident was avoidably inconvenienced as a result of needing to remind the landlord he had raised a complaint. This should not have been necessary given the landlord should have had systems in place for logging and tracking complaints. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord contacted him about his complaint until it issued its response. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure and will order that the landlord pays the resident an increased amount of £100.
We ordered the landlord in a previous determination (202426879) to review its complaint training to staff. We stated that the training should stress the importance of tracking complaints, following the complaints process and providing timely responses. The landlord provided us with evidence of its review and improvements it has already made. We will therefore not make any further orders in respect of complaint handling. However, we will continue to monitor the landlord’s performance through our investigations.

Record Keeping

The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
The landlord has not provided copies of any inspection reports and its records. Contemporaneous records of telephone calls and written correspondence between the landlord and resident were also very limited. The landlord provided no records of correspondence with its contractor during the period when the resident was waiting for repairs to be completed.
The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s poor communication and expectation management. It would also explain its failure to provide the resident with timely and substantive responses to his enquiries, and lack of updates. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of broken communal entrance doors and associated ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. pay the resident £450 compensation calculated as:
  1. £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of communication, delays and lack of support to address his ASB reports.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
3. this replaces the offer of £50 the landlord made at stage 1 for its delay in responding, and £50 at stage 2 for its poor communication. If it has already paid these amounts, it can deduct them from the overall total. However, it must not deduct the £100 it had offered at stage 1 for the delays it had identified in repairing a broken window.
4. write to the resident and set out whether there are any reasonable interim measures it can take to make the building safer. It must send us a copy of its letter within the above mentioned timescale.
Within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord must review its record keeping for the issues investigated in this report. To assist it in doing this, it may wish to consult the recommendations in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. It must share the outcome of its review with us within the above mentioned timescale.