Clarion Housing Association Limited (202403493)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403493

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 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 repairs to a brick storage shed.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated December 2003. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
3. The resident first reported repairs were needed to the brick storage shed in October 2022. The drainpipe was not working and the resident believed there was asbestos. The landlord attended and said asbestos would need removing and the downpipe would need replacing. It said it completed both jobs by 9 January 2023.
4. The resident continued to contact the landlord for repairs to be completed. He said the structure was in a poor state and the roof had blown. The landlord raised repairs in June, September and November 2023. It marked all repairs as completed.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 9 January 2024. He said:
   1. The landlord had removed the downpipe when it initially responded to the repairs but did not replace it.
   2. He felt the landlord had failed to respond to him about the repairs and wanted an explanation for this.
   3. Repairs were still not complete and he would like them to be completed as soon as possible.
6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 February 2024. It said:
   1. There had been a delay in providing the response, this was due to high customer contact. It apologised for this.
   2. It had identified a few areas where it had failed to follow its policy timescales and apologised for the delays this caused.
   3. It had had performance issues with the last surveyor and this caused a lack of action to be taken. It confirmed the surveyor no longer worked for the landlord.
   4. A new surveyor had taken over. He attended the property on 16 January 2024 and made a list of actions required. The actions needed were to raise a schedule of works, review the budget, request management approval and send a referral to the major works department to review.
   5. Works could take a number of weeks as it would need to work with external contractors and internal planning teams.
   6. Service provided to the resident had been substandard. It apologised for this and acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience to the resident at having to chase the repairs.
   7. It hoped the new staff would provide a better service.
   8. The surveyor would keep the resident updated.
   9. It awarded £300 compensation. £250 for failure to meet policy timescales, repeated visits to resolve an outstanding problem and no one team taking overall responsibility. And £50 for responding late to the complaint.
7. The resident was unhappy and asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 19 March 2024. He said works had not progressed and he had not had an update from the landlord.
8. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 16 April 2024. It said:
   1. It had completed the actions set by the surveyor at stage 1. These were to raise a schedule of works, review the budget, request management approval and send the referral to the major works department to review.
   2. It had advised the resident at stage 1 that works would take several weeks and reiterated that works would take some time to progress.
   3. It had not kept the resident updated with the progress of works. It apologised for this and said it would do this going forwards.
   4. It awarded £100 in compensation for failing to provide updates to the resident.
9. The resident remained unhappy with how the landlord had handled the repairs and contacted this Service. He said he wanted the landlord to fix the brick shed and make it safe to use.
10. The landlord confirmed to this Service repairs were completed in March 2025. However, the resident disputed this and said repairs were not completed until mid-August 2025.

Assessment and findings

11. The resident complained that the landlord failed to progress repairs in a timely manner and that it failed to respond to him appropriately. The landlord has acknowledged these failings during the complaint procedure. When a landlord acknowledges failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s redress appropriately addressed the issue and resolved the resident’s complaint. In doing so, we apply the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy says for ‘non-emergency repairs’ it will offer an appointment that suits the resident within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. The policy goes on to say major works would need to be referred to relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes. There are no timescales given for these types of works to be completed.
13. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. A storage structure made of brick adjoins the property at an external door. The resident reported the structure required repair on 18 October 2022. The landlord identified asbestos needed removing and the downpipe needed replacing. It classed the repairs as routine and attended within 28 days in line with its policy. It removed the asbestos and replaced the downpipe by 9 January 2023.  This was a good initial response by the landlord and shows it followed its repairs policy.
14. After completion of the repairs the resident continued to raise concerns that the structure was deteriorating. On the 28 July 2023 the landlord visited the property and identified that a surveyor would need to attend. It noted the brick work was blown and the flat roof was cracked and heavy. Following this, there was an unreasonable delay in a surveyor attending. The surveyor did not visit until 16 January 2024. This would have delayed the landlord in being able to plan for and progress works. The lack of progress is likely to have frustrated the resident.
15. The landlord raised jobs for repairs to the structure in June, September and November 2023. It carried out inspections of the structure in July, October and November 2023. Despite the number of visits by the landlord to the property there is no evidence to suggest works progressed during 2023 and on 4 January 2024 the landlord said the structure would need major works.
16. The landlord acknowledged the delay in progress in its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024. It said it had identified areas it had failed to follow policy to resolve matters within its timescales and apologised for this. It explained it had performance issues with its previous surveyor and this could be the reason for the noticeable lack of action. It said a new surveyor had been in place since January 2024 and detailed a plan of action the surveyor had implemented.
17. It awarded £250 compensation for failure to meet policy timescales, repeated visits to resolve an outstanding problem and no one team taking overall responsibility. This amount is in line with its compensation policy which says it can award between £250 to £700 when it identifies a failure that has no permanent impact on the resident. The response is reasonable; it is proportionate to the failures identified and the impact they would have had on the resident.
18. There is evidence to show the resident reported and chased repairs to the structure many times in 2023, often receiving no response from the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience this would have caused in its stage 1 response and apologised for the substandard service the resident had received. It said it had put new staff in place to ensure better service going forwards. This action shows the landlord attempted to put things right.
19. It also said it would provide better communication to the resident in its stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response on 16 April 2024 that it had failed to do this. It apologised and awarded £100 compensation. The landlord implemented a new compensation policy in April 2024 which no longer detailed compensation amounts, rather that compensation payments will be considered on a case by case basis. However, the amount of compensation is in line with our remedies guidance for when there is a service failure that causes distress and inconvenience to the resident and delays in getting the matter resolved. The action taken by the landlord is reasonable and shows it considered its own policy as well as our remedies guidance with the redress it offered.
20. In its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024 the landlord said the new surveyor would complete a referral to the major works team. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 19 March 2024 because of the lack of progress and communication from the landlord. It is only after the escalation request that the surveyor sent the referral to the major works team on 3 April 2024.
21. It took 2 months to send the referral and this Service can see no evidence to explain a reason for the delay. The landlord committed to completing the referral in its stage 1 response and it is reasonable to expect that the landlord would complete actions in a timely manner. The delay in submitting the referral is unreasonable and would have caused some delay in progressing works. It is likely to have undermined the resident’s confidence that the landlord was genuine about seeking to resolve the issue.
22. In its complaint responses the landlord also missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations. In its stage 1 response the landlord said planned actions ‘could take a number of weeks’ and at stage 2 it reiterated it ‘would take weeks’ due to the need to collate quotes and refer the work. It did not explain to the resident what the process for completing major works looks like or give an indication of a realistic timeline for works starting. The landlord is likely to have given the resident false hope of a resolution in a short timescale by repeatedly referencing “weeks” and offering no other timescales to the resident. Works did not start until January 2025 and the resident is likely to have felt frustrated by this delay.
23. Overall, the landlord acknowledged many failings through the complaints process and made reasonable attempts to put them right. However, the landlord did not explain in its stage 2 response why there had been a delay in submitting the referral to major works, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations and it did not explain in its final response what the process would be in completing works, which did not start for at least another 9 months. This would have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord, caused him frustration and additional distress and inconvenience. Given this, a finding of service failure is appropriate.
24. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when there was a failing by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to a brick storage shed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

26. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must;
    1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies.
    2. Pay the resident a further £100 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.