Clarion Housing Association Limited (202502504)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, ground-floor flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety remedial works and the buyback process.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of concerns about fire safety remedial works and the buyback process.
   2. There was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of concerns about fire safety remedial works and the buyback process

5. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s queries regarding why it did not inform her of fire safety issues when she bought the property.
6. There was a lack of communication and delay in reimbursing legal costs.

Handling of the complaint

7. The landlord did not act in line with its published complaints policy. However, it acknowledged and addressed its failings when responding at each stage of its complaints process. It also demonstrated learning.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

 What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

8. The resident told us that having to sell her home affected the mental wellbeing of her and her family. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Handling of concerns about fire safety remedial works and the buyback process

9. We understand that, due to needing to complete remedial fire safety works, the landlord provided the resident with the option to either temporarily move out of her home or it could buyback the property.
10. On 27 August 2024, the resident asked the landlord when it would value her property and what package it would offer should she decide to sell following a call that had taken place the previous month. However, it is unclear what both parties discussed as the landlord has not provided evidence of any previous contact, which indicates an issue with its record keeping.
11. Both parties exchanged emails to appropriately arrange a property valuation appointment for 4 October 2024. Although the landlord explained it would cover additional costs incurred if the resident moved to temporary accommodation, such as travel expenses or childcare costs, it provided no indication regarding how it would support her if she sold the property. When the resident asked how much compensation it would offer due to the impact that moving would have on her and her family, the landlord appropriately confirmed it would provide a disturbance payment of £3,000.
12. On 3 occasions in October 2024, the resident asked why the landlord had not informed her of a fire safety issue when she bought the property. She also commented on this in her stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. Although the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused due to the building’s defects and explained that the building was safe to live in, it did not respond to her query. When it replied to our request for evidence, the landlord said all remedial works and additional safety features for the building were in place when the resident purchased the property. However, further works were then required that needed the building to be vacated. It is a failing that the landlord did not explain this to the resident when she asked.
13. On 16 October 2024, the landlord confirmed the valuation of the resident’s home, its buyback offer should she decide to sell and the financial package it would provide if she bought another home within 12 months of selling the property. It was appropriate that it provided this information so that the resident could make a reasoned decision about whether to sell.
14. The landlord responded within a reasonable time to further queries from the resident to clarify the financial support it would provide. Its complaint responses confirmed the costs it would cover, depending on whether the resident chose to move to temporary accommodation or sell the property. It also produced a guide to selling and moving home to help with this, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
15. In her stage 2 escalation on 17 February 2025, the resident said she had been waiting over 2 weeks for the landlord to reimburse legal costs despite saying it would do this within 3 days. She said the landlord had stopped responding to her. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the resident’s reimbursement request, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. However, on 3 March 2025, she confirmed receipt of a payment. The landlord apologised for taking so long to reimburse her and its stage 2 response explained that it had internally addressed its lack of communication, which was appropriate, however, it was not reasonable for the resident to have to pursue reimbursement, which likely caused her inconvenience and distress, particularly as she had previously told the landlord that she did not have the means to pay legal costs upfront.
16. On several occasions, the resident asked the landlord if it would cover the cost of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) when she bought a new home. She said she did not have to pay this when she purchased the property from the landlord due to being a first-time buyer, but this was no longer the case. The landlord repeatedly explained it would not cover this cost. However, we understand that the resident has since sold the property back to the landlord and that, to facilitate her buying another property, it paid £5,375.47 to cover a shortfall related to an increase in SDLT.
17. When the resident requested compensation for stress and inconvenience caused due to having to move, the landlord explained that its disturbance payment considered the impact of moving. However, it said did not make awards for personal injury, which was in line with its complaints policy.
18. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s queries within a reasonable timeframe to clarify the support it would provide to facilitate a temporary move or buy back her property. Although the resident sought additional compensation for stress and to cover SDLT on her next house purchase, the landlord sufficiently explained its position in relation to those matters. However, we consider that the failings identified in this report represent service failure.

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). The landlord has a published complaints policy that complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
20. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. It received the resident’s complaint on 23 October 2024 but did not acknowledge this until 4 February 2025, which was 66 working days late. It then issued a stage 1 response on 11 February 2025, which was in line with its complaints policy.
21. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 February 2025. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days; if it was unable to do this, it would confirm an extension of up to a further 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 24 February 2025, which was in line with its process. On 25 March 2025, it informed the resident of a delay in issuing its stage 2 response, which was 1 day outside its process. It then provided a stage 2 response on 8 April 2025, which was in line with its complaints policy.
22. In recognition of the delays in issuing its responses at stage 1 and stage 2 and the inconvenience caused, the landlord offered compensation totalling £300. As this was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance, we have found reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Communication

23. The landlord demonstrated that it had learned from this complaint by identifying and acknowledging communication and complaint handling failures, which it addressed internally. This included providing feedback to ensure it followed the correct process when raising complaints.