Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202321530)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321530

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 October 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She moved into the property, a 3 bedroom house, at the end of July 2023. The resident reported several repairs to the landlord in the months that followed.
  2. On 21 September 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord by telephone. The landlord noted that the resident considered the property was “not in a fit state” when she moved in. She considered that several repairs should have been completed while the property was void. The resident’s main concerns were a “slippery” patio area and a faulty gas valve.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 November 2023. It said:
    1. it had inspected the patio area, and it was in good condition but would benefit from a jet wash, which it would carry out.
    2. a radiator should have been fitted in one of the bedroom’s when the property was empty. Valves should have also been fitted to existing radiators as well as a gas valve. It fitted the new radiator and valves on 20 October 2023.
    3. its contractor experienced a system error during the void process. This may have been the reason the works were not completed when the property was empty. It offered the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. It also offered the resident £50 compensation for its delayed response.
  4. On the same day the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
    1. a jet wash of the patio would not resolve the issue. She was told by an operative that the patio was unsafe and needed to be replaced.
    2. the radiator in her son’s bedroom was still not working. She was told that her flooring would need to be lifted up in order to resolve the issue. She wanted the landlord to confirm that it would replace the flooring if it was “ripped up”.
    3. She had also raised concerns about chicken wire that had been left in the garden – namely that she could not remove this herself. The resident said that the landlord had failed to respond to this in its stage 1 response.
    4. The grass was overgrown, and the landlord had told her that it was her responsibility. She said that the garden should have been attended to before she moved in.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 March 2024. It said:
    1. it inspected the patio area again in December 2023 and identified that works were needed to repair it. It apologised for the multiple visits, conflicting information, and delayed works. It offered the resident £300 compensation. It said that it would lay concrete on the area and put down an anti-slip resin.
    2. it had replaced all radiators except one in January 2024. The resident had stated that her flooring was damaged by its contractors. She could claim for this via its insurer. Details were provided accordingly.
    3. there was a pile of leaves wrapped up in chicken wire which could be used as soil conditioner. However, it removed the wire as requested by the resident. The grass was cut in early July 2023 during the void period.
    4. it was sorry for the inconvenience caused, it had a responsibility to ensure that a void property was at a lettable standard. It said that it acknowledged that the resident raised several repairs at the start of her tenancy. It offered £350 additional compensation. It also offered the resident £100 for its delayed stage 2 response.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. The resident expressed concern that a member of staff had told her that the void process had been missed altogether. She is also unhappy as the garden is overgrown, and the landlord has not replaced the tiles on the patio.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property

Patio area

  1. Works to the patio were completed in June 2024, 3 months after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In communication to us, the resident has expressed concern about the work carried out. Namely that the landlord did not replace the tiles. While the resident’s concerns are noted, in the interest of fairness, they should be put to the landlord first. The resident should discuss this with the landlord accordingly and if she unhappy with its response, she may raise a new complaint. This could then be referred to us if the complaint exhausts the complaints procedure and the resident remains unhappy.
  2. We do not have a copy of the landlord’s void standard. However, the landlord has not disputed that the concerns raised by the resident had been missed or overlooked when the property was void.
  3. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings. It also offered the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience she was caused.It is noted that the resident was concerned the patio area was slippery, and that she was disappointed that this area had not been inspected and repaired prior to her tenancy beginning. She also incurred time and trouble raising repairs so soon after moving into the property. However, taking the above into consideration and our Remedies Guidance, we are satisfied that the compensation offer was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Bedroom radiator

  1. The landlord acknowledged that it should have installed a bedroom radiator and replaced all radiator valves when the property was void. As this did not happen, the resident was caused time, trouble and inconvenience as she had to go some time without heating in the bedroom.
  2. Following the resident’s contact, the landlord carried out a survey in August 2023 and the resident confirmed in September 2023 that the works could go head. The evidence shows that the landlord missed two appointments in September and early October 2023. It offered the resident £30 compensation for the missed appointments, which was in line with its compensation policy. It also offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the failing. It is noted that the missed appointments would have been the cause of inconvenience and frustration. However, given that this was relatively short-lived, the landlord’s decision to award a total of £80 compensation for the missed appointments and the associated disruption was fair and reasonable.
  3. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it said that it had met its repair and maintenance policy timescales of 28 days. Its calculation was based on the time the resident confirmed she was happy for the works to go ahead at the end of September 2023 until the works were completed in October 2023. It is acknowledged in September 2023  the resident requested to speak to the landlord before the works went ahead and the landlord’s reasoning for its calculation is noted.
  4. However, the works should have been completed at the time of the property was void. That it was not caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord apologised for this failing. It also offered £50 under the ‘Right to Repair’ scheme. It is unclear what this related to specifically, but it appears to be in relation to the heating. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that this was a proportionate sum taking into account the period of time that the matter was outstanding. We have not seen any evidence of further detriment caused to the resident that would warrant further compensation in respect of this failing.
  5. However, when the resident escalated her complaint in November 2023, she advised that the radiator was still not working. The landlord appropriately provided temporary heaters until it replaced it alongside other radiators in January 2024.
  6. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it was responsible for ensuring that the property was lettable. It explained that it had reviewed the resident’s repair history and identified that she had raised several repairs since she had moved in which caused her distress and inconvenience. It offered her a total of £750 compensation in recognition of this. It also explained that it had brought its repair service in house to improve its services.
  7. While the resident only escalated some of her original concerns, the landlord took a wider approach by reviewing the resident’s full repair history. That it carried out such a review was positive. It demonstrated that it had carried out a meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns and that it took them seriously.
  8. It is noted that the compensation was not offered solely in relation to the bedroom radiator issue. However, given the circumstances above, we are satisfied that the compensation offer reasonably covered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was also in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Chicken wire and condition of the garden

  1. In her escalated complaint, the resident complained that she had also raised concerns about chicken wire left in her garden and the landlord had failed to respond to this. It is unclear how the chicken wire came to be in the resident’s garden, or why it had been left in situ. However, when the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it explained that the leaves within the chicken wire supportedthe garden soil. However, as requested by the resident it had removed the wire. The landlord’s response and actions were reasonable and demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s concerns by removing the wire.
  2. The resident also said that the grass was overgrown when she moved in. In response the landlord explained that the grass was cut when the property was void. As part of this investigation, the landlord has provided pictures of the garden in July 2023 which corroborate its response. Therefore, we are satisfied the landlord’s response was appropriate. It is noted that the grass may have grown considerably after the landlord had cut it while the property was empty. However, we would not reasonably expect it to continue to cut the grass once the void works were completed and the property was ready to let.

Conclusion

  1. It is clear that there were some failings in the landlord’s void process in this matter. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses and specifically addressed the resident’s escalated complaint issues in its stage 2 response. It resolved the issues escalated and offered appropriate compensation in recognition for its failings. Therefore, we are satisfied that it reasonably put matters right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress because we are satisfied that the landlord put matters right in relation to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord should pay the resident the compensation it offered her in its complaints responses if it has not already done so.