Clarion Housing Association Limited (202324161)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324161

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 May 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 handling of works to communal stairwells.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner leaseholder of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord began a major works project in the resident’s building which included works to the floors in the communal stairwells and corridors. The resident raised a complaint on 12 May 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the works to the stairwells. The resident said:
1. the landlord informed him about the project on 6 March 2023, and said it was due to start on 20 March 2023 and finish on 30 March 2023.
2. while the work began as planned, it had come to a complete standstill.
3. the communal stairwell was dirty.
4. the landlord had not provided a timeline and he did not know when to expect the project to be completed.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 9 June 2023. It said:
1. carpets were removed in mid-March 2023, along with asbestos tiles, with the intention of finishing with a liquid paint application.
2. at the end of March, it was found that the finish was considered to be unacceptable.
3. reviews of the issue involving sub-contractors and the manufacturer took place, which contributed to a slight delay in completion.
4. the delay was outside the landlord’s control.
5. while the review took place, a general notice was placed in the communal areas to update residents and an update letter was sent to all residents on 23 May 2023. Residents were given the opportunity to vote on a choice of vinyl within a timescale provided.
6. it had been transparent with residents, even when a timescale could not be provided due to external factors.
7. it had requested a review to be conducted on the cleanliness of the communal areas and that the areas be cleaned appropriately while works were continuing.
The resident said he was dissatisfied with the decision on the same date. He said he disagreed that his questions had been answered and he was still uncertain when the project would be completed as the landlord had not provided a timeline. The resident said that the corridor remained in a dirty state.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 October 2023. It said:
1. it had provided the resident with a clear update on the status of the project at stage 1.
2. there were issues which delayed the project, including testing cleaning products for their effectiveness on the anti-slip surface, cost comparisons for different products, completion of electrical socket works, examination and removal of some existing paint finish and failure and removal of existing anti-slip finish.
3. these issues had been resolved and the landlord had received and collated the results of the survey about choice of colours for flooring.
4. it expected works to continue into mid-October and to progress to completion as soon as possible after that.
5. overall, there could have been tighter control of project management which had been allowed to drift.
6. it would review all aspects of the project on completion to establish what lessons it could learn.
7. it offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 October 2023, in which he said:
1. over the past 5 to 6 years, since the landlord assumed management of the building, it had conducted multiple improvement projects, all of which had been unsuccessful.
2. this had caused significant stress to residents of the building.
3. the building’s condition was deteriorating, and residents incurred substantial costs for the proposed improvement works.
On 15 May 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that:
1. works to the stairwells were complete, but the quality of the works was poor.
2. when the works were being conducted the stairwells were useable, but dirty.
3. it was difficult to make direct contact with the landlord and it does not respond to enquiries through its own portal.
4. he was frustrated that the landlord continued to increase services charges as the services provided were poor, and the amount of money he was charged for services was not justified.
5. in order to resolve the complaint, the landlord should:
  1. pay compensation.
  2. engage and communicate with residents in a more meaningful way and allow residents to talk to staff by phone or email.

Assessment and findings

Scope

We acknowledge the resident’s comments about his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s overall handling of the major works project, its ongoing management of the estate and how it communicates with residents. The resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s handling of works in the stairwells, and the complaint responses only deal with this complaint. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. As the resident’s other points of dissatisfaction have not been considered through the landlord’s complaints process, this investigation will focus only on the landlord’s handling of the works relating to the stairwells.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This means the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the level of the charge or the increase at the beginning of each year. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or variable service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to contact the First-Tier Tribunal if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

The landlord’s handling of works to communal stairwells.

The landlord’s planned investment policy states it will provide a professional and efficient planned major works service.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2019 with its notice of intention to conduct cyclical decoration works, which included removing existing carpet in communal areas and completing concrete repairs to the floor and stairs. The landlord has not provided any further correspondence it sent to residents about dates for starting this part of the major works project, or the expected timeframe for completion. However, the resident told us that works were due to start on 20 March 2023 and would be completed on 30 March 2023.
We would expect a landlord to complete major works projects within the timeframe specified. However, it is acknowledged that reasonable delays may occur due to various factors. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the works, and whether the landlord has taken sufficient steps to minimise any delay. Where there is an unavoidable delay in completing works, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. finding what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
The landlord informed us that it had initially planned for the communal floor to be left bare. However, it said there was asbestos–containing material in the glue and tiles and, once this was removed, the condition of the floor was not suitable to be left uncovered. The landlord said that it therefore looked into using a liquid floor product.
The landlord’s contractor left a notice in the communal area which informed residents it would be applying the liquid floor coating on 28 March 2023. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that the floor coating was considered to be unsatisfactory and that it did not give the finish expected. It said that delays were then caused due to alternative options being reviewed by the contractor and further quotes for works being raised. The landlord has provided limited evidence of communication it had with the contractor during this time, and it is unclear exactly what enquiries were undertaken. The landlord should keep a clear audit trail of events and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman. However, comprehensive records have not been provided which has impacted our ability to conduct a thorough investigation.
The contractor left a further notice in the communal which apologised for the delays that it said were due to unforeseen circumstances. It said it was waiting for confirmation and agreement from the landlord on new methods of preparation of the concrete substrate on the stairwells, and of the application of the floor coating. It said it would inform residents of the amended programme and resume works as soon as possible. While this shows an update was provided, the notice is undated and it is therefore unclear when this was put in the communal areas. Further, no evidence has been provided to show that an amended programme of works was sent to residents, as stated in the notice, which was a failing.
The evidence reflects that the landlord obtained advice from a cleaning contractor on 16 May 2023 about the anti-slip surface. The landlord’s contractor wrote to residents on 23 May 2023 letting them know that a decision had been made that anti-slip vinyl floor covering would be used for the stairs and landings. It offered residents a choice of floor colours and asked for responses by 7 June 2023.
Emails from 20 June 2023 indicate that the contractor was working on obtaining quotes for the flooring, and so a start date had not been decided. The landlord asked the contractor to send an outcome letter to residents about the decision on the colour of the flooring. The evidence shows that the landlord chased the contractor about sending an update to residents several times however, there is no evidence that it did so.
On 12 July 2023, the contractor emailed the landlord with cost comparisons for the vinyl flooring and recommended a contractor to proceed with. The landlord responded on the same date and agreed with the contractor’s position. On 29 August 2023, the landlord emailed the contractor about scheduling a date to start the vinyl flooring works. The landlord provided no further evidence of its communication with the contractor.
In is stage 2 response, the landlord said the works would begin mid-October and would be completed as soon as possible. It is unclear what date the work was completed. It is noted that the landlord made the decision to install vinyl flooring in May 2023, but the works did not progress until mid-October 2023. While it is reasonable that some time was spent seeking input from residents and obtaining quotes for the works, the landlord has not accounted for the overall delay of approximately 5 months.
Overall, the evidence shows a significant delay of at least 7 months in the works being completed. While it appears that some of the delays were unavoidable, the length of time it took to complete the works was not reasonable, based on the evidence provided. As outlined above, the landlord found that there should have been tighter control of the project, which it said had been allowed to ‘drift’.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to reflect that it updated residents after the contractor’s 23 May 2023 letter. Given the delays in completing the project, the landlord should have provided regular updates to residents on the progress of the works. The lack of communication from June 2023 onwards indicates a failing by the landlord to effectively communicate with the resident. Further, there is no evidence to show that the landlord updated the resident regarding his concerns about the cleanliness of the communal areas, which it said it would review in its stage 1 response. When the resident contacted us in October 2023, he raised that the communal stairwell was dirty, indicating that the landlord had not addressed this issue.
We have found that there was service failure by the landlord. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Although the landlord acknowledged an issue with its management of the works, it did not offer redress to resolve the complaint.
The resident incurred time and trouble in requesting updates from the landlord, as well as inconvenience due to the length of time it took to complete the works and the landlord’s poor communication. We have made an order below for the landlord to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the impact of the failing.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time the resident raised her complaint explained its 2-stage complaint procedure. It says that when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being logged.
The policy refers to stage 2 of the complaints procedure as a peer review, which will be acknowledged and logged in 10 working days. It says that it will aim to resolve stage 2 complaints within 40 working days, and if it is unable to resolve the complaint in this time, it will:
1. explain why it is unable to resolve the complaint.
2. provide a timescale of what is involved in order to resolve the complaint and if possible, approximately how long the review will take.
3. agree with the resident on the frequency of keeping them updated and their preferred method of communication.
The resident raised his complaint on 12 May 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 June 2023, which was within the timeframe specified in its policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 June 2023 and expressed his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. The resident sent a further email on 4 July 2023 again stating his disappointment that the complaint response had not adequately addressed the questions outlined in his original complaint. The resident emailed the landlord again on 1 August 2023 in which he requested a clear update on when the works were expected to be completed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 2 August 2023. It sent a further acknowledgement on 24 August 2023 and said a response would be provided within 40 working days. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 October 2023, which was 49 working days after its first acknowledgement.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. It is clear that the resident expressed his dissatisfaction on 9 June 2023 and on 2 further occasions before the landlord progressed the complaint to stage 2. This was therefore a failing by the landlord to escalate the complaint and to issue the stage 2 response within the required timeframe, and the resident had to spend time contacting the landlord about this complaint.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in providing the complaint response and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused. However, it did not acknowledge its failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2, which was a failing. We have made an order below for additional compensation to be paid to the resident in recognition of the time he spent pursuing his complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of works to communal stairwells
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £250, made up as:
1. £150 for its handling of works to communal stairwells.
2. £100 for its complaint handling, inclusive of the £50 already offered by the landlord. This amount should be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. reviews how it communicates with residents when there are delays to major works programmes, to ensure that frequent and meaningful updates are provided.
2. reminds staff to escalate complaints to stage 2 of the complaints process in accordance with its policy when residents express dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response.