Clarion Housing Association Limited (202323759)

Decision
Case ID	202323759
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

The resident told the landlord that she was dissatisfied that the roots of a shrub had been left in place after it had been cut back. She also said the landlord had taken too long to fix a leak from her toilet. The resident no longer lives at the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about garden maintenance.
2. Response to reports of a leaking toilet.
3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about garden maintenance.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of a leaking toilet.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Response to the resident’s concerns about garden maintenance

The landlord acted in line with its grounds maintenance specification in cutting back the shrub. It appropriately apologised that information it had given had caused confusion to the resident about this work. It offered an apology which was proportionate to its failings and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Response to reports of a leaking toilet

The landlord completed the repair in line with the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. Despite this, it acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident of the repair issue and offered compensation. It offered compensation which was proportionate to its failings and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to both complaints in line with the timescales stated in its complaints policy. Despite this, it offered compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident of bringing the complaint. This satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £228.31 compensation as offered. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to reports of a leaking toilet is made on the basis that this compensation is paid or reoffered to the resident.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation as offered. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid or reoffered to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 September 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said the landlord had told her a shrub would be removed but it had left the roots in place. She had subsequently spoken to the landlord who confirmed the shrub had been removed at the root. She requested compensation as the landlord’s information was not accurate.
4 October 2023	The resident confirmed to the landlord that she wanted to make a formal complaint about its maintenance of the shrub.
17 October 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
13 November 2023	The landlord responded at stage 1 and said as follows: It had not agreed that the roots would be fully removed. It was happy that the work to the shrub had been carried out to a high standard. It apologised if the resident had been led to believe that the roots would be removed and if its staff member had through the roots had been removed from looking at the picture supplied by the resident. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £50 compensation.
13 November 2023	The resident escalated the complaint and said the landlord’s communication about the shrub had been confusing. She said the roots being left made the area look untidy. She said the compensation was not enough.
14 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
16 November 2023	The resident made a new complaint. She said her toilet had been leaking since 3 July 2023. It had been fixed that day. She said her and her son had not been able to use the toilet and had to use a bucket to urinate. She requested compensation.
16 November 2023	The landlord responded to the complaint about the toilet at stage 1 and said as follows: It apologised for the delay in resolving the repair. The first record it had of the resident reporting the issue was August 2023. The resident had reported a slow leak and damage to the flooring. It had no record that the resident said could not use the toilet. It had completed the repair on 18 September 2023. The contractor had renewed the flush pipe and confirmed there was no damage to the flooring. Its contractor confirmed there was no reason why the slow leak would have stopped the toilet from being used. The toiler could be manually flushed with a bucket of water whilst awaiting the repair. It had initially told the resident on 28 September 2023 that she could not raise a complaint as the toilet had been usable. As the repair was delayed, it should have opened a complaint at the time. It apologised for this. It offered £74 compensation for the delayed repair and the inconvenience caused.
22 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint in respect of the toilet. She said she had evidence that she raised the issue in July 2023.
3 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request. It advised it would respond to both complaints by 8 December 2023.
8 December 2023	The landlord responded at stage 2 to both complaints and said as follows: Toilet It first received a report of the toilet leak on 9 August 2023. It completed the repair on 18 September 2023. It acknowledged that while the toilet could still be used, using a bucket to flush it would have been inconvenient. It apologised and offered £154.31 compensation to recognise the inconvenience and loss of the room. Shrub It apologised that the resident felt it had given incorrect information. In order to keep costs down, it had decided to try and keep the shrub rather than remove it altogether. It would continue to regularly inspect the area to ensure that it was well maintained. It apologised that this was not explained at stage 1. Conclusion It apologised that its communication had not been the standard it would hope. It had taken learning from the case and would discuss this with the staff members involved. It confirmed the total offer of compensation was £278.31, made up as follows: £154.31 for the inconvenience and loss of full use of the toilet. £74 previously offered at stage 1 in respect of the toilet repair. £50 previously offered at stage 1 for its delayed stage 1 complaint response for the shrub issue.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the matters to us. She said the shrub had been cut back so much it was likely to die. She said the compensation for the toilet leak was not enough.

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.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s concerns about garden maintenance
Finding	Reasonable redress

Following the resident’s complaint that the landlord had miscommunicated about the removal of the shrub, it investigated the matter and considered the photograph provided by the resident. The landlord concluded that the work had been completed to its specification. It explained that this was maintenance work rather than a gardening job.
The landlord’s grounds maintenance specification for the block sets out that it is responsible for maintaining the communal shrubs. The specification does not give a minimum height for shrubs but says the landlord should cut back shrubs yearly so that they are no more than 1 meter high. As such, the work carried out was in line with the landlord’s requirement to maintain shrubs as set out in this specification.
The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 response that there may have been miscommunication from its staff member who had viewed the photograph and thought the roots had been removed. It apologised for this confusion. It explained that root removal had not been agreed and had not been part of the job it had requested.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord went further to explain why it had only asked for the shrub to be cut back in order to save residents money. It reiterated its apology for any miscommunication around the issue.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the information given by its staff member, which caused confusion to the resident. As the landlord acted in line with its grounds maintenance specification in cutting back the shrub, we have not identified any further failures. As such, the landlord’s apology was proportionate to address the effect of the landlord’s failure on the resident.

Complaint	Response to reports of a leaking toilet
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident said she reported the leak from the toilet to the landlord in July 2023 via Facebook Messenger. We have not been provided with evidence of this. The landlord said its repairs records showed that the resident first reported the leak on 9 August 2023. As our investigations are evidence based, and the evidence we have seen is of the report from August 2023, our investigation is on the basis that the landlord became aware of the leak on 9 August 2023.
The landlord completed the repair to a toilet pipe on 18 September 2023. This stopped the leak. The contractor told the landlord that no damage had been caused to the flooring and that the toilet had remained usable by filling the tank with water during this time in order to flush it.
Based on the evidence we have seen, it took the landlord 28 working days to carry out the repair and fix the leak. The landlord’s repairs policy, that was in place at the time, says it will aim to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. As such, the landlord completed the repair to the toilet in line with the timeframe set out in its repairs policy.
Despite there having been no failure to carry out the repair in line with its policy, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the resident had been caused inconvenience by having to fill the toilet tank in order to flush it during this time. It offered a total of £228.31 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the loss of the full use of the toilet.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was within a range we would recommend where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. Despite acting in line with its repairs policy, the landlord’s offer of compensation and its apology demonstrated a resident-focussed approach to acknowledge the effect on the resident and to putting things right. As such, the landlord’s offer of compensation to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident was proportionate.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

At the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord’s complaints policy said that an enquiry from a resident would not be treated as a complaint. This was because it needed to have had an opportunity to provide a response or resolve the issues first.
The policy set out that at stage 1, it would acknowledge a complaint within 10 working days and it aimed to respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it would acknowledge a complaint within 10 working days and aim to respond within 40 working days. This was before our complaint handling code became statutory.

Complaint about the shrub

The resident submitted her concern to the landlord about the shrub on 20 September 2023. The landlord responded to her concern on 2 October 2023 and advised she could raise a complaint is she remained unhappy. This was in line with its complaints policy at the time.
The resident confirmed she wanted to raise a complaint on 4 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this within 9 working days. It subsequently responded at stage 1 on 13 November 2023. This was 19 working days after its acknowledgement. As such, the landlord responded to this complaint at stage 1 in line with its complaints policy. Despite this, it offered £50 compensation for complaint handling delays.
The resident escalated the complaint on 13 November 2023. The landlord responded at stage 2 within 19 working days. This was in line with its complaints policy.

Complaint about the leaking toilet

The resident made the complaint about the leak on 16 November 2023. The landlord provided the stage 1 response that same day. The resident escalated this on 22 November 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 8 December 2023. This was 12 working days. As such, the timeframes it responded within to this complaint were in line with its complaints policy.

Complaint handling conclusion

Our investigation had identified that the landlord responded to both complaints in line with the timescales stated in its complaints policy. It offered compensation to the resident to acknowledge the frustration caused of making a complaint, despite the landlord meeting its published response timeframes. It did not need to offer compensation in the circumstances. As such this demonstrated a resolution focused approach. As we have not identified any failures, the compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate.

Learning

We have not identified any learning points for the landlord during our investigation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s records around its decision making linked to the shrub removal was well evidenced.

Communication

Other than the landlord’s acknowledged communication issue in respect of the shrub we have not identified any other issues with the landlord’s communication.