Clarion Housing Association Limited (202428538)

Decision
Case ID	202428538
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	7 November 2025

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy of the property, a one-bedroom house, began in August 2022. She was 19 years old and had been homeless and living in hostels since the age of 16. This was her first tenancy and the first time she would be living alone. In July 2024 she complained to the landlord that it had not completed various repairs, most of which she reported around the time her tenancy began. She said this included a fence which she had since replaced at her own expense. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs.
   2. Response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of fencing costs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of fencing costs.
   3. The landlord has provided reasonable redress to its handling of the complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs

6. The landlord did not complete numerous repairs within 28 days as required by its repairs policy. While it acknowledged this in its complaint responses, it has still not fully completed all the repairs. 

Response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of fencing costs

7. As the landlord failed to repair the fence during void stage, it should have compensated the resident for the full costs she incurred when she later replaced it.

Handling of the complaint

8. The landlord delayed in issuing both its complaint responses, but it apologised and compensated the resident for this delay within each response.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 05 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £3,818 made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of repairs. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its response to her reimbursement request. £1,118 as reimbursement for her costs in replacing the fence. £2,000 compensation offered in its complaint responses. The landlord may deduct the £2,000 if it has already paid this. The landlord must pay the remaining balance directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of all payments by the due date.	No later than 05 December 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date and by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect. The landlord must ensure that it assesses the following and produces a written survey report with photographs: Ventilation in the bathroom All windows in the property Heating system (boiler and radiators) Pest access in the loft The meter box The downstairs toilet The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of any identified repair issues Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to any identified issues (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 05 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 July 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that when her tenancy began in August 2022, there were numerous outstanding repair issues that it took a long time to resolve or had not yet resolved. This included flooring in the hall and stairs, a missing bedroom door, guttering and a damaged fence. She explained the fence had become further damaged and the landlord told her it would take tenancy enforcement action against her if she did not repair it.
Between 16 July 2024 and 8 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint and carried out its stage 1 investigation. As part of this, it spoke to the resident. She informed it that since submitting her complaint, she had spent £1,618 repairing the fence and asked it to reimburse her. She told it that in addition to the repairs mentioned in her complaint, she had also previously reported the following issues which remained unresolved: Poor drainage causing a toilet to regularly back up. The bathroom was dated and lacked ventilation. The windows were “blown” and required replacement. The heating system in the property was not fit for purpose. Squirrels were in the attic and had chewed through electrics. The landlord said it would address all these issues at stage 1.
9 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint. It said it: Had previously completed repairs to guttering, the bedroom door and drainage, and it inspected the windows. However, it acknowledged it had not provided a 28 day response to any of these issues as required by its repairs policy. Acknowledged it said at the start of the tenancy it would repair 3 fence panels and posts but failed to complete this work. It would compensate the resident for this, but not the full replacement cost. Acknowledged it had delayed in issuing its complaint response. Offered the resident £1,850 compensation for the delays in repairs (£1,350), its failure to repair the fence (£500), and the late complaint response (£100). This was to reflect inconvenience caused, the time she spent chasing it for updates, and her vulnerabilities. Did not accept it had delayed or otherwise failed in its response to the resident’s concerns about flooring, the bathroom, heating, or pests. It referred to instances when it had attempted to inspect the bathroom and address the pest issue, but said she had either cancelled the appointment or it was unable to gain access to the property. Had been trying to contact her for a week to ensure it had not overlooked any issues and to book in any further work required. It advised her how to report any further repair issues.
10 October 2024	A Resident Liaison Officer (RLO) met with the resident in her home to discuss her complaint and review any outstanding repair issues.
14 October 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said: The landlord had not supported her and complained about its coordination of repairs and approach to arranging appointments, which she said had left her feeling “depressed and anxious”. She did not accept it had fully addressed any of her concerns in its stage 1 response. She indicated the drainage, bathroom, windows, heating and pest issues all remained unresolved. She wanted the landlord to reconsider its position on reimbursement of the fencing costs as the amount it offered (£500) did not even cover half her costs.
24 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the escalation request.
21 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint. It upheld its findings at stage 1 and offered the resident an additional £50 compensation due to its delay in issuing the stage 2 response. It said it assigned the RLO to the resident in early October 2024 as it had experienced difficulties in getting in contact with her and arranging appointments. Following the RLO’s recent visit, it had arranged: Drainage repairs to start on 27 November 2024. A new double glazed unit that included a window fan to be installed in the bathroom on 28 November 2024. Windows, a leaking toilet and access to the meter box to be inspected on 21 November 2024. It said it attempted to inspect these issues on 11 November 2024 but recorded the visit as “no access”. Its contractor to resolve issues with heating and hot water. The contractor was “waiting on parts” and it would keep the resident update on progress. Pest proofing roof works to be carried out on 26 November 2024.
January and February 2025	The drainage work, which involved digging into the downstairs floor and repairing a cracked pipe, was more invasive than the landlord initially anticipated due to the presence of asbestos. It therefore carried out and completed this work in January 2025. During this time, it moved the resident into temporary accommodation. By the time the resident returned from the temporary accommodation in early February 2025, the landlord had not yet installed the new double glazed unit with fan in the bathroom. It had inspected the other windows in the property and ordered some new double glazed units. It had not carried out any repairs to the boiler or heating. It had carried out some pest proofing work, but had not yet completed this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She told us repairs remained outstanding and the landlord had not completed pest proofing. She wanted the landlord to resolve all these issues and to offer her more compensation for distress and inconvenience.

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	Handling of repairs
Finding	Maladministration

 

9. The landlord provided a fair response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs, in which it recognised its mistakes and proposed resolutions. Within its responses:
   1. It addressed each repair issue the resident raised in her complaint and appropriately identified which repairs it was responsible for.
   2. It apologised for its delays in attending to guttering, the bedroom door, drainage and window repairs. It appropriately identified its handling of these issues was not in line with its repairs policy.
   3. It offered the resident £1,350 compensation for these delays and £500 for its failure to repair the fence. It provided a breakdown of how it had calculated the compensation for each delayed repair, with amounts for each ranging between £200 and £500. This was in keeping with our Remedies Guidance which suggests awards of between £100 and £600 where there has been maladministration that has caused detriment to the resident.
   4. It provided reasonable explanations about why it would not carry out certain repairs. For example, it said that it was not responsible for providing floor coverings in the hallway and on the stairs. This was in line with the tenancy agreement. It also explained that it would not be replacing the bathroom as its planned investment work was on hold, but that it would carry out any necessary repairs. This was also in line with the tenancy agreement. Provided it could complete effective repairs, it was not obliged to replace the full bathroom suite.
   5. It acknowledged that when the resident moved into the property, it should have provided her with better support given her age and that this was her first property.
   6. It identified the resident had regularly been unavailable or asked to reschedule repair appointments. To assist her with managing the appointments going forward and to provide her with support, it assigned her a Resident Liaison Officer (RLO). This was good practice and demonstrated it recognised her vulnerabilities.
   7. It appropriately acknowledged that some repairs remained outstanding and outlined in its stage 2 response how and when it would resolve these.
10. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord should ensure any remedies proposed in complaint responses are followed through to completion. If it does not, we are unable to find a landlord has provided reasonable redress to the complaint.
11. In the months that followed its stage 2 response, the landlord completed some minor repairs, replaced the double glazing in some windows, and completed major drainage works. However, as at the date of this report, it has still not completed some of the work it said it would in its stage 2 response. This includes the following:
    1. It has not installed a bathroom window with fan. It originally arranged to install this in November 2024 but it rescheduled the appointment twice due to operative availability. It was then due to install it in February 2025 but the resident asked for this appointment to be rescheduled as it did not suit her. It recently told us that it was unable to complete this work due to “no access”. We are unclear if this was due to a further attempt by it to complete the work, or if it recorded the resident’s request for rescheduling in February 2025 as “no access”. Either way, it should have rescheduled the appointment. It is inappropriate and not in keeping with its repairs policy that it has not done so.
    2. It said in its stage 2 response it would inspect and resolve the resident’s concerns about access to the meter box. It carried out the inspection and identified the box required a new lock. However, it recently told us it is not clear from its records if it then fitted a lock. The resident told us it did not. This is a further failure to comply with its repairs policy and also demonstrates poor record keeping.
    3. It has not repaired or replaced any parts of the heating system, even though it suggested in its stage 2 response in November 2024 that its contractor was “waiting on parts”. It appears from its records that it took no action at all in relation to the heating until March 2025 when its contractor attempted to attend the property and flush out the system. If the issue was simply that the system needed flushed, rather than a part being required, then it should have completed this as a priority repair in November 2024 in line with its repairs policy. That it instead took 4 months to arrange the appointment was inappropriate, particularly given this delay was over the winter months.
    4. It has not completed all the pest proofing work. This includes external work to the roof and internal pest control in the loft as follows:
    5. It said in its stage 2 response it would carry out proofing works to the roof in November 2024, but it was unable to attend this due to operative availability. It rearranged the appointment to 10 December 2024. It is unclear from its records if its roofing contractor attended this. However, it is evident that the work was not completed, as in February 2025 it raised a works order to overclad fascia and put wire mesh under roof tiles. It has still not completed this work, although has told us this is due to 3 “no access” appointments between April and October 2025. Regardless, that it took 3 months from the stage 2 response before it identified potential access points and raised a works order, was not in keeping with the 28 day timeframe in its repairs policy.
    6. The landlord’s pest control contractor cleared the loft. It is not clear from its records when this was, but it appears to have been completed by April 2025. The landlord then intended to lay new insulation but it has not yet done so. It told us this was due to 2 “no access” appointments in June and October 2025. Regardless, that it was 7 months after its stage 2 response before it first attempted to attend and lay the insulation is not in keeping with its repairs policy.
12. Given that almost a year has passed since the landlord issued its stage 2 response and a number of repair issues remain unresolved, we are unable to find that it provided reasonable redress to the complaint. Instead, we find that there was maladministration in its handling of repairs.
13. As far as we are aware, the landlord has still not flushed the heating system. It said its contractor recorded “no access” at the March 2025 appointment and during 3 further attempts in July, September and October 2024. While we acknowledge this may be the case, the landlord cannot rely on difficulties with gaining access as justification for not meeting its statutory repair obligations in relation to heating. The same applies in relation to the “no access” appointments for the bathroom window, roof and insulation. If the resident is repeatedly not providing its contractor with access, the landlord should review whether it needs to take more robust action to ensure access. It should also review the support arrangements it has in place and whether they are working. The resident recently told us that she had not heard from an RLO since the summer.
14. The landlord should also speak to its contractors to ensure their records accurately reflect the situation on the ground. For example, that the contractor has given the resident appropriate notice of appointments and she has either not been at home when the contractor attends or has refused access. If the contractor has given her no notice of appointments, or she has asked in advance for an appointment to be rescheduled, this should not be recorded as a “no access” appointment. This is neither accurate nor fair.
15. The landlord told us it intends to flush the heating system and complete the insultation and roof works in November 2025. It intends to carry out further work to windows in December 2025. We do not know whether this includes the installation of a bathroom window with a fan. In relation to the meter box, despite telling us it did not know whether it ever fitted a lock, it has not arranged an inspection to check this. We are also aware that since it completed the drainage works, the resident has reported continued problems with her toilet not flushing. Given all this, we have ordered the landlord to inspect the property and devise an action plan for completing all outstanding repairs.
16. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order it to pay the resident £600 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This is in addition to the compensation it offered her during the complaints process and is for its ongoing delay in resolving the repair issues following its stage 2 response.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of fencing costs
Finding	Service failure

 

17. Shortly after the tenancy began in August 2022, the landlord recorded that the “side and back fence needs repairing”. It acknowledged this repair had existed from the start of the tenancy. Given a fence provides security around a property, it should have identified and rectified this prior to the resident moving in. That it did not was not in line with its voids policy. It intended to put this right and raised a works order in November 2022 for 3 posts and 3 six-foot fence panels to be installed. However, it then failed to schedule in the work and complete the repair. It appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this in its complaint responses.
18. During 2024 the landlord sent tenancy enforcement letters to the resident. The fence was in poor condition and it told her if she did not repair it, it may take enforcement action against her. The resident explained to the landlord in her complaint email in July 2024 that the fence was not in a good state of repair when her tenancy began. She said as a result it was already fragile before it became further damaged by her neighbour’s dog. She queried why she should therefore have to repair it. However, shortly after she raised her complaint, she paid for a contractor to replace the full fence around the property.  She provided the landlord with a copy of the contractor’s invoice for £1,618 and a receipt showing she had paid it.
19. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it would only reimburse the resident for the cost of the 3 posts and panels it should have replaced. It said this was included within the £500 compensation it offered her for its failure to carry out the repair. This was not reasonable in our view and it should have offered to reimburse her the full cost of the fence. That it did not was service failure. Our reasoning is as follows:
    1. It is correct that under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for keeping the fence in repair. However, that is provided it was in a good state of repair when her tenancy began, which it was not.
    2. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered it had failed to complete the void repairs to the fence before it sent enforcement letters.  It should reasonably have carried out an inspection to determine whether its repair failure had any impact on the overall structural integrity of the fence or in any way contributed to the further damage. That it did not do so means we have no way of knowing whether or not the further damage would still have occurred had it repaired the fence at void stage.
    3. Upon receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord should reasonably have communicated to her that the tenancy enforcement case would be paused pending the outcome of its complaint investigation. Had it done so, it may have meant it could have inspected the fence as part of its complaint investigation and agreed a way forward with the resident. Instead, the resident replaced the fence shortly after raising her complaint as she was understandably anxious about the “threatening” letters she had received. The landlord acknowledged this in an internal email, commenting that she “panicked” due to the “strongly worded warning” it had sent her. It also recognised that she was at that time unsupported in her tenancy, despite her young age and circumstances.
20. Our Remedies Guidance suggests that landlords should compensate residents for any quantifiable financial losses they have incurred due to the landlord’s failings. For the reasons explained above, we cannot say either way whether or not the resident may still have had to pay for the fence to be repaired had the landlord completed the void repairs. We have no way of knowing whether or not the further damage would still have occurred. The reason we do not know this is due to the landlord’s failure to consider its own actions during the enforcement process. Therefore, in our view, it is fair that it should fully compensate the resident for the fencing costs. As it has already paid £500, we have ordered it to pay her the £1,118 remaining balance. We have also ordered it to pay her £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this service failure.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

 

21. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code required it to issue its stage 1 response to the complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days. Both timeframes are calculated from the date of its acknowledgement of receipt. The landlord did not comply with these timeframes at either stage. It acknowledged receipt at both stages but then took 60 working days to issue its stage 1 response and 28 working days to issue its stage 2 response.
22. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for these delays within its complaint responses. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the stage 1 delay and £50 compensation for the stage 2 delay. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we are satisfied that this compensation was proportionate given the length of delay at each stage. We therefore find the landlord provided reasonable redress to its failure to respond to the complaint within appropriate timeframes.
23. We are satisfied that the landlord carried out thorough complaint investigations and addressed all aspects of the complaint in its responses. It identified during its initial investigation that the resident required support and assigned her an RLO. It also signposted her to its team who provided residents with support in relation to money and benefits, jobs and training, digital skills, and mental health and wellbeing. This was good practice.
24. As we have explained above, the landlord has not yet resolved all the repair issues raised in the complaint. This meant that it did not follow through and complete all remedies proposed within its stage 2 response, which is a requirement of the Code. However, as this arose after the stage 2 response was issued, we have found this to be maladministration in its handling of the substantive issue (repairs) rather than a complaint handling failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. We found it difficult to fully understand from the landlord’s records what repairs it had completed and when. It also recorded some, but not all, contractor work on its centralised records. For example, its heating contractor’s visits were not reflected on its repairs log and we had to ask it to provide us with these separately. It may wish to review this. It should also ensure it keeps an accurate record of the reason why a repairs appointment has not proceeded and does not record requests to reschedule an appointment as “no access”.

Communication

26. It was good practice that the landlord identified the resident would benefit with assistance in reporting repairs and scheduling appointments and assigned her a Resident Liaison Officer. The landlord should keep this arrangement under review and ensure it continues to support the resident.