Clarion Housing Association Limited (202333219)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333219

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 June 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to the balcony door.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident relating to her mental health.
  2. We have seen evidence of the resident’s several reports of issues with the balcony door since October 2021. On 17 October 2023, the resident reported that the balcony door had fallen off its hinges and could not be closed. On 19 October 2023, an operative visited the property however 2 operatives were needed to lift the door due to its size and weight.
  3. In November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on 3 occasions to report the issue as a security concern and the landlord advised her on 2 occasions to raise an emergency repair. On 4 November 2023 as part of her reports the resident raised a formal complaint. On 23 November 2023, a temporary repair was completed and the door was secured. However, the resident reported to the landlord the repair was not sufficient and caused water ingress and damage to the property and her belongings. She said this increased her heating costs and caused mould, and the situation impacted her mental health considerably.
  4. The resident followed up with the landlord on 4, 5 and 9 December 2023 and on 9 December 2023, the landlord explained an area manager would contact her in 5 working days. On 19 December 2023, the resident contacted this Service for assistance, as she had not received a response. On 30 January 2024, the Service directed the landlord to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s complaint.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 February 2024. It apologised for delays in securing the door and complaint handling. It acknowledged the door needed replacement and agreed to keep the resident updated on this. It explained the complexity of the issue related to a latent defect claim and that due to third parties’ involvement the repair may take 16-18 weeks. It offered the resident a total of £850 compensation (£200 for its complaint handling, £450 for delays in repairs, £200 for additional heating costs incurred).
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 February 2024. She explained she was unhappy with the time taken to replace the balcony door and the impact this had on her mental health and heating costs.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 April 2024. It acknowledged the further delays in the repair and a delay in its stage 2 complaint response. In addition to earlier compensation offer, it offered further £650 for the continued delay and inconvenience caused (£50 for complaint handling, £400 for the further repair delays and £200 for inconvenience and heating loss) bringing the total to £1500. It explained that while the delay to complete these repairs had been outside of its control due to being a latent defect and involving a claim to the developer, it could have communicated better with the resident and considered alternative options sooner such as completing the repair or replacing the door prior to the outcome of the claim.
  8. The landlord replaced the door in June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Service has seen evidence of repairs carried out to the balcony door on a number of occasions since 2021. The resident raised a complaint on 4 November 2023 and while the historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from October 2023 that were considered in the landlord’s final response. Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlord’s normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
  2. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident raised concerns about how the issues and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted on her health. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a personal injury claim she has the option to seek legal advice. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Repairs to the balcony door

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. The Housing Act 2004 also requires landlords to provide a safe and healthy environment in its properties by keeping these free from unnecessary and avoidable hazards, and by providing adequate protection from these, including falling elements, structural collapse, and damp and mould growth.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours and works to make safe or a temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 days.
  4. The resident reported that an external door leading on to the balcony had fallen off its hinges and could not be closed. This was a big and heavy door and the landlord should have treated this as an emergency repair given it also posed a security issue. The resident reported this initially on 17 October 2023 and an operative attended the property on 19 October 2023. This was outside the target response time for an emergency response of 24 hours. Furthermore, 2 operatives were needed to lift the door due to its size and weight however no one returned to the property and the door was not secured for 5 weeks. The landlord’s repairs log shows the temporary repair was completed on 23 November 2023. This was not appropriate given the nature of the repair, the security issue related to an external door and the risk of the door falling.
  5. During the period the door was not secured, the resident contacted the landlord on 4, 12 and 23 November 2023. She was advised to raise an emergency repair request by telephone as the door was not secure on 11 and 17 November 2023. The resident is responsible for raising repair requests using the correct method. However, given that the landlord was aware of the ongoing issue and the resident was left with an unsecure door, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange 2 operatives to attend her property urgently rather than sending the same response to her on 11 and 17 November 2023.
  6. On 6 November 2023, the landlord refused authorisation to send 2 operatives to the property and directed the contractor to visit the property first and consider whether a second operative was needed. This was inappropriate given that an operative had previously assessed this on 19 October 2023 and confirmed that a second person was needed. Additionally, this contributed to the 5–week delay in undertaking the temporary repair of the door following the initial report and caused further inconvenience to the resident, who had to make 2 further repair requests and accommodate additional appointments.
  7. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the repair was outside of its service level agreement and offered £50 compensation. Furthermore, it recognised the inconvenience to the resident for repeatedly chasing for the repair and offered further compensation.
  8. The landlord had a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities relating to her mental health. In her correspondence to the landlord, the resident also detailed how the situation was impacting her mental health. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy states that when a vulnerable resident requests a repair, it will confirm if there are any disabilities or support needs which should be considered and delivered appropriately. However, we have not seen the landlord considered this during her multiple reports of the emergency repair.
  9. Prior to the stage 1 response, there was no acknowledgement or consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities or reports of feeling isolated. This was inappropriate and the landlord’s knowledge of the vulnerabilities should have affected its actions when the resident contacted it and particularly when the resident mentioned her vulnerabilities. It is reassuring to see in the stage 1 response, the landlord noted the resident’s reports of her vulnerabilities and provided details of additional support available for vulnerable resident. Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged failings and offered compensation for failing to take into consideration her vulnerabilities. This was appropriate and reasonable considering the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
  10. It is noted that the full repair and replacement of the door was complex because of a latent defect and third parties’ involvement. The landlord was working with the developer and manufacturer to resolve this. While the developer was responsible for the full repair due to the defect, the landlord was responsible for any repairs to the property, making the property safe while liaising with the developer. Given the landlord was aware of the length of time of the defects claim and the complexity it could have explored providing itself a solution at the earliest opportunity.
  11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered an interim solution to the resident, which the resident rejected due to the door having to be kept closed. The resident explained that it was not a workable solution as the door was the only point of ventilation in an open plan kitchen space. The landlord should have considered an effective temporary measure when the repair was reported prior to the complaint response. Furthermore, at stage 1, the landlord was aware it was not able to provide exact timeframes to the resident. As such, it should have considered alternative options earlier whilst it continued to pursue the latent defect claim with the developer. It is reassuring to see the landlord identified this failing in its response at stage 2, provided an apology to the resident and took action to remedy the situation by ordering the door itself. It also offered compensation for this failing.
  12. The evidence shows the repair was completed in June 2024. While the delays of 7 months were not reasonable, the landlord explained them and worked towards providing a resolution. In the stage 2 response, the landlord explained that the issue with the door was a known latent defect in the building and the full repair was complex as the door needed to be replaced with similar and it formed part of the cladding frameworks. It is reassuring to see that in its stage 2 response, the plan of works for the replacement door were explained with a timeframe provided, and the door was replaced in June 2024.
  13. The resident reported to the landlord on 12 and 23 November that because of the door issue, she was using more heating to keep her property warm. This concern was not responded to until the stage 1 response. The landlord should have responded at an earlier stage and provided advice and support. While it did not do so, it acknowledged this in its complaint responses and offered a total of £400 compensation towards heating costs.
  14. Both at stage 1 and 2, the landlord acknowledged its failings in relation to the repairs and the inconvenience suffered by the resident. It also accepted there was a breakdown in communication and offered an apology. At stage 2, the landlord explained that due to the continued delay by the developer to resolve the issue, it will replace the patio itself and appropriately provided and a time estimate which it adhered to. It offered £850 for the repairs handling and inconvenience and distress and £400 for heating costs. It also reviewed the matter comprehensively and recognised the impact it had caused to the resident.
  15. The total financial remedy of £1350 provided by the landlord falls in the highest range of remedies that can be considered under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to recognise severe, significant and serious long-term impact, including physical and/or emotional. For a finding of maladministration to severe maladministration the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance reflects the level of redress to be between £100 to £1000 and above. Based on the evidence in this case, the landlord’s offer is beyond the highest range of compensation. In addition to the other appropriate steps taken the landlord provided a reasonable remedy during its complaints process.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1, it will acknowledge complaints within 10 working days and provide a response within 20 working days. At stage 2, it will acknowledge any requests for peer review within 10 working days and provide a response within 40 working days. However, these timeframes are not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”). The Code requires landlords to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in November and December 2023 on multiple occasions using its complaint web form. She explained that she was unhappy with the delay and would seek legal advice. While she did not specifically state complaint in her correspondence, as per the landlord’s policy and the Code, such expressions of dissatisfaction should have been treated as a complaint. The resident chased for a response unsuccessfully and had to contact this Service for assistance. It is not reasonable that residents should have to chase for a complaint to be logged and having to contact this Service added to the time and trouble.
  3. The landlord accepted in its stage 1 response on 6 February 2024 that a complaint should have been logged on 12 November 2023 and acknowledged within 10 working days. However, this was not accurate as the resident first reported her concerns on 4 November 2023 using the complaint web form. Therefore, the complaint should have been logged on this date. Despite the wrong date, the landlord acknowledged failure to log the complaint in its stage 1 response and offered £150 compensation.
  4. The landlord’s failure to log the complaint timely on 4 November 2023 delayed the response. The landlord issued stage 1 on 6 February 2023, in 64 working days. This was neither in line with the landlord’s policy nor the Code. However, this was within the timeframes we provided to the landlord on 30 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation.
  5.   The resident escalated her complaint on 25 February 2024 and the landlord issued stage 2 response on 12 April 2024, in 33 working days. This was in line with the landlord’s interim policy however exceeded the timeframes in the Code. The landlord recognised this exceeded the Code and acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 response and the offer of £50 compensation, for the time taken to peer review, reflected this.
  6. In summary, both at stage 1 and 2, the landlord acknowledged its failings in relation to failure to open a complaint and delay in complaint responses. It recognised the impact to the resident by apologising and offering compensation. The total of £250 is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and proportionate for the failures identified in this report. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  7. It is acknowledged that the timescales set out in the landlord’s Interim Complaints Policy were not in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”). However, no order has been made for the landlord to review its policy. This is because, the landlord has already done so and its new complaints policy now includes the 10-day and 20-day timescales set out in the Code. By awarding compensation at stage 2, the landlord acknowledged this was not in line with the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the handling of repairs to a balcony door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the handling of the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays £1500 compensation (if not paid already) offered during its complaints process for the failures and delays in repairs to the balcony door and in its complaint handling.

.