We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202323546)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323546

Clarion Housing Association Limited

6 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:
    1. response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
    2. handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroom house.
  2. In April 2023 we investigated the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request to renew her kitchen. We identified some communication failings about when the kitchen would be renewed but found it had taken steps to reasonably put the impact of this right. We also found that its decision to complete interim repairs to the kitchen was reasonable while waiting for it to be renewed on its 2023/2024 planned programme of works. We recommended that it consider arranging an appointment to complete interim repairs to her kitchen.
  3. On 5 May 2023, the resident complained that she had not received a date for when her kitchen would be renewed. She later added that the landlord had not returned 4 calls and had failed to attend 2 appointments, and that a surveyor had been “rude and sarcastic” when they spoke to her. She asked to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 July 2023. It said there had been a delay in the kitchen renewal because the resident had requested items that were not within the specification and approval needed to be sought. It said this was then outside of its control. The landlord said it had not found any evidence of unreturned phone calls or missed appointments. It also said it had asked the resident for information about these but that she had not provided it. The landlord advised that it did not have a surveyor of the name the resident had given. It had though seen records that a surveyor had spoken with her in May 2023 about a survey of the kitchen for possible interim repairs and reflected what happened. The landlord concluded there was no evidence of failings, other than the fact its complaint response was delayed. It awarded £50 compensation for this.
  5. On the same day, the resident asked to escalate the complaint because she was unhappy with the amount of compensation awarded. She said it was not enough for the inconvenience she had experienced from the missed appointments and for being spoken to in a “rude” manner.
  6. The landlord reviewed its initial response and issued its stage 2 decision on     4 August 2023. It said it had found the resident’s concerns had been appropriately addressed. As such, it saw no reason to increase its financial award.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns about how she was spoken to, that appointments were missed, and calls not returned. She said she had felt “disrespected” by the member of staff she spoke to and had been caused inconvenience. The resident said she was seeking more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Staff conduct

  1. We expect landlords to make decisions that are factual and based on evidence. In the resident’s case, there is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord had a recording of the call she was referring to. It was therefore appropriate for it to gather and consider other evidence. The landlord spoke to the resident to establish who she was complaining about and why she felt she had been spoken to inappropriately. It also asked the resident for specific details about when the calls took place, and for dates of the missed calls and appointments. This was reasonable as it gave her the opportunity to provide information to support her complaint. And the records state the resident said she would provide this.
  2. There was no evidence, that we have seen, that the resident gave a date or time of the member of staff she spoke to, but she did provide their name. We have also seen no records in those provided that she confirmed any dates or information about the missed calls and appointments. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its records and those of its kitchen contractor.
  3. The available evidence supports the landlord’s account that it was unable to locate a member of staff with the name the resident had given. It was logical for it to though consider that she could be referring to a recent conversation she had with one of its surveyors about making an appointment for the interim repairs. The evidence shows this took place on the day she complained about not having a date for the kitchen booked in. While she did not initially complain about a member of staff, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider this was potentially the call she was referring to in the absence of any other evidence.
  4. It confirmed its findings to her in a call and follow up email on 5 July 2023, a few days before issuing the stage 1 response. While it was not necessary, as the landlord had a 2-stage complaint process, this gave her a further opportunity to provide supporting information or evidence. The resident’s response to this was included in the stage 1 response, sent 2 days later. This was that she believed the member of staff she spoke to was from the landlord’s kitchen contractor. The landlord maintained in its stage 2 response from August 2023 that it did not have a member of staff with the name the resident had given. It was unclear from this if this also included its contractor. However, the evidence shows the landlord obtained information about who and when had been in contact with the resident. This supports the landlord’s account. We are satisfied then that its decision is evidence based.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint because she was unhappy no compensation was given for the impact of the missed appointments and being spoken to inappropriately. As she had not provided any additional information, it was also reasonable for the landlord to maintain its position that there was no evidence of missed appointments or unreturned calls. It found no failings in these aspects and, therefore, there were no grounds to award compensation. We are satisfied the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns appropriately and proportionately. For that reason, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord had an interim complaints policy in place when it dealt with the resident’s complaint. This was because of the impact of a cyber-attack which led to the loss of data. The interim policy stated that it would aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days. These timescales were longer than those required by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 May 2023. The landlord responded 42 working days later on 7 July 2023. This was 22 working days over its published timescale, which was clearly inappropriate.
  3. According to the landlord’s complaints policy, it aimed to provide a quality service by keeping residents updated on their case. We have seen that the landlord reasonably kept the resident updated with what was happening. However, there was a period in June 2023 when the resident received no update which led to her chasing a response. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise this, and to apologise and award compensation. The amount it awarded of £50 was in line with its compensation policy for cases where its service failure has caused a degree of time and trouble.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 July 2023 and the landlord responded 19 working days later on 4 August 2023. This was well within its own timescales and a proportionate amount of time given the resident had not provided further evidence for it to investigate.
  5. As covered earlier in this report, the landlord reasonably addressed the resident’s complaint. Where it could have done better is to set her expectations about what could reasonably be achieved from its investigation of her concerns about how a member of staff spoke to her. Managing expectations was also an aim of the landlord’s complaints policy. This was particularly important in this case because there was no call recording. Its investigation was therefore very limited and we think it should have been open about this. While this is true, it was evident that the landlord took the matter seriously, conducted a thorough investigation of the available evidence, and reasonably addressed this aspect. Given its overall handling and response, we consider this to be a shortcoming.
  6. We find the landlord has appropriately put right the impact of its failings in its initial response. Its compensation award is commensurate with our guidance on remedies for impacts that are short lived. As such, we will not be awarding any further compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress given for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

 

 

Recommendations

  1. If the landlord has not already paid the compensation it awarded, it should reoffer it as this recognised its service failure and our decision that it reasonably put this right is made on that basis.