Clarion Housing Association Limited (202424542)

Decision
Case ID	202424542
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with 2 young children. She is disabled and struggles with her mobility. The resident complained about uneven paving in the rear garden. The landlord said it was not its responsibility. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and raised concerns about health and safety.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
   1. The resident’s report of uneven paving in the rear garden.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the report of uneven paving.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident report of uneven paving

5. The landlord did not communicate well with the resident following the initial inspection of the paving area. It failed to complete the repair to the uneven paving, having initially misunderstood the area she was complaining about. Even after she clarified the location, the landlord still refused to complete the repair. It did not address her concerns about health and safety and failed in its obligations to carry out the necessary works. At the time of this report, the repair remains outstanding.

The associated complaint

6. The landlord provided the stage 1 response promptly and within its policy. It did not provide the stage 2 response within 20 working days or agree an extension with the resident. Although this is a failing, the landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response and offered compensation which was reasonable.

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 29 January 2026
2.	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to repair the path. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 29 January 2026
3.	Repairs Order The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work is completed to level and make safe the garden paved area promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us. By the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 29 January 2026.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 June 2024	The resident contacted the landlord about uneven paving in the rear garden. She said the paving was unsafe for her and her 2 children.
20 June 2024	The landlord inspected the rear garden. It said it would email the manager and planner about the paving.
29 July 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to request an update on the repair she had reported.
6 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about poor communication and its refusal to complete the repair. She said that she believed the repair was the landlord’s responsibility and she did not understand why it refused to complete it.
8 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it was responsible for repairing paths from the boundary access to the front and rear doors. It said that it would not remove the patio because it was not part of the path. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the reported repair and offered £50 compensation for poor communication.
8 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She said the complaint was not about the patio, but about the concrete path leading from the rear door. She said that the landlord had removed railings from the path, which left the area unsafe, with metal coming out from the ground.
24 September 2024.	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It repeated that the repair was the resident’s responsibility. It said it would not complete the repair. The landlord increased the compensation offered by £50 to reflect the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 24 September 2024. She said: She was unhappy with the landlord’s refusal to complete the repair. She was concerned about the safety of the household.

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	The resident’s report of uneven paving in the rear garden.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

7. Our Scheme rules state that we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord within a reasonable time, normally 12 months. The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported the paving on 1 May 2023. There is no evidence that she raised a complaint at that time. For this reason, we will not investigate reports of uneven paving made before 17 June 2024 when the resident reported the uneven path again.

What we have looked at

8. The landlord’s repairs policy says that its repairing responsibilities are on its website. The website explains that the landlord is responsible for paths from the boundary access to the front and rear doors. It says residents are responsible for paths and patios made by the resident. Residents are also responsible for non-access concrete and paved areas. The landlord inspected the area within 3 working days of the report. This was in line with its repairs policy, which requires non-emergency repairs to be completed within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
9. The resident asked the landlord for an outcome to the reported repair on 29 July 2024 and again on 6 August 2024. Both dates were after the 28-day timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy for completing non-emergency repairs. During the second call, a member of the landlord’s contact team told the resident that the repair was her responsibility. It would have been more appropriate for a member of the landlord’s repairs team to provide this information to the resident. This would have ensured that both parties understood which area the resident was asking to be repaired.
10.  After the landlord issued its stage 1 response, the resident explained that her concern was not about the patio but about the concrete path leading from the rear door. She said that the area was unsafe, with metal protruding from the ground after the landlord had removed the railings. The landlord said this was still her responsibility. When residents raise safety concerns, the landlord should carry out an inspection to assess the risk and determine what repairs are required. The landlord did not do so. This was a significant failing, particularly as the resident had told the landlord that she struggled with mobility.
11. The landlord should complete repairs to the path leading from the rear door to make the area safe under its repairs policy. The resident said that it had already carried out works by removing the railings, but the landlord’s repairs records do not confirm this. She provided photographs showing a path from the rear door. As the landlord’s website states that it is responsible for repairs to paths leading from the rear door, it would be reasonable for the landlord to complete the repair. The repair is still outstanding, meaning the landlord failed to comply with its repairs policy.
12. The landlord said it made the resident aware the area was her responsibility when she signed up for the tenancy. However, it did not provide evidence of this conversation when requested. The tenancy terms and conditions say that if residents make improvements and leave these behind, they become the landlord’s property. There is no evidence to show that the resident must take responsibility for this area. It would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to complete the repairs.
13. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the uneven path. It did not take responsibility for the repair, and it failed to comply with its repairs policy by not completing the repair within the required 28–day timescale.
14. Our remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. It states that compensation of £100–£600 is appropriate where a resident has been adversely affected, and the landlord has not fully put things right. The landlord must pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble it caused the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
16. The resident raised her complaint on 6 August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 2 working days, on 8 August 2024. This was within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy.
17. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 8 August 2024. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 24 September 2024, which was outside the timescales set out in its policy. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for this delay. This offer was reasonable, given the delay of 13 working days. It is in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards in this range where there has been a minor failure by the landlord which did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. Therefore, there was reasonable redress.

 

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s record keeping was clear, and it was easy to locate the relevant information from the data provided.

Communication

19. The landlord’s communication could have been better. It should have updated the resident once it had reached a decision on whether it would repair the paving. This would have avoided the need for the resident to chase a response.
20. The landlord should also have agreed an extension to complete the stage 2 response. Doing so would have kept the resident informed on the progress and managed expectations.