Clarion Housing Association Limited (202334818)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. The landlord was subject to a cyber-security incident in June 2022 which caused disruption to its IT systems and impacted its record keeping. The resident stated that several repairs to the property remained outstanding from this time, and that the property was suffering from subsidence.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of repairs and reports of subsidence to the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress its handling of repairs and reports of subsidence to the property.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs and reports of subsidence

6. The landlord was delayed in completing several repairs to the resident’s property. However, the landlord acknowledged the delays and provided considerable compensation which was reflective of the length of time and the impact on the resident.
7. The landlord was delayed in investigating the resident’s reports of subsidence to the property. However, it was reasonable for it to rely on the opinion of an appropriately qualified professional when concluding the underlying cause of cracks were due to thermal movement.

Complaint handling

8. There were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which include:
   1. Delays in responding to the complaint at both stages of its process.
   2. It did not investigate the reasons why the resident did not receive the stage 1 response despite it telling her it would do so.
9. The landlord only acknowledged the delays at stage 1 and as such the compensation offered was not sufficient to put things right for the failures identified in this investigation.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

10. This investigation has considered events leading to the resident’s formal complaint in August 2023 and until the landlord’s final complaint response in February 2024, including any actions it committed to as part of its final response. This is because whilst we understand the resident said certain repairs had been outstanding for 2 years prior to her making a formal complaint, we usually expect such issues to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising.
11. We are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of repairs prior to January 2023 because the landlord could not provide records covering this period due to the cyber-security incident it experienced in June 2022. We acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the results of this incident, but it was outside the landlord’s control and therefore not a failure on its part. It was positive that the landlord apologised to the resident for the lack of detail it was able to give about the repairs prior to January 2023 and for the delays it caused as a result.
12. The resident reported repairs to the windows and doors of her property to the landlord on 17 January 2023. It is unclear why these repairs were not completed as the landlord’s repair records lack detail. These repairs were later identified again on an inspection by the landlord in August 2023 and completed on 4 September 2023. We have therefore concluded they were not fully resolved within the landlord’s published timescales for routine repairs which is 28 days at the time. This was a failure by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience as the repairs remained unresolved for an unreasonable amount of time.
13. The landlord also failed to comment on its handling of the repairs reported in January 2023. This was a failure as the resident had told it she was dissatisfied with its handling of these repairs when she made a formal complaint to it in August 2023. The landlord therefore failed to address this point of the resident’s complaint. This was a failure by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
14. It was positive that the landlord’s surveyor and repairs supervisor completed a joint inspection of the resident’s home on 11 August 2023. This is because the landlord’s repair operatives had already visited in June and August 2023 but had reported back to it that the resident remained unhappy with the quality of some repair work and that there were a number of repairs that still remained outstanding. It was appropriate for the landlord’s staff to discuss these issues with the resident at one time and put in place a plan of action going forwards.
15. The landlord committed to completing the outstanding repairs within a reasonable timeframe including the kitchen skirting board, plastering works and placing monitoring tags on the property to assess fracturing to the brickwork over time. Despite this, the resident contacted the landlord again in November 2023 to report that its contractor had not attended to some of these repairs. She also stated that the contractor had missed pre-arranged appointments. This was not disputed by the landlord. As such, it could not demonstrate that it adequately monitored the progress of these repairs, as it said it would. Additionally, it failed to complete repairs such as fitting the kitchen skirting board within its published timescales. This was a failure by the landlord which resulted in further inconvenience to the resident and delays to the repairs.
16. The landlord failed to fit monitoring tags to the cracks of the property despite telling the resident it would do so. It then cancelled the repair without giving an explanation to her. This was a failure by the landlord which caused her distress and inconvenience. It should not have cancelled the repair without notifying the resident and explaining the reasons for doing so.
17. The landlord is not responsible for reimbursing the resident for loss of wages due to her needing to take time off work for repair appointments. This is because whilst the repairs works have inevitably caused inconvenience to the resident, her occupancy agreement requires that she give access for repairs. It would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to pay the resident for reimbursement for loss of earnings for repair appointments which are necessary.
18. However, we have considered the inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord needing to make multiple visits for repairs. The landlord had to ask the resident which repairs remained outstanding in December 2023 as it was unsure and it had to re-inspect the property to establish this. This was inappropriate as it should have kept clear repair records and tracked the progress of repairs it had previously committed to. This was a failure by the landlord which led to further delays in completing outstanding repairs and caused inconvenience and distress to the resident.
19. It was positive that the landlord organised structural inspections of the property on 5 January and 22 January 2024 following the resident’s concerns that it was suffering from subsidence. However, it took too long to organise these inspections as the resident had already raised concerns about subsidence as early as August 2023 and it failed to complete its own monitoring of the cracks as it said it would. This was a further failure by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
20. The first structural inspection completed on 5 January 2024 recommended the landlord notify its insurers of potential subsidence at the front and rear of the property due to trees. The landlord visited again with its insurer and a different structural engineer on 22 January 2024 where it concluded the property was being impacted by thermal movement and there were no subsidence issues.
21. The landlord has not provided a copy of the structural report completed on 22 January 2024. We do not dispute this report exists due to evidence that supports the landlord visited on this date and due to internal emails referencing the report and its findings. This is further supported by the landlord explaining the reasons why it concluded the cracks to the property were caused by thermal movement which were due to their position and lack of cracking at ground level extending upwards.  However, it should keep clear records of such reports especially if they are used to set out its position on the matter in its complaint response to the resident.
22. Although we understand the resident does not agree with the outcome of this report and believes there is subsidence to the property, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of an appropriately qualified professional to assess the structure of the resident’s property at this time.
23. The landlord then acted appropriately by completing the recommended repairs to plaster the wall and to fit the window boards on 27 March 2024 as it had committed to in its stage 2 response.
24. In its final response to the resident, the landlord said it completed repairs to the kitchen skirting board in January 2024. The resident disputes this and has since told us it completed the works in October 2025. The landlord’s repair records show it raised a new job to replace the kitchen skirting boards in June 2024, but this was cancelled. On the basis that the resident disputes this work was complete at the time, and because the landlord raised a new job for the works, we have concluded it had not previously completed the work as it said it did in January 2024. This was a failure by the landlord which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. As the resident said the landlord had since completed this work, we will not order it to do so.
25. When the landlord has made a compensation offer, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. Our approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance published on our website.
26. The landlord offered the resident a total of £1000 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs and her reports of subsidence. This far exceeds the amount we would have ordered had it not made an offer, as we have found the failures identified in this complaint would be reflective of circumstances of maladministration where the resident was adversely affected. Our remedies guidance suggests that offers of between £100 and £600 would be appropriate in these cases.
27. The landlord failed to complete repairs to the skirting board within reasonable timeframes which it committed to doing as part of its final response to the resident. This added to the length of time and the delays the resident was experiencing caused by the landlord’s repairs failures. However, the total amount offered by it remains proportionate and fair, taking into account this further error. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made an offer prior to our involvement which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.
28. The resident said there had been further structural and repair issues to the property since the landlord’s final stage 2 response. Whilst we understand this has caused her further distress, it is outside the scope of investigation to look at the more recent repair issues as the landlord needs to have the opportunity to respond to this through its complaints process before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. The resident may be able to make another complaint to the landlord should she be dissatisfied with its handling of these matters.

29. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our Service’s expectations of landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
30. The landlord was delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages of its process. It took 37 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint and 75 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint. This was outside of its published timescales for complaint handling. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident in its stage 1 response for its stage 1 delay. It also apologised to her for its delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint and committed to keeping her updated on when it would be able to issue its stage 2 response. However, it failed to keep the resident updated and she had to chase it on a number of occasions. This was a failure by the landlord which caused the resident distress.
31. The landlord became aware that the resident had not received the stage 1 response shortly after it escalated her complaint to stage 2. It said it would look into the reasons why, but it did not provide her with an explanation. This was a failure by the landlord in its complaint handling and showed that it did not take this matter seriously or looked to take learning.
32. The landlord offered £50 compensation for its handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The landlord then told the resident it would compensate her further for the delays in its handling of the stage 2 complaint. However, at stage 2 it did not clearly offer any compensation for its further failings in complaint handling. This was unreasonable and as such the landlord failed to fully put things right.
33. For the reasons set out above, we have found there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience and distress caused by these failures. This should replace its original offer of £50 for its handling of the resident’s complaint, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

Learning

34. The landlord should ensure it provides clear breakdowns of any compensation offered to the resident. This helps the resident and Ombudsman decide whether the offer is fair and reasonable based on the failures identified.
35. The landlord should ensure it monitors the progress of repairs it commits to as part of complaints raised to it by residents. It might wish to implement measures to do so.