Clarion Housing Association Limited (202417630)

Background

1. The resident’s tenancy began in August 2023. She complained about the property’s condition at let, focusing on the back garden and fencing. She said the landlord failed to complete agreed works, including removing contaminated soil, clearing rubbish, and repairing a pothole. She disputed the landlord’s claim that it rotavated the soil and said it withdrew an earlier promise to remove the top layer. She also requested a more secure fence, citing safety concerns and a gap that allowed a neighbour’s dog into her garden.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the back garden when let.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for fencing repairs and safety concerns.
4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the back garden when let.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for fencing repairs and safety concerns.
7. There was reasonable redress in the complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the concerns about the condition of the back garden when let

8. It took almost a year (late August 2023 to mid‑July 2024) to resolve the garden waste, with repeated follow‑ups and incomplete clearance indicating prolonged delay and weak case management. The landlord’s compensation was not proportionate to the failings.

The handling of the request for fencing repairs and safety concerns

9. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s own fence repair was reasonable. It attended within 17 days and completed further works within 67 days, with delays caused by materials on order, which the resident understood. It also offered compensation for this delay. However, its response to safety concerns was inappropriate. It failed to act promptly on the neighbour’s broken fence, gave poor updates, and missed opportunities for any safeguarding action.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord missed its stage 1 timescale but acknowledged this failure and offered £50 compensation. It met the overall stage 2 timescale and completed the complaint process within policy timeframes. The compensation offered for the delay was proportionate redress for the impact of this failure.

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.

What we have not investigated

11. We will only investigate the matters the resident brought to our attention and that the landlord addressed during the complaint process. Our assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions and decisions as set out in its stage 1 and final responses, including any commitments made in its final response. We will not consider new issues raised after the final response, such as the neighbour’s fallen fence or the back garden becoming overgrown, or events the landlord did not have a reasonable opportunity to address within this complaint.

What we investigated

12. The landlord’s void standard says it clears overgrown gardens, cuts grass higher than 200mm, clears long gardens up to 4 metres from the rear wall, and removes rubbish or items left by previous residents. It completes these tasks before it lets the property. After the tenancy starts, the agreement gives responsibility to the resident to keep the garden tidy and cultivated and maintain fixtures such as washing line posts.
13. The landlord finished void works on 31 July 2023 and logged that the garden still needed clearance. It later produced a schedule and contractor records that show it cleared and rotavated the garden on 17 August 2023, before the tenancy started on 23 August 2023.
14. On 21 September 2023 the landlord raised an order to clear the garden. On 25 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord, reporting rubbish remained in the garden, including corroded washing line posts and other debris. She also expressed concern about possible soil contamination.
15. The landlord acknowledged the concerns on 25 September 2023 and arranged a visit for 27 September 2023. This was a reasonable step to assess the garden and agree next actions.
16. On 28 September 2023, the landlord attended. It noted a long side path covered in soil that the resident wanted cleared to expose the original surface. It also identified large weed‑grown trees that overshadowed the garden and buried items (builders’ bags, concrete slabs, old washing line posts). The landlord agreed to remove the trees but rejected broader works due to cost. It stated that “more should be done to make the space usable.” This comment was vague because the landlord did not explain what additional steps it considered necessary or feasible, nor did it clarify whether it would take any further action. The records also do not show what the resident expected as “more” beyond the clearance already discussed. The landlord said it would raise the issue of ‘remote’ gardens for wider review, but the evidence does not confirm that it followed through on this plan.
17. On 6 December 2023, the resident chased progress. She said the landlord completed tree works but left other garden tasks outstanding. She chased again in March 2024 and listed the remaining items: remove contaminated soil, remove corroded posts, clear earth from the path, repair the pothole, and remove 5 waste bags.
18. In its stage 1 response on 30 April 2024, the landlord said it cleared garden waste in October 2023 and levelled the path in April 2024, removing the remaining bags. It said it cleared soil from the path, exposed the concrete, and repaired the pothole.
19. It was not reasonable for the landlord to claim its actions were sufficient. The resident moved into the property in August 2023, and under the landlord’s voids standard, the garden should have been cleared prior to the tenancy starting. Instead, it took the landlord approximately 2 months (October 2023) to clear garden waste and 8 months (April 2024) to level the path and remove remaining bags. These delays meant the resident did not receive the property in an acceptable condition and had to wait an unreasonable length of time for works to be completed.
20. The landlord reiterated that it rotavated the back garden soil during the void process. As a result, it decided not to carry out any additional work in the garden, such as removing plastic waste or completely removing the soil.
21. While the landlord was entitled to rely on evidence provided by its contractor to confirm that it carried out rotavating during the void process, the approach was incomplete given the dispute raised by the resident. In circumstances where the resident challenges the accuracy of the contractor’s report, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange an additional inspection to verify the condition of the garden. By failing to take this extra step, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the disagreement and demonstrate transparency and fairness in its handling of the matter.
22. The landlord said it would inspect the washing line posts and a metal pipe uncovered after tree removal. The April 2024 appointment failed because the landlord could not gain access and needed to rebook. It is unclear whether the resident knew about this visit beforehand.
23. By July 2024, 3 waste bags still remained, showing the landlord did not complete clearance until around 11 months after the tenancy began. The landlord admitted this failure in its final response and offered £100 compensation for the delay. In addition, the metal pipe was not removed until April 2024, approximately 8 months after the tenancy started, further demonstrating the prolonged timescales for completing clearance works. The landlord has not provided evidence of its arrangements to remove the remaining 3 bags following its final response. Furthermore, the landlord concluded that it would not remove the washing line posts, as it deemed these works unnecessary.
24. The landlord met part of its void standard. It cleared some garden areas before the tenancy started. Later, it handled garden concerns poorly. It moved slowly. It gave unclear plans and left debris in place. Records say the landlord planned to escalate the “remote gardens” issue for a wider review. We do not know whether it told the resident or shared the outcome. If it had shared this, it would have managed expectations and reduced uncertainty.
25. The £100 offer does not provide fair redress for the long delays or the impact on the resident, who had disclosed vulnerabilities including autism and mobility issues. The resident explained to us that these needs made the situation more difficult. We will not order action on the garden because we cannot verify its current condition, the resident reports it is now overgrown and the tenancy places ongoing maintenance on the resident. However, the landlord’s failure to act promptly caused additional distress.

26. The resident said the garden was not secure because a gap in the fence let a neighbour’s dog enter and foul the area. She also said the weak fencing made the garden vulnerable to fly-tipping. As a domestic violence survivor, she wanted a stronger fence with panels instead of chestnut palling to feel safe.
27. The tenancy agreement makes the resident responsible for maintaining fencing, garden walls, sheds, lean-tos, clotheslines, and posts. It also makes her responsible for fence upgrades or installing new fences where none existed before. The landlord is only responsible for fences that separate the garden from communal areas such as public paths. Its responsive repairs policy says non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 days.
28. On 4 September 2023 the landlord raised a job to repair or replace the chestnut fencing. It attended on 21 September, 17 days later, and replaced some chestnut posts. It recommended more work to replace 3 feet of fencing and posts. It said it ordered new chestnut fencing, which would not arrive until 6 November 2023, and told the resident about this. This communication demonstrated transparency about the delay and the reasons for it, which was a reasonable approach in managing expectations.
29. On 25 September 2023, the resident emailed to say the chestnut fencing was not secure or private enough given her history of domestic violence. The landlord replied the same day and offered a visit on 27 September. This prompt response and offer of an inspection demonstrated that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. Internal notes on 28 September show the landlord flagged repairs to the chestnut palling and noted fly-tipping concerns.
30. On 5 October 2023 the landlord raised an order to renew the chestnut fencing while waiting for stock. It attended on 10 November 2023 and replaced sections of fencing. On 4 March 2024 the resident complained. She asked for a more secure fence and said the gap still allowed the neighbour’s dog to enter.
31. In its stage 1 response on 30 April 2024 the landlord refused further fencing works and said the gap was the neighbour’s responsibility. On 3 July 2024 the resident said the neighbour’s fence was still broken and the dog still entered. She repeated her request for panel fencing, citing safety concerns and inconsistency with another neighbour’s panel replacement. Internal notes on 10 July 2024 show the landlord reviewed the neighbour’s property records and suggested reactivating a stalled task and arranging a visit.
32. On 19 July 2024 in its stage 2 response, the landlord refused to replace or upgrade the chestnut fencing, saying it met standards and security concerns were outside its remit. It advised reporting fly-tipping and admitted failure to progress the neighbour’s fence issue, identifying service failure. The resident informed us during a conversation in January 2026 that the gap in the neighbour’s fence she raised as part of her complaint in March 2024 remained outstanding. This means the issue has been unresolved for approximately 22 months.
33. The landlord’s decision not to upgrade the fence was reasonable and in line with its tenancy agreement and repairs policy. Its obligation was to maintain existing boundary fencing, not to carry out structural upgrades (such as increasing height or reinforcing boundaries), which remain the resident’s responsibility unless otherwise agreed.
34. However, when the resident requested an upgrade for safety reasons, the landlord did not consider the purpose of the request or explore proportionate alternatives. A reasonable response would have assessed the reported risk and identified practical measures within policy, such as temporary risk mitigation, alternative security options, or supportive interventions, rather than focusing solely on the refusal to upgrade the fencing. This was a missed opportunity to provide a fair and person-centred response.
35. In addition, the landlord did not respond in line with its domestic abuse and wellbeing guidance, which promotes prevention, early help, and risk awareness and does not require residents to prove or repeat trauma. It should have acknowledged the disclosure and offered supportive measures (for example, signposting to specialist domestic abuse services, safety-planning advice, or referrals to safeguarding/wellbeing teams), even if it declined physical works. This failure to provide appropriate support contributed to our maladministration finding. We have ordered additional compensation in line with our remedy guidance.

36. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition (April 2024).
37. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 March 2024, 6 working days later and issued its stage 1 response on 30 April 2024, 35 working days from the acknowledgement. In line with the Code and its policy, the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint, and 10 working days to respond to the complaint (up to 15 working days). The landlord’s response was not in line with the Code and its policy.
38. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 June 2024 and the landlord acknowledged it on 3 July 2024, 8 working days later.
39. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 July 2024, 12 working days after it acknowledged the escalation. In line with the Code and its policy, the landlord had 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint and 20 working days to respond to the complaint (up of 25 working days). Although the acknowledgement was 3 working days late, the landlord completed both actions within 20 working days overall, which met the Code and its policy.
40. The landlord failed to adhere to its policy timescales at stage 1 and acknowledged missing its timescales, offering £50 compensation for the delay in providing its complaint response. The compensation offered for the delay represents proportionate redress for the impact of this failure, which we consider reasonable redress.

Learning

41. The landlord should ensure it follows through on planned actions and share outcomes with residents to maintain trust and manage expectations effectively.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. In this case, the landlord’s records were incomplete and unclear. It noted that “more should be done” but did not explain what that meant, and there was no evidence of whether the “remote gardens” escalation happened or its outcome. The landlord should keep accurate, detailed records of decisions, actions, and outcomes to support transparency and accountability.
43. The landlord did not evident that it captured, shared, or acted on key information, namely the resident’s disability, domestic abuse disclosure, and ongoing safety risks from the neighbour’s dog.

Communication

44. The landlord should ensure it provides timely updates to residents. The resident should not need to chase it for updates before it provides them. Doing so proactively also allows it to manage residents’ expectations.