Clarion Housing Association Limited (202413469)

Decision
Case ID	202413469
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	28 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests for information about service charges.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for information about service charges.
2. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Service charges

The resident requested service charge information under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Although the landlord appropriately offered compensation for the inconvenience caused by its delay in handling this request, it did not consider offering compensation for the distress caused by other failings identified in this investigation.

Complaint handling

The landlord offered compensation for delays in responding at both stages of its complaints process, despite there being no delay at stage 2. It issued 3 acknowledgements of the initial complaint as well as responses that contained errors.

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 25 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250, made up of: The £150 that it previously offered for any inconvenience caused by its delay in handling the resident’s Section 22 request under the Landlord and Tenant 1985 Act for information about her service charges. A further £100 for the distress caused by its handling of the resident’s other requests for service charge information. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 25 February 2026
3	The landlord must liaise with the resident to ascertain the information she requires, whether it is able to provide the information and a timeframe for providing that information for the financial year 2022 to 2023.	No later than 25 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation, it should pay the resident the £100 compensation offered for its complaint handling failures, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 January 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint. The key points were as follows: She had tried to raise a complaint on 9 November 2023, but the landlord raised this as a general enquiry. For over a year, the landlord had repeatedly ignored requests for service charge information for the financial years 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023. It was required by law to provide all account reconciliation including invoices, receipts and other documents pertaining to the allocation of charges for both its accounts and the managing agent’s accounts. She requested that the landlord coordinate its processes, as several other leaseholders in the building had made the same request and its responses had been inconsistent.
8 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
8 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The key points were as follows: Under its complaints policy, it raised concerns with the relevant business area in the first instance to provide it with the opportunity to address and resolve them. It had provided feedback to ensure it communicated its complaints process to residents to enhance its customer service and prevent misunderstandings in the future. In May 2023, the resident requested a full breakdown of service charges for 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023. It provided invoices for 2021 to 2022 but said the actual breakdown of service charges for 2022 to 2023 would not be available until September 2023. The landlord attached the invoices it had previously sent and apologised if the resident had not received the breakdown. Due to data protection, it was unable to discuss the specifics of any correspondence with other residents in the building or the apportionment of charges. It said it provided a breakdown of service charge actuals for managing agent charges for 2022 to 2023 in December 2023 and attached a copy of the spreadsheet. The landlord also said the breakdown for 2022 to 2023 was made up of estimated charges, which meant it was unable to include invoices because there was no actual expenditure from the managing agent. It said it would be able to provide invoices once it had charged the balancing charge and would pass these on in due course. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for its delayed complaint response due to high volumes of customer contact and the time taken to obtain invoices.
5 April 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The key points were as follows: She did not receive invoices for 2021 to 2022 and made further requests including a Section 22 request on 6 September 2023. Had she received an acknowledgement or response to her Section 22 request, she would not have needed to complain. She requested invoices for 2022 to 2023. She asked the landlord to check its systems due to not receiving its emails.
19 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
16 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The key points were as follows: It provided breakdowns and invoices paid for the financial years 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023, plus details of invoices that made up the managing agent’s actual expenditure. It would credit the resident’s service charge account with an overcharge of £7.13. The resident had requested breakdowns for the financial year 2021 to 2022 on 3 March 2023 and for 2022 to 2023 on 10 April 2023, for which it had provided invoices on 1 June 2023 and 7 December 2023. When a resident makes a Section 22 request, the landlord must provide evidence of its actual expenditure. It said it had provided invoices paid to the managing agent, which was its expenditure. Due to some long-term absence, there was a delay in requesting the managing agent’s contractor invoices until 12 February 2024, which it had recently received and attached with its response. It confirmed the email address it held for the resident. It said several attachments could have caused a delay in her receiving its stage 1 complaint response. It encouraged her to check her junk folder, as it was not experiencing any issues. It apologised and offered additional compensation of £150 for any inconvenience caused by its delay in handling the resident’s Section 22 request and £50 for its delayed stage 2 response.
2 July 2024	The resident referred her complaint to us. She requested that the landlord provide invoices and other service charge account information for the financial year 2022 to 2023, ensure staff understand and deal appropriately with shared ownership issues, and explain why providing information is such a challenge.

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	Service charges
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

We would expect a resident to raise a formal complaint with the landlord within 12 months of an issue arising. Based on this, we have started our investigation at the earliest event that we are able to evidence in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. This was when the landlord responded to a service charge query on 19 May 2023. This investigation considers how the landlord approached matters starting from this point, and subsequently up to its stage 2 response on 16 May 2024.

What we have investigated

Our Spotlight report on shared ownership says information on service provision and charges should be made available to residents upon request.
On 19 May 2023, the landlord responded to a service charge query from the resident. It said once the resident had received the actual service charges for the financial year 2022 to 2023 in September 2023, she would be able to request a breakdown. Without details of the resident’s query, we cannot determine whether the landlord responded appropriately. The landlord’s failure to provide this evidence indicates an issue with its record keeping.
On 29 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord for a full breakdown of actual service charges for the financial year 2021 to 2022, including supplier invoices, under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This legislation grants tenants the right to inspect accounts and documents related to service charges. On 1 June 2023, the landlord provided a statement of actual service charge expenditure for the requested period plus a breakdown and copies of the relevant invoices, which was appropriate.
On 6 June 2023, the landlord said it would respond within a few weeks to a rent/service charge query from the resident. This likely caused the resident confusion, as the specifics of this query are unclear and the landlord oweverdid not contact her further.
The resident next contacted the landlord on 9 November 2023, after it had issued the actual service charges for the financial year 2022 to 2023. The landlord noted that the resident wanted to discuss the service charges and advised it could take a few weeks to respond. The resident later indicated that she had made a Section 22 request, but the landlord’s records do not reflect this. Although the landlord provided the resident with breakdowns for managing agent service charges as well as copy invoices on 7 December 2023, there is no evidence that it discussed the service charges with her. This is a failing, which likely caused the resident inconvenience.
On 4 January 2024, the resident formally complained to the landlord due to not receiving service charge information for the financial years 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023. She asked for all documents relating to service charges for both the landlord’s and the managing agent’s accounts. Our Insight report on service charges says landlords should have adequate processes in place to ensure effective communication between teams so they can fulfil their legal obligations to provide information on service charges to residents upon request. Despite acknowledging the resident’s request on 8 January 2024, it was not until 7 February 2024 that the landlord said it could take another month to obtain information from the managing agent. We would have expected the landlord to update the resident in a timely manner. It is a failing that it did not do so.
When the landlord next responded on 8 March 2024, it appropriately resent invoices for the financial year 2021 to 2022. However, it said it was unable to provide invoices for 2022 to 2023 until it had charged the balancing charge despite doing this approximately 6 months prior. This likely frustrated the resident and caused her further inconvenience.
The resident repeated her request for invoices for the financial year 2022 to 2023 when she escalated her complaint on 5 April 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response on 16 May 2024, the landlord provided breakdowns and invoices for the financial years 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023. It also said it would credit an overcharge back to the resident. However, it said long-term staff absence had caused a delay in requesting the managing agent’s invoices for 2022 to 2023 in line with the resident’s Section 22 request until 12 February 2024. The landlord’s delay in providing the information requested prompted the resident to raise and then escalate her complaint. The landlord said it attached the managing agent’s invoices to its stage 2 response. It also offered £150 compensation for any inconvenience caused by its delay in responding to the Section 22 request, which was reasonable.
As part of her referral to us, the resident asked that the landlord provide her with missing service charges information for the financial year 2022 to 2023. It is unclear what information she did not receive, but we consider it appropriate that the landlord addresses this.
Although the landlord offered compensation for any inconvenience caused by its delay in handling the resident’s Section 22 request, it did not consider offering any compensation for any distress caused by the other failings that we have identified. This has led to a finding of maladministration.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition. The landlord had a published complaints policy that did not comply with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. However, it has since published a complaints policy that complies with the mandatory Code that came into effect on 1 April 2024.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 January 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 10 working days, which it did. However, the landlord issued further acknowledgements on 7 February 2024 and 8 March 2024, which likely caused the resident confusion.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have issued a stage 1 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint, but it did not do so until 8 March 2024. This was 24 working days late. The landlord appropriately offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of this delay.
The landlord’s stage 1 response also incorrectly referenced the resident’s complaint as being from 2023 instead of 2024. This indicates a lack of due care and attention.
On 5 April 2024, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the request within 10 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 40 working days, which it did.
However, the landlord initially misinformed the resident on 10 April 2024 that its stage 1 complaint response concluded the final stage of its complaints process. Then, when it correctly issued an acknowledgement letter on 19 April 2024, this contained errors in its understanding of her escalation request. These failings prompted the resident to contact the landlord, which likely caused her confusion and inconvenience. The landlord’s errors also further indicated a lack of due care and attention in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
It is unclear why the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for a delay in responding at stage 2 as it had acted in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. This, again, likely caused the resident confusion. However, overall, we consider the total of £100 compensation that the landlord offered is reasonable redress in recognition of any inconvenience and distress caused by its complaint handling failures.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

When we investigate a complaint, we ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, the landlord did not provide evidence of the queries it responded to on 19 May 2023 and 6 June 2023. Although we were able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear and accurate records to provide an audit trail.

Communication

The landlord needs to ensure it has processes and procedures in place that enable effective communication with its residents. In this case, it failed to respond to the resident’s queries in a timely manner. It also issued responses that contained errors. Good communication plays a key role, and the landlord must consider how it can improve its communication with residents, including reviewing how it handles residents’ requests for service charge information.