Clarion Housing Association Limited (202513639)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy about the condition of the property when she moved in. She did not move in for several months after signing the tenancy and is unhappy that she had to pay rent and council tax when she was not living in the property. She has disabilities and does not feel the property is suitable for her needs.

What the complaint is about

2. The suitability of the property.
3. The condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and the landlord’s handling of subsequent repairs.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We have found that:
   1. the resident’s complaint about the suitability of the property is outside our jurisdiction
   2. there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to the condition at the tenancy and its handling of subsequent repairs
   3. there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request for a transfer

6. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease, or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council is not the resident’s landlord nor was it acting in its capacity as a landlord because its actions relate to its housing allocation, bidding, banding, and the housing register. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about the suitability of the property. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Property condition and repairs

7. While there were delays by the landlord in completing repairs, it recognised this in its responses. It offered an apology and appropriate compensation to put matters right.

Complaint handling

8. While the landlord did acknowledge complaint handling delays, it did not acknowledge its failure to log and acknowledge the complaint and escalation within a reasonable timeframe, or its setting of deadlines that were not in line with its policy. It also failed to apologise for its failings.

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.

9. The resident has told the landlord the property was not suitable for her needs at allocation and remains unsuitable. She raised several issues, including the size of the property as a whole, the size of some rooms, door frame widths, storage space, and the accessibility of the garden. She also raised a complaint about this matter to the local authority, who allocated the property. The local authority provided a final response in April 2024, referring her to the LGSCO if she remained unhappy. The resident would need to raise any concerns about the suitability of the property to the LGSCO.

What we have not considered

10. The resident has told us that the condition of the property has impacted her mental and physical health. She has provided us with a letter from her psychologist.
11. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last.

Property condition and repairs

12. The landlord’s records show that it completed a void check and the property was ready to let on 9 November 2023. The resident viewed the property and signed the tenancy agreement on 2 February 2024. The resident raised some issues at the viewing, including a problem with fence panels and the garden being overgrown.
13. The landlord considered these issues to be minor, and said these would not prevent the resident from moving in. We have seen no evidence to suggest this assessment was unreasonable. As goodwill gesture the landlord agreed to waive the first 2 weeks rent to allow her time to move in, which was a reasonable action for it to take.
14. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 February 2024 to confirm that rent would be due from 16 February 2024 onwards. It advised her to contact the local authority in relation to her concerns about the suitability of the property. It visited the property on 19 February 2024 and confirmed a list of repairs that she had raised on 2 February 2024. Due to the lengthy void period it agreed to cut back the hedge at the property as this had grown during this period, which was reasonable for it to do.
15. On 11 April 2024, the resident’s sister visited the property. She turned the water on and found water leaking out of the loft hatch, which she reported to the landlord. It completed repairs on 17 April 2024, within its repairs policy timescale of 28 days. It noted that there was no leak present during its void checks.
16. The landlord said that as the resident had not moved into the property for more than 2 months after the tenancy began, there was a prolonged period where the water was switched off and it could not be sure what had caused the leak. This was a reasonable assessment by the landlord and there is no evidence that it was aware of a leak at the start of the tenancy.
17. The landlord’s records show that it rectified other minor issues raised on 2 February 2024 on 28 May 2024, which was not in line with its policy timescale. The resident raised a repair for rotten fence posts on 20 September 2024 and the landlord replaced the fence on 11 November 2024. This was outside of its policy timescale but the landlord delayed this at the resident’s request.
18. On 4 November 2024, the resident raised issues with the shed door and her bath panel. The landlord cancelled this as the contractor was unable to gain access to the property on 2 and 17 December 2024. The landlord had agreed to book appointments after 2pm where possible, due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, the contractor had turned up earlier than agreed without notifying the resident, which was not appropriate. It raised a new job for the bath panel on 3 January 2025, and one for the shed on 25 January 2025.
19. Between October 2024 and January 2025, the resident raised some additional issues, including rubbish that had been left in the garden by the previous tenant, the overgrown garden and problems with a gate and some kitchen cabinets.
20. The resident raised her complaint on 30 January 2025, saying that there were still outstanding repairs issues and the garden was overgrown. She said the property was not habitable at sign up and she wanted the landlord to waive her rent arrears, reimburse her for 4 months of council tax and pay compensation for distress.
21. In its stage 1 response of 15 April 2024 the landlord said that it there had been a delay in it clearing the garden of rubbish and completing repairs. It also acknowledged that it had not been able to go ahead with 3 appointments. It confirmed that it had completed some repairs and had scheduled appointments for the outstanding issues. Its offer of compensation of £545 and its commitment to complete repairs were reasonable and proportionate at this time.
22. The landlord reiterated that the rent arrears were correctly due and she was liable for council tax from the date the tenancy agreement started. This was a fair response, as there is no evidence that the issues reported on 2 February 2024 prevented the resident from moving into the property.
23. The landlord confirmed it had agreed to trim the hedges as a gesture of goodwill in October 2024. We appreciate that the resident feels the garden is unmanageable for her. However, the tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for maintaining the garden, including fencing and hedges. As explained above, if the resident feels the local authority has allocated her a property that she is unable to maintain, this is something she would need to discuss with the LGSCO. The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to trim the hedges on that occasion.
24. The landlord’s records do not show that it completed the repairs it committed before it issued its stage 2 response on 23 June 2025. In this response it acknowledged that it had not completed these and apologised for this. It increased its compensation offer to £1,145 to recognise its failures in completing the repairs in a timely manner. It said its record keeping had been poor, which had resulted in repeated appointments. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was proportionate to its failings at that time and in line with our remedies guidance.
25. In its response, the landlord said that it had raised appointments for outstanding work during July 2025. Its records show the resident asked to rearrange appointments as her dog was unwell. She has confirmed to us recently that the landlord completed repairs to the gate, bathroom taps, sink and toilet seat in September 2025.
26. The resident has recently told us there is an extensive list of outstanding repairs. However, we have not seen evidence she raised these repairs before the landlord issued its stage 2 response in June 2025. We have only investigated the repairs that she reported before this. She would need to raise any concerns about additional repairs as a new complaint with the landlord, if she has not already done so.
27. The resident has also told us some of the work completed recently was done to a poor standard. As this was not investigated as part of the original complaint, she would also need to raise this with the landlord to allow it the opportunity to investigate this.
28. On 2 December 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident following a further review of the complaint. It offered her additional compensation of £400 to recognise its communication and record keeping failures. The landlord should have considered all compensation during its internal complaints process and not making later offers. A late offer such as this would not influence our outcome. However, as we think that the compensation offer at stage 2 was reasonable, we also think this increased offer is fair.

29. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 11 working days after the resident raised it (30 January to 14 February 2025) – which was not in line with its policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. its acknowledgement said it aimed to respond within 20 working days, which was not in line with its policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it sent its stage 1 response 42 working days after acknowledging the complaint (14 February to 15 April 2025) – which was not in line with its policy timescale, or the timescale it set out in its acknowledgement
    4. it did not confirm its escalation of her complaint until 10 working days after her request (17 April to 2 May 2025) – outside its policy timescale of 5 working days
    5. it wrote to her to say it needed more time, but did not do this until its stage 2 response was already overdue – and it then did not meet the timescale it set out in this update
    6. it sent its stage 2 response 34 working days after acknowledging the escalation (2 May to 23 June 2025) – which was outside its policy timescale of 20 working days
30. The landlord failed to adhere to its policy timescales at every opportunity during the complaint, both in raising and acknowledging the complaint and escalation and in its responses. It did acknowledge missing its timescales at both stages, offering £50 compensation for each stage. However, it failed to acknowledge the extent of its failings, did not apologise for these, or demonstrate that it had taken any steps to improve its complaint handling going forward.
31. We have not ordered additional compensation as the amount offered by the landlord is in line with our remedies guidance and proportionate to its failings. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling failures. We have also recommended it carries out a review into its handling of this complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

32. The landlord identified during its internal complaints process that its record keeping was poor, leading to additional, unnecessary repairs appointments. In its recent case review, it recognised that it didn’t keep sufficient repairs notes and that its communication was poor. It is positive that the landlord has recognised these failings. However, we would encourage the landlord to ensure that it identifies its failings and takes appropriate steps to put things right during the complaints process, rather than some time afterwards.