Clarion Housing Association Limited (202348146)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns to the landlord (the freeholder) about how it handled and communicated 2 sets of major works (the internal and external works and the fire remedial works). At the time of both major works, the property was occupied by his tenant. He said the landlord did not provide clear responses to his queries, he did not receive key information, particularly the Section 20 notices, and as a result he was unable to take part in the process. The resident no longer owns the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the Section 20 process for its major works.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the major works and its communication.
4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of the Section 20 process for its major works.
6. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the major works and its communication.
7. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the Section 20 process for its major works

8. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the complaint about the Section 20 process of the major works is better dealt with by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). This is because the FTT are better placed to examine Section 20 disputes in detail and make legally binding orders on the parties involved. Therefore, it is more appropriate for the resident seek the outcomes he wants with that tribunal. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the major works and its communication

9. The landlord did not provide clear or consistent responses, and gaps in its records meant it could not fully address the resident’s concerns, leading to confusion and frustration.

The complaint handling

10. The complaint response was delayed at stage 2. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay and made an offer of compensation which we consider proportionate to the failings identified by our 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.

11. A landlord’s ability to levy a service charge and a leaseholder’s obligation to pay it are governed by the provisions of the lease. The appropriate body to consider disputes concerning the level or reasonableness of a charge, and/or whether the correct processes were followed, is the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).
12. Leaseholders have the right to apply to the FTT to determine whether a service charge, or a proposed charge, is reasonably incurred and the correct process was followed including the serving of any notices. This can apply whether the charge has already been paid or is still proposed and may relate to completed works or estimated costs.

13. The resident gave us copies of letters dated 6 October 2023 and 9 October 2023. He said he wrote to the landlord on those dates about the 2 major works. He said he sent both letters again by recorded delivery in November 2023 after he did not get a reply.
14. The landlord’s records do not refer to these letters. It is not clear if the landlord received them, or if it received them but did not log them or pass them to the right team.
15. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained the Section 20 consultation process and its duties. This explanation was in line with its policy.
16. However, the landlord did not tailor its response to the resident’s concerns. It provided general responses. The resident said he did not receive the notices and asked for clarity about later letters.
17. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the resident’s reports that he did not receive the notices and explained what records it held about sending them and confirmed if it sent them to the correct address.
18. The stage 1 response offered compensation for the delay in replying to the resident’s letters from October 2023 and November 2023. While it recognised a service failure, it was an opportunity for the landlord to address the concerns raised in those letters. There is no evidence it did at the time.
19. The resident escalated the complaint. He said the stage 1 response did not address all of the issues and did not refer to the second set of major works.
20. The landlord did not provide a copy of the notice of intention for the first major works. The stage 2 response referred to a notice dated 20 April 2020. The stage 1 response referred to notices dated 14 July 2020. A later final accounts letter to the resident on 9 August 2023 referred to a notice dated 14 July 2023.
21. These inconsistent dates caused confusion and reduced the resident’s trust in the landlord’s explanations.
22. The stage 2 response explained the second major works in more detail. It said the landlord sent notices and letters to both the property and the correspondence address. However, it did not show that it had considered the lease terms on serving notices.
23. In line with the resident’s lease agreement, notices are served properly if served by recorded delivery. Given the resident’s complaint centred on non-receipt of notices, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review and address whether the method of service complied with the lease obligations.
24. The landlord’s unclear and general replies meant the resident stayed unsure about the major works and had to spend time and trouble chasing for answers. The different notice dates also caused confusion and reduced the resident’s trust in the landlord’s explanations.
25. Overall, the landlord’s failings relate to poor communication, unclear explanations, and poor record keeping. The landlord did engage with the complaint, gave explanations, and offered some compensation, which shows it did not ignore its obligations. However, its responses lacked clarity, were not tailored to the resident’s concerns, and were not well supported by records.
26. The landlord offered £450 compensation for its delay in responding to the resident’s enquiries and the failure in addressing both major works in its stage 1 response. While the amount aligns with its compensation policy and our compensation guidance, it did not acknowledge the impact on the resident or fully address the concerns raised. However, as the compensation offered is proportionate to the level of service failure identified, we have not ordered any additional financial redress.

27. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case was the 2022 edition.
28. While the landlord’s interim complaints policy was not in line with the Code at the time, this was accepted due to the landlord experiencing a cyber-attack. However, its current policy now reflects the Code’s timescales of 10 and 20 working days.
29. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 10 working days and aim to respond at stage 1 within 20 working days. It also allows for a peer review at stage 2, which it aims to acknowledge within 10 working days and respond to within 40 working days.
30. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 January 2024, 4 working days after it was made. It issued its stage 1 response on 2 February 2024, 10 working days after the acknowledgement. This was in line with both its policy and the Code.
31. The resident escalated the complaint on 13 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 27 February 2024, 10 working days later. It met its policy at the time. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 March 2024, 17 working days after the acknowledgement. This was in line with its policy.
32. The landlord recognised the delay with its response, apologised and offered £50 compensation. Which we consider reasonable.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. Clear and complete records support good decisions, create a clear audit trail, and help landlords show how they meet policy and lease requirements.

Communication

34. In this case, unclear and inconsistent responses did not address the resident’s concerns and led to confusion. Clear, tailored communication that responds directly to the issues raised helps build trust and reduces uncertainty. Early, direct engagement helps clarify concerns, reduce confusion, and reach resolution sooner.