Clarion Housing Association Limited (202501917)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in 2016. In February 2024, following a stock survey, the landlord raised a job to inspect the bedroom flooring for asbestos. Following an initial inspection in March 2024 the resident started chasing the landlord for repair or removal of the flooring.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request to remove or repair the bedroom flooring.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove or repair the bedroom flooring.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove or repair the bedroom flooring

4. The landlord’s handling of this issue was not in line with its responsive repairs policy. Its delay in resolving this issue had a significant impact on the resident.
5. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this, apologised and offered a proportionate level of compensation to recognise the level of detriment experienced by the resident.
6. However, as a significant amount of the compensation was not offered until almost 12 months after the conclusion of its complaint process, we are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress and find service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

7. The landlord’s complaint handling could have been improved. However, the landlord has recognised the impact on the resident and its offer of an apology and compensation was a proportionate way to put things right.

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.

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.

8. The landlord’s complaint investigation considered its handling of matters between 6 February 2023, when the issue was raised, until 25 March 2025, when it issued its final response. However, in March 2026, it conducted a review of this case and offered additional redress. As such, we have extended our investigation to consider matters until 12 March 2026. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of matters after this date, she can raise a further complaint with the landlord.
9. A job was raised to inspect the bedroom flooring for asbestos and an appointment was scheduled, in line with its responsive repairs policy, for 26 February 2024. Unfortunately, due to sickness the landlord had to reschedule this to 27 March 2024. It was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation for this last-minute cancellation in its stage 1 response.
10. On 27 March 2024 the contractor reported that it was possible that the flooring contained asbestos but would have to be tested to confirm.
11. The landlord had an asbestos policy in place. This provided information on the landlord’s legal duty to manage asbestos in accordance with regulations. The policy said that “the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in a building does not in itself present a risk, as long as materials remain in good condition and are undisturbed”. The landlord committed to undertaking relevant surveys to identify and manage ACMs.
12. The landlord has provided evidence that it undertook an “asbestos management survey with refurbishment elements” in 2021. This report confirmed the presence of asbestos in the bedroom tiles and provided instruction for the landlord to monitor and manage the flooring, and if damaged to “remove or repair in accordance with” regulations.
13. It is, therefore, unclear why the landlord raised a job to inspect for asbestos when it ought to have already been aware that asbestos was present. Raising a job to complete this check delayed the start of the repair and this was a failure. Additionally, the landlord failed to identify or acknowledge this failure in its complaint investigation.
14. The evidence shows that between 2 April 2024 and 14 June 2024 the resident called the landlord at least 3 times to progress the repair to the bedroom flooring.
15. The landlord’s records note that when the landlord called the resident back on 14 June 2024 it confirmed that, while the bedroom flooring contained asbestos, it did not require removal. It said it would seal any missing parts with latex and would attend on 17 June 2024 to inspect and book further works. The landlord’s notes do not evidence if it attended on this day.
16. The landlord used its stage 1 response, on 30 January 2025, to confirm that it had raised a repair for the flooring issue again on 30 September 2024 and said it had self-levelled the edges of this on 18 November 2024. The resident disputed this with the landlord on 3 February 2025 and said that no latex had been applied and confirmed there were broken tiles on the edges and in the middle of the flooring. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm that any work was completed on the flooring on 18 November 2024. Therefore, it is unclear where the landlord obtained this information to provide this response.
17. The landlord missed the opportunity to investigate the resident’s claim there had been no repair completed on this date. Not doing this meant the landlord also failed to update the resident with its findings in its stage 2 response.
18. On 24 March 2025 the resident requested that she was temporarily moved during the work on the flooring. She said she had been told that the material being used to cover her floor would require 24 hours of drying time.
19. The landlord has a “decant policy”. This covers the circumstances in which a resident may have to be temporarily moved. It explains this would be when a property is uninhabitable and/or unsafe, or it is not possible to undertake works with the tenant in-situ. It says while it “will involve and consult with residents from the outset, it is ultimately its decision as to whether a tenant can remain in a property”.
20. The landlord used its stage 2 response to explain that it did not need the resident to move from the property, as it remained habitable during the work. It reassured the resident that the material being used would dry within 3 hours. Additionally, it offered to help the resident move her furniture. This was a reasonable decision made in line with its policy. Its explanation and consideration of the resident’s circumstances was empathetic in its stage 2 response.
21. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it was awaiting the resident providing a date for the work to be completed. The evidence shows that the resident continued to dispute the landlord’s decision not to provide a temporary move in an email on 2 June 2025.
22. There is no evidence that the resident has contacted the landlord about the repair since 2 June 2025. However, the landlord ought to have progressed this, as it was aware that the repair was outstanding. The landlord has confirmed there has been no progression on this repair since 2 June 2025. On 12 March 2026 the landlord reviewed this case and offered an apology and further compensation for the “significant delay and further inconvenience caused”.
23. Overall, this investigation has identified failings in the handling of the repair to the bedroom floor. Where there are failings by a landlord, we will consider what it did to put things right. In this case the landlord offered an apology and compensation as redress, along with a renewed commitment to progress the repair.
24. The resident has lived with the worry of the asbestos exposure for a significant period. She had the inconvenience of multiple visits to assess the flooring and had the inconvenience of having to chase the repair.
25. Our remedies guidance provides for compensation in the range of £600 to £1,000 for situations where there was failure by a landlord that significantly affected the resident.
26. At the end of the complaint’s procedure, the landlord offered a total of £315 in compensation for its handling of the repair issue. However, the landlord recognised this issue remained unresolved, almost 12 months later, and it reviewed its compensation offer on 12 March 2026.
27. The landlord increased its offer of compensation by a further £850, bringing the total offered to £1,165. While this was welcome, it appears this was prompted by our investigation. As such, as it occurred after the landlord had exhausted its internal complaints process, we are unable to find the landlord offered reasonable redress to resolve this issue.

28. 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 published in April 2024.
29. The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at the time, was compliant with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
30. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in line with the timescales of the Code. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 30 January 2025, 55 working days later. This was not in line with the timescales of the code. However, the landlord acknowledged, apologised and offered appropriate redress for this in its stage 1 response.
31. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 4 days outside of timescales, which was a shortcoming. It issued its stage 2 response in line with the timescales of the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. It is essential that landlords keep accurate and clear records so that they can monitor a repair effectively. As noted above the landlord’s records did not contain details of all its visits or decisions. This meant when staff moved there was no continuity in its progress to complete the work, which will have added to the delay in resolving the issue for the resident.

Communication

33. There were some communication failures on the part of the landlord and occasions where the resident had to chase it for updates. However, the landlord identified and apologised for these in its stage 1 complaint response and considered this in its offer of compensation.