Clarion Housing Association Limited (202449258)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, in a house. At the time of her complaint, she was undergoing chemotherapy treatment. She reported several issues to the landlord, including loose fascia and soffit boards on the roof, holes and a lack of insulation in the roof space, a leak into the kitchen, cracks on internal walls, damp on the dining room ceiling, and birds in the loft.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property including repairs to the roof, leaks into the kitchen, repairs to the dormer and soffits, no insulation in the loft, cracks in the walls, damp and mould, and birds entering the loft.
3. We have also considered the associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
5. The landlord has made an offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolves its errors in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The repairs the resident reported remain outstanding. The works were complex. However, more than 2 years have passed since the resident first raised the issues. The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation at stage 2 of its complaints procedure, which was reasonable at the time. We have awarded additional compensation to reflect the further delays that occurred after the complaints process concluded.

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.

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.

7. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported holes in the roof of her property in 2013. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue or that she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the resident’s reports of holes in the roof made prior to 14 August 2023.
8. The landlord identified that the roof repairs were complex due to the dormer roof being installed by the property’s previous owner. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should complete major or complex works within 90 days. However, the repairs are outstanding more than 2 years after the resident reported the issue in August 2023. This represents a significant delay. It is likely that the delay caused the resident considerable inconvenience, particularly considering that she was undergoing chemotherapy. We order the landlord to carry out a case review at senior management level, setting out points of learning and improvements it will make to help prevent similar delays in it completing complex repairs in future.
9. The resident mentioned in her complaint that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. We do not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, 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 on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. In October 2025, the landlord informed us that it had scheduled repairs to the roof, walls and ceilings. It advised it was due to start the external works on 13 October 2025 and the internal works on 24 October 2025. It said the repairs were due to last around 8 weeks. We order the landlord to complete the works within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
11. Our remedies guidance, published on our website, states that where we identify maladministration, we may award compensation of up to £1000. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £800 compensation for the delays in it carrying out the repairs to her property. This was appropriate compensation at that stage and recognised the time, trouble and inconvenience the delays will have likely caused the resident. However, further compensation is due to the resident for the delays in the landlord completing the repairs since its stage 2 complaint response. We order the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £400 in addition to the £800 compensation it offered her during its complaint process.

12. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlords need more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2.
13. The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 27 November 2024 which was within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy for responding to stage 1 complaints.
14. The resident informed the landlord in her stage 2 complaint that her boundary fence needed repairing. The landlord appropriately informed the resident that as she had not raised this issue in her stage 1 complaint, it could not consider it at stage 2 of its complaint procedure. It asked the resident to contact its repairs team if the fence was still in need of repair. This was an unnecessary and complicated approach. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise this issue with its repair team to prevent the resident having to contact it multiple times to raise repairs. This approach would have inconvenienced the resident.
15. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 18 December 2024. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 19 February 2025 which was a couple of weeks outside of its timescales for doing so. It offered the resident £100 compensation for this delay. This offer was reasonable, taking into account the delay and the landlord’s error in asking the resident to re-report the fence repair. It is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, set out above, which suggests awards in this range where there was a minor failure by the landlord which did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard.

Learning

16. The landlord should consider passing on new repair issues reported by residents during its complaint process to its repairs team.

Recordkeeping

17. The landlord’s records do not explain why it was delayed in carrying out the repairs to the resident’s property. Good record-keeping is essential for transparency, accountability, and assessing whether actions were reasonable. The landlord also did not keep the resident updated during the delays, which shows failure to maintain communication. These shortcomings may have reduced the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repairs service and caused inconvenience.