Clarion Housing Association Limited (202348329)

Decision
Case ID	202348329
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 April 2026

Background

1. The resident reported concerns about the communal lift in her building continuously breaking down. She said this was causing inconvenience for her as she lived on the sixth floor and had to carry her young child up and down the stairs when the lift was not working.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the communal lift.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal lift.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the communal lift

4. The landlord’s response to most reports in the months prior to the complaint were timely. However, it has not evidenced that it responded in line with its emergency timescale to further reports made after the complaint but before the stage 2 response was issued.

The handling of the associated complaint

5. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling and offered proportionate compensation 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.

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 19 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £225 made up as follows: £150 it offered at stage 1 for inconvenience relating to the lift. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of repairs to the communal lift. 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 19 May 2026
3	Lift investigation order The landlord must write to the resident to confirm the underlying cause of the lift’s repeated breakdowns. It must set out the steps and timescale it will take to complete a lasting repair. The landlord must also set out the timescale for completing any required works and restoring the lift to reliable service if applicable. If the cause is connected to user error as previously suspected, it should communicate this to all residents in writing and commit to displaying this in a notice in the lift or near the lift area. If the landlord has not yet identified the underlying cause of the lift faults, it must arrange for a suitably qualified lift engineer to investigate this and provide the resident with written confirmation of the findings and any remedial works required.	No later than 03 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation it offered for its complaint handling failures. This is because our finding of reasonable redress was made partly on the basis that this amount was paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 November 2023	The resident complained that the lift had not been working since 15 November 2023. She said it was difficult for her to use the stairs with her young child and the pram. She said it was frustrating that she was charged £85 a week in service charges. She wanted the lift fixed and compensation for the inconvenience caused.
14 February 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: The lift was back in service on 22 November 2023. It had reviewed the lift repairs for the last 6 months and found it completed repairs in accordance with its policy. It offered £150 compensation taking into account the inconvenience caused, the household vulnerabilities and its repeated visits to resolve the matter. It also offered £100 for its delayed stage 1 response.
15 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the compensation offered was not enough and reported the lift was not working again. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 28 February 2024.
22 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: It checked the lift and found it was working. When the lift door was held open for some time, it automatically went on reset mode and could take up to an hour to reboot itself. It had replaced key components in the control panel which it felt would help the matter. It inspected the lift twice a year and at the last inspection in December 2023, it was found to be safe for use. Offered £50 compensation for its delayed complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and level of compensation.

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	Repairs to the communal lift
Finding	Service failure

6. The landlord is the leaseholder of the building and has a multi-party management agreement in place between the developers. Its appointed managing agents (MA) are responsible for inspecting and carrying out lift repairs. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping the lift in reasonable repair and fit for use.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe or carry out a temporary repair and non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days. It also confirms that mechanical and electrical maintenance, including lifts, is managed in line with its property service policy and responsive repairs service. Although we have not been provided with a copy of the property service policy, the landlord has informed us it treats lift breakdowns as an emergency repair. It explained that while repairs may not always be fully completed within 24 hours, it aims to attend within 24 hours.
8. The resident reported on 16 November 2023 that the lift had not been working for 3 days and stated it had broken down many times in the year. The landlord took 5 days to email the MA on 22 November 2023 about this. This was not in line with its 24 hour response commitment. The MA confirmed on 23 November 2023 that because parts were needed, it did not complete the repair until 22 November 2023. However, the stage 1 response stated that the engineer replaced a part on 20 November 2023 and on 21 November 2023 it fixed another issue. As we have not been provided with the corroborating lift attendance reports, we cannot reconcile the difference in dates. This is a record keeping failing.
9. We also cannot see that the landlord updated the resident with this information. It missed an opportunity to manage her expectations about timescales given the repair could not be completed on the same day. Because she was not updated it understandably left her feeling ignored and led to her raising a complaint.
10. The resident reported the lift was not working again on 27 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs team promptly and appropriately enquired about the status of the lift. The MA confirmed on 29 November 2023 that it believed the matter was resolved, with reference to the previous breakdown. The landlord again missed an opportunity to clarify with the MA that this related to a new reported breakdown in the lift. It was not until 20 December 2023 that the resident confirmed the lift was working when the landlord asked her directly. The stage 1 response said it attended on 29 November 2023 and reset the processor. However, we have not seen the corroborating lift attendance reports.
11. The resident reported the lift was not working again on 15 February 2024. The landlord contacted the MA 4 days later on 21 February 2024 to ask it to check this. This was again outside of its commitment to respond within 24 hours. However, on this occasion the MA advised that if the lift door was held open for some time, it automatically went on reset mode. This meant it could take up to an hour for the lift to reboot itself. The landlord appropriately communicated this to the resident in the stage 2 response. The resident reported a further breakdown 15 March 2024 which was appropriately checked the same day.
12. The landlord in its stage 1 response assessed its overall handling of lift repairs between July 2023 and November 2023. It has not provided us with corroborating lift attendance reports, so it has not been possible to inspect the original documents. However, it stated that between July and August 2023 the lift was reported to be out of service on 6 occasions. It stated it attended to these reports within the 24 hour period. While this was an appropriate response, we have seen since the complaint, further reports were made and the landlord has not evidenced it responded within its timescales. Furthermore, between July 2023 and March 2024, the landlord noted the lift was reported on at least 11 occasions indicating there are recurrent issues.
13. The resident confirmed that the current situation is similar to that at the time of the complaint. While we cannot investigate events after the stage 2 response, the number of reports within the 8 month period of the complaint indicates the landlord needs to investigate the matter further. We are conscious that repeated contractor callouts may incur additional costs that are passed on via the service charge, and we have therefore not ordered a further inspection. However, we have ordered the landlord to investigate the underlying cause. It is unclear if the MA’s earlier explanation about holding doors is the cause for recurrent issues, but should this be a factor it should consider communicating this with the entire block effectively.
14. The landlord offered £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. While this was a reasonable offer, it was not entirely proportionate in the circumstances. In line with our compensation guidance, we order it to pay the resident a further £75 compensation. This takes into account the lack of updates provided, the uncertainty, and frustration caused to her by the landlord’s failure to evidence it responded reasonably.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable from April 2022 was in use at the time. This sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord had a published complaints policy which broadly aligned with the Code. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints in 20 working days.
16. The landlord did not comply with its policy or the Code timescales as it took:
    1. 6 working days to acknowledge the complaint. This was outside of the 5 working day timescale and was prompted by the resident chasing for an update to her complaint.
    2. 52 working days to respond at stage 1 which was significantly outside of the policy and Code timescales.
    3. 9 working days to acknowledge the escalation request.
17. It recognised it had caused delays at both stages and offered a combined £150 compensation . In line with our compensation guidance the landlord’s offer was fair and proportionate to the identified failings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord has referred to repairs in its complaints responses but has not provided the corroborating lift attendance reports. It should ensure it maintains these in its records. It should also consider reviewing its service level agreement with its MA to ensure it is meeting the needs of its residents.

Communication

19. The landlord’s communication with the resident was not effective at times. While the matter was a communal issue and did not need the resident to be present for repairs, it should have been more proactive in updating her.