Clarion Housing Association Limited (202338562)

Decision
Case ID	202338562
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The resident lives with his child, both live with physical and mental health vulnerabilities. In February 2023, he told the landlord that he was concerned about the condition of his garden. Throughout his complaint a representative assisted the resident. For simplicity, we refer to both as the resident throughout our report.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the condition of his garden.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with the condition of his garden.
We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s concerns with the garden

The landlord conducted 2 inspections of the garden and determined that it was safe and maintainable. The handling of the matter was reasonable and in line with its policies and procedures.

The handling of the complaint

There were delays in the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. However, it apologised and offered appropriate compensation.

Putting things right

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 £150 compensation it offered as part of its complaint handling as this was the basis for our finding of reasonable redress.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 July 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He advised that his garden was uneven and that the grass was not growing in places. He said he inspected the garden and found materials such as glass, nails and pieces of slate coming through the soil. He confirmed that neither he or his child were able to access and enjoy the garden. He said he wanted the landlord to fund the works required to make the garden safe.
16 August 2023	The landlord issued its complaint response. It said that both a neighbourhood response officer and surveyor had conducted separate inspections. Both inspections had found the garden to be in a safe and maintainable state. The surveyor commented that the soil was firm and that they could not see how the materials mentioned would be coming through the soil. The landlord advised the garden was the responsibility of the resident. It signposted him to agencies that could potentially provide support. It apologised for the delayed complaint response and offered £50.
24 August 2023	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he had shown the surveyor evidence of the materials coming through the soil. He indicated he felt the landlord had not taken his concerns seriously. He advised he did not want the landlord to landscape his garden but wanted it to address his safety concerns.
14 December 2023	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It reiterated the contents of its stage 1 response and confirmed it agreed with the results of the inspections. It advised that both the neighbourhood response officer’s manager and the surveyor’s manager had independently reviewed their respective team members inspections and had agreed with their findings. It said that the garden was safe and could be maintained to a general needs standard as required by the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord again pointed the resident to other agencies for support. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and offered £100 compensation, which was reasonable.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to our service. He said that he felt the landlord’s staff who had inspected were potentially biased and asked for an independent inspection of the garden.

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	The handling of the concerns about the condition of the garden
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s repairing responsibilities are highlighted on its website, which states that garden maintenance is the responsibility of the resident. This is confirmed in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
At the beginning of February 2023, the resident told the landlord that he was concerned about the condition of his garden. A neighbourhood response officer visited on 13 February 2023. The staff member found the garden to be in a safe condition and confirmed it was the resident’s responsibility to maintain the garden. The landlord’s inspection was reasonable and conducted within an appropriate timescale.
On 10 May 2023, the resident told the landlord that he was unhappy with the previous inspection. He said there was a possible sinkhole and that he continued to find nails coming through the soil. One of the landlord’s experienced surveyors conducted the inspection on 5 June 2023. The decision to inspect the garden for a second time was reasonable.
After the inspection the surveyor confirmed that the garden was “slightly uneven and not completely level” but that it was not unsafe. They also confirmed that the garden could be maintained in its current condition. Due to the firmness of the soil the surveyor said that they could not see how items could work there way to the surface. A senior manager reviewed the results of the inspection, which was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord had given the resident’s concerns due consideration.
It is also evident from the internal communications that the landlord had considered the households physical and mental health vulnerabilities in the decision making process. In addition, it signposted the resident to other agencies that may have been able to offer him further support with the garden. We find that the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its policies and procedures.
The resident told us that he wanted the landlord to arrange an independent inspection of the garden. Nothing seen in this investigation suggests that the landlord reached any unreasonable conclusions and it was also entitled to rely on the assessment of its suitably qualified staff. We are therefore unable to order the landlord to undertake an independent inspection.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

At the time of the complaint the landlord had a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it aims to provide a response within 10 working days. If a resident is unhappy with the response, they can request a peer review of the complaint. The landlord aims to respond at this stage within 20 working days. However, due to a cyber incident in 2022 the landlord put in place a temporary procedure which extended these timescales to 20 and 40 days respectively.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response outside the required timescales. The resident had to pursue his escalation request twice before he received a written acknowledgement. The landlord also issued its stage 2 response late. It apologised and provided £150 compensation for the delays across both stages of the complaint, which was appropriate.

Learning

The timeliness of the landlord’s inspections was positive.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping in the case

Communication

Other than those aspects related to complaint handling, highlighted above, the landlord’s communication was positive overall.