Clarion Housing Association Limited (202322687)

Background

1. The resident contacted the landlord to report concerns about the condition of her fence and delays in completing the repair. She also reported issues with a tree in her neighbour’s garden, which she said was overgrown and contributing to damage to the fence.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports about the fence repair and related tree issues
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has been responsible for:
   1. reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports about the fence repair and related tree issues
   2. reasonable redress in the associated complaint

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s reports about the fence repair and related tree issues

4. The landlord acknowledged delays in completing the fence repair and accepted its service fell below expectations. It also recognised failings in its handling of the tree issues and apologised while offering compensation for the impact which we consider to be proportionate redress.

The associated complaint

5. The complaint responses were delayed at both stages. However, the landlord acknowledged the delays 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.

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.

What we have not investigated

6. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about deteriorating shed, which she said was attracting pests and causing debris to her garden.

What we investigated

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete non‑emergency repairs within 28 days. If a repair takes longer, it will monitor the delay and keep the resident updated.
8. The landlord raised the fence repair on 19 March 2023 and said it attended in April 2023 but could not gain access. Its policy states that if access is not gained, it will leave a missed appointment card with details on how to rebook. However, the landlord has not provided records to confirm this, so we are unable to assess whether it followed its policy or took appropriate steps at the stage.
9. The landlord raised the repair again on 16 May 2023. It also raised a job to cut back the tree to support the fence repair. It said it tried to contact the resident and booked an appointment for June 2023 but later moved this due to bad weather.
10. Its policy states from time to time, repairs will need to be completed outside of this timescale due to material shortages or unforeseen circumstances. These cases will be monitored through performance reporting and it will aim to keep the resident updated regularly until completed. It is not clear if the landlord monitored the delay, kept the resident updated, or took further steps to progress the repair.
11. The landlord raised the fence repair again on 6 July 2023 and booked an appointment for 22 August 2023. The resident chased the repair on 11 July 2023 and raised concerns about the tree. The landlord asked her to contact the housing team herself for an update.
12. In line with its tree management procedure, it says that when a resident reports issues with a neighbour’s tree, the landlord should assess the concern, request evidence such as photos where needed, and contact the neighbour to agree action where appropriate. It also says the landlord should advise the resident of their right to cut back overhanging branches and encourage them to speak to the neighbour. There is no evidence the landlord did this at this stage.
13. The resident contacted the landlord again in August 2023 expecting the repair to go ahead. However, the landlord had cancelled the appointment and did not inform her. This was unreasonable.
14. The resident contacted the landlord several times in September 2023 to chase the repair. She said the old fence and materials remained in her garden and pests were entering. The landlord escalated the issue, but it is not clear what action it took or whether it gave the resident a clear plan.
15. The landlord raised further repair orders on 26 September 2023 and 16 October 2023. It completed the repair on 3 November 2023.
16. Overall, the landlord took around 8 months to complete the repair, which was outside its 28‑day target. Its policy allows delays in some cases, but it must monitor them and keep the resident informed. It is not clear if it did this. The repeated work orders, cancellations, and lack of updates show its handling did not fully follow its policy.
17. The landlord in its complaint response said a September 2023 work order was attended in October but not completed due to a disagreement, and it raised another order after this. While this explains part of the delay, it did not explain earlier delays or some cancellations. The dispute resolution principles expect the landlord to be fair and clear. The explanation was limited. The resident had to chase many times, which caused time and trouble.
18. The landlord’s response also said it became aware of the tree and pest issues in June 2023 and that its officer did not follow the correct process. This meant the issues were not thoroughly investigated and led to delay. While the landlord acknowledged this failure, its explanation was limited. It did not clearly set out what should have happened, what action it took to put matters right at the time, or how it learned from this. This reduced the clarity of its response and did not fully demonstrate accountability.
19. The landlord’s stage 2 response said its Contract Manager visited on 21 December 2023 and found no issue with the tree. It was reasonable to rely on this view. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain its tree process to the resident.
20. The resident later said the tree was removed in October 2024 and debris remains. Events after the final response are outside the scope of this investigation. However, recommendations have been made to address this.
21. In this case, the landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the repair and associated issues before our investigation. It apologised, provided some explanation for the delays, and confirmed the fence repair had been completed. It also offered compensation totalling £550, including £150 for the fence delay and £400 for the tree issues for the time taken to resolve the matter and the inconvenience caused.

22. 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.
23. It is acknowledged that the timescales set out in the landlord’s Interim Complaints Policy were not in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s new complaints policy now includes the 10 and 20-day timescales set out in the Code.
24. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will log a formal complaint if it cannot resolve an issue as an enquiry or service request. It says it will log and acknowledge complaints within 10 working days and aim to respond at stage 1 within 20 working days. After this, the resident can request a peer review. The landlord will log this within 10 working days and aim to respond within 40 working days.
25. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 September 2023 to express dissatisfaction with its handling of the fence repair. In line with the Code, the resident did not need to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as one. In line with its policy, the landlord should have logged this as a formal complaint at that stage.
26. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 September 2023, 7 working days later. It issued its stage 1 response on 10 November 2023, 31 working days after the acknowledgement. This was not in line with its policy and the Code.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 November 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the escalation on 22 November 2023, the next day. It issued its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024, 76 working days after the acknowledgement. This was not in line with its policy and the Code.
28. The landlord failed to adhere to its policy timescales at both stages. It acknowledged missing its timescales and offered £250 compensation for the delay in providing its complaint responses. The compensation offered for the delay represents proportionate redress for the impact of this failure, which we consider reasonable redress.

Learning

29. In this case, the landlord accepted it did not follow its process and recorded the garden incorrectly, which delayed action. It would have helped if it had contacted the resident during the complaint to confirm key details and gain a clearer understanding of the issue.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. In this case, the presence of multiple work orders, cancellations, and unclear records would have made it more difficult for the landlord to manage the repair consistently. This is likely to have affected the resident’s experience, as the landlord was unable to provide clear and reliable information about the progress of the works or give assurance that the issue was being addressed.

Communication

31. In this case, the landlord did not provide timely or initiative-taking updates regarding the repair to the resident. This was likely to have impacted the resident’s trust and confidence in the landlord’s handling of the matter, as regular communication would have helped manage expectations and reduce the need for escalation.