Clarion Housing Association Limited (202339760)
|
Case ID |
202339760 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Clarion Housing Association Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
31 March 2026 |
- The resident moved to the property in July 2023. Soon after, he raised concerns to the landlord about debris in the garden, a crack in the living room wall and asbestos at the property.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
- Repairs.
- Garden repairs.
- Asbestos.
- We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
- We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s concerns about garden repairs.
- The complaint.
- We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord appropriately acknowledged failings in how it had responded to the resident’s report of a crack in his living room. It arranged appropriate work to the resident’s kitchen tap. The compensation it awarded was appropriate.
- The landlord did not clearly record how it progressed a paving inspection following the conclusion of the resident’s first complaint. It delayed completing paving work after raising it in August 2024.
- The landlord appropriately acknowledged failings in its handling of asbestos concerns. But it demonstrated no learning from mistakes it had identified.
- The landlord’s appropriately acknowledged delays in its complaint handling. But it incorrectly said it could not consider the resident’s concerns about paving repairs in June 2025.
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:
|
No later than 28 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,665.85 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payment it has already made. |
No later than 28 April 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
We recommend the landlord pay the resident £100 it awarded for its delay responding to his report of a crack in the living room wall, if it has not already done so. |
|
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to address any outstanding repair to his living room wall. It should reassure him about how this work will be completed. |
|
We recommend that the landlord update the resident about the current position with the boundary wall. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
14 August 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of gardening and repair issues. He said that his concerns about a crack in the living room had been dismissed by housing officers. He raised concerns about asbestos. He also said that the garden was overgrown and his neighbour had thrown branches into it. He said a fence between him and the neighbour had not been fixed. |
|
25 October 2023 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had made an appointment to fill the crack. It apologised this was not completed before. It said that it would request debris is removed from the garden and that a fence repair had been booked for 28 October 2023. It said the asbestos at the property did not need removing. It apologised for the stress and upset to the resident while it investigated this. It awarded him £330. This was for complaint handling delays, delayed repairs, delay removing debris from the garden and 2 missed appointments. |
|
9 November 2023 |
The resident escalated his complaint. He said asbestos testing should have been completed before he moved in. He also said it had not addressed his request for a kitchen tap to be changed. He said he wanted compensation and for the landlord to refund rent he had paid. |
|
25 January 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it should have completed asbestos testing before his tenancy began. It said the survey identified asbestos floor tiles and these had been removed. It said the survey did not state the asbestos ceiling needed to be removed. It said it had identified previously that the fencing/paving needed further inspection, but it had not progressed this. It said it would complete a temporary repair to the fence on 29 January 2024. It awarded him further compensation of £1,835.85. This was £1,535.85 rent refund, £200 for delays in garden work, and £100 for communication issue and complaint handling delays. |
|
25 April 2025 and 4 June 2025 |
The landlord issued stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses to the resident’s further complaint about paving repairs. It acknowledged work was only partly completed. It said it had now asked for follow-on work to be raised. It awarded him £100 for the lack of communication about this work. After the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord said it could not review his concerns about paving work under its complaints procedure. It said this was because he had raised this as part of a disrepair claim. However, it said the paving work was booked for 14 July 2025. It awarded a further £100 as the repair remained outstanding. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred his complaint to us as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of issues. He said that all paving work was complete. But he remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of asbestos and a crack in his living room wall. |
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 work |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we have not considered
- The resident told us of his concerns about the landlord’s handling of an external door. His complaint about this is being investigated under a separate case reference (202410732).
What we have considered
- The resident raised concerns to the landlord about its handling of his report of a crack in the living room wall. Repair records show a report about this on 17 July 2023 and 3 August 2023. However, these do not detail the work completed, or any discussion with the resident about the work. In line with its repairs policy the landlord aims to complete routine non-emergency repairs within 28 days. The resident could reasonably expect the landlord to address his concerns about a crack in the living room wall within this timescale.
- In his complaint, the resident told the landlord of his concerns that the crack in the living room had been dismissed by its officers. When it responded to the complaint at stage 1, the landlord said that the crack was a non-structural issue. It said its area manager had spoken to the resident about this on 18 October 2023. It said that a surveyor had also attended about 2 weeks before. Records we have seen detail a site inspection by the landlord on 16 October 2023 when the landlord noted the crack was “decorative”. The landlord acknowledged and apologised that this work was not completed within 28 days. It told him that it had booked work for 6 November 2023 to fill the crack. Its £100 award to the resident in recognition of the delay addressing this concern was reasonable.
- The landlord subsequently attended to complete work to fill a crack on 24 November 2023 but detailed that it could not complete the work as the resident’s belongings were in the way. The landlord noted in March 2024 that it had attended to fill the crack more than once and that the resident had refused the work as he wanted ceilings removed. The resident told us that the crack in his living room was still outstanding. He said that operatives for the landlord had not completed work to address this due to asbestos at the property. We have seen no evidence that operatives have declined to complete this work. However, we have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to address any outstanding repair and to reassure him about how this work will be completed.
- The resident told the landlord in his escalation request that it had not addressed his request that it install a kitchen tap suitable for his needs. We have seen no evidence the resident raised this prior to his escalation request in November 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had attempted to complete this work on 24 November 2023, but it could not do so due to the resident’s belongings. The resident did not dispute this, but the landlord did not make adequate record of its attempt at this time. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would arrange for the work to be completed at a suitable date at the resident’s convenience. It subsequently completed this work 15 March 2024, and recorded the resident was very happy with the work.
|
Complaint |
Garden repairs |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- In his complaint of 14 August 2023, the resident said that his neighbour had thrown tree branches into his garden and that a damaged fence had not been repaired. He first raised the fence issue in June prior to his tenancy starting. But there is no evidence the landlord appropriately progressed it.
- After the resident told the landlord on 11 August 2023 that his neighbour had left tree branches in his garden it visited him on 5 September 2023. It told him the branches would be removed either by the neighbour or the landlord. But, again, there is no evidence of action. When the resident chased this on 10 October 2023, the landlord failed to update him until 16 October 2023. It said that it had asked the neighbour to clear the branches.
- In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for failing to complete fence repairs within its 28-day timescale for routine repairs. It said that work had been raised for 28 October 2023. It also said it would complete an inspection to ensure tree branches had been removed.
- In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it had inspected issues in November 2023 and found debris cleared as well as identifying that it needed to assess paving and fencing. oweverm However, there is no evidence of this inspection. This was poor record keeping. It also acknowledged that there was still debris to be cleared and that it had not progressed paving/fence inspection. It said that it had raised work to attend on 29 January 2024 to clear remaining debris and complete a temporary fence repair. Although the landlord attended to install a temporary fence panel on 29 January 2024, records do not show whether debris was removed. The landlord surveyor’s report of 25 March 2024 did not identify remaining debris or that paving repairs were needed. But it should have recorded what it had done. Without doing so, it cannot show it had resolved all issues.
- The landlord raised work to assess paving in the resident’s garden on 5 July 2024. Later, on 13 August 2024 it raised a paving repair. But this work remained incomplete in December 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will aim to complete non-emergency repairs, such as minor building work, within 28 days. It may not have been possible to complete paving work within this timeframe. But the landlord should have recorded what it was doing to progress it. It should also have maintained clear communication with the resident. There is no evidence it did so.
- When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 25 April 2025 it acknowledged that paving was left unfinished in December 2024. It also said no follow-on work was raised. It awarded him £100 for this. It said that paving work had now been booked for 14 July 2025 following the resident’s disrepair claim. When the resident escalated his complaint, he asked if it could move paving work forward. He also asked for increased compensation. In its stage 2 complaint response of June 2025, the landlord said it could not consider his paving complaint as he had made a disrepair claim. However, it awarded him a further £100 for communication failings and because repairs remained outstanding.
- The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will not consider claims that have been filed at court. The landlord and the resident have since confirmed the matter was not filed at court. Given this, the landlord should have considered the resident’s complaint, including his request for it to move paving work forward and for increased compensation.
- The landlord confirmed all paving work across the whole of the garden was completed on 7 October 2025. But the work was first raised in August 2024, and the landlord did not ensure it was appropriately progressed to completion. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of garden repairs.
- During its consideration of both the resident’s complaints about garden issues the landlord awarded compensation of £500. This was for failings in its handling of fencing, clearance of debris, paving delays and communication issues. We have considered all the circumstances, and the prolonged delay in it completing paving work. We have ordered that it make a further award to the resident of £350. This is in line with our remedies guidance. Together with the landlord’s previous awards, it appropriately recognises the impact of failings we have identified.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of January 2024 refers to section 20 work the landlord needed to raise to address a back wall. The survey report of March 2024 detailed that it needed to serve notices to other properties about party wall work. The landlord completed further repair work to the resident’s fence in July and August 2024. It told us in February 2026 that it was still in discussion with the local authority about repair or replacement of the boundary wall. We have recommended that it update the resident about the current position with this.
|
Complaint |
Asbestos |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
What we have not investigated
- The resident told us that the condition of the property may have affected his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The court are best placed to deal with this dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused.
- The resident told us that he has paid for an asbestos test to a boundary wall within the garden as he was concerned it may contain asbestos. 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 this specific issue to the landlord. Therefore, we have no power to investigate it. It is unclear when the resident arranged testing of the boundary wall. It may be an issue he can raise through the landlord’s complaint’s procedure.
What we have investigated
- The resident told the landlord of his concerns about asbestos at the property and that appropriate testing should have been completed prior to his tenancy starting. The landlord’s void standard says that it should have an asbestos report for a property. It says that it should have this either by referring to its asbestos register or by commissioning a report. It says it should take appropriate action in line with this report.
- The landlord acknowledged during its stage 2 complaint response that it did not have an asbestos report for the property and that it should have obtained one prior to the resident’s tenancy starting on 10 July 2023. It did not arrange asbestos survey until 28 September 2023.
- The asbestos survey detailed asbestos-containing material (ACM) in floor tiles and ceilings. It said that the action required was to “manage and inspect” these. The landlord set out in its stage 2 complaint response that it had removed ACM containing floor tiles throughout the property. It said that it had not removed ceiling as these were in low traffic areas. It said these were at a reduced risk of damage. The landlord said it had discussed the matter with its health and safety team and with its asbestos contract surveyor. It said they had confirmed no further action was required. However, it has provided us with no record of these discussions. This was a record keeping failing which means the landlord cannot fully demonstrate all that it did to consider and respond to the resident’s concerns at this time.
- We acknowledge the resident remains concerned about asbestos in ceilings. The asbestos survey did not direct that ACM ceilings should be removed. We have also seen that the landlord’s surveyor noted in March 2024 that they had attended on 12 October 2023 to consider the resident’s concern about asbestos. The surveyor noted they had explained there was no concerns about exposure to asbestos. But it should have maintained and supplied clear records fully showing how it had considered the resident’s concerns about this.
- The landlord refunded rent to the resident of £1,535.85 on the basis that it should not have considered the property ready to let without the asbestos report. This was equivalent to 3 months’ rent which covered the period from the start of the resident’s tenancy to the point the asbestos survey was completed. But the landlord did not set out what period it was intended to cover. It would have been better if it had been clear about this in its complaint response. The resident did not say he was unable to live at the property. However, we acknowledge his concerns about asbestos during this time. We consider the landlord’s award to be appropriate in view of all the circumstances. However, it demonstrated no learning from the situation. It should have done so and considered steps it could take to avoid the same failings being repeated in the future. For this reason, although we have not ordered that the landlord increase its compensation award, we have made a finding of service failure.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how the landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in August 2023, the relevant Code was the April 2022 edition.
- The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s initial complaint was not in line with the Code. This was because it had an interim complaints policy due to experiencing a cyber-attack. This set out that it would aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
- The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial complaint for 52 working days. It communicated with him during this time to explain that its response was delayed. Its £100 award in recognition of its delayed complaint handling was appropriate.
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint was also delayed. It was provided 12 working days outside its 40 working day target. It communicated with the resident during this time to explain the delay. It also apologised for this in its eventual response and awarded £50 for the delay. That was appropriate.
- By the time of the resident’s subsequent complaint, the relevant Code was the April 2024 edition. The landlord’s complaints policy was compliant with the Code in respect of timescales and its definition of a complaint. We have found that the landlord’s:
- Stage 1 complaint response of April 2025 was on time.
- Stage 2 response of June 2025 was provided 1 working day outside its target response timeframe. This was a short delay. But it should have acknowledged and apologised for it when it responded.
- As noted earlier, the landlord’s stage 2 response of June 2025 incorrectly told the resident that it could not consider his paving concerns under its complaints process. This meant it missed the opportunity to fully consider the resident’s concerns under its complaint procedure. Overall, we have found maladministration in its complaint handling. We have ordered that it make a further award to the resident of £50. This is within our remedies guidance recommended range of compensation.
Learning
- The landlord should ensure staff are aware of its void standard around ensuring it has an asbestos report prior to a new let.
- The landlord should ensure staff appropriately apply its complaints policy in respect of issues that should be considered.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord should ensure it makes/provides appropriate records to fully demonstrate how it has responded to repair reports and concerns.
Communication
- The landlord did not communicate appropriately with the resident about the progress of paving repairs.