Clarion Housing Association Limited (202215163)
|
Case ID |
202215163 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Clarion Housing Association Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Shared Ownership |
|
Date |
21 January 2026 |
- In 2019 the landlord found problems with fire containment and draughts in the resident’s recently constructed building. The landlord later informed residents it was taking legal action against the developer because it had found the problems to be caused by defects. It said it was unable to start the remedial works until this was complete.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
- Defects.
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the defects.
- We found that there was reasonable redress given for its handling of the complaint.
As such, no orders have been made because we found no failing or unremedied impact to put right. We have though made a recommendation
Summary of reasons
Defects
- Records show the landlord kept the resident appropriately updated about its progress, gave sufficient explanations about the required works, and the options available to him. While it was not responsible for putting right the defects, according to its experts’ findings, it recognised the impact on the resident of the ongoing situation and took appropriate actions to attempt to put things right.
Complaint handling
- The landlord remedied the minor impact of delays in the complaints process and offered outcomes in keeping with its compensation guidance.
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 recommendations |
|
The landlord should pay the £50 compensation it awarded for its delays in the complaints process as this was the reason we made a finding of reasonable redress. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
14 May 2024 |
The resident complained about the remedial works being “overdue”. He said he wanted confirmation of what the defects were, a timeline for the works, and reimbursement of any rent or service charge increases. |
|
7 June 2024 |
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said:
|
|
13 June 2024 |
The resident escalated his complaint because he was unhappy with the amount of information provided and said he was again seeking confirmation of the specific works needed. |
|
9 August 2024 |
The landlord said in its stage 2 review response that it was satisfied its stage 1 response had appropriately addressed the complaint points. It confirmed the information shared at the resident meeting was about the repairs and the need for all occupants to vacate, either temporarily for around 18 months or by selling back their equity in their home. It shared a copy of the briefing document detailing the costs and arrangements it would make for both options. It also awarded £50 compensation for its delayed response. |
|
After the complaints process ended |
The resident chose the landlord’s buyback offering, selling his 25% equity in the property in October 2025. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred his complaint to us because he is unhappy with the amount of compensation awarded. He said the circumstances of his complaint had caused him significant stress and financial strain from now having a larger mortgage on his new home. |
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 |
Fire safety and draught works |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- We have considered the landlord’s actions in the context of its obligations and responsibilities, as set out in any guidance or agreements and based on the evidence that was available at the time.
- We have also focused our investigation on events occurring from December 2022, when the landlord agreed to make a payment to residents for the impact the defects were having, until the end of the complaints process in August 2024. Our reason is that we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable time- usually within 12 months from the date a resident became aware of a problem. Not only does this ensure that evidence needed to investigate the complaint is available, but also that effective steps can be taken to put things right. It is also fair to only address the issues the resident complained about and which the landlord had the opportunity to respond to. The resident may then wish to complain about the terms of the buyback package. If, however, he has signed an agreement it would likely be more appropriate for him to seek legal advice to consider his options.
- As the freeholder, under the terms of the resident’s lease agreement, the landlord was responsible for repairs and ensuring fire safety standards in the building. It was not though responsible for repairs or works relating to defects. As the landlord’s experts found the fire safety and draught problems were caused by defects, it was reasonable for it to pursue the matter with the builder and warranty provider. In cases where a landlord is not responsible for works or repairs, our spotlight report on leaseholders and new builds highlights the importance of effective communication. This is particularly important where the works relate to fire safety because of the need of some mortgage lenders to have assurances that relevant standards were met.
- Given the above, we find the landlord’s handling of the defects and its response to the resident’s complaint was appropriate. It gave reasonable explanations and offered solutions that were aimed at putting things right, despite not finding it was responsible for doing so. Our reasons for this decision are that it:
- Was clear that it was responsible for fire safety but not for the defects with the building. However, it gave assurances that it was committed to ensuring the necessary remedial works were completed throughout the period concerned.
- Gave reasonable explanations about what the defects were. It was also sensible for it not to share its expert reports because of the ongoing litigation as this may have been compromised if it got into the public domain.
- Reiterated reassurances given in previous updates that the building was safe because of the interim fire strategy and system it had implemented in 2019.
- Sent updates in the form of newsletters, frequently asked questions, and direct letters around every 6 months explaining the evolving situation. It also provided a dedicated contact to answer questions.
- Was open about the fact that it was unable to provide a timeline for when the works would be completed and why this was.
- Recognised the impact the time it was taking and waived service charge payments to account for any increase in heating costs and the distress and inconvenience. The amount this came to at £1400 was fair for the cumulative impacts over 4 years and, while this was not linked to a clear failing on the landlord’s part, it is consistent with amounts our remedies guidance recommends for impacts that are long lasting.
- Gave details about options that were available and what costs it was agreeing to cover. On the face of it, these appear to be reasonable and aimed at avoiding residents being financially disadvantaged.
- We recognise the resident was caused significant distress. He also said that he is financially stretched because he now has a larger mortgage. We have not though found these impacts were directly linked to a failure on the landlord’s part. As such, we have not identified maladministration in this case.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord’s complaint timescales align with those set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It must acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receiving one. It must then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend the timescale up to a maximum of 20 working days.
- At stage 1 the landlord exceeded the prescribed timescales because it took:
- 9 working days from the resident’s complaint on 14 May 2024 to acknowledge it on 29 May 2024.
- 16 working days to respond on 7 June 2024 from the date of the complaint.
The landlord had also informed the resident that the response would be delayed on 30 May 2024, therefore, had followed its process. In its response it apologised for the delay, which was proportionate remedy for the impact of being 1 working day over its standard response time. It was in line with the approach outlined in the landlord’s compensation policy, and our remedies guidance, for cases where service failure has had little to no impact.
- The landlord met its timescales because it acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 13 May 2024 on the same day. It also informed the resident of its need for an extension of 20 working days. It then responded within the extended timescale of 40 working days on 9 August 2024. We find the landlord’s apology for it taking longer than its standard timescale and its compensation of £50 was proportionate. This and its earlier recognition of a slight delay in its initial response is our reason for finding reasonable redress.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication
- The standard of the landlord’s records was reasonable and we saw no issues arising from its knowledge information management practices.
- We were also satisfied that the landlord’s communication over the defects was proportionate and timely.