Clarion Housing Association Limited (202313197)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313197

Clarion Housing Association Limited

1 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of an insect infestation.
2. Security concerns.
3. Request for support with rent arrears.
4. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat with her 7-year-old child.
The resident received a complaint response from the landlord on 22 December 2021, although the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of that response or the complaint to which it related. On 30 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord in reply to its complaint response, stating that she had still not heard from pest control in relation to an ant infestation in her property and that she still did not have access to the building’s rear gate.
The resident raised a number of concerns in an email to the landlord on 8 May 2023. She said she had not been given a key fob or code for the locked rear gate, and pest control had not attended her property to investigate the ant infestation. She was unhappy with its lack of communication when she requested help with rent arrears in November 2022. She also complained about “outside noise” due to being the only flat in the block that covered the main road and antisocial behaviour (ASB) in and around the building, which she said was having “a detrimental effect on my mental health & my 5 year olds.” She stated that her rent arrears should “be wiped/written off due to your negligence” and asked to be moved as soon as possible.
The landlord did not deal with the resident’s concerns under its complaints procedure until this service contacted it on 2 October 2023, asking it to provide its response by 23 October 2023. It duly issued a stage 1 response on 13 October 2023, stating:
1. It accepted a service failure, as it had not addressed the resident’s initial report of an insect infestation in October 2021 and the delays that followed.
2. While it had advised her that ants and beetles were not classed as pests, its housing team had confirmed it would complete the works, and this did not happen.
3. It had dealt with the resident’s rent arrears by agreeing a payment arrangement in February 2022, requesting direct rent payments from her benefits as no payments were being received, and keeping in regular contact since March 2023, including unsuccessful attempts to contact her by a tenancy specialist.
4. It accepted and apologised for a service failure as a call-back to discuss rent arrears was not actioned in March 2023.
5. The resident was provided with the code for the gate on 15 May 2023 and this was confirmed as being correct on 11 July 2023. The caretaker also confirmed that the gate padlock was in working order.
6. It awarded compensation totalling £250 for its service failings, comprising:
  1. £150 for the delays in addressing her reports of an insect infestation.
  2. £50 for the missed call-back request from its customer accounts team.
  3. £50 for providing its complaint response outside its service level agreement.
The resident replied on 9 November 2023, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s failure to discuss her complaint with her before issuing its response. She said she had dealt with the insect infestation herself, noting its delay from December 2021 to 30 May 2023 to have pest control attend. She insisted that the code did not work for the rear gate, which was also chained and padlocked. Meanwhile, she said the front gate was wide open so anyone could enter and, due to various incidents around the building, she and her child felt unsafe.
The resident noted that a tenancy sustainment officer had now tried to contact her again, at a time when she had already advised she was unavailable, and she asked for contact by email instead. She said the £250 offered “towards my rent arrears” was “disgusting” given she had reached out numerous times and received no response. She said the landlord had taken direct payment of her benefits but made no attempt to discuss a payment plan with her. She invited it to take her to court as she was not prepared to settle on the matter.
The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 15 December 2023, stated:
1. Its tenancy sustainment officer had spoken to the resident and agreed to:
  1. Discuss her reports of ASB with its housing team.
  2. Speak to its accounts team about her rent arrears.
  3. Check if any charitable organisations and her local authority could help with her rent arrears.
  4. Complete sustainment forms during their next call on 18 December 2023.
2. It apologised for a further failure to call the resident as promised on 14 July 2023 and for not referring her case to the tenancy sustainment team, which delayed its assistance with her rent arrears. A subsequent referral was closed in October 2023 due to a lack of engagement by her.
3. It accepted and apologised that its handling of the resident’s reports of an insect infestation could have been managed better and treatment put in place sooner. It was clear that communication with the contractor “did not go well, and they found it difficult to diagnose the right treatment options remotely and arrange appointments that were suitable” for the resident.
4. It had found no service failure in respect of the gates, but understood the resident’s concerns that “members of the public … can easily gain access to the building” and about “the ease with which the current door can be forced open”. Accordingly, it would consider improvements to make the area more secure.
5. It awarded additional compensation totalling £400, comprising:
  1. £100 for its failure to make a tenancy sustainment referral in July 2023.
  2. £250 for continued delays to pest control works and the need to seek private services.
  3. £50 for its stage 2 response being outside of published timeframes.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint on 10 May 2024. She has told the Ombudsman that the landlord failed to offer any support with rent arrears, despite her requests for help since November 2022 when she was in financial crisis. She would like it to write off half of the arrears to reflect its failure to provide reasonable and timely support.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint in 2023, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain that the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited with reference to when a complaint was brought to the landlord’s attention. It is not disputed that the insect infestation was first reported to the landlord in or around October 2021. This is beyond the 12-month timeframe that would normally be considered. This assessment is, therefore, focused on the events occurring from 30 March 2022 onwards, which is the substantive contact closest to 12 months of the resident’s complaint of 8 May 2023.
Paragraph 42 of the Scheme provides that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level or increase of rent or service charge (paragraph 42.d), or matters where it may be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure (paragraph 42.f). The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) is best placed to deal with the resident’s concerns about the level of her monthly rent. The FTT can make a determination on a fair level of rent for the property. Accordingly, this assessment will only consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for support with rent arrears.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the multiple issues at the property have impacted negatively on her mental health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

Reports of an insect infestation

The landlord’s policy on pest control specifically excludes responsibility for garden ants, which was what the resident’s reports related to up to May 2023. Thereafter, she reported beetles in the property. Both complaint responses at stages 1 and 2 stated that ants and beetles were not always classed as pests but the landlord had, nevertheless, engaged its pest control contractor to deal with this matter. Therefore, it set the expectation that it would address this issue, which was first reported in or around October 2021.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of service requests and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
In this case, the stage 1 response stated that the landlord’s pest control contractor asked the resident to provide photographs of the insects she had reported in April 2022, but the Ombudsman has received no evidence of this. In the absence of clear evidence to show the steps the landlord said it and its contractor took to address the insect infestation, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that it dealt with matters reasonably and appropriately at the time.
Thereafter, other than reference in the resident’s email of 16 November 2022 to her outstanding complaint from December 2021 – which included the issue of ants in the property – there were no explicit reports relating to the insect infestation until she emailed the landlord on 8 May 2023. Although the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the landlord’s or its contractor’s communications with the resident in response to that email, records show that the contractor attended the property on 30 May 2023. They reported that they had found garden ants in the living room and kitchen, with dead ants behind the sofa, and they carried out a crack and crevice insecticide treatment throughout the affected rooms.
While this demonstrates a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns raised on 8 May 2023, there was a delay of 14 months, from 30 March 2022, to address the outstanding insect infestation. This was an excessive delay and caused the resident evident distress, frustration and inconvenience.
It is agreed between the parties that the pest control contractor requested photographs of beetles that the resident subsequently reported in the property. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that the resident did not provide the requested photographs. Thereafter, the issue of the insect infestation was raised as part of the complaint notified to the landlord by the Ombudsman on 2 October 2023. This prompted further attempts by the contractor to contact the resident on 10, 16 and 19 October 2023 to try and arrange an appointment. They subsequently wrote to the landlord on 2 November 2023 to advise that the job had been closed as they had not received a response from the resident. This demonstrates a reasonable attempt to address the insect infestation.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that, due to the nature and hours of her work, she was only available after 4pm Monday to Friday. As it happened, the pest control contractor’s working hours were 8am to 4pm. While it is good practice for landlords to be flexible where possible, the landlord and its contractor would not normally be expected to make out-of-hours arrangements to accommodate the resident’s availability due to work. Rather, it would be her responsibility to make herself available during the contractor’s working hours, or make alternative arrangements to facilitate access to the property. Nevertheless, the landlord responded empathetically to the resident’s dissatisfaction at having to resolve the insect infestation privately as she said the contractor had not accommodated her schedule when contacting her to arrange an appointment.
It is acknowledged that the landlord’s complaint responses recognised its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of an insect infestation and awarded appropriate levels of compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her (£150 at stage 1 and £250 at stage 2). However, it did not demonstrate sufficient learning from the delays and communication issues in this case to avoid such failings in the future. The Ombudsman has also identified numerous gaps in the evidence that calls into question the landlord’s record keeping practices. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find service failure in respect of this complaint, but no additional compensation has been awarded as the landlord has already provided a reasonable financial remedy.

Security concerns

The lack of access to the rear gate was noted in the resident’s email to the landlord on 30 March 2022. The landlord has failed to provide evidence of the actions it said it took in its stage 1 response to address this issue. Specifically, the Ombudsman cannot see that the code for the rear gate was provided to the resident on 15 May 2023 and verified by the building caretaker as being the correct one on 11 July 2023. In any event, there was a significant delay of over 13 months in dealing with the resident’s request for access, which was excessive and unreasonable. The evidence shows that the landlord has subsequently checked that the code is working and the rear gate is in working order.
With regard to the resident’s concerns about an insecure communal front door, the communal repairs log shows there were issues reported with the locking mechanism on 24 November 2022. This job was closed on 28 December 2022, but residents continued to report a fault with the door up to 4 January 2023, suggesting that the issue was ongoing. This was followed by an entry on 7 February 2023 stating that the communal front door was “in need of attention”. This was marked ‘complete’ on 16 February 2023 but no updates were recorded. The information recorded is unclear and confusing, which makes it difficult to ascertain when the lock was fixed.
In any case, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete repairs to communal parts within 28 days. Accordingly, there was some delay in resolving the issue, which likely contributed to the resident’s concerns about security in the building.
The resident raised various security concerns with the landlord on 16 November 2022 and 8 May 2023, including ASB by her neighbour and members of the public. It failed to address these issues until she raised further, more serious concerns in her stage 2 escalation on 9 November 2023, and in a telephone conversation on 27 November 2023. For instance, these later reports included concerns over lewd behaviour on the estate and not being able to leave the building at times as there were “drug addicts outside our door”. The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 15 December 2023, over a year after the initial report. This was an excessive delay on the landlord’s part and caused the resident concern and distress, as evidenced by her repeatedly reporting that she felt unsafe in the building.
That said, following its stage 2 response, the landlord took action to investigate the resident’s security concerns and reports of ASB. This was an appropriate, albeit belated, response.
It is also noted that the landlord promised to consider security improvements to address the fact that members of the public could easily gain access to the building, and that the communal front door was susceptible to force. While this was reasonable and proportionate, there is no evidence that the landlord went on to conduct such an exercise. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman has adopted this as part of our recommendations in this case.
The landlord also took action, following its stage 2 response, to investigate the resident’s security concerns and reports of ASB. For instance, as part of its investigation, it received an email from the building caretaker on 13 August 2024 stating that they attended weekly to clean and monitor the site and had seen no signs of urination or drug dealing in the communal areas. While such investigations are most valuable when conducted in a timely manner, the landlord’s efforts to (albeit belatedly) address the resident’s security concerns were appropriate.
The landlord’s complaint responses found no service failure on its part in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. However, records show that, on 18 April 2024, it identified its failure to respond to her email in November 2022, for which it apologised and awarded additional compensation of £300. The November 2022 email included the other aspects of the resident’s complaint dealt with in this investigation, so it is not possible to quantify the proportion of the additional compensation that related to its failings in respect of her security concerns.
The landlord’s failure to respond in a reasonable and timely manner to the resident’s security concerns in November 2022 and May 2023, together with its delays in providing the code for the rear gate and carrying out repairs to the communal front door, resulted in the resident feeling ignored and frustrated. The concern and distress caused to her spanned several months. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find maladministration in respect of this complaint.
There has been a significant and longstanding impact to the resident as a result of the landlord’s multiple failings, particularly given the nature of some of the security concerns raised, its repeated failure to address those concerns, the resident having to chase several times, and the time it took for it to deal with the issues. In all the circumstances, an appropriate level of compensation would fall squarely within the range for considerable failure where there was no permanent impact, as per the landlord’s compensation policy. Accordingly, as well as taking away some learning from its shortcomings, the landlord should pay compensation of £500 to reflect the level of concern, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is inclusive of the £300 credited to the rent account for its failure to respond to the November 2022 email.

Request for support with rent arrears

Under the terms of the tenancy, the resident is responsible for paying the rent in advance on the first day of each month.
The rent statement provided by the landlord shows that:
1. Arrears started to accumulate on the resident’s account from July 2021 onwards, although it regularly drifted in and out of arrears up to that point.
2. No payments were made from 19 May to 10 November 2022.
3. Regular payments directly from the resident’s benefits began from 7 December 2022. Since that date, no additional payments for the shortfall in the monthly rent have been made by the resident.
4. As of 21 August 2024, the arrears balance on the account was £7,009.69.
The parties agreed arrangements in June 2021 and January 2022 for payment of the monthly rent plus an amount towards the arrears, but the resident did not keep to these. When payments stopped altogether from May to November 2022, the landlord sought direct payments from the resident’s benefits. This was consistent with its arrears policy to deal with any outstanding payments robustly and firmly. However, it did not act fairly, in line with its policy, as no advance warning was apparently given to the resident about the landlord’s intentions in this regard. It would have been good practice for the landlord to make the resident aware of its intended actions before they affected her.
This is a key example of the landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident in a clear and timely manner about her rent arrears at the time. It appears there were no communications from the landlord to the resident from 7 January 2022 to 1 February 2023 about the accruing arrears, although an unsuccessful call was attempted on 14 November 2022. This was compounded by the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s email of 16 November 2022, which was titled ‘Rent Arrears – Crisis’. In it, she explained that she had been struggling with rent arrears for several months and these could not be included in an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) she had just started because she was still living in the property. Both omissions were unsatisfactory and meant the landlord missed opportunities to arrange relevant support.
That said, the landlord’s rent arrears reminder letter dated 6 January 2022 included information about seeking help and advice from third party organisations. The resident’s email of 16 November 2022 indicated that she was “in the process of receiving support from a support worker who is going to support me with my rent etc.” Furthermore, the fact that she had entered into an IVA suggests that she had access to specialist debt advice. In all the circumstances, the landlord did enough to appropriately signpost the resident in line with its arrears policy.
Records show that the landlord advised the resident on 29 June 2023 that a referral would be made to its tenancy sustainment team, but the stage 2 response accepted and apologised that this did not happen. The complaint responses acknowledged failures to call the resident when promised on 17 March and 14 July 2023, and for the delay in arranging tenancy sustainment support.
A tenancy sustainment referral was made for the resident on 21 September 2023. At the time, the referral noted that the resident had been signed off from work due to mental health issues related to her tenancy. The landlord’s customer service team attempted to contact the resident by phone on 26 September, 3 October and 9 October 2023. As the referral indicated the resident was not working, her usual working hours were not considered.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident did not answer the calls and voicemail messages were left to inform her of the attempted contact. Due to the lack of response, the referral was not transferred to the sustainment service and was closed for non-engagement.
The next referral to the sustainment service was made on 21 November 2023. Following successful contact by the customer support team, six appointments were scheduled with the sustainment team, taking into account the residents working hours. The landlord took reasonable steps to contact the resident.
The resident was also unhappy that her repeated requests to be moved to improve her financial situation were refused by the landlord. She told it on multiple occasions that, due to the conditions in which she and her child were living, she was incurring substantial costs to travel over 160 miles each weekend to stay with her mother. The Ombudsman understands the difficult situation in which the resident found herself, but this was not of the landlord’s making and it could not reasonably be expected to accept less rent so she could cover these travel costs. Further, the landlord acted in line with its arrears policy, which clearly states that it would not permit any tenancy changes or accept any transfer applications from tenants in arrears, a point the resident acknowledged in her email of 16 November 2022.
The resident has expressed her frustration that the landlord has not taken her to court despite the substantial rent arrears on her account. She has told the landlord that she will not settle or surrender her tenancy as, otherwise, she will be regarded as intentionally homeless. This is a matter for the landlord’s discretion and the Ombudsman cannot interfere or influence it. Indeed, opting not to take legal action against the resident in view of her particular circumstances and concerns may be considered an appropriate use of the landlord’s discretion.
In accordance with its compensation policy, the landlord awarded compensation totalling £150 for its failures to call the resident in March and July 2023 and the delay in making the tenancy sustainment referral. The level of compensation awarded was appropriate for the relatively modest impact of these failures, but it did not adequately reflect the compounding effect of its wider communication failure. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find service failure in respect of this complaint and award additional compensation of £100 in recognition of the additional frustration, distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication.

Complaint

The Ombudsman notes that, at the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord had an interim complaints policy dated June 2022 in place. This provided for acknowledgement of complaints and escalation requests within 10 working days of receipt, the stage 1 response within 20 working days, and the stage 2 response within 40 working days.
In her email of 16 November 2022, the resident noted that she had a complaint outstanding from December 2021. There was, however, no response from the landlord or any further contact regarding this at the time. This was a missed opportunity to address the resident’s ongoing concerns and it delayed the overall handling of her complaint.
This was compounded by the landlord’s failure to deal with the resident’s email of 8 May 2023 under its complaints policy. It ought reasonably to have done so, as she was clearly expressing dissatisfaction with its handling of various matters. She chased a response on 19 June 2023, but this was still not addressed through its complaint handling procedure. In fact, the stage 1 response was not issued until the Ombudsman intervened on 2 October 2023. This was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of fairness and putting things right, or with the Complaint Handling Code applicable at the time.
The stage 1 response was issued on 13 October 2023, over 5 months after the complaint was first made (but within the timeframe required by the Ombudsman). It addressed the issues notified to the landlord by the Ombudsman. It apologised for not responding to the resident’s complaint made in August 2023, but no evidence of this complaint has been provided so it is not clear if the landlord ought reasonably to have addressed any additional issues.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request within 3 working days of receipt, on 13 November 2023, which was appropriate. However, it then mis-managed her expectations by incorrectly stating that it would provide its response within 20 working days, whereas the interim complaints policy allowed for a response within 40 working days. The stage 2 response was issued within 25 working days of the acknowledgement. Although outside the shorter timeframe given in its acknowledgement, the response was still within the 40 working days set out in its policy. In all the circumstances, this was broadly reasonable, but the landlord should have addressed any inaccuracies in its communication and kept the resident updated regarding its anticipated response date.
To address the resident’s dissatisfaction with the lack of a telephone call to discuss her complaint at stage 1, the landlord called her on 27 November 2023 to ensure it had properly understood her concerns. This demonstrates that it took some learning from its handling of matters at stage 1 and sought to put things right.
The stage 2 response comprehensively addressed all of the issues raised by the resident in her escalation email and telephone conversation with the landlord on 27 November 2023. In this regard, it was a better reflection of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. That being said, although it sought to put things right by way of its compensation awards, it did not demonstrate that it took sufficient learning from its various shortcomings in this case, as highlighted above.
In all the circumstances, a finding of service failure is appropriate in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Its awards of £50 compensation at each stage of its complaints procedure acknowledged its failure to meet service standards, as per its compensation policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was insufficient to remedy the collective impact of its complaint handling failings dating back to November 2022. The resident experienced a significant amount of distress, frustration and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time, which justifies a higher compensation award for service failure under the landlord’s policy. Accordingly, additional compensation of £100 is a fairer and more proportionate reflection of the impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an insect infestation.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s security concerns.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for support with rent arrears.
4. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 6 weeks of the date of this determination (allowing for the Christmas period), the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,350, which includes the sums awarded by the landlord and comprises:
  1. £400 offered by the landlord for its failures in handling her reports of an insect infestation.
  2. £300 offered by the landlord for its failure to respond to her email of 16 November 2022, which included her security concerns and other matters.
  3. £200 for the landlord’s additional failures in respect of her security concerns.
  4. £150 offered by the landlord for its failures to call her in March and July 2023 and the delay in making the tenancy sustainment referral.
  5. £100 for the landlord’s additional failures in respect of her request for support with rent arrears.
  6. £100 offered by the landlord for its complaint handling failures.
  7. £100 for the landlord’s additional complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
  8. Any sums that have not already been credited to the rent account should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must carry out a review of its handling of matters in this case. A report detailing the outcome of the review should be submitted to the Ombudsman and should identify:
1. What went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it would do differently to avoid the same happening again.
2. Improvements it can make to its record keeping practices and processes for monitoring pest control and communal repairs.
3. Any staff training needs and/or changes to its procedures to ensure reports of ASB are recorded, investigated and addressed in a reasonable and timely manner.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord considers security improvements to address the ease with which members of the public can gain access to the building and the susceptibility of the communal front door to force, and that it shares its findings from this exercise with the resident.
It is recommended that the landlord arranges a visit to the resident to ensure she can use the code provided to her to access the rear gate.