Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202313861)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313861

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. reports of overgrown trees in a neighbouring garden.
    2. planned improvement works to the resident’s windows and doors.
    3. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. He has lived in the property since 2004 with his partner. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a purpose-built block.
  2. On 25 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about overgrown trees in his neighbour’s garden. The issue had been raised previously, and he felt the landlord had not resolved the issue. He said the trees were even taller now and were completely blocking the light into his garden. The resident was unhappy as he felt that planned improvement works to the windows and doors were not progressing because of the lack of maintenance of the trees. He was also unhappy that that the landlord had initially refused his official complaint. He said he had asked for it to be escalated but nothing happened.
  3. On 8 September 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in providing its response. It explained:
    1. the delay to the planned works was because it was waiting for advice from the neighbourhood response officers. It had inspected and photographed the trees in August 2023 and that it needed to take into consideration the needs of the resident’s neighbour.
    2. that a tree surgeon was due to examine the trees and provide a quote before the end of September 2023. It noted it would need permission from the council before taking any action as it was in a conservation area which could take 6 to 8 weeks.
    3. the new revised timescale for the planned works was:
      1. Between 16 October and 30 October 2023– Scaffold erection (including asbestos survey process).
      2. Between 6 November and 27 November 2023 – Timber windows & rear exit doors installations.
      3. Week commencing 4 December 2023 – Inspections/handover to take place.
      4. Between 11 December and 18 December 2023 – Scaffold removal.
    4. it could not find the resident’s complaint raised in October 2022. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused by this.
    5. trees should be maintained and when reports are made, it would endeavour to contact the parties to manage expectations. This would include informing residents that overhanging branches can be cut back if there is a health and safety issue or obstruction to windows, doors or footpaths.
    6. it was sorry for the stress and inconvenience caused. It offered £100 compensation. This comprised of £50 to recognise the delay in providing a stage 1 response and £50 to acknowledge the lack of proper communication with the resident.
  4. On 18 September 2023, the resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. He was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of clarity about whether the trees would be removed or maintained at 10ft. He wanted to know who would be responsible for cutting them. He was also unhappy that the planned works for the windows would be carried out in the colder month of November when he would need to put the heating on.
  5. On 30 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for its delay in providing its response. It said:
    1. it had received a quote from the tree surgeon on 27 September 2023. It raised a purchase order and sent a request to the council on 2 October 2023. It was expecting a decision by 15 November 2023, and it was confident that it would be approved.
    2. it was not responsible for the annual trimming of trees. However, it had contacted the resident’s neighbour to remind them of their duties and that failure to properly care for the garden may put them in breach of their tenancy.
    3. it had arranged for the matter to be reinspected in the summer of 2024.
    4. the window and door work was on track for completion on 18 December 2023. It noted that the delays for this work had been due to access arrangements and supply chain issues.
    5. it would not offer compensation for the delays to the major works or the related heating costs as it did not have a service level agreement in relation to their starting timeframes. However, it would appoint a resident liaison officer to discuss any concerns.
    6. it would offer a further £100 compensation. This comprised of £50 to acknowledge that its stage 1 response was not clear about its solution relating to the trees. It offered £50 compensation to acknowledge its delay in providing a stage 2 response.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. It completed the window work in December 2023. It trimmed the trees on 6 March 2024. The complaint became one we could investigate on 1 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. After the complaints process ended, the resident reported that a lily bush was blocking the sunlight into his garden. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint and up to the landlord issuing its final response in October 2023. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before our involvement. The resident can raise any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord.
  2. The resident also stated that when he made his complaint it included his concerns about an overgrown garden in addition to trees. The resident stated that his complaint also concerned an overgrown garden, in addition to trees. While the resident’s comments are noted, this is not supported by the evidence. If this is a matter the resident remains concerned about, he may wish to contact the landlord accordingly

Reports of overgrown trees in a neighbouring garden

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house.” The landlord’s tenancy agreement further enforces this.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy management policy sets out the framework which allows it to enforce the terms of the tenancy. It states that residents are normally responsible for carrying out work on trees in their own garden. Consent from the local planning authority will be needed for felling or significant pruning. In the event it receives complaints about overgrown or untidy gardens, it will encourage residents to try to resolve the problem themselves first, but it will take action to make sure the garden is improved.
  3. It is unclear when the resident made his initial reports to the landlord regarding his concerns about the trees. However, the evidence shows that on 7 July 2023, during a call with the landlord he expressed his dissatisfaction with the lack of progress regarding the overgrown tree. This suggests that the resident raised this matter at some point previous to this date.
  4. The resident called the landlord again and the call note suggests that the landlord had arranged for someone to inspect the tree on 10 July 2023. The resident was unhappy because the landlord failed to attend to this appointment. There is no evidence that the landlord gave the resident notice, or informed him, that the appointment would not go ahead. This was not appropriate
  5. The landlord subsequently arranged for the neighbourhood response officer to visit the resident on 9 August 2023. While this was appropriate, this was almost a month after the missed appointment and the reason for the delay is unclear.
  6. The stage 1 response confirmed it photographed the trees and that a tree contractor would need to quote for the work. As the tree was in a conservation area, it would also need to get a decision notice from the council. This was in accordance with its tenant management policy, and it was reasonable that it explained this to the resident. Understandably, it would have been disappointing for the resident to learn about this additional step which would likely add a delay in a resolution. It is unclear if the landlord was previously aware that the tree was in a conservation area, or if this was later established. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained the process about pruning and felling trees in general to the resident at the outset – and prior to his complaint – to better manage his expectations.
  7. After the stage 1 response, the resident wanted assurances about the responsibility of the maintenance of the trees in the future. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that while it was not responsible for this, it had contacted the neighbour to remind them of their duties under the tenancy. It also agreed to reinspect the matter in 2024. It was appropriate for it to do this, and it demonstrated that while its obligations were limited, it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. While it would have been disappointing for the resident to learn this, it was in accordance with the tenancy management policy.
  8. We note that after the resident completed the internal complaints process, he continued to chase the landlord for updates about the trees. While it made no assurances in the stage 2 response to provide updates to the resident, it would have been good customer service for it to respond to the resident. The matter was pending for approval with the local authority by the stage 2 response, so the landlord could have been more proactive in its response, given it was aware of the resident’s concerns.
  9. The council approved the tree work on 7 November 2023, and the landlord carried out the work on 6 March 2024. It is unclear what caused the delay and whether there was a reason for why it could not be pruned sooner. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm the date of the planned works and explain why they were due to take place in March 2024. While it is acknowledged that this was after the stage 2 response had been issued, this was a missed opportunity.
  10. While the landlord acted in accordance with its policies, it missed an initial appointment to inspect the trees, its communication with the resident was inadequate and it missed opportunities to manage his expectations. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of overgrown trees.
  11. Overall, the landlord offered £100 compensation for the issues it identified in its response to the resident’s reports of overgrown trees. It comprised of £50 in recognition that its stage 1 response was not specific enough about the future maintenance of the trees and £50 for its inadequate communication. However, given the failings we have identified, we order the landlord to pay a further £50. This would amount to a total compensation of £150. This is a proportionate amount for failings which had an adverse effect. This takes into account the inconvenience caused by the missed appointment and the associated delay in having the tree inspected, and the missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations about timescales along the way.

Planned improvement works to the resident’s windows and doors

  1. The landlord’s planned investment policy explains that residents affected by works will be signposted to the relevant section on its website and its contractors will send out an information pack.
  2. The planned investment work to the windows and doors was scheduled to start in April 2023. The landlord sent out a newsletter to affected residents in March 2023, explaining the timescales for the project, which was mid April 2023. This was appropriate. However, it did not go ahead as scheduled in the resident’s block. There is a lack of evidence to show what happened between March 2023 to July 2023, and whether the landlord reasonably updated the resident about any delays during this period, which is not appropriate.
  3. During the period between his complaint and the stage 1 response, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 5 occasions to get updates about the project and the trees. This suggests that the landlord was not reasonably updating the resident, and he found it necessary to raise a formal complaint..
  4. While it is understood that the landlord was unable to give more specific information about the timelines early on, it could have managed its communication with the resident better. Given the proposed date for the work had lapsed, it would have been reasonable for it to take a more proactive approach to explain to the resident when it would update him, rather than waiting for him to initiate contact. Had it done so it would have managed his expectations about communication and the overall project timescales better.
  5. In its stage 1 response, the landlord gave a revised breakdown for the planned works, which was appropriate. It stated that it would do the planned works between 6 and 27 November 2023. The resident expressed concern about the work being done in the winter. The landlord’s response was that it did not have service level agreements for major works and that it would not offer compensation for heating. However, it did suggest that the resident liaison officer appointed could be contacted for help. While this would have been disappointing for the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain this, and it was reasonable under the circumstances.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 October 2023 to advise it would erect the scaffolding on 23 October 2023. This was later cancelled due to poor weather conditions, and subsequently erected on 27 October 2023. The landlord notified the resident of this and in its stage 2 response it confirmed it was on track to complete the work by 18 December 2023. This was in line with the timeline it provided with its stage 1 response, and it was appropriate for it to so this.
  7. We understand that the landlord’s policy does not include service level agreements for major works and as such it felt there was no service failure when it assessed its handling of the matter. However, when investigating the complaint, it should reasonably have identified that it had not been proactive in its communication and that the resident had been inconvenienced as a result. That it did not acknowledge this was a missed opportunity for it to try to put things right.
  8. Overall, the landlord failed to keep the resident appropriately informed of the progress with the planned works prior to issuing its stage 1 response. As a result, we have found service failure.
  9. The landlord offered £50 to acknowledge its general communication was not adequate. It is not clear if this related to the matter of the trees or the major works or both.  However, this amount is not proportionate to failings identified. As such, the landlord should pay £100 compensation. This should replace the offer it made during the complaints process. This is in line with our remedies guidance for the failures identified and where the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge and remedy these.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord had a temporary complaint policy in place at the time it accepted the resident’s complaint. This was following a cyber security incident and applied to complaints received after 17 June 2022. The policy had two stages which required the landlord to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 20 working days and to complaints at its peer review (stage 2) within 40 working days.
  2. Our 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which was in place at the time of the complaint outlined that landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 days. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. It should not exceed these timescales without good reason. The landlord has since confirmed that it implemented a new complaints policy in April 2024 to comply with the Complaint Handling Code in April 2024 and that training was implemented to update staff on the changes.
  3. When the resident complained, he said that he had previously requested to make an official complaint, which the landlord had refused. There is no evidence of this and as such it is not clear what happened and what action the landlord took. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that it could not find any evidence of the complaint made in 2022. While this was a shortcoming, it was appropriate for it to explain the reason for this was likely the cyber attack and for it to apologise.
  4. The resident complained on 25 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged this 9 days later on 7 August 2023. It issued its stage 1 response 33 working days later on 8 September 2023. This was not in accordance with its policy or the Code. It issued its stage 2 response on 30 October 2023. This was within its own 40-day target.
  5. The evidence suggests internally, the landlord felt it needed more time to provide its stage 1 response as it was working closing with other heads of service. While this may have constituted a good reason, if it was planning on taking longer than its published timescales it should have informed the resident. That it did not do so was a failing and not in accordance with its own policy. The delays also contributed to the resident having to chase the landlord on several occasions for a response to his complaint.
  6. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation. It increased the amount to £100 at stage 2 to remedy the additional delay in issuing its stage 2 response. It was appropriate for it to recognise these failures. In our view, its offer of compensation was proportionate. It is broadly in line which our remedies guidance and what we would have ordered for similar failings.
  7. For the reasons stated above, the landlord’s offer of redress to the resident, is proportionate and in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of overgrown trees in a neighbouring garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the planned improvement works to the resident’s windows and doors.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses it’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation. This comprises of:
      1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of overgrown trees in a neighbouring garden.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of planned improvement works to the resident’s windows and doors.
    3. It should pay this directly to the resident and not his rent account.
    4. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100 compensation that was offered for communication failings. If it has already paid this, this should be deducted from the amount ordered.
  2. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance within the timescale above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered in recognition of failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss his concerns about the overgrown garden.