Clarion Housing Association Limited (202318147)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318147

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 January 2026

 

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 how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Allocation of parking.
    2. A faulty shower.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident and her husband are both disabled, and the landlord’s vulnerability records reflect this. The property is a 3-bed house situated on an estate of other properties managed by the landlord.
  2. In July 2020 the landlord decided to prohibit all its tenants on the estate from using any other parking apart from the designated space outside their own property. It explained it did so to try and prevent ASB issues which it said were arising from residents using each other’s spaces.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about this decision immediately after this. Following the landlord’s final response in late 2020, she referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She complained that it was unfair of the landlord to prohibit negotiated use of other residents parking spaces as she had an agreement with one of her neighbour’s to use their unoccupied space.
  4. On 9 March 2021 the Ombudsman issued a report which explained that the tenancy agreement set out that the resident was only permitted to use her own parking space. We found the landlord had acted reasonably in informing all residents which parking spaces they were to use, and that there was no evidence the resident had been treated differently to others. We found that there was no provision in the tenancy agreement which allowed the negotiation of parking spaces.
  5. Therefore, we concluded that the landlord was entitled to withdraw permission for this arrangement at any time. On this basis, we determined there had been no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to prohibit negotiated use of other residents’ parking spaces.
  6. Over the following 2 years the resident continued to complain to the landlord about this decision. She also complained again about this to the Ombudsman on 3 occasions during this period. On 22 August 2023 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about this, and about how it had handled her reports of a faulty shower. She then brought this complaint to the Ombudsman on 20 September 2023.
  7. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 6 October 2023. It explained the resident had made related complaints about this on 10 separate occasions since July 2020. It reiterated that negotiated use of parking spaces was prohibited. It acknowledged the shower was faulty, summarised the related actions it had taken thus far to address it, and explained that it would attend on 31 October 2023 to complete further repairs. It apologised for its delay in completing a successful repair and offered the resident £200 for this and £50 for the delay in the complaint response.
  8. The resident was not satisfied with this and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 24 October 2023. She explained that the landlord’s July 2020 decision had caused her serious distress and financial loss, and so she asked it to provide £5000 in compensation. She also explained that she considered the landlord needed to fully upgrade the shower.
  9. On 15 December 2023 the landlord installed a new water pump in the shower. As part of these repairs it cut open the ceiling to house the new pump, and rerouted some of the pipework.
  10. On 5 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated and elaborated on the position that it set out at stage 1 regarding the resident’s concerns about parking allocation. It acknowledged it had mistakenly moved the 31 October 2023 appointment to install the new pump to 26 October 2023, and then was unable to access the property.
  11. It explained that it attempted to attend on 11 December 2023 to install the pump but was unable to access the property. It explained that it had tried unsuccessfully to reach the resident by phone to reschedule this. It also explained that it had installed the new pump on 15 December 2023, and that no further works were required following this. It advised the resident to contact it if any drainage issues recurred.
  12. It offered the resident £15 compensation for the missed 31 October 2023 appointment. It also offered her £50 for the delay in providing a stage 2 response.

Events following the landlord’s final response

  1. On 23 January 2024 the resident reported that the landlord had rerouted the pipes for the shower in such a way that they posed a tripping hazard for her and her husband. She also reported that a hole the landlord had cut in the ceiling to complete the repairs remained open.
  2. On 14 August 2024 the Ombudsman wrote to the resident and advised a previous complaint she had brought to us in May 2023 about the parking allocation disagreement was outside our jurisdiction. On 1 September 2024 the resident explained that the landlord had refused to address the pipes in the shower and that she was stuck with a tripping hazard as a result. On 7 October 2024 we wrote to the resident and confirmed her complaint was about parking allocation, her reports of a faulty shower, and complaint handling.
  3. To resolve her concerns, the resident would like the landlord to provide compensation, allow her to use her neighbour’s parking space, and address the issues with her shower.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Section 42.i of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that we may not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which we have already decided upon.
  2. The resident has already complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s July 2020 decision on informal parking allocation arrangements. We determined there was no maladministration in this decision on 9 March 2021. We also determined these issues were outside our jurisdiction on 14 August 2024.
  3. We note the resident considers the complaint here is distinct, as she explained it instead concerns“the root of [her] complaint and the treatment of [her] and [her] family.” However it is clear from discussions with the resident, and based on the complaints she made to the landlord in August 2023 and October 2023, that the “root” of the complaint is the landlord’s July 2020 decision to prohibit her use of her neighbour’s parking space. We have already fully addressed this complaint. For this reason, in accordance with paragraph 42.i, the resident’s complaint about parking allocation is outside our jurisdiction.

Scope of investigation

  1. Following the landlord’s final response on 5 January 2024, the resident complained that it had created a hole in the ceiling to facilitate the pump installation and failed to repair this. She also complained that it had rerouted pipework in such a manner as part of the 15 December 2023 works that they posed a tripping hazard.
  2. Typically, we do not investigate matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. These aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to events which occurred after the landlord’s final response, and were therefore not raised or addressed as part of the complaint process. The landlord also did not commit to these works as part of its final response. Therefore, this investigation will not consider these concerns.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty shower

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will address emergency repairs within 24 hours. It defines these types of issues as those which pose an immediate danger to the resident or the property, or that would jeopardise the health and safety of the resident. It states it will address non-emergency routine repairs within 28 days.
  2. The landlord’s Vulnerable Residents policy states “we recognise that vulnerable residents may find it more difficult to cope if something goes wrong in their home and they need a repair. When a resident contacts [us] to request a repair, the contact centre call handler will confirm if there are any disabilities or support needs which should be taken into account. This should be recorded on the resident record so that the service can be delivered appropriately, aligned to the needs of the household.”
  3. On 4 July 2023 the resident reported that her shower was not working properly. 6 July 2023 the landlord’s repairs records note it attended and determined that the waste water pump in the wet room had failed which meant the shower was “inoperable”. The records note it unsuccessfully attempted to unblock the pump, and that a replacement pump needed installing. It raised an emergency repair on the same day noting that the resident and her husband were disabled.
  4. The landlord acted positively and in line with its vulnerable residents policy by considering the household’s vulnerabilities when deciding on the urgency of this repair. It also acted in accordance with its repairs policy by attending 2 days after the resident’s report.
  5. However, on 13 July 2023 the records note that the works were “cancelled”. There is no explanation noted for this. The landlord then raised the same works on 1 September 2023 as routine priority. On 4 September 2023 it attended and cleared the pump, noting that it had restored use of the shower.
  6. We recognise it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to have ordered and installed a new waste water pump in a matter of days after the 6 July 2023 visit. However, we would expect it to have ordered the pump at this time and set out timescales for its installation. We would also expect it to have considered what mitigative steps it could take in the meantime to support the resident while she was unable to use her shower. Ultimately there is no evidence the landlord took any action from 6 July 2023 until 4 September 2023, and we consider this likely caused the resident distress.
  7. Soon after this the resident reported the shower had stopped working again. On 12 September 2023 the landlord advised the resident to allow 5 working days for it to attend and address this. On 19 September 2023 the landlord raised works to “assess and repair” the shower. Therefore it failed to honor the commitment it made to “provide an outcome” within 5 working days.
  8. On 4 October 2023 the landlord attended and again noted that it needed to install a replacement pump. The landlord was aware of this from 6 July 2023, and it is unclear why it had made no progress in at least ordering the new pump by this stage. It should have done so promptly after the 6 July 2023 appointment, and its failure to do so here meant the resident had spent the 3 months since this point without a properly functioning shower. Given her vulnerabilities, we consider this was likely considerably distressing.
  9. In its stage 1 response on 6 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged the delay in installing the new pump and offered the resident £200 compensation for this. It also explained that it would attend to install the pump on 31 October 2023. The landlord then mistakenly swapped this appointment to 26 October 2023 but failed to inform the resident. It was then unable to access the property on 26 October. Given the delays up until this point, this further shortcoming on the landlord’s part likely compounded the resident’s distress.
  10. Once the landlord failed to gain access on 26 October 2023, it should have made prompt efforts to reschedule the appointment given the resident’s vulnerabilities. There is no evidence it did so. It then took over a month to attempt to reattend the property on 11 December 2023. We consider it should have attempted this much sooner than this. However, we note that the resident did not allow access on this date.
  11. The resident allowed access on 15 December 2023 and the landlord successfully installed a new pump. The records note that the resident was pleased because the shower had been repaired, but that it needed to cut a hole in the lounge ceiling to house the pump. It noted it was unable to attempt this at the time due to “the amount of stuff” in the lounge. It noted it would raise an appointment in the new year once the resident had had the chance to clear space.
  12. In its stage 2 response on 5 January 2024 the landlord offered the resident £15 compensation for the missed 31 October 2023 appointment. On the same day it “repaired hole in ceiling and resealed shower”. It also raised further works to “cut hole in lounge ceiling and reconnect waste to whale pump”. The landlord acted positively by raising the further works early into the new year as it committed to do so following the pump installation on 15 December 2023.
  13. In summary then, we consider the landlord unreasonably delayed in ordering and installing a new pump for the shower from July 2023 to December 2023.
  14. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay sums of £250 to £700 as redress for considerable failure where there is no permanent impact on complainant. Examples include:
    1. Misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about complainant’s rights.
    2. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses.
    3. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy.
    4. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of the complaint.
  15. The landlord offered the resident £200 at stage 1 for its delays in addressing the shower repairs from July 2023 to October 2023. It offered a further £15 at stage 2 for the missed appointment on 31 October 2023.
  16. In calculating the appropriate sum of compensation we have considered how the resident was left without a properly functioning shower from July 2023 to December 2023. We consider that this likely caused the resident considerable distress, and that this distress was likely experienced more intensely due to her vulnerabilities. We have also considered how the landlord failed to acknowledge that the missed appointment on 31 October 2023 delayed the installation of the pump by over a month.
  17. With all this in mind, we consider the landlord should pay the resident a sum at the mid-upper range of its compensation scales. Therefore, we will order it to pay the resident £550. This sum is inclusive of the £215 the already offered.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy sets out that it will respond to stage 1 complaints received post 22 June 2022 within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days. It says it will update complainants and explain why when it is unable to meet these timescales.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 7 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 24 August 2023, and issued its stage 1 response on 6 October 2023. This was 24 working days beyond its timescales.
  3. The resident then raised her stage 2 escalation request on 24 October 2023, and the landlord issued its final response 10 working days late on 5 January 2024.
  4. Therefore, the landlord delayed at both stages in providing a complaint response, and we consider this likely caused the resident distress. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in its stage one response for its delay and a further £50 compensation for the stage 2 delay. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.i of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about parking allocation is not within our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a faulty shower.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £675 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £550 for its omissions in handling the resident’s reports of a faulty shower from July 2023 to December 2023, and its omissions in addressing her concerns from January 2024 onwards. This sum includes any payments already made regarding the faulty shower to the resident that it had previously offered.
  2. The landlord is to evidence compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £100 already offered for its handling of the complaint if it has not already done so.