Clarion Housing Association Limited (202319759)

Decision
Case ID	202319759
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	24 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident’s lease agreement commenced in December 2021. Between May 2023 and May 2024, the resident made 2 complaints to the landlord about several issues regarding the new build property and communal land. He then referred both complaints to our Service, and we have assessed them within this report, where they are referred to as Complaints A and B.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of garden drainage issues.
   2. Reports of issues with the communal land.
   3. Concerns about service charges payments.
   4. Reports of repairs to the electric vehicle (EV) charging point.
   5. Concerns regarding damage caused during garden repair works.
   6. Formal complaints.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of garden drainage issues.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the communal land.
   3. That the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about service charge payments is outside our jurisdiction.
   4. That the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the electric vehicle (EV) charging point is outside our jurisdiction.
   5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding damage caused during garden repair works.
   6. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the residents complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

 

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord repeatedly delayed and mishandled the resident’s reports of garden drainage issues – providing inconsistent information, failing to investigate for more than 8 months and offering compensation that did not reflect the failings or impact on him.
   2. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s enquiries about the communal land and could not provide evidence to support its statements about its condition or maintenance.
   3. We cannot investigate issues which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure or where the landlord has not had the chance to put right first, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. In this case, there is no evidence the resident requested to escalate his complaint regarding the service charge payments. We therefore have no power to investigate this issues.
   4. We cannot investigate issues which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure or where the landlord has not had the chance to put right first, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. In this case, there is no evidence the resident requested to escalate his complaint regarding the service charge payments. We therefore have no power to investigate this issues.
   5. The landlord caused unreasonable delays in repairing the damage caused during the garden works, and the compensation offered did not adequately remedy the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
   6. The landlord failed to follow its complaint handling policy on several occasions. However, it apologised for these failings and offered the resident compensation which was sufficient to put things right.

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £750 for its handling of his reports of garden drainage issues. This includes the £150 offered at stage 1, £250 offered post stage 2, plus an additional £350 for the failures identified in this report. £100 for its handling of his reports of issues with the communal land. £300 for its handling of his concerns regarding damage caused during garden repair works. This includes the £200 offered at stage 2 and an additional £100 for the failures identified in this report. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made in relation to the specific matters in this case.	No later than 21 April 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis the resident receives the £600 that the landlord previous offered him for its complaint handling (£400 for Complaint A and £200 for Complaint B). Therefore, if the landlord has not already done so, it should pay this directly to the resident. This is in additional to the £1,150 ordered above.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Complaint A
Date	What happened
30 May 2023	The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of garden drainage issues. He stated that the service provided had been “poor and slow”.
4 July 2023	As the resident had not received a response from the landlord and the garden drainage issue was outstanding, he raised the matter again as a formal complaint.
23 August 2023	The resident informed the landlord that he was also dissatisfied with its handling of his reports regarding issues with the communal land, including concerns about being promised a park during the sales process and the current condition of the land. He also raised additional matters not considered in this report.
8 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It did not consider the drainage issue as a defect and that newly disturbed land could drain slowly for up to 18 months while it settles. However, it apologised for failing to provide the resident with the information within its expected timeframe. The communal land had been returfed and inspections confirmed that it was in good condition and concluded that no service failures had occurred. It offered the resident £450 compensation. Of this, £250 was in recognition of the poor complaint handling, and a further £200 for a matter not considered in this report.
12 December 2023	The resident escalated his complaint because he was unhappy with the compensation offered and felt it did not reflect the inconvenience caused. He stated that several aspects of the landlord’s response were factually incorrect, was dissatisfied with the overall complaint handling, and disputed the landlord’s claim that the communal area had been returfed and was in good condition.
2 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: Garden drainage issues located more than 3 metres from the property were not covered by the new build warranty. However, it acknowledged the resident’s concerns that it could be caused by the communal pathway and had arranged a CCTV survey to identify defects, with actions to follow based on the results. It confirmed that the communal land was never intended to be a park, but a local area for play (LAP). It had recently inspected the area and there were no safety concerns. It accepted service failures in its complaint handling, specifically that it did not clearly explain its position regarding the garden drainage in its stage 1 response and the complaint handling delays at stage 2. It offered the resident an additional £300 compensation. Of this, £150 was in relation to garden drainage issues and £150 for complaint handling.
12 March 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 “addendum”. It said: The survey had confirmed a lack of drainage along the communal pathway, and it would install ACO drains in the resident’s garden to address the problem. It found no evidence that it had misinformed the resident about the purpose of the communal land. It awarded the resident an additional £250 to acknowledge the delays in resolving the drainage issues.
Complaint B
Date	What happened
3 May 2024	The resident complained because, after the landlord’s contractors dug a trench in the back garden (to install new pipework to address the garden drainage issues), it was left in a muddy and unusable condition, and the grass seed had failed to grow. He also reported that he emailed the landlord on 19 and 26 April but received no response. As an outcome, he wanted the landlord to lay turf in the garden.
21 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said that this was the first time they had been made aware of the damage and confirmed that they had arranged the necessary works for 9 July 2024.
22 May 2024	The resident escalated his complaint because he was dissatisfied with the proposed resolution and ongoing internal miscommunication about the scheduled works. He also felt that complaint deadlines were missed, had to repeatedly chase updates, and wanted both earlier completion of the turfing and appropriate compensation.
3 July 2024	The landlord it issued its stage 2 response. It said it upheld the resident’s complaint because it found multiple service failures, including an incorrect initial response, inadequate case handling, missed inspections, and delays in addressing the repair issues. It offered the resident £400 compensation. Of this, £200 was for the handling of the garden works and £200 for complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaints to us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and offer of compensation. As an outcome he wants the landlord to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident informed us that he moved out of the property in June 2025.

 

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	Garden drainage issues (Complaint A)
Finding	Maladministration

5. The new-build information pack explains that the developer is responsible for defects for 12 months from the date the property is handed over to the landlord—not from when the resident moves in. This “defect period” ends with a formal inspection, during which residents must report any new or outstanding issues so the contractor can resolve them. Once all identified defects are completed, no further defect reports will be accepted.
6. The lease agreement states that the resident is responsible for keeping the property in good repair, and the landlord is responsible for any repairs in communal areas.
7. On 9 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord that his garden had been consistently boggy and waterlogged since moving in, and that he had attempted to resolve the issue himself, but both the garden and the rear pathway (owned by the landlord) were repeatedly flooding and becoming unusable.
8. While we do not dispute the resident’s account that he raised concerns during the final defects inspection, the inspection report dated 6 June 2022 contains no reference to any garden drainage issues. The landlord was therefore entitled, based on the evidence available at the time, to conclude that the matter fell outside the defect process. However, several aspects of its handling of the resident’s reports between May 2023 and March 2024 (up to its stage 2 addendum response) were inappropriate. Examples include:
   1. Repeated and prolonged delays responding to the resident’s reports, requiring him to chase on multiple occasions before receiving even a basic update.
   2. Inconsistent and confusing communication, including conflicting explanations for why it could not assist. Specifically:
      1. The stage 1 explanation that the ground could take 18 months to settle was unclear and unhelpful, given the resident had lived in the property for around 2 years.
      2. The landlord took several months to establish who was responsible for the drainage issue, despite the resident repeatedly indicating that the problem originated from the rear pathway owned by the landlord.
   3. A failure to investigate promptly, as it did not carry out an inspection or begin a proper investigation until January 2024—more than 8 months after the resident first reported the problem.
9. The landlord’s failure to offer the resident any compensation at stage 1 was inappropriate. At stage 2, it offered him £150 compensation. As it did not provide its compensation calculation matrix, it is unclear how this figure was determined. Given the missed opportunities to resolve the issue and the impact on the resident and his young family—who repeatedly chased updates and were unable to use their garden for a prolonged period—the offer was inadequate. It was also not consistent with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £600–£1,000 where a resident has experienced significant impact.
10. The landlord later offered an additional £250 within its stage 2 addendum response. However, because this was made more than 5 weeks after the formal stage 2 decision, it cannot reasonably be treated as part of its internal complaints process and therefore cannot be relied upon as evidence of reasonable redress. Even if it were considered, the combined total of £400 would still be insufficient given the extent and duration of the failings identified.
11. Although the exact date is unclear, the evidence suggests that the landlord’s contractor carried out the required garden drainage works sometime between April and May 2024. While the repair priority is not specified, landlords are still expected to address issues within a reasonable timescale, and a delay of around 12 months from the resident’s initial report was not reasonable.
12. The landlord acknowledged its poor record keeping in relation to this repair within an internal email dated 10 June 2024, noting that there was “limited information on whether drainage works were completed”. It is important for landlords to maintain accurate and detailed repair records to ensure effective case management, provide clarity when concerns are raised, and demonstrate that repairs have been properly completed.
13. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Issues with communal land
Finding	Service failure

14. The landlord’s customer care automated email says issues in communal areas or at property boundaries should be raised with the management agent or the landlord.

Maintenance of communal land

15. The evidence suggests that the resident reported that the communal land on the estate was overgrown, as the landlord acknowledged his report on 17 January 2023 and advised that its “estate issues team” would contact him directly. However, because we have not been provided with a copy of the resident’s original report, we cannot confirm precisely when it was raised. This is evidence of poor record keeping.
16. The resident thanked the landlord for its response on 20 January 2023 and asked it to confirm the timescales for receiving an update. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded the resident. This highlights the landlord’s poor communication with the resident. It was also inappropriate that it did not apologise to the resident for the lack of response within its complaint responses.
17. It is unclear when the landlord attended to maintain the communal land. However, it is reasonable to conclude that some maintenance took place, as within the resident’s complaint request dated 23 August 2023, he stated that the communal land had been cut back, although he felt it had never been properly turfed and still required attention. He said that the land was “uneven and a risk for people, particularly children”.
18. On 6 September 2023 (during the complaint investigation), the landlord asked its estate services team to confirm the condition of the land referred to by the resident. The team provided photographs intended to show that the area had been turfed. However, because the images were not date‑stamped, it is not possible to verify when they were taken or whether they accurately reflected the condition of the land at the time of the resident’s concerns. This lack of reliable evidence limits the weight that can be placed on the landlord’s assertions and highlights a gap in its record‑keeping practices.
19. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that recent estate inspections had assessed the land as being in “good condition” and of “very good appearance.” However, no inspection records or internal emails were provided to substantiate these claims. Without documentary evidence, the landlord’s statements cannot be independently verified, and its conclusions about the quality of the land remain unsupported.
20. In his request to escalate the complaint, the resident said he disagreed with the landlord’s assessment of the communal land. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated it had visited the estate in mid‑January and found “minimal dips [in the ground] of around 3 inches, but no major craters or holes posing a danger”. While this would be an appropriate response if supported, no inspection records, dated photographs, attendance notes, or survey reports have been provided. The absence of contemporaneous documentation prevents verification of what was inspected, when it occurred, and the criteria applied—undermining the reliability of the landlord’s position and limiting the weight that can be placed on its conclusions.
21. On 12 February 2024, the resident challenged the landlord’s position, saying he had visited the area 2 days earlier and found it to be a trip hazard. There is no evidence the landlord responded to his concerns within its stage 2 addendum or took further action, which was inappropriate.
22. As the landlord failed to acknowledge any failings or offer the resident any compensation in relation to this matter, we find that it did not go far enough to put things right.

Use of communal land

23. In his email of 28 August 2023, the resident also told the landlord that, before moving into the property, it had informed him the same area of communal land would become a park, but this had not materialised. He later informed us that this information was communicated to him verbally during the sales process. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, we are unable to make a finding on this specific issue due to the lack of available documentary evidence.
24. The landlord’s lack of response to this point in its stage 1 response will be considered in the complaint handling section of the report. However, based on the evidence available to it at the time, the landlord’s stage 2 and stage 2 addendum response to this issue (that it found no evidence that the resident had been mis-advised during the sales process) was reasonable, and nothing seen during this investigation indicates that the landlord reached an unreasonable conclusion.
25. Based on the available evidence, it is not clear what the landlord was referring to within its stage 2 addendum when it said its “sales team had reached an agreement with [the resident] in April 2023 and provided [him] with a goodwill gesture closing this matter”. We are therefore unable to make an assessment on this matter.

Conclusion

26. Despite finding that the landlord’s response to the use of the communal land was fair, we have made a finding of service failure due to its handling of the maintenance of the communal land. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an appropriate amount of compensation that has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
27. As the resident no longer lives at the property, no orders have been made for the landlord to inspect the land.

Complaint	Concerns about service charges payments (Complaint A)
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

28. We have not investigated this complaint because the issues have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Complaint	Reports of repairs to the EV charging point (Complaint A)
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

29. We have not investigated this complaint because the issues have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Complaint	Damage caused during garden repair works (Complaint B)
Finding	Maladministration

30. On 3 May 2024, when submitting his complaint, the resident said he had emailed the landlord on 19 and 26 April 2024 about the standard of the garden works. While we do not dispute his account, we have not been provided with copies of these emails and therefore cannot assess this aspect of the complaint.
31. Within the resident’s complaint, he also said that the garden had been left by the contractors in a “state of mud and was unusable”. Although the landlord’s repair policy does not state that it must post-inspect work, it does set out that “repairs will be completed to an acceptable standard which comply with current statutory standards, and to a specification which does not make the item less serviceable or of an inferior quality unless that repair is of a temporary nature and for which further work will follow”. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for failing to ensure the work was completed satisfactorily and offered him £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
32. On 8 May 2024, the landlord raised a repair to “assess the pathway,” after the resident reported that it had been damaged during the drainage works. The same day, the landlord texted the resident with an appointment date of 9 July 2024—61 calendar days later—which did not comply with its repairs policy requiring non‑emergency repairs to be scheduled within 28 days. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation for this specific failure within its stage 2 response.
33. On 19 June 2024, the landlord visited the property and agreed with the resident that it would repair the damage caused by its contractors and complete the additional seeding required in the garden. While the resident requested that the area be returfed rather than reseeded, the landlord was entitled to decide on the appropriate method of repair based on the assessment of its qualified contractors.
34. In addition to the £100 previously referenced, the landlord offered a further £100 to recognise the inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the resident’s concerns. Although we have not seen the landlord’s compensation calculation matrix, the total offer of £200 aligns with our remedies guidance. However, because there were further delays in completing the outstanding actions after the stage 2 response, we cannot consider this offer as reasonable redress. This is further aggravated by the fact the resident had previously experienced similar delays (as highlighted in Complaint A), indicating that the landlord had not learned from earlier failures.
35. On 8 August 2024, the landlord left the resident a voicemail asking whether “the drainage works had been completed by repairs.” Although it was positive that the landlord sought confirmation that the works were completed satisfactorily, it should first have checked its own records or verified the status with its contractors. The message was also unclear, as the outstanding issues related to the damaged paving stones and incomplete seeding, not drainage works.
36. On 20 August 2024, the resident told the landlord that the paving slab repair was still outstanding—104 days after the repair was raised and 48 days after the stage 2 response. This was a further unreasonable delay and at odds with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. On 23 August 2024, the landlord said it had “escalated” the issue, but it is unclear when the work was completed, again highlighting poor record keeping. The only confirmation available is the resident’s update on 11 November 2024, stating that the contractor had repaired the paving slabs.
37. It is not clear when the landlord reseeded the garden, which is further evidence of poor record keeping. The only evidence of this is the landlord’s retrospective description on 11 November 2024 stating that the grass had been reseeded and had regrown.
38. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Complaint handling (Complaints A and B)
Finding	Reasonable redress

39. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. Because Complaints A and B were made at different times, different policies applied.
40. At the time of Complaint A, the landlord was using an interim complaints policy following a cyber‑security incident. It required stage 1 complaints to be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Stage 2 complaints were to be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 40 working days. It was reasonable for the landlord to adjust its processes temporarily due to the impact of the cyber incident.
41. At the time of Complaint B, the policy required stage 1 complaints to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 escalation requests were to be acknowledged within 5 working days, with a final response within 20 working days, extendable by up to 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales align with the statutory Complaint Handling Code (April 2024).
42. The landlord defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its staff, or those acting on its behalf.”

Complaint A

43. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy when handling Complaint A because:
    1. The resident clearly stated on 30 May 2023 and 4 July 2023 that he wished to make a complaint, but there is no evidence the landlord escalated his request.
    2. It issued its stage 1 response on 8 December 2023, 138 days after the resident first raised his complaint. This was an excessive delay.
    3. Its stage 1 response did not appropriately respond to all elements of the resident’s concerns.
    4. The resident requested an update on his stage 2 complaint on 22 January 2024, but there is no evidence it responded.
    5. The landlord issued a stage 2 addendum on 12 March 2024. Although we acknowledge the resident raised further concerns, this is evidence it operated a protracted complaints practice at the time.
44. Given the failings identified, it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident a total of £400 compensation. This was calculated as £150 for failing to open the complaint, £100 for the stage 1 delays, £50 for failing to provide a full response at stage 1 about the drainage issues, £50 for failing to respond at stage 1 about the communal pathway and £50 for stage 2 delays. Although we have not had sight of the landlord’s compensation calculation matrix, this offer aligns with our remedies guidance.

Complaint B

45. The landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy during the handling of Complaint B because:
    1. It issued its stage 1 response on 21 May 2024. This was 11 working days from the date of acknowledgement and therefore slightly exceeds its target timescales. Although this falls within the permitted extended timescales, we have seen no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of any expected delays.
    2. The resident had to prompt the landlord for progress updates during the stage 1 process.
    3. It’s stage 1 response lacked relevant information in relation to the substantive issue.
    4. It acknowledged the residents stage 2 complaint on 5 June 2024. This was an interval of 9 working days and therefore exceeded its target timescales.
    5. It issued its stage 2 response on 3 July 2024. This was 29 calendar days after the resident raised his complaint. Although this falls within the permitted extended timescales, we have seen no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of any expected delays.
46. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint process, and to put things right for the resident. Given the failings identified, it was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation at Stage 2. This was calculated as £50 for the late stage 1 response, £100 for providing “inadequate and incorrect information” at stage 1 and £50 for the late stage 2 response. This offer aligns with our remedies guidance and is sufficient to put things right for the resident.

Conclusion

47. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

 

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

48. The landlord’s record keeping was poor, which meant it could not evidence key actions. This undermined transparency and prevented a full assessment of events. The landlord should ensure it maintains accurate, contemporaneous records of all correspondence and repairs.

Communication

49. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout its handling of the case was poor and demonstrates the need for clearer and more proactive engagement. Effective communication plays a key role in an effective housing management, repairs and complaints process, and the landlord should reflect on how it can strengthen its approach when interacting with residents.