Clarion Housing Association Limited (202324607)

Background

1. The resident moved to the property by way of mutual exchange in 2017. She resides there with her husband and 3 children, one of which has a disability. In June 2023, the resident raised concerns about the safety of the decking in the garden and asked the landlord to repair it.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about decking in the garden.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the decking in the garden.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We have found that:
   1. While the landlord acted appropriately in determining the maintenance of the decking was the resident’s responsibility, it failed to respond to the resident’s contact in July 2023 and did not carry out the actions agreed in its stage 2 response in a timely way.
   2. The landlord excessively exceeded its complaint handling timescales and did not provide the resident with adequate redress for the shortcomings identified.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident informed us that her husband injured himself when he removed the decking from the garden. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

7. On 18 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about the condition of the decking in the garden. She said it was in need of urgent repair and expressed her concerns about the safety of the area.
8. The landlord responded promptly to the resident on 20 June 2023. It explained that the decking was a “gifted item” when she moved into the property and as such, it was her responsibility to maintain. It also advised her that she could review her repairs responsibilities within her tenancy agreement or on its website.
9. The landlord also maintained this position within its contact with the resident on 12 October 2023, and in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. This was a fair and appropriate response from the landlord because:
   1. Prior to the resident signing the deed of assignment in 2017, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property. It identified that the outgoing tenant had made several unauthorised alterations, including the installation of decking in the garden. The inspection report recorded that the resident was satisfied with these improvements, understood that they would become her responsibility, and accepted them as completed to a “high standard”. The resident signed this document on 1 March 2017.
   2. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for repairing and maintaining all improvements, fixtures and fittings she installs in her home and garden.
   3. The landlord’s repair responsibility webpage states that residents are responsible for any repairs related to external structures.
   4. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 does not require the landlord to repair or maintain anything the tenant is entitled to remove from the property.
10. On 17 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord for a copy of her tenancy agreement. The landlord appropriately responded 2 working days later and provided her a copy of this and the deed of assignment document.
11. On 20 July 2023, the resident asked the landlord to contact her to discuss her tenancy agreement. The landlord acknowledged this request on 28 July 2023 and said it had referred it to the relevant team. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided a response. The resident later raised this specific example of poor communication within her complaint on 8 September 2023. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not address or apologise for this failure within its complaint responses.
12. As the landlord was not obliged to repair or remove the decking, its stage 1 offer to dispose of it after the resident had removed it was fair. However, it has provided no documentary evidence of when this occurred, which indicates poor record keeping. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude the resident and landlord came to a mutual agreement as the resident did not raise the issue again.
13. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it explained that despite the previous tenant not obtaining permission to install the decking, it had acted in accordance with the mutual exchange policy in 2017. Despite our request, the landlord has not provided a copy of the applicable version of this policy, which is evidence of poor record keeping. We are therefore unable to make an assessment on this specific aspect.
14. Nonetheless, it was positive that the landlord explained to the resident that it had recently amended its policy to ensure that any mutual exchanges could only proceed on the basis that the home improvements reached the standard required to grant retrospective permission.  It was also appropriate that the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation in recognition that its “approach to reviewing the quality of the previous tenant’s alterations may not have met [her] reasonable expectations”. This was positive and in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
15. It was also positive that within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it agreed to install a handrail (where the decking had been removed) and inspect the other alterations made by the previous tenant. This showed it was taking the resident’s safety concerns seriously. However, the resident informed us on 4 June 2024 and again on 6 November 2024 that the inspection had not taken place. Additionally, the landlord has not provided any evidence that shows when it completed these agreed actions, which is further evidence of poor record keeping. The resident informed us in May 2026 that the issues were resolved but did not advise when. Therefore, the delay of at least 6 months to complete these actions after the landlord issued its stage 2 response was unreasonable.
16. Although we are satisfied that the landlord had no obligation to maintain the decking, due the additional failings outlined above (delayed communication and inspections), we have made a finding of service failure. After considering our compensation policy, and the compensation already offered, we have not awarded any additional compensation. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise for the additional failings identified and pay the compensation previously offered.

17. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. Because the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints were made before and after April 2024 respectively, different policies applied.
18. At the time of the stage 1 complaint, 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 day. Although this was at odds with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), it was reasonable for the landlord to adjust its processes temporarily due to the impact of the cyber incident.
19. At the time of the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the policy required it to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days. This was extendable by up to a further 20 working days with the agreement of the customer. These timescales align with the statutory Code (April 2024).
20. We have seen no evidence that the landlord opened a complaint following the resident’s request on 8 September 2023. This was contrary to its complaints policy, which states that complaints should be accepted unless there is a valid reason not to, and that any refusal must be clearly explained along with the resident’s right to escalate the matter to our Service.
21. On 13 October 2023, the landlord told the resident it would raise a formal complaint about its handling of the decking repairs. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. The resident therefore had to seek our intervention to progress her complaint, which was an expenditure of her time that should not have been necessary.
22. On 23 February 2024, we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked it to acknowledge her complaint within 5 working days and provide a formal response within 10 working days from the date of acknowledgement, but by no later than 15 March 2024.
23. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint via telephone within 1 working day. It then issued its response 13 working days later. Although this exceeded our target timescales, it was still within the timescales set out in the landlord’s interim complaints policy. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for the minor delay within its stage 1 response.
24. Nevertheless, from the date the resident first raised her complaint, this was a response time of 131 working days. This excessively exceeded the landlord’s complaint handling timescales.
25. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 17 April 2024. This is evidence of poor record keeping and odds with the Code which states the landlord must keep a full record of the complaint, including all correspondence with the resident.
26. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 2 working days.
27. On 14 May 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it may require more time to investigate the complaint but would aim to respond as soon as possible. It then issued its stage 2 response 23 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This fell within the extended timescales permitted by the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code.
28. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to also review its handling of the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, the landlord did not assess its complaint handling, which meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation.
29. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation. As the landlord’s compensation policy does not set out how much it will pay for complaint handling delays, we have calculated the award in line with our own compensation policy.

Learning

30. The landlord should log and acknowledge residents’ complaints at first point of contact and should not rely on our intervention. If there is a valid reason not to accept the complaint, it must inform the resident at the earliest opportunity.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

31. 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 and timely records of all correspondence and repairs.

Communication

32. The landlord was consistently clear about the resident’s repair responsibilities. However, it failed to respond to the residents contact in July 2023 and her request to make a complaint. Good communication plays a key role in an repairs and complaints system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.