Clarion Housing Association Limited (202340358)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340358

Clarion Housing Association Limited

4 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and lives in a 2 bed, ground floor flat owned by the landlord.
The resident first reported concerns about subsidence in October 2023. She told the landlord there were cracks in the internal and external walls throughout the property.
On 29 November 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update. She said she had been requesting updates regarding the subsidence in her property but it had not responded. She said she wanted to raise a complaint. The landlord did not raise a complaint at this time.
On 28 February 2024 the resident again asked the landlord to log a stage 1 complaint in relation to its response to her concerns about subsidence. She contacted the landlord on 26 March 2024 and reiterated that she wanted to make a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 April 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 April 2024. It said it had failed to follow its repairs policy and resolve the issue within its target timeframes. It also acknowledged that it had failed to respond to her complaint within 10 working days as outlined in its complaint policy. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for delays in resolving the cracks in her property and a further £100 for complaint handling delays. It said it had raised a claim with its insurer and that site investigations would start “shortly”.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 15 July 2024. She said it had not updated her and that it had not completed a structural survey. The resident said the cracks in the property were increasing and this was causing her to feel stress.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 31 July 2024. It said there had been delays in its insurer agreeing to add the claim relating to her property to an existing subsidence claim for a neighbouring property. The landlord said the loss adjuster had also reported “issues booking site investigations”. It said the insurer had completed its site investigations but that an arboriculture report was also required and the claim was “likely to take several more months”. It offered the resident a further £100 compensation for its “poor communication” and said its surveyor would update her every month.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property.

On 13 October 2023 the resident reported cracks in her internal and external walls. The landlord raised a job for an inspection of the property.
The resident asked the landlord for an update at the end of November 2023. She said the cracks in her property were “substantial” and that she had been chasing for updated but received no response.
The resident has stated that a surveyor attended on 11 December 2023 and that they said a structural survey would be required. We have not seen evidence of the inspection within the landlord’s repair logs or a report showing the findings.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contact and actions completed. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. That we have not seen evidence of the inspection or its findings is a failing.
We acknowledge that the landlord was required to make a claim to its insurer. We understand that insurance claims can take time as the insurer would reasonably want to satisfy itself of the validity of the claim and costs, and have the claim assessed by loss adjusters. The landlord would need to wait for the insurers’ approval before acting, or risk invalidating the claim.
The evidence shows the landlord asked its insurer to add the claim relating to the subsidence in the resident’s property to an existing claim for a neighbouring property in mid-December 2023. This was approximately 1 month after the resident’s report of cracks. This was reasonably prompt.
However, there was a delay of 4 months between the landlord contacting the insurer about the claim and the insurer agreeing to add it to the existing claim. The actions of the insurer are not within the scope of this investigation. However, the landlord should reasonably have acted to try and reduce any unnecessary delays. We have not seen evidence that the landlord proactively chased the insurer for a response. This was unreasonable.
In late January 2024 the resident again requested an update. She said the landlord’s surveyor had told her in November 2023 that he would arrange a structural survey but that she had heard nothing since. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this contact. This was unreasonable and demonstrated poor communication.
As the landlord did not respond to the resident she asked for an update in February 2024 and again in March 2024. The resident’s emails indicate that the landlord had telephoned her between these dates however the landlord has not provided evidence of this call or what was discussed. This is indicative of further poor record keeping.
The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring it is fit for human habitation, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the tenancy conditions.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. The Decent Homes Standard advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed as category 1 under the HHSRS and be in reasonable state of repair. The HHSRS specifically recognises that structural collapse can pose a threat to physical health.
We recognise that structural movement can take time to investigate and diagnose. Cracks take time to settle and need to be monitored over a period over changing conditions. This can sometimes take years. However, the landlord is obliged to ensure the property is safe, and its repair policy states that where a risk associated with the HHSRS is highlighted it will complete a risk assessment. It should therefore have completed a risk assessment in relation to the subsidence. We have not seen evidence that it did so. It therefore failed to satisfy itself that the property was safe for the resident and her household to reside in while it monitored the issue. This was a serious failing.
In early April 2024 the insurer arranged for a contractor to complete regular monitoring of the subsidence. It does not appear that the monitoring started until September 2024. The reason for this delay is unclear. We accept that the insurer was responsible for arranging the monitoring. However, the landlord should reasonably have made enquiries to reduce unnecessary delays. That it did not do so was a failing.
Within its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that the loss adjuster had had “issues booking site investigations”. It is not clear whether it was referring to issues in accessing the resident’s property. We have seen no evidence of such issues.
The landlord advised the resident that further investigations and monitoring were required and that the claim would likely take “several more months”. It said its surveyor would provide monthly updates. Had the landlord fulfilled its promise to update the resident regularly, this would have been reasonable. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so. It is not clear whether this is because it failed to provide updates or because it did not keep a record of these communications. The landlord therefore failed to effectively communicate with the resident to provide reassurance and manage her expectations.
While the landlord told the resident that it would carry out a structural survey in January 2024, we have not seen evidence that it did so until September 2024. We have not seen evidence that would justify such a long delay. This was therefore unreasonable.
The structural survey stated that there was “clay shrinkage subsidence” caused by tree roots and clay ground near the property. It also stated that the damage to the property was “slight”. Had the landlord relayed this to the resident it may have been able to allay her concerns about the safety of the property. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord made any attempts to reassure her that the property was safe. This was a serious failure and caused the resident avoidable distress.
At the time of this report the subsidence is not resolved. We have therefore ordered that the landlord provide the resident with an update and an action plan including timescales. This will help to reassure the resident that the landlord is committed to rectifying the issues.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord offered the resident £400 in relation to delays in resolving the subsidence and poor communication. We reasonably consider that this covered the landlord’s failures from October 2023 to April 2024.
This offer was not proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident. While the structural survey stated that the movement was slight and therefore low risk, we have not seen that the resident was made aware of this. She therefore felt her health and safety was under threat for a prolonged period. She also described being upset at having to live with cracks in her internal and external walls.
We therefore consider that the landlord should pay the resident a further £400 for distress and inconvenience.
Overall, we accept that some delays may have been unavoidable in relation to this issue. However, the landlord has failed to carry out a risk assessment in line with its policy. I also delayed in carrying out a structural survey to satisfy itself as to the safety of the resident’s property until 11 months after her report of structural concerns. The landlord has also failed to effectively communicate with the resident and keep her updated. This has caused avoidable distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble for a prolonged period. We therefore find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property.

Complaint handling

The resident first asked the landlord to log a complaint on 29 November 2023 and. The landlord failed to raise a complaint at this time.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord should raise a complaint when the resident raises dissatisfaction. The resident’s communications to the landlord clearly outlined her dissatisfaction and specifically asked for a complaint to be raised.
We understand that after her initial contact with the landlord, the resident agreed to wait a while before making a complaint. We do not consider it appropriate for complaints to be handled ‘informally’ or in any other way that keeps the complaint outside of the complaints process, even for a short time. That the landlord therefore encouraged this was inappropriate.
The resident asked the landlord again to raise a complaint on 28 February 2024. The evidence indicates it raised a complaint at this time but did not contact the resident to acknowledge or discuss the complaint until 24 working days later. This significantly exceeds the timeframe of 5 working days contained in the Code and its own policy. This was therefore a failing.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint 29 working days after it was raised. This exceeds the 10 working day timeframe outlined in the Code and its own policy. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay and offered the resident £100 compensation for this. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about subsidence. It also outlined its actions so far and briefly addressed what would happen next. While this was reasonable, it should reasonably have addressed the resident’s safety concerns and, where possible, provided timeframes. That it did not was a missed opportunity to reassure the resident and effectively manage her expectations.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within the timeframe outlined in the Code and its policy. This was positive and indicates the landlord learned from its previous complaint handling failure.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response again outlined the actions that had been completed. It also made some attempt to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining that the insurance claim was likely to take several more months. This was positive.
However, the landlord gave an undertaking to update the resident every month. It has failed to do this and this has caused avoidable damage to the landlord resident relationship. The landlord should learn from this and ensure that it fulfils any promises made in complaint responses in the future.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in addition to the £100 previously offered. This is in relation to the time and trouble the resident experienced due to its complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord failed to log a complaint when it should have done and then delayed in acknowledging and responding to the complaint. While its handling at stage 2 was improved, it failed to adhere to the agreement it made to update the resident. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £500 which comprises:
  1. £400 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural safety of the property.
  2. £100 for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
  3. This is in addition to the £500 previously offered within its complaint responses.
3. Carry out a risk assessment of the property in line with its policy.
4. Provide the resident with an update on the situation in relation to the subsidence and ongoing insurance claim. It must also provide an action plan of the works required to resolve the issue and timescales for completion.