Clarion Housing Association Limited (202340792)

Decision
Case ID	202340792
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 February 2026

 

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the delays to repairs inside his home and in the communal areas. He also said the standard of communal cleaning was poor. The also requested adjustments to the communal area as part of their complaint.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Property-related repairs.
   2. Communal repairs.
   3. Communal cleaning.
   4. The resident’s complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for service failure in its handling of property-related repairs.
4. We found the landlord offered reasonable redress for the handling of the communal repairs.
5. We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of communal cleaning.
6. We found the landlord offered reasonable redress for the handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of property-related repairs

7. The landlord did not complete all repairs within its repair policy timescales.

The landlord’s handling of communal repairs

8. Although there were delays in it completing communal repairs, its offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings it identified.

The landlord’s handling of communal cleaning

9. The landlord failed to show appropriate contractor management leading to delays in the carpets being cleaned.  It also failed to evidence its commitment to have the communal areas checked as part of the joint inspection.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

10. The landlord recognised delays at both complaint stages. It did not explain how it dealt with the resident’s concern about the garden space in its responses. Although this was a failure, the evidence shows the landlord discussed the issue separately. Its offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings it 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.

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 provided by the appropriate head of service. 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 18 March 2026
2	Inspection order  We have made an inspection order because the landlord committed to assess the communal areas and carpet cleaning within its complaint response but failed to evidence it had done so. What the landlord must do  The landlord must contact the resident and offer to assess the communal space and carpet for cleanliness and hygiene. It should ensure its contractor and resident’s know what is required during each visit by providing this to each party in writing.  The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence to us by the due date.	No later than 18 March 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication and delays. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct any money already paid to the resident.	No later than 18 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident in relation to any unresolved issues with the garden space and benches. The landlord should refer to its own policy and procedures and take action, where appropriate.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 July 2023	The resident complained his request for a boundary fence to secure part of the communal garden was refused. He was unhappy that the communal space was not being cleaned properly and that the carpet required to be deep cleaned. He highlighted repairs remained outstanding in this space being: A loose unsecure handrail. The back door was sticking and the front door slammed shut. Deteriorating plaster which was not painted once work had been completed. The bike shed light was not working and the door had sharp edges.   The resident highlighted outstanding repairs inside the property being: A non-working bathroom towel rail, thermostats that provided incorrect temperature readings, a boiler that repeatedly lost pressure and a bath tap that only produced lukewarm water. A wooden floor threshold at the bathroom was coming away. A door was misaligned and blowing open in the wind. A kitchen board was rotten due to a previous leek. The appliance switches in the cupboard were incorrectly wired and needed correction, and the resident wanted the mains wired CO2 alarm reconnected instead of a battery operated one.   To resolve the complaint the resident asked for a boundary fence similar to other blocks and replacement of the two benches to create a usable seating area and the completion of all outstanding repairs.
20 October 2023	In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation for its delay and poor communication. It said it would complete a joint inspection on 26 October 2023 where all issues reported would be addressed. It said the carpet cleaning was not part of the cleaning contract and would be looked at separately.
7 December 2023	The resident escalated the complaint because issues were unresolved.
9 February 2024	In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised for its delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. It provided a timeline of the works completed and a list of repairs identified as part of the joint inspection. It said that although all repairs were now complete there was a delay in repairing the bike shed grill and the handrail, offering £250 compensation for these failures. It clarified the total compensation it was offering was £400. It committed to having the carpets cleaned but was awaiting a date for work to begin.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated his complaint to us, reporting ongoing poor cleaning, an unclean carpet, unsuitable benches, and delays in repairs. He sought a steam clean of the carpet, increased compensation, and appropriate seating in the communal area.

 

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	The handling of property-related repairs
Finding	Service failure

11. The landlord accepted responsibility for the resident’s internal property repairs. Its repair policy says it will complete repairs within 28 days and update the resident if it cannot.
12. The landlord carried out a number of internal repairs on 20 and 21 September 2023 in response to the resident’s complaint about outstanding repairs in July 2023. This included the wooden floor splitter, kitchen cupboard back board, living room door, bath tap and wiring. The final internal repairs were completed on 2 October 2023. The 28 days delay above the 28 days allowed in its repair policy to complete all repairs was not reasonable and demonstrated a failing.
13. Although we understand delays can happen we would expect these to be communicated to the resident regularly as indicated in its repair policy. We have seen no evidence of this happening which caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
14. In its complaint responses the landlord said the internal repairs were all completed within its repair policy guidelines. This was incorrect because the resident reported all the issues in July 2023.
15. Some of the internal repairs were raised for the first time during the complaint procedure and could have been treated as service requests under the landlord’s policy. This may have helped it manage repairs more effectively within its expected timescales. The landlord demonstrated a willingness to put things right, but the mismanaged repairs meant an inconsistent approach and a failure to follow the policy timescales.
16. In its handling of the internal repairs the landlord failed to evidence it offered redress in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair, learning from outcomes and putting things right.
17. Our remedies guidance says payments of £50 to £100 are appropriate when there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and fully put them right. The £100 we have ordered reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays and poor communication. We have also suggested some learning to help the landlord improve its repair management.

Complaint	The handling of communal repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

19. We are unable to investigate complaints that are brought to us without having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident has complained to us that the car park and guttering is not being maintained. The resident requested that the bike shed be converted to a storage shed and asked the landlord for a managed move. He has also complained of flooring in his living room having holes. These events occurred after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. Our investigation will therefore only consider the events covered in the landlord’s complaint responses.

Communal repairs

20. An internal email from 18 August 2023 shows the landlord decided a joint inspection of the communal block was needed due to the number of repairs reported by the resident.
21. The inspection the landlord had suggested was required in August 2023 took place on 26 October 2023, more than 2 months after. While completing a joint inspection was appropriate given the volume of issues, the landlord failed to complete it within a reasonable timescale, outside of what the repairs policy requires. There is no evidence to suggest it updated the resident until October 2023, which left him uncertain of the progress it was making on the multiple repairs that were outstanding.
22. The bike shed grill replacement and handrail repair were not completed until January 2024. The 5 months delay was not in line with the landlord’s repair policy timescales and demonstrated a failing.
23. The landlord apologised and explained the handrail delay was due to it not gaining access on its first visit. It offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.  This offer was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance where there was maladministration with no permanent impact.

Complaint	The handling of communal cleaning
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

25. The resident told us the poor standard of cleaning caused him to become ill. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for him 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 any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can however decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

Communal cleaning

26. The landlord accepted responsibility for communal cleaning under the tenancy agreement. It has not provided any policy setting out the required cleaning frequency or standard. The resident raised concerns about the cleanliness of the communal area in his July 2023 complaint.
27. The landlord did not evidence it had a cleaning schedule or provide evidence of contractor requirements, preventing us from assessing whether any contracted cleaning was completed.
28. The landlord said in its complaint response it would assess communal cleaning during the joint inspection and make recommendations to its contractor. The landlord has been unable to provide evidence that it considered the standard of cleaning during the joint visit.  We have not seen that it made any recommendations to its contractor, as promised. This demonstrated ineffective contractor management.
29. The resident reported the landlord had changed its cleaning contractor, but the reason for this remains unclear. The resident reported no improvement in cleaning and sought a full steam clean of all surfaces in the communal areas. We have made an order to help support the landlord in addressing these concerns.
30. The landlord identified an issue with the bin store cleaning schedule during the complaint process. To address this, it changed the schedule from cleaning the bin store every 8 weeks to every 4 weeks. This demonstrated a willingness to address the resident’s concerns and was a positive step.

Carpet cleaning

31. The landlord said carpet cleaning was not included in the cleaning contract it held with its contractor. Although there is no obligation in its policy for the landlord to have the carpets cleaned it showed a willingness to resolve the resident’s concerns by arranging for its contractor to clean them. We can see the landlord asked its contractor in February 2024 to prioritise the work as it had already missed its 28-day timescale. Although this was positive to see it failed to act promptly, and within a reasonable timescale.
32. The landlord waited 7 months after the July 2023 report to arrange carpet cleaning, then added a further 4‑month delay after committing to the work. A delay of around 11 months is not reasonable and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord also failed to fully evidence it monitored the contractor’s performance or checked the quality of the work, leading to the resident being unhappy with the result.

Summary

33. Our remedies guidance says payments of £100 to £600 are appropriate when failures adversely affect residents but cause no permanent impact. The £150 we have ordered reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor contractor management and lengthy delays to the carpet cleaning.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

34. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. This requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. The policy requires the landlord to response at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales and the landlord’s definition of a complaint were compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable at the time.
35. The landlord failed to evidence it acknowledged the complaint at both stages, and its responses were significantly delayed. The stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2023 was 55 working days late, and the stage 2 response on 9 February 2024 was 18 working days late.. These delays meant the landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the standards set by its policy or the Code.
36. The landlord offered £100 at stage 1 and £50 at stage 2 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This demonstrates that the landlord acknowledged its failings and the likely impact on the resident.
37. As part of the complaint, the resident raised concerns about the communal garden and benches which the landlord failed to provide a response to. A call note from 15 July 2023 indicates that the landlord discussed the issue with the resident and closed the case, but it did not record what actions were taken or whether the issue had been resolved. Although it was encouraging to see it had discussed this separately, we would expect it to have provided an outcome to this complaint point, showing what it had discussed and agreed with the resident.
38. As this was not explained in the landlord’s complaint responses, we could not establish from the evidence how or whether the landlord fully addressed the issue. The code says the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to help resolve this.
39. The £150 offered as part of the landlord’s complaints procedure was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance where there was maladministration with no permanent impact. Our suggested learning should help the landlord improve its complaint handling and record keeping.

 

Learning

40. The landlord should strengthen systems for monitoring repairs, joint inspections, and complaint responses to ensure timescales are met.
41. The landlord should ensure all inspections, contractor performance checks, and resident updates are recorded clearly and consistently to support effective service delivery.
42. The landlord should consider how its complaints staff could identify and separate service requests from the complaint issues. This would help it to ensure they were treated in line with the individual policies.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

43. The landlord should ensure that all resident contact and case closure decisions are fully recorded. Clear, detailed records would help demonstrate how issues have been addressed.
44. The landlord should ensure it keeps adequate records of cleaning inspections and actions taken in response to concerns. This will allow for greater transparency.
45. The landlord should ensure that all complaints are acknowledged within the required timescales and that complaint stages are completed promptly. Robust monitoring processes may help prevent future delays.

Communication

46. Communication regarding repairs and the planned joint inspection was not recorded clearly. These omissions reduced transparency and impaired the landlord’s ability to respond effectively to the complaint.