Clarion Housing Association Limited (202344178)

Decision
Case ID	202344178
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 May 2026

Background

1. From around December 2022 the resident reported repairs in her bungalow, including draughty doors, blown windows, and holes in the roof. She said these issues contributed to mould and condensation and she could not keep the home warm. Household members were vulnerable due to health conditions. The landlord agreed to install extractor fans and carry out repairs. The complaint is about its handling of those repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. Door repairs.
   2. Roof repairs.
   3. Window repairs and the installation of extractor fans.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of door repairs.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs and the installation of extractor fans.
   4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found:
   1. The landlord made repeated visits to assess the doors. However, it did not keep clear records of how it reached its decisions or what action it took. It identified the doors were contributing to mould but did not carry out work to address the root cause. It did not show it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities. It completed repairs that resolved the issues in 2025, 3 years after the resident’s report.
   2. The landlord delayed repairing the roof and did not accurately identify failings during its complaint process. Its compensation fell short of recognising the duration and impact on the resident.
   3. The landlord agreed to install extractor fans to address condensation but delayed doing the work. After installation, it did not act quickly when the resident reported issues. The resident continued to report concerns with her windows. The landlord made repeated visits without acting before it completed repairs in late 2024.
   4. The landlord identified delays in its complaint process, apologised, and offered adequate compensation.

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 18 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,250, made up as follows: £500 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of door repairs £350 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of roof repairs (inclusive of the £250 already offered) £400 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of window and extractor fan repairs (inclusive of the £100 already offered) The landlord must pay the resident directly by the due date and provide documentary evidence it has done so. The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made in relation to this complaint from the total figure. It must provide evidence of the original payment by the due date.	No later than 18 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation it offered through its complaint process for the failures in its complaint handling. We made our reasonable redress decision on the basis that it has paid this amount. If it has not already paid this, it should pay it directly to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 October 2023	The resident made her stage 1 complaint. She said repairs reported in or around January 2023 were still outstanding and she could not heat her home. She reported visible daylight and draughts around the front and back doors. She also reported perished window seals and 2 holes in the roof. She said condensation was a problem and the extractor fans did not work. She raised concerns with the landlord’s communication. She said the issues had a greater impact because of her husband’s vulnerabilities. She asked the landlord to complete the repairs and requested compensation.
17 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It apologised and said it had not completed the roof repairs within its policy timescales. It said it had inspected the doors and no work was required, and it had fitted extractor fans in time. It said it had recently moved repairs in-house rather than using contractors. This meant it had limited records and may explain some delays. It acknowledged service failure and offered £250 compensation. However, this was unclear. The landlord later stated that the total was £300 made up of £200 for delays with repairs and £100 for the late complaint response.
19 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She disagreed with the landlord’s position on the doors and said operatives had told her they were fitted incorrectly. She repeated concerns about the windows and said she could not reach the fan. She raised concerns about missed or late appointments and operatives attending without the correct materials.
15 March 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it could not find evidence that the resident had reported any new repairs since December 2023 and there was nothing outstanding. It said it had already inspected the doors and windows but arranged further inspections for the doors and the fan. It accepted it had not kept the resident updated and had not raised a mould inspection earlier. It apologised for poor communication and for delays in issuing its stage 2 response. It offered a total of £500 compensation. This included £250 for its handling of the roof repairs, £50 for the fan repairs, £50 for the window and condensation repairs, and £150 for its complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said she had requested repairs since February 2023 and work was still outstanding. She wanted the landlord to complete the repairs.

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	Door repairs
Finding	Maladministration

5. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy said it would complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
6. In her complaint, the resident said she reported issues with her front and back doors in January or February 2023. The landlord logged a repair on 21 December 2022 for the front door not fitting the frame properly. It marked the repair as complete on 9 January 2023, 19 days later. This was in line with its repairs policy.
7. However, the records do not show what action the landlord took on that visit or whether it agreed to carry out any work. The evidence shows the landlord inspected the doors multiple times, with at least 10 entries relating to mould or door issues. However, there are no clear records of its findings or decisions. This was a failure in record keeping. Accurate records are essential to evidence actions, decisions, communication, and to provide an audit trail. The lack of records also caused difficulties for the resident when seeking updates, as there was no record of previous outcomes.
8. The landlord had also logged repairs in January 2020 and 2021 for an ill-fitting front door frame. The records referred to draughts and water ingress contributing to mould. While these reports fall outside of the scope of this complaint, the evidence shows the resident had experienced similar issues over a prolonged period. The records do not show what action the landlord took, but the recurring reports suggest it had not previously resolved the issue on a lasting basis. This caused the resident time and trouble making repeated reports.
9. When the resident reported mould around the front door, the landlord advised her to carry out a mould wash. She later said this did not resolve the issue and the mould returned. Although the landlord visited the property to do other work, it has not shown it took further action regarding the mould. It apologised for this in its stage 2 response in March 2024, approximately 15 months later. It also raised further inspections and provided information on damp and mould. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered the likely cause of the recurring mould and carry out further inspections at the time.
10. The resident contacted the landlord for updates several times between March and August 2023. She said operatives had measured for a replacement door, but the landlord could not find records of this. It recorded on 24 August 2023 that a project manager and surveyor were monitoring ongoing issues. The records do not explain what this monitoring involved, what it concluded, or why repairs did not progress. The lack of clear information and updates created uncertainty and meant the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations. It also caused her additional time and trouble chasing responses.
11. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said daylight was visible around her doors and the property was draughty and difficult to heat. She told the landlord this affected her husband, who was vulnerable due to health conditions. Support professionals working with the family also contacted the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the reported impact or offered relevant signposting, support, or advice. It has not shown it gave due regard to the vulnerabilities it was aware of.
12. Other than in its complaint responses, the landlord has not explained why it decided not to carry out repairs. If it considered no work was needed, it would have been reasonable to explain why and discuss the next steps available to the resident. Instead, it told her to report a new repair if she still considered there to be issues. This led to repeated reports and requests for updates, causing the resident inconvenience, as well as time and trouble. The landlord can rely on professional opinion, but it should still evidence its decisions, consider the resident’s circumstances, and communicate decisions clearly.
13. Although the complaint process ended in March 2024, the records show the resident continued to report door issues throughout 2024 and into 2025. The landlord completed repairs to the back door in January 2025 and replaced the front door in November 2025. The resident said this followed her reporting a decline in her health, and that the work resolved the issues. It is unclear why the landlord changed its approach or why it had not identified or completed this work earlier.
14. Our determination reflects the prolonged period the resident reported draughts and mould. While the landlord carried out repeated inspections, it has not provided evidence of its findings or any resulting action. It has not shown it considered the household’s reported vulnerabilities and whether additional support was needed. These factors increased the impact of the delays. In addition, the landlord did not identify these failings through its complaint process. We order the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £500. This reflects the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of the door repairs. This is in line with our compensation guidance for maladministration.

Complaint	Roof repairs
Finding	Service failure

15. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 April 2023 to ask about follow-on roof works. The records do not show when she first reported damage, though a similar repair showed a completion in 2017. It is unclear from the evidence whether this was a previous issue or the same repair. The landlord scheduled an inspection for 4 August 2023 which was 112 days after the resident had called to chase the work. This was not in line with its repairs policy.
16. The landlord contacted the resident on 4 October 2023 to reschedule a roof repair appointment due to staff illness. It rebooked the appointment for 24 October 2023 but said it could not gain access. It then rescheduled it for 2 November 2023. It then rearranged the appointment again for 6 December 2023 because it needed parts. Whilst repairs cannot always be completed on the first visit, this was 236 days after the resident had contacted the landlord for an update. This caused further delay and inconvenience to the resident.
17. In its stage 1 response, the landlord identified it had not attended in line with its policy timescales. It said it had raised the repair in August 2023 and attended on 4 October 2023. However, it did not acknowledge the resident had been chasing the repair since April 2023 or that it did not complete it until December 2023. It offered £200 compensation for inconvenience caused by delays and said it would take learning from the issues.
18. The landlord also explained that it had brought its repairs in-house which may have contributed to some delays and gaps in historic records. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management recommends that landlords stress test IT systems before mergers or system changes. This is to ensure systems are compatible, data transfers securely, and staff can access accurate records. Failure to do so may lead to gaps in record-keeping and affect service delivery and complaint handling.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it completed the roof repairs in February 2024. It acknowledged its communication with the resident had been poor. It offered an additional £50, bringing the total compensation for inconvenience to £250. The evidence shows the landlord continued to log roof repairs throughout 2024, which indicates that its complaint process did not resolve the issue.
20. The landlord identified some failures and took learning. It provided the resident with some explanation as to why the issues had occurred. However, it did not fully recognise the length of the delay and therefore underestimated the detriment to the resident. Considering the full duration of the delay, we order the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation. While the roof repairs were delayed, the evidence indicates the primary impact on the resident arose from the draughts linked to the doors. We have considered this when calculating our compensation order.

Complaint	Window repairs and the installation of extractor fans
Finding	Maladministration

21. The landlord logged a repair on 21 December 2022 for window resealing and condensation. It marked the repair as complete on 18 January 2023, 28 days later. This was in line with its policy timescale for routine repairs.
22. The landlord said it would install 2 extractor fans to reduce condensation in the property. It raised a follow-on job on 18 January 2023 for an electrician to inspect the bathroom and kitchen ahead of this. It completed this on 27 January 2023, in line with its policy.
23. The landlord raised follow-on work to install the fans on 30 January 2023 but later cancelled the job. It did not raise the repair again until 14 July 2023, after the resident requested updates several times throughout March, April, and June 2023. The installation date is unclear from the records, but it appears to have been either 187 or 217 days after the landlord agreed to do the work. This was an unreasonable delay with no explanation provided and was not in line with policy timescales.
24. In her stage 1 complaint in October 2023, the resident reported perished window seals, non-functioning fans, and ongoing condensation. The landlord raised another job to inspect the windows which it completed on 6 December 2023. In its complaint response, it said it had installed the fan in August 2023 in line with its policy. Therefore, it did not identify a service failure. However, it did not recognise the repair was first raised in January rather than July 2023. As a result, it did not assess the delay accurately or recognise it had not attended in line with its policy.
25. The landlord’s records do not show its findings from the window inspection or how it decided that no further work was required. It has not evidenced how it assessed the windows or considered the resident’s ongoing reports of condensation. This limits our ability to assess its decision-making and points to weaknesses in its record keeping. It also raises concern about how the landlord monitored the effectiveness of its repairs.
26. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said no work was required to the windows. However, it carried out further inspections in March, June, and September 2024. It later agreed to replace some glass in November 2024. The records say the resident declined repairs before this, but do not specify what was offered. The landlord’s records do not show its findings, any risk assessment, or its communication with the resident. We cannot determine why multiple inspections were necessary or why the landlord changed its approach. Improved record-keeping may have reduced repeat visits and inconvenience to the resident and enabled a clearer assessment of the landlord’s actions.
27. At stage 2, the landlord said no further fan repairs had been raised after their installation in September 2023. However, the evidence shows the resident reported concerns about the fans and windows between January and March 2024. This included reports of a wet patch on the ceiling. The resident said she was told this was due to condensation leaking from the fan because of a missing part. The landlord did not act promptly. The resident continued to report issues with the fans until November 2024, 22 months after the landlord had said it would install them.
28. The landlord offered £100 compensation at stage 2. This did not reasonably reflect the delay or its impact on the resident. We considered the household’s vulnerabilities which increased the impact of the failings. The resident experienced ongoing draughts, condensation, and mould over a prolonged period, affecting her living conditions. The landlord did not resolve matters in a reasonable timeframe. This caused inconvenience as well as time and trouble pursuing the matter. We order the landlord to pay an additional £300. This reflects the cumulative impact of the delays and is in line with our compensation guidance where there has been an adverse effect on the resident.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

29. The landlord operated an interim complaints policy at the time. This set out a 2-stage process, with stage 1 complaints acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days of being logged. It set out that stage 2 complaints would be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 40 working days. These timeframes did not align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
30. However, the landlord introduced this interim policy following an unrelated incident, and it is reasonable to assess its actions against this policy. It has since published an updated policy on its website which aligns with the Code.
31. The resident made her complaint on 30 October 2023. The landlord was late acknowledging the complaint and responded 42 working days later on 17 January 2024. This was not in line with the targets set in its policy or the Code. It identified the failure in its stage 1 response and offered compensation of £100.
32. The landlord did not address the window issues or results from the inspection in its stage 1 response. It has not shown that it provided feedback to the resident until its stage 2 response, 3 months after the inspection. Providing full responses to all complaint points is required under the Code.
33. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 January 2024. The landlord was late acknowledging the complaint. Its response of 15 March 2024 meant the resident waited 41 working days for the outcome. This was a minor delay from its published response timeframes which had minimal additional impact on the resident. It offered a further £50 compensation.
34. At stage 2, the landlord took relevant actions to respond to the resident’s concerns. It raised further inspections, gave advice about managing damp and mould, and apologised. Although it did not follow the repairs through to completion, it identified the failures with its complaint handling and attempted to respond to all issues the resident had raised. Its total offer of £150 compensation was reasonable in the circumstances and is in line with our compensation guidance where a resident has been adversely affected. We recommend the landlord pays this amount as previously offered.

Learning

35. In this case, better planning or triaging of repairs may have reduced repeat appointments and avoided delays.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord did not always keep clear records of the actions it took. It may benefit from reviewing our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023), available through our website’s Centre for Learning.

Communication

37. The landlord should ensure that information given in complaint responses is accurate and clear to avoid confusion for residents.
38. The landlord should give clear and transparent information to residents if it decides a repair is outside of its service offer. This helps manage expectations, can prevent repeat reports and visits, and gives residents the opportunity to explore other options if they wish.
39. Clear and timely communication is essential when managing repairs. The landlord should give regular updates, so residents do not need to chase for information. Our spotlight report on Repairs and Maintenance also explains that landlords can avoid failures with clearer communication and monitoring of repairs.