Clarion Housing Association Limited (202344570)

Decision
Case ID	202344570
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 April 2026

Background

In July 2023, the resident told the landlord that someone had tampered with the communal entrance door at her block. On 13 November 2023 she said that she was dissatisfied with how the landlord had handled her report about the door. She also reported outstanding repairs in her property. The resident lives with mental health vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs.
2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. A data breach.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs.
2. ASB.
We have found that the resident’s reports regarding the inappropriate sharing of her personal information is outside our jurisdiction.
We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of repairs

The landlord did not initially conduct the repairs that it identified as necessary, it then provided conflicting advice about the replacement of the bathroom and kitchen. There was also evidence of inappropriate communication and record keeping.

The handling of the ASB

The landlord did not communicate appropriately with the resident. It was unsympathetic in its response and did not clearly explain what actions it intended to take to address the intentional damage to the door.

The sharing of the resident’s personal information

We do not investigate matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. In this case the complaint about the staff member sharing the resident’s personal information is better dealt with by the Information Commissioner Office (ICO), because the ICO is better placed to assess any issues in relation to data protection and information sharing. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this aspect of the complaint.

The handling of the complaint

The landlord’s initial response was 6 days outside the required response time. The delay did not cause significant detriment. It also delayed sending its stage 2 response. In this instance the landlord apologised and offered appropriate 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 provided by a senior manager 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 27 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the reports of repairs £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB £50 for its handling of the resident’s complaint (if it has not already done so) as this was the reason for our finding of reasonable redress 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 from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 27 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a competent surveyor not previously involved with the case who has the expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: nspects the bathroom and kitchen of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: whether the bathroom and kitchen are fit for purpose due to their age and condition whether the landlord intends to refer the bathroom or kitchen to its planned works team for replacement if it does not intend to refer the bathroom or kitchen to the planned works team it must explain why if there are any repairs in either the kitchen or bathroom that need to be completed a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to any of the issues it identifies (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 10 June 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must inspect the communal entrance door to the resident’s block and determine if any further works are required to secure the door against entry by non-residents.	No later than 27 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she was unhappy with the number of outstanding repairs in her property. She told the landlord she was upset because one of its staff had shared her personal information with other resident’s. She advised that the landlord had not appropriately investigated her ASB report about the locks on the communal door being glued shut.
19 December 2023	The landlord issued its complaint response. It said: the resident had not supplied a crime reference number within the required 7 day timeframe, which resulted in it closing the case in line with its ASB policy its operatives visited in mid-July, overhauled the lock, and left the door in good working order as required by its repairs policy the resident’s kitchen was scheduled for replacement in 2027 and her bathroom in 2033, its response team would conduct any necessary repairs in the interim its area supervisor confirmed there were no outstanding repairs at the resident’s property it had investigated the resident’s allegation of a data breach, but it was unable to find any evidence that the breach had occurred it did not uphold the resident’s complaint
19 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: her kitchen and bathroom were in poor condition the landlord had told her that it would replace both there were outstanding works required in the kitchen which the landlord said it would complete in January 2024 a kitchen cupboard had fallen off the wall and injured her the communal door had not been fixed and supplied a video of the door swinging open she had provided a crime reference number for the communal door she felt that the landlord did not care for her or her mental health which was upsetting
	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it had raised an order to replace the bath panel and assess the condition of the bath it had no record of a stock condition survey or any planned works scheduled for component replacement in the resident’s property it understood her frustration at being told to obtain a crime reference number only to be told it would not take any action when she supplied the number it had provided the correct information but acknowledged the staff member involved could have provided a better explanation it was the responsibility of the police to investigate crimes but it would get involved if the problem persisted it had asked its local neighbourhood teams to be more vigilant around door checks it had written to residents in October 2023 advising how to use the doors and would conduct a door knock in March 2024 to speak to residents it awarded £50 compensation for the delay in providing its stage 2 response
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that the landlord had conducted some repairs to the kitchen. She advised it had started work to the bathroom, which it had left half finished. She said both rooms were in very poor condition. She told us that the landlord had installed a buzzer on the communal door but that the door was broken again, which allowed free access to non-residents.

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 repairs
Finding	Maladministration

On 5 June 2023, the resident told the landlord that there was damp and mould in her kitchen. She also reported that the sealant around the bath and windowsill in the bathroom was coming away.
The landlord visited on 23 June 2023. It identified a number of repairs required to the bathroom including the bath panel and windowsill. It also identified persistent staining on the living room ceiling and with window handles. While the visit was appropriate and in line with the required timescales, there is no evidence to show that the landlord undertook any repairs. This was a failure to comply with its repairs policy, which requires it to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
On 3 November 2023, the resident told the landlord she was still experiencing damp and mould. She said that the last operative had told her that the landlord would be installing a new bathroom and kitchen. There is no evidence that it responded to the resident’s contact, which was unfair. Given she had raised the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to write to her and clearly explain its position on the matter. It did not do this.
The resident raised the outstanding repairs again in her complaint to the landlord on 13 November 2025. Having to pursue the repairs caused her unnecessary time and trouble.
The landlord visited on 22 November 2023. The notes from the visit indicate that there was no damp and mould but that there were a number of repairs required. During another visit on 8 December 2023, it replaced the shower rail, toilet seat and reattached a kitchen cupboard that had come off the wall. However, it did not complete the work to the bath panel, which would have been frustrating for the resident.
On 19 December 2023, the landlord sent an internal email asking what outstanding repairs the surveyor had identified during the inspection on 22 November 2023. Having not received a response it then contacted the resident. It said it had been trying to access her property and asked what repairs were outstanding. The resident told the landlord she was upset with its call. She said that a visit had taken place and she would expect it to have a record of the findings from the inspection. She advised the landlord’s handling of the matter was causing her distress.
In its complaint response on 19 December 2023, the landlord told the resident that there were no outstanding repairs in her property. This was not correct. The repairs to the bath panel had not taken place, which the landlord had described as being in very poor condition.
In the complaint response the landlord said that it was scheduled to replace the resident’s kitchen in 2027 and the bathroom in 2033. She escalated her complaint the same day. She advised the kitchen had a layer of grease that she could not remove. She said that the staff member who had attended in November 2023 told her that the landlord would replace the kitchen and bathroom in January 2024.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it changed its position from what it had stated in the stage 1 response. It said it did not have any stock condition information and had no plans to replace either the kitchen or bathroom. The changing position of the landlord would likely have caused the resident significant frustration. It also failed to acknowledge the differing information or explain it to her, which was unreasonable.
Due to the observations above we have made an award of £200 compensation. This award is in line with our compensation guidance for instances where there was a failure by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident.

Events post internal complaints procedure

In its evidence to us the landlord included an internal email that mirrored the information provided in the stage 1 complaint response about the kitchen and bathroom. The resident advised us that the landlord began work in the bathroom but that it was not completed.
Due to the differing position on the replacement of the bathroom and kitchen we have made an order for the landlord to return and assess the necessary works and to clearly outline its position on the matters in writing.

Complaint	The handling of the ASB
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s records show that it was aware that the lock on the communal door had been glued shut on 29 June 2023. The notes indicate that there were also issues with keys not working in the door.
On 6 July 2023, the resident reported the issue to the landlord via email, she said she got no response. The staff member dealing with the issue said that they had visited that day and found the door to be working and had informed the resident. There are no records of the visit by the staff member or of the call to the resident. This is an indication of poor record keeping.
The resident chased the landlord again and was told that she had to contact the police to obtain a crime reference number for it to action the ASB. The resident followed the landlord’s instructions. When she contacted it with the crime reference number it told her that there was no action it could take. This caused the resident significant distress and frustration.
The approach was unreasonable. There was no change in the circumstances between the resident’s first report of the ASB and her obtaining the crime reference number. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed her complaint in the initial stages. If it did not intend to take any action it should have been clear about this from the outset.
Further, tampering with the lock was criminal damage to the landlord’s property. It is therefore reasonable to suggest that it also bore a responsibility to follow the matter up with the police. Given the circumstances of the case this may have been the more appropriate option.
The landlord has been unable to provide any records of the initial communications, between the resident and the staff member which demonstrates further issues with its record keeping in the case.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it had closed its case because the resident had not provided the crime reference number within 7 days. As part of our investigation we asked the landlord about this. It said, “There is nothing on file to suggest that the file was closed because the crime reference number was outside of timescales and / or the customer was told that the timescale was an issue”. This was confusing as the record was present in the landlord’s complaint handling notes.
In addition, in its stage 1 response the landlord said the resident had not provided a crime reference number when in fact she had. This caused the resident unnecessary upset.
The landlord’s ASB policy does advise that crimes should be reported to the police. However, the policy does not state that the landlord will not investigate without a crime reference number. There is also no mention of a 7 day timeframe to provide a crime reference number. It is therefore unreasonable that it referred to this in its initial communications with the resident and its stage 1 complaint response.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that it could have provided context and a better explanation. It also listed the actions it had taken and was intending to take to try and address the issues with the ongoing damage to the door. The landlord’s response was appropriate.
A lockable communal door provides security and peace of mind to residents. It prevents entry by unauthorised persons and helps prevent ASB within the communal parts of the building. Even if there has been no ASB or direct attack, the mental stress associated with the fear of both can be significant for some individuals.
The landlord was aware that the resident lived with mental health vulnerabilities and was a survivor of domestic abuse. It therefore would have been reasonable for it to have taken the time to discuss the resident’s fears and understand the impact of the building being insecure, without her having to make a complaint. The landlord’s approach was unsympathetic and was not in line with the government’s guidance, which requires agencies to put victims at the heart of their response.
Given our observations above we have made an award of £200 compensation. The award is in line with our compensation guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Events post internal complaints procedure

The resident told us that the communal door has been broken again. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to inspect the door.

Complaint	The handling of the data breach
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

In the stage 1 complaint in April 2025, the resident said that a staff member had shared her personal information with other resident’s. We are unable to comment on matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. In this case the matter of the inappropriate sharing of information would fall to the Information Commissioners Office to handle.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

At the time of the complaint the landlord had a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it aims to provide a response within 10 working days. If a resident is unhappy with the response, they can request a peer review of the complaint. The landlord aims to respond at this stage within 20 working days. However, due to a cyber incident in 2022 the landlord put in place a temporary procedure which extended these timescales to 20 and 40 days respectively.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response 6 days outside its required timescales. Although the delay was not significant and would not have caused detriment it would have been appropriate for it to have acknowledged and apologised for the delay.
The stage 2 response was also late. In this instance the landlord apologised and offered £50 compensation, which was appropriate.

Learning

It would be helpful in similar cases for the landlord to explain what action it intends to take should it ask a resident to obtain a crime reference number. If the purpose is to ensure the crime is reported and the landlord does not intend to take further action it should be clear about this from the outset.
The landlord should aim to recognise and apologise for all complaint handling delays regardless of their duration.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There were several record keeping issues identified during our investigation, these included email and telephone communications with the resident. Such records help us assess if the landlord’s actions were appropriate. The landlord is encouraged to consider how it can improve its record keeping.

Communication

The landlord’s communication in the early stages of the resident’s reports around the door was lacking. Had it communicated sympathetically with the resident, it might have avoided some of the distress caused to her during her complaint.