Clarion Housing Association Limited (202409517)

Decision
Case ID	202409517
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	17 April 2026

Background

1. The resident agreed a payment plan with the landlord in April 2023 for arrears on her rent account. Six months later she contacted the landlord about service charge payments that were due and learned that her direct debit had not been amended. The resident was unhappy with the way the landlord dealt with the arrears she accrued.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Arrears on her rent and service charge account.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Arrears on her rent and service charge account.
   2. Associated complaint.

We have made no orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged it failed to amend the direct debit, did not provide enough support, and should have handled the matter more sensitively. It then took reasonable and proportionate steps to put right the impact on the resident and to prevent similar errors from reoccurring.
5. The landlord largely followed its complaints process and timescales. It mishandled the resident’s escalation request but apologised and awarded compensation to recognise the time and trouble this caused her in chasing a response.

 

 

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If the landlord has not already paid the £250 compensation it awarded it should do so because our decision of reasonable redress was partly based on it having done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 November 2023	The resident complained that: Her direct debit had not been amended in April 2023 leading her to fall into greater arrears. The member of staff she spoke to made her feel “bullied”, “ignored”, and told her she could be evicted. The situation had caused her considerable distress and affected her health. She wanted the threat of eviction to be removed, a personal apology from the member of staff, and compensation.
6 December 2023	After initially attempting to resolve the matter informally, the landlord sent its stage 1 response saying: It was sorry the direct debit was not amended. It had listened to the call with the staff member and was sorry that she felt threatened. The resident was not under threat of eviction. It had come to an arrangement with her to pay the arrears over 10 months. It awarded compensation of £100. Was aware the resident had support from a debt charity but gave contact details for its own financial support team.
9 December 2023	The resident asked to escalate her complaint, but this did not happen.
2 January 2024	The resident’s MP forwarded her concerns about not receiving a stage 2 response.
5 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request in writing. In response she clarified that her concerns were that: It had not considered that she had been “treated insensitively” and she had lost faith in the landlord because of this. She spent 2 months crying over the situation. It had offered her no financial support or advice. She had not received a full written apology from the member of staff and was unclear how the compensation had been arrived at.
18 January 2024	In the landlord’s stage 2 review response, it said: The initial response did not include learning. It had changed its process to ensure customers whose direct debits fail are contacted sooner. It gave feedback to the member of staff complained about. Had given training to all staff on managing financial situations “empathetically and professionally”. The compensation awarded at stage 1 was broken down to £50 for each failure (not amending the direct debit and the call handling). The landlord signposted to resources for financial support and advice. It also awarded an additional £150 (£250 in total), made up of: £50 for the delayed stage 2 response. £50 for the failure to process the income and expenditure form. £50 for the lack of empathy shown.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she was unhappy the landlord used the compensation against her arrears and that she did not receive an apology from the member of staff complained about. She said the situation caused her considerable distress and she is seeking more compensation.

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	Arrears on her rent and service charge account
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

6. The resident said in her complaint to the landlord that her mental and physical health had been affected. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any impacts to her health. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent expert medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. As such, we have not investigated this further. We have considered instead if the landlord should pay more compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused.

What we have considered

7. Under the terms of the lease, the resident is responsible for paying rent and service charges. The lease explains that service charges are payable in advance, based on an estimated amount, and that the landlord will issue details of the actual expenditure once the accounts have been verified. It also states that if a payment is not made it made take action to recover the debt from the leaseholder or their mortgage lender.
8. The landlord’s arrears policy states all tenants and leaseholders are responsible for ensuring payments are made. Where a resident defaults, the policy confirms it will take steps it deems necessary to recover the debt to protect its income and future as a social landlord.

Direct debit

9. It is undisputed that the landlord made an error by failing to amend the resident’s direct debit to reflect a payment plan agreed to recover rent arrears. And that she was not notified of this prior to 23 October 2023 call. These service failures amount to maladministration because they contributed to the resident falling further into arrears. We cannot, however, say it was solely the landlord’s failings that caused this, because of the resident’s obligations.
10. The landlord took appropriate steps to put matters right with the arrears. It took accountability for its error and apologised for the impact caused. It also agreed a payment plan with the resident to manage the arrears on 20 November 2023 (10 days after she complained). The landlord confirmed it had amended the direct debit to reflect the new arrangement and changed its process to prevent the mistake of her not being notified from happening again.

Staff conduct

11. The resident complained that she was told she may be evicted and that this caused her considerable worry for 2 months. We saw the landlord took appropriate action to investigate this. It considered the resident’s account and listened to a recording of the call. Though the landlord did not directly state its view of how the call was handled, it did apologise that it had not met its standard to provide an empathetic service. It also reassured that the resident would not be evicted, on 20 November 2023 and again in its stage 1 response of 6 December 2023. It later confirmed feedback had been provided to the member of staff she spoke to and training had been given to the whole team to improve staff’s customer service skills.

Support and signposting

12. The resident escalated her complaint in December 2023 because she said it had not processed her income and expenditure form. She indicated she was dissatisfied with the level of support the landlord had offered, but she did not specify what support she was seeking. According to the arrears policy, the landlord aims to signpost residents to support services. This did not happen in the resident’s case until after she complained. This was a service failure that the resident explained in her complaint had caused her additional worry and distress on top of her financial situation.
13. Appropriately the landlord acknowledged its failure to provide enough support at its first opportunity. And the distress this caused. It also, in both responses, signposted her to other resources than the debt charity she was already using for financial support. This included its own support services, which it listed.

Conclusion

14. The resident is seeking more compensation for the distress the situation caused her. We recognise the landlord’s actions caused her considerable upset and worry over her living and financial situation. As set out above, it took practical actions to put things right and to help prevent it happening again. The amount it awarded at £200, for the cumulative impacts, was within the range (£50-£250) its compensation policy states it will pay for cases where its service failure has caused some distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. It is also within the range (£150-£600) our compensation guidance recommends for distress and inconvenience that is not expected to be long-lasting. We find the amount was proportionate to the landlord’s failings and in view of the other timely actions it took to put things right. Such as reassuring her that she would not be evicted.
15. The resident advised that one of the reasons she referred her complaint to us was because the compensation was paid off her arrears and not directly to her. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will use compensation awards to pay rent or other arrears. It was therefore in keeping with the landlord’s approach to offset the debt.
16. The resident also said she did not receive an apology directly from the member of staff. We find the landlord’s apologies in its responses were appropriate and in keeping with its commitment, set out in its complaints policy, to “take ownership” of issues raised. It was reasonable the person responding to the complaint to make the apology on behalf of the landlord. This approach is also in line with our remedies guidance to take actions to put things right but that are not designed to punish a landlord (or its staff).
17. Considering the responsibilities of both parties, we find that the landlord took proportionate and prompt actions to put things right.

 

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

18. When the resident complained, the landlord had an interim complaints policy in place because of increased demands on its service caused by a cyber-attack. The policy timescales and processes did not always align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code), such as having longer response times. However, we have considered if the landlord followed its interim policy, which would have been reasonable given its purpose.
19. The resident asked to make a formal complaint on 10 November 2023. The interim policy recognised the Code’s definition of a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction” about its staff or service. It allowed it to handle some cases where a customer was unhappy with a service as an enquiry. But it would explain why it was not handling it as a complaint to the customer. Though it may have been reasonable for the landlord to attempt to resolve the resident’s concerns quickly, we were unable to see a record that it explained its approach to her initially. This was not in keeping with its policy and was therefore a failing.
20. According to the complaints policy, it would log and acknowledge a complaint and escalation within 10 working days. It then aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
21. The landlord met its stage 1 process and timescales, taking 17 working days overall to both acknowledge and respond. This was appropriate and meant the resident was not affected by its decision to deal with her concerns initially as an enquiry.
22. Records show the resident escalated her complaint in mid-December 2023 but we have not seen how she did this and what was said. They also show the landlord logged the escalation request but deactivated the case because it needed clarity from her. Again, we have seen no record that it contacted the resident about this. It was through the resident’s MP, who contacted the landlord on 2 January 2024, that the complaint was escalated and later acknowledged on 5 January 2024. It is a failing that the landlord cannot evidence what happened with the resident’s escalation request. Or that it communicated with her about it or its need for further information.
23. The resident explained in an email of 5 January 2024 what issues she remained unhappy with. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 18 January 2024. This was within its published timescales, at 25 working days from the original escalation request.
24. Appropriately the landlord apologised and awarded £50 compensation. It would have been better if it had provided explanations about what happened to be able to give an apology that was specific to the failings outlined above. This shortfall in its response standard was not significant enough to constitute a failure. The amount it gave was also in keeping with its compensation policy. It was also in line with our range (£50-£250), set out in our guidance, for complaint handling failures that have had a minor impact. It was proportionate to put right the time and trouble the resident was caused in chasing the final response up.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. Generally, the records were of a reasonable standard, apart from those referenced in the complaint handling section. The landlord may wish to consider how it can better ensure consistency in how its complaint records are kept and recorded.

Communication

26. The communication with the resident in this case was poor. This caused her considerable upset and worry. The landlord sought to put things right for her and, importantly, implemented learning.