Clarion Housing Association Limited (202410423)

Decision
Case ID	202410423
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom ground floor flat and pays a variable service charge. She told us she has difficulty with her memory. She raised concerns that the service charges were unclear, some services were not being provided, and the landlord did not properly monitor their quality or frequency. She asked us to investigate how the landlord responded to these concerns.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her service charges.
2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her service charges.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to service charges

The landlord delayed in responding to a service charge query, causing distress. But it appropriately acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered fair compensation. It also reviewed the charges, provided a breakdown, and responded reasonably to further concerns.

Response to the complaint

The landlord did not acknowledge its stage 1 delay or respond to the resident’s concerns about the refund for charges made in error.

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 member of the complaint handling team. 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 25 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 25 November 2025
3	Specific Action The landlord must provide evidence to the resident and us that it refunded the service charges made in error. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 25 November 2025
4	Training The landlord must demonstrate it has conducted complaint handling training in the last 6 months. This landlord must ensure the training includes: How to handle delays when issuing complaint responses. Answering all the elements of a resident’s complaint. The evidence must include: A copy of the landlord’s training pack. The date the training was delivered.	No later than 25 November 2025

Recommendation

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord arranges an in-person meeting with the resident to explain the service charges in detail. Additionally, it may be helpful to agree on a written format for presenting the charges that the resident finds clearer and easier to understand.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 March 2023	The resident queried the accuracy of the service charges for the TV aerial and door entry system. She said these services were not provided to the property. She asked this to be looked into.
9 May 2023	The resident raised a complaint because she had not had a response to her query.
6 June 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It confirmed the charges for the TV aerial and door entry system had been removed and had written to the resident to explain this on 26 May 2023. It said it had delayed in responding to her initial query because of a backlog. It apologised for its error and delay and offered £100 compensation to recognise this.
14 June 2023	The resident escalated her complaint because she had not received a breakdown of her service charges that she had requested in 2021. She also said she felt wrongly charged for a fire safety callout caused by a contractor. She also wanted clarity on her refund, a 4-year audit to check for further errors, and an explanation for rising charges despite fewer services being delivered.
12 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It confirmed the previous 4 years of service charges were applied correctly, with no evidence of contractor fault for the fire system. It clarified that some services were not included in the resident’s charges and cyclical works were planned for between the 2025 to 2026 financial year. The landlord acknowledged a delay in responding at stage 2 and awarded £100 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she still had concerns because: She thought some service charges had been introduced without consultation. She was unsure if she had been refunded for incorrect charges, as refunds were historically applied to the rent account which confused her. The landlord had not explained how it monitors the quality of the services provided. Communication about service charges had been poor for 4 years. Service charge information was inaccessible and poorly formatted.

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 response to the resident’s concerns about service charges
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident said she had asked for a breakdown of her service charges over the past 4 years including during 2021, but the landlord did not respond. As these requests were made more than 12 months before the complaint, we have not investigated them.
The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s initial service charge query, which caused her distress, inconvenience, and unnecessary effort in following up. Although we have not seen the original query or the response it sent on 26 May 2023, the facts are not disputed. The landlord acknowledged the delay and its impact, offered an apology, explained the reason for its delay, and provided fair compensation. This was reasonable to put things right.
The resident requested a review of service charges from the previous 4 years. The landlord carried this out, shared a detailed breakdown, and explained its findings. It said it had not found any errors. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s query.
The resident told us she found the landlord’s breakdown confusing. We understand the landlord has not yet had an opportunity to respond to this point. We recommend it meets with her in person to explain the charges, given her vulnerabilities. It may also wish to agree on a written format that she finds clearer and easier to understand.
The resident asked the landlord to clarify the current service charges, specifically for cyclical maintenance, pest control, and tree pruning. The landlord reasonably explained that tree pruning is not a service it provides, and no pest control had been needed. As such, no charges were applied. It also appropriately confirmed, based on a recent survey, that no further planned maintenance was due until 2025/2026.
The resident was concerned she had been charged for a fire safety inspection triggered by a contractor fault, based on information from another resident. The landlord investigated this, outlined the relevant fire safety visits, and found no evidence of contractor error. This was a reasonable and proportionate response to her concerns.
While the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s query, we consider it acted fairly to put things right. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the former Code’) published in 2022 applied when the resident made his complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time adhered to the former Code. The landlord responded as follows:

a. It issued its stage 1 response 19 working days after receiving the complaint. This should have been issued within 10 working days. This caused distress to the resident.

b. It issued its stage 2 response 86 working days after the escalation request. This should have been issued within 20 working days. This was an excessive delay.

The landlord appropriately acknowledged its delay at stage 2, apologised, and offered compensation. However, it did not acknowledge the delay at stage 1, missing a chance to put things right. We saw limited evidence it told the resident about the delays it was experiencing. This caused her uncertainty. It should have written to explain the delay and agree a new timeframe before its responses were due. Its actions were not in accordance with the former Code.
Further, the landlord acknowledged it had wrongly charged the resident for some service charges. The resident explained in her escalation request she was not sure if these charges had been refunded. We have seen no evidence to confirm the charges have been refunded. The landlord ought to have responded to this element of the complaint in its stage 2 response. This caused her distress and was a failure to answer all elements of the complaint in line with the Code. The landlord must provide proof that the refund was made.
We have made a finding of maladministration because the landlord’s complaint handling failures adversely impacted the resident. And it did not fully acknowledge this in its responses. The landlord must apologise, compensate the resident for the impact, and conduct complaint handling training.