Clarion Housing Association Limited (202420670)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420670

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident concerning the letting condition and her repairs reports.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house with a garden.
3. The property became empty around early 2024. The landlord capped the gas, completed void works in late March 2024, and confirmed it was ready to let in early April 2024. The resident viewed the property in mid-April 2024 and moved into it in late May 2024. Around this time, it is understood that the landlord agreed to dismantle and remove a shed in the rear garden.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 24 May 2024, the day after she moved in, about the property condition. She said the garden was overgrown, had rubbish left in it, and lacked a boundary fence. She also said windows were blown. In further contacts, she raised an asbestos roof to an outbuilding, loose rear guttering that was possibly causing damp and mould, an unwired immersion heater, and a kitchen ceiling hole. The landlord took steps to progress the issues and agreed to reimburse 1 week rent.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 15 July 2024.
   1. It noted it had since done repairs for the rear fence, kitchen ceiling hole and loose rear guttering, and the resident was to monitor the mould.
   2. It noted some rubbish was still in the garden after it had demolished the shed. It said it would clear the rear garden that week.
   3. It noted that it replaced some windows on 8 July 2024 but some replacements were the incorrect size, so it would complete windows works on 12 August 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by this.
   4. It acknowledged that it had not followed the correct voids process before the resident moved in and recognised that this was frustrating and time consuming. It awarded £350 for the inconvenience and its complaint handling.
6. The landlord escalated the complaint on 24 July 2024, after the resident raised dissatisfaction with the outcomes to the garden clearance, asbestos roof, and immersion heater. She also reported a broken thermostat and raised concerns, after a gas leak, that the heating and hot water was not checked during the void process.
7. The landlord provided its final response on 27 August 2024.
   1. It said the garden was cleared in line with its void standard.
   2. It noted that works the resident had reported since moving in had been addressed and it detailed upcoming appointments for window hinges, shed guttering, the immersion heater and the faulty thermostat.
   3. It noted actions for the gas leak and said the gas would have been checked when the supply was capped after the previous tenant left.
   4. It said that it would not remove asbestos as part of the void works if this was intact. It said that if the resident was concerned about the roof condition this could be inspected by a surveyor.
   5. It noted that the resident raised the immersion heater in her original complaint, but it did not address this in its stage 1 response. It apologised and awarded a further £50 for this.
8. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had not fully cleared the garden and she had to pay to clear it herself. She also raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had not agreed to act about the outhouse asbestos roof.

Assessment and findings

9. The evidence shows that before the resident moved in, the landlord identified voids works. The voids works were completed in late March 2024, and a supervisor reported that the property was ready to let in early April 2024. When she moved into the property in May 2024, the resident then raised a number of repairs. She also raised concerns which essentially questioned whether the letting condition, and checks and works before she moved in, were adequate.
10. The landlord’s void standard sets out the minimum standard a property should meet when letting. The landlord did not act reasonably in line with this for some aspects when the property was reported to be ready to let. A shed was left in the garden. This went against the voids standard that non-brick outhouses including sheds should be removed, unless a landlord and incoming tenant agree for these to be ‘gifted,’ which is not evident here. Photos show misted windows, but windows were identified to only need ease and adjustment. This went against the voids standard that misted windows should be replaced. The stage 1 response was therefore right to acknowledge that the voids process was not followed.
11. The landlord subsequently took action for the issues that the resident reported, such as remove the shed, clear the garden, repair a kitchen ceiling hole, repair guttering, check damp and mould, and repair the windows. The evidence shows that it took action for or completed most of them in around a month. One exception was the windows, which took longer due to the manufacturing process as well as a measuring error, that the landlord apologised for. Another exception was an immersion storage issue which its stage 2 response apologised for not previously addressing. The resident has not disputed that these issues were later addressed. This shows that the landlord was responsive, generally took timely action, and sought to acknowledge and progress issues where it did not.
12. The resident raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had not fully cleared the garden. The landlord’s voids standard says that gardens should be cleared of rubbish and other items such as refuse and building materials. Grass above 200mm should be cut. Gardens should be cleared of overgrown or unkempt areas, but for long gardens, only to a distance of 4 metres from the property. Further clearance may be arranged from time to time.
13. The landlord’s final response was reasonable to say that the garden was cleared in line with its void standard. The photos circulated when the property was ready to let appear to show a garden cleared in line with the standard, aside from the shed. The resident reported that more items needed removal after the landlord took down the garden shed and did fencing work, and it arranged further clearance. This was still in line with the voids standard, as this gives the expectation that there may be some circumstances where further clearance is arranged.
14. The resident later said some rubbish remained and that she had to pay to clear it herself. It is not evident that any further clearances were significantly out of line with the voids standard, nor is it evident to what further expense the resident went to. However, the landlord is recommended to consider any remaining garden rubbish and any evidence from the resident that she paid to clear the garden. It is recommended to then set out its position to her on whether it will do any more clearance or reimburse her for any clearance that it accepts it should have done itself.
15. The resident raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had not agreed to act about an outhouse asbestos roof. The landlord’s voids standard says that it will produce asbestos reports where required and take appropriate action.
16. The evidence shows that the landlord did asbestos inspections before the resident moved in. These gave structures such as the outhouses a low risk rating and made no recommendations for removal. The landlord was therefore reasonable to say that it would not remove asbestos if it was intact and to offer further inspection. It reflected that inspections had found that elements such as the roof were considered safe and required no action. It could have made this clear in its response, so a recommendation is made about this.
17. The resident raised concerns that the heating and hot water was not checked before she moved in, due to a gas leak that arose. The landlord’s void standard says its contractor will isolate and cap the gas after a property is reported to be void. The evidence confirms that in January 2024, before the resident moved in, the contractor capped the gas and completed a gas safety record. The landlord’s response that the gas was checked and capped after the previous tenant left was therefore reasonable and reflected what had happened.
18. The evidence overall shows that while the landlord handled many matters appropriately, it did not complete some issues before the resident moved in, in line with its voids standard. It did not remove a garden shed. It also did not repair misted windows. The resident was caused distress and went to time and trouble progressing these. She also went to unnecessary time and trouble contacting the landlord about further garden clearances after the shed removal works and fence erection works, which were a consequence of the original lack of removal of the shed.
19. The landlord’s actions and responses show it appropriately sought to acknowledge this and put right the issues, through practical action and compensation in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. The £400 total compensation is in the region of what our remedies guidance says is applicable for maladministration, and failings that have adversely affected a complainant but had no permanent impact.
20. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord therefore responded reasonably overall for the issues and impact evident, and in line with its policies and our remedies guidance. This leads us to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response about the letting condition and repairs.
21. This does not mean that we think that the issues, landlord’s handling or impact on the resident were “reasonable.” The finding reflects that there were failings, which the landlord has reasonably acknowledged and remedied in line with our approach.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident concerning the letting condition and her repairs reports.

Recommendations

23. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £400 it offered, if it has not paid this already, as the decision is on the basis that this is paid.
24. The landlord is recommended to ensure that its voids team and relevant surveyors have learned lessons in respect to their ensuring that:
    1. Sheds are removed before a new tenant moves in, unless steps are taken in line with the voids standard to agree with the lettings team and new tenant that a shed is to be gifted.
    2. Misted windows are repaired before a new tenant moves in.
25. The landlord is recommended to ensure that its responses to asbestos queries and complaints include the outcomes to asbestos inspections it has done of the property.
26. The landlord is recommended to consider any remaining garden rubbish and any evidence from the resident that she paid to clear the garden. It is then recommended to set out its position to her on whether it will do any more clearance or reimburse her for any clearance that it accepts it should have done itself.