Clarion Housing Association Limited (202421608)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with her 3 children. She moved into the property in July 2024 after fleeing her previous home due to domestic violence.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s:
   1. Management transfer.
   2. Reports of disrepair once she had moved into the new property.
   3. Queries about rent payments.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s management transfer.
   2. There was service failure in how the landlord handled:
      1. Her reports of disrepair once she had moved into the property.
      2. The complaint.
   3. The resident’s complaint about rent payments is not within our jurisdiction.

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

Summary of reasons

Management transfer.

5. We found the landlord had already offered appropriate redress for the delay in moving the resident into the new property, and for misleading advice it gave during this period of delay. However, we found it failed to suitably consider ways it could mitigate the impact of the delay and potential risk to the resident during this period. It has not acknowledged this, and so we made an order to put this right.

Disrepair.

6. We found the landlord failed to address several areas of disrepair in the new property within appropriate timescales. While we found it had already offered some redress for these delays, we do not consider it went far enough to put things right.

Rent payments.

7. The resident complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord had incorrectly charged her rent on both properties. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme does not permit us to investigate matters which have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. While we can see the resident asked the landlord to clarify a query she had on her total outstanding arrears in July 2024, we cannot see any indication she raised a complaint about being charged double rent at any stage. Therefore, this part of her complaint is not within our jurisdiction.

Complaint handling.

8. We found the landlord offered suitable redress for its delay in providing a stage 1 response. However, we found that then delayed at stage 2 but failed to address this.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. The resident complains that the landlord delayed unreasonably in progressing the void works at the new property from October 2023 until she moved into it in late June 2024. She also complains that it repeatedly and incorrectly advised that she would be able to move in imminently throughout this period.
10. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for both these failings in its stage 1 response. The outstanding issue for the resident with respect to this complaint is the level of compensation the landlord offered. Therefore, the question which remains for us to address is whether the compensation offered is appropriate to put things right.
11. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments between £100 and £600 are sufficient to put right failings which have adversely, but not permanently, impact residents.
12. In calculating the appropriate sum of compensation we have considered that the resident was unable to move into the new property for around 10 months from when the application was approved, which is 7 months beyond the timescales outlined in the landlord’s management transfer policy. We have considered how the resident was incorrectly advised on several occasions throughout this period that she would be able to move in within the following few weeks. We have considered how these omissions together likely caused her distress, and that this distress was likely more pronounced than it would have been had she not been a victim of domestic violence.
13. We have balanced these considerations against the complexity and scale of the void works the landlord had to complete at the new property, and how this likely made it more difficult to provide precise timescales for their completion. With all this mind, we consider an appropriate sum of compensation would sit at the upper end of our scale. The landlord has already offered the resident £500 for these failings. Therefore, we consider it has already done enough to put these right.
14. However, we do not consider the landlord appropriately considered how it could mitigate the ongoing impact of the delay on the resident from October 2023 to late June 2024. Its management transfer policy sets out that, while a resident is waiting for a suitable property to become available, it can consider additional security measures subject to the level of risk. These include:
    1. Window and door mortise locks, door bolts, chains, and spy holes.
    2. Personal alarms.
15. There is no indication the landlord considered additional security measures at any stage while the resident waited to move. Especially given the resident reported in May 2024 that her ex-partner had returned to the property and vandalised it. We would expect the landlord to have considered what steps it could take to mitigate the ongoing risk to the resident, and its failure to do so here likely caused her distress.
16. Information on the landlord’s website also advises residents that it will consider temporary accommodation and signpost refuge services when there is an immediate risk to them. We have seen no indication that the landlord considered emergency accommodation or signposted the resident to other services at any stage. We recognise the resident’s view that she felt abandoned by the landlord during this period.
17. The landlord has not yet acknowledged its failure to consider ways to mitigate the ongoing risk to the resident from October 2023 to late June 2024. Therefore, we will order it pays further compensation to put this right. In calculating the appropriate sum we have considered how these omissions likely compounded the resident’s distress while she waited to move.
18. However, we have considered that the majority of her distress during this period likely resulted from the delay itself. We have considered that the landlord advised the resident to continue bidding on other properties in March 2023 given the ongoing delays, which she declined. However, we also note that the resident was not aware at this stage that the delays would continue for a further 3 months.
19. With all this in mind, we consider a sum at the upper end of our scale is appropriate to put these specific omissions right. Therefore, we will order the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 in addition to the £500 already offered.

20. We do not typically investigate matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, unless we can see evidence of a relevant complaint handling failure. In a phone call with the Ombudsman on 7 October 2025 the resident complained about a faulty boiler and issues with the front and rear doors. While we can see she raised these issues on 20 June 2024 and 10 July 2024, she did not escalate either to stage 2 following the landlord’s stage 1 response on 6 August 2024. Therefore, this investigation has not addressed these parts of her complaint.
21. The resident also advised the Ombudsman on that her shower is currently affected by drainage issues. However, we can see she reported this to the landlord in March 2025 which was 5 months after the final response and related final repair records on 28 October 2024. Therefore, we consider this issue is separate to the issue which the landlord addressed via its complaints process. For this reason, we have not addressed the recent shower issues as part of this investigation.
22. The resident complained about the following areas of disrepair on 20 June 2024:
    1. Unsafe and overgrown garden.
    2. Dilapidated and unsafe shed.
    3. A window had fallen out of its frame.
23. On 10 July 2024 she complained that:
    1. There was no back gate or fence in the garden.
    2. The toilet was constantly getting blocked.
24. In her stage 2 escalation of 3 September 2024 she reiterated these complaints and noted that she was also without washing facilities.
25. We have addressed the landlord’s handling of the repairs separately in what follows.

Garden, shed, and window repairs.

26. In its stage 2 response on 15 October 2024 the landlord advised that it had completed the garden and shed repairs on 7 September 2024. The repair records from 7 September 2024 note “renew three shed doors and frames, batten underside of sheds and paint, fill in cracks around edges of shed roof…install boundary fence to rear of garden and gate to passage way.”
27. These records are difficult to interpret, and appear to read as a works order as opposed to a record of a completed repair. We expect landlords to keep clear and detailed audit trails of any repairs they complete. The landlord fell short of this expectation here, and as a result it is hard to robustly determine which repairs were completed here. However, we note that the resident did not raise any concerns about the garden or fencing following this, and therefore it is likely that the landlord completed at least these repairs on this date.
28. Repair records show the landlord completed the shed repairs on 28 October 2024. The records note it replaced the doors and relined the ceiling with plywood. This correlates with the works referenced in the 7 September 2024 notes which indicates it completed the outstanding repairs on this date.
29. Therefore, the landlord addressed the overgrowth in the garden 51 days past its 28 day routine repairs timescales. Its repairs to the fencing and back gate exceeded these timescales by 31 days. It completed the shed repairs 102 days beyond its timescales. We consider these delays likely caused the resident some distress. We note that the resident’s distress was likely more pronounced than it would have been in other circumstances given her concerns about the lack of fencing or a back gate related to her being at risk of domestic violence. We also note that the landlord incorrectly advised the resident that all the garden repairs had been completed on 7 September 2024 in its stage 2 response.
30. The landlord renewed the “lounge [window] and hinges” on 7 September 2024, which was 51 days past its routine timescales. We consider this likely caused the resident some further distress. We note that the landlord has apologised for this delay, and the delay in addressing the garden and shed works. It has also offered the resident £150 in compensation for these omissions. However, we do not consider this goes far enough to put things right given the length of the delays and number of outstanding works. Furthermore, we note that it calculated this sum based on the mistaken position it took at stage 2 that all the garden repairs had been addressed on 7 September 2024.
31. With all this in mind, we consider the landlord should pay the resident a further £100 compensation to bring the total sum to the middle range of our scale.

Toilet and shower repairs.

32. We can see the landlord unsuccessfully attempted to unblock the toilet and shower on several occasions in early September 2024. On 8 October 2024 it noted that the toilet was leaking and out of use. On 11 October 2024 it unsuccessfully attempted a repair and noted that the resident was forced to stay away from the property due to having no washing facilities. It diagnosed an issue with the pipework for the toilet and bath and raised works to renew this and inspect the waste pipes with a camera. It then attended on 24 October 2024 and removed the blockage which restored functionality.
33. Therefore, this repair exceeded the landlord’s routine timescales by 78 days. We also note that the resident was without a functioning toilet or washing facilities from at least 3 September 2024 until 24 October 2024. We consider this likely caused her significant distress and inconvenience in forcing her to stay away from the property for extended periods.
34. We note the landlord has already offered £100 compensation for this. However, we do not consider the landlord fully acknowledged the distress and inconvenience this delay caused the resident when it offered this sum. Given the length of the delay, and the significant inconvenience the resident incurred in not being able to make full use of the property, we consider an appropriate sum would sit at the middle-upper range of our scale. Therefore, we will order the landlord to pay a further £300 compensation to put things right.

35. The landlord addressed the resident’s stage 1 complaint 49 working days beyond the 10 working day timescale outlined in its repairs policy. It was then 10 working days late in addressing her stage 2 complaint. These delays together likely caused the resident some minor frustration. We note the landlord has already apologised for the stage 1 delay and offered £100 compensation for this. Based on our compensation scale, we consider this is sufficient to put this right. However, we note that the stage 2 delay remains unacknowledged. With this in mind, we will order the landlord pays the resident a further £50 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord’s record keeping related to repairs was poor throughout the period in question. We encourage the landlord to reflect on this against our Spotlight Report on record keeping. Specifically, we encourage it to consider how it may have avoided providing incorrect advice about the progress of repairs at stage 2.