From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202423108)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423108

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about the security of the communal bike store.
    2. Request for compensation following the theft of her bike.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom second-floor flat situated in a communal block, which has a shared bike store located beside the main entrance to the building.
  2. The landlord has provided evidence which shows the resident contacted it on 28 February 2024 to report that her bike had been stolen from the communal bike store on 26 February 2024. She asked to be compensated for the loss of her bike. The landlord responded by raising a repair to secure the bike store and directed the resident to make a complaint.
  3. On 29 February 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said she had been raising concerns about the security of the bike store since 2016, after 2 of her bikes were previously stolen. She said security was “poor”, which the landlord had been informed of on “numerous occasions” but had “failed to do anything about it”. She stated her bike was valued at approximately £700 and she requested to be compensated this amount.
  4. On 21 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It summarised the actions it had taken to date and did not uphold the complaint. It said:
    1. It had taken “immediate action” to secure the bike store door upon notification of the bike theft. Repairs had been completed in mid-March 2024.
    2. No security measures were “entirely foolproof”, which was why it advised residents to ensure they had “proper insurance cover” especially for high-value items.
    3. Use of the bike store was at the owner’s risk which was outlined in the terms of the tenancy.
    4. It could not accept liability for losses or damages incurred, and therefore could not offer compensation.
    5. Claims should be pursued through personal insurance providers. It recommended the resident make a claim through her own home insurance policy.
  5. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 25 March 2024. She said she was unhappy with the outcome of the stage 1 response and the landlord’s reasons for not awarding compensation for the bike. She also asked the landlord to confirm where in the tenancy agreement it stated that bikes were left at residents’ own risk, as she could not find this.
  6. During a telephone call with the landlord on 16 April 2024, the resident raised additional complaint points. She said she was unaware of any repairs in March 2024, and the bike store door was no more secure than it had been previously. She also stated there was no signage to indicate that bikes were stored at residents’ own risk.
  7. On 1 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It partially upheld the complaint on the basis that “more ought to have been done” to notify residents that it was not responsible for any items left in the bike store. It did not uphold the other elements of the complaint. It said:
    1. The lock release on the bike store door had been replaced on 13 March 2024, and further repairs were completed to the door handles on 21 March 2024.
    2. It was not generally within its processes to communicate to individual residents about communal repairs, unless there were known delays, which was not the case in this matter.
    3. The lock to the bike store door had been determined to be “working as it should”. It would be possible to survey and quote for a more “robust mechanism”, but this would be considered an improvement rather than a repair, which might require prior consultation with residents.
    4. The tenancy agreement did not refer to the resident’s responsibility for items kept in the bike store. Neither did it confirm the landlord’s responsibility, and therefore, it was not responsible for “property left in the stores”.
    5. There was a lack of signage in the bike store area regarding the responsibility of residents for any possessions, for which it apologised. It had ordered additional signs, which would be installed once received.
    6. It was unable to provide reimbursement for the resident’s bike but offered £200 compensation to her for the lack of signage.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 8 September 2024. She asked us to consider awarding an increased level of compensation to reflect the value of her bike.
  2. During contact with us in August 2025, the resident said there were ongoing issues with the bike store door. She said the door handle was broken and her fob no longer worked. She said she had informed the landlord of this, but no action had been taken. She stated she was unable to use the bike store and had to secure her bike within her property instead. As an outcome, the resident told us she would like the bike store door to be fixed to a secure standard and for the landlord to keep it in working order. In addition, she again asked the Ombudsman to review the level of compensation she was offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint referenced historical events from 2016 onwards. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the length of time that has passed since the events in question, which can affect the amount of evidence that is available. Residents are also expected to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months after a complaint has exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure). Accordingly, our investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns from March 2023, covering the 12-month period prior to the complaint being raised. This approach is in line with both the Scheme and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  2. In her communication with the Ombudsman, the resident stated that she believes the landlord is responsible for the theft of her bike and should compensate her accordingly. It is not our role to determine whether the landlord was responsible for any losses, as this would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. We will, however, determine whether the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.

The resident’s concerns about the security of the communal bike store

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining shared parts of the building, including outside shared areas and outhouses.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states it has 2 main repair priorities (emergency and non-emergency). It says repairs to communal areas should be “appointed dependent upon the nature of the work” but should always be completed within 28 days.
  3. The resident first reported the theft of her bike to the landlord on 28 February 2024. At this time, she also raised concerns regarding the security of the bike store door, stating that while the door had been locked, youths had been able to force it open without the use of tools resulting in her bike being stolen. The landlord responded on the same day (28 February 2024) by raising a repair with its contractor for the bike store door, which was appropriate given the theft reported.
  4. It is acknowledged that the resident had previously raised concerns regarding the security of the bike store in 2021. However, during the timeline of our investigation (March 2023 onwards), the landlord has confirmed that no repair reports were recorded in relation to the bike store until 28 February 2024. The landlord has stated that it does not hold communal maintenance logs for the bike store, so we have been unable to verify this through documentary evidence. Nevertheless, we have seen no indication that the landlord was made aware of any issues with the bike store door in the 12 months preceding the theft of the resident’s bike on 26 February 2024. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was not put on notice about the repair to the bike store door until 28 February 2024.
  5. The landlord’s records indicate that its contractor attended on 29 February 2024 and identified that the electric strike lock was damaged and required replacement. The contractor then reattended on 13 March 2024 to carry out this replacement and recorded that the door was then “holding closed”. At the same time, it was noted that further work was required to the interior door handle. The landlord’s records state that the handle was replaced and the lock adjusted on 21 March 2024. The repair was therefore concluded in 22 days, which fell inside the landlord’s 28-day timescale for non-emergency repairs.
  6. After the resident’s escalation request on 25 March 2024, she told the landlord that the bike store door did not feel any more secure, despite the repairs which had been carried out. In its final response on 1 May 2024, the landlord said the lock was working as intended. It added that while a stronger mechanism could be considered, this would be an improvement rather than a repair and might require resident consultation, but it apparently did not pursue this further. This was unsatisfactory. Although the landlord fulfilled its responsibility by ensuring the door was in working order, it could have arranged a survey, obtained a quote, and explained whether an upgrade was possible. It did not do this, which was disappointing for the resident and led to a loss of confidence in the landlord.
  7. On 1 May 2024, the landlord sought advice from its contractor about the bike store door, which was appropriate given the resident’s concerns. The contractor responded on 7 May 2024 and said it had spoken to the engineer who had attended site, who had recommended the door needed strengthening and the handle changing to make it less susceptible to vandalism. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acted on these recommendations. Although this advice was received after the complaints process had concluded, it was requested during the stage 2 investigation. Therefore, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to consider and follow up on it. Its failure to do so caused further inconvenience to the resident.
  8. Overall, we find that the landlord acted appropriately once notified of the repair needed to the bike store door. It addressed the repair in line with its policy timescales and ensured the door was left in working order. However, it did not fully respond to the resident’s concerns about security, as it failed to explore additional security measures or follow up on its contractor’s recommendations. Considering the above, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the security of the communal bike store.
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will consider compensation under certain circumstances, including a failure in its service. It does not provide any specific details of the awards it will make but states it will assess each case individually. It says it will consider “the extent, severity, and impact of the failure”. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards of up to £100 are considered appropriate where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right. Therefore, we consider a payment of £100 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the service failings identified in this report.

The resident’s request for compensation

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out examples of when compensation may be awarded and when it may not. It says that it may not offer compensation payments in the following circumstances:
    1. Where a resident can make a claim against their own insurance policy.
    2. For loss or damage caused by a third party unrelated to it.
    3. For claims that should be covered by a home contents insurance policy.
  2. After reporting the theft of her bike to the landlord on 28 February 2024, the resident requested compensation for her loss due to the lack of security in the communal bike store. She was directed to make a complaint, which was appropriate given the request she had made.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 21 March 2024, it advised the resident to make a claim on her home contents insurance policy. This was reasonable, as such policies would usually cover the theft of personal belongings, and it is generally accepted that residents leave items in communal areas at their own risk. This approach was also consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  4. The landlord reiterated its position in its final response on 1 May 2024. It referred to the advice given at stage 1, for the resident to make a claim through her home insurance provider, and said it was not responsible for items left in the communal storage areas. This was reasonable, as while the resident considered the landlord had not covered her losses, there is no evidence that it was responsible for this.
  5. In its final response, the landlord said it was unable to compensate the resident for the loss of her bike but offered £200 compensation to her in recognition of its “failure to adequately signpost residents regarding responsibility for possessions”. This was reasonable of the landlord, as there is no evidence that it was obliged to make this offer and demonstrated that it wanted to put things right for the resident. It also apologised to her and committed to ordering and installing further signage in the bike store area, which was appropriate.
  6. Overall, we find that the landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policy. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation. We have recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £200 it offered, if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the security of the communal bike store.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation following the theft of her bike.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her concerns about the security of the communal bike store. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
    3. Confirm whether it has completed the further recommended work identified by its contractor, as outlined in paragraph 19. It should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an update detailing what action it has taken or will take in relation to these recommendations.
    4. Contact the resident to provide her with an update on its position regarding repairs to the bike store door.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £200 compensation that was offered in its final complaint response, if it has not already done so. This is in addition to the £100 ordered above.