We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202423789)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202423789

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 installation of an intercom system.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 1 bedroom flat. She lives in the property with her child. She lives with vulnerabilities however the landlord did not provide us with specific information around this. She also has two neighbours.
  2. The resident originally raised concerns in 2021. She explained that it was inconvenient going up and down 4 to 5 flights of stairs every time someone came to her property. On occasions by the time she got downstairs they were gone. The resident chased the issue in 2022 and 2023 She raised a complaint in 2023 but did not receive a response.
  3. The resident raised another complaint on 27 April 2024. She explained about the length of time she spent chasing the 2023 complaint, the lack of response, and the length of time she tried to resolve the issue. She told the landlord she was pregnant, and it was crucial that she had an intercom. She explained the difficulties she currently faced going down the flight of stairs, and those she expected after having her baby. She also told it about the impact on her mental health as she had to go down the stairs without knowing who was at the communal door downstairs. She told it that it previously promised that it would instal this, but there had been no progress.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 June 2024 and acknowledged there were areas where it failed to resolve matters and respond to communication within reasonable timescales. It apologised and explained the delay in the response was necessary so it could provide a comprehensive response. It confirmed it said in her 2021 complaint that it had passed a quote to its service charge team to calculate the costs involved. It received the quotes in May 2021 but did not obtain a unified outcome from the residents in the building and this led to it halting the installation process. It also said:
    1. As she raised the issue again, due to the time lapse, it would carry out another consultation to ensure consent from all residents. It would also liaise with the necessary teams internally to confirm the current costs involved in the installation of the intercom.
    2. It apologised it could not confirm the completion of the consultation process and appreciated her time and patience whilst this was ongoing. As such it had raised a process internally to ensure it monitored the issue through to completion. It would update her after receiving all the responses from residents.
    3. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its complaint handling and awarded her £50.
  5. The landlord explained internally on 9 July 2024 that it was closing the outbound customer payment as the resident rejected it. She did not believe the amount and outcome were satisfactory. It told us that this was when she escalated her complaint.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 August 2024. It explained that following the stage 1 response, it consulted with residents, and the exercise concluded that residents in the building did not want to contribute towards the installation again. It however obtained a separate quote from its contractor to install an intercom serving her property only. To offer resolution, on a discretionary basis, it:
    1. Was prepared to contribute half towards the installation of the system. The total cost was £2,176.95, and it would therefore contribute £1,088.48. It said it would carry out the works if she contributed £1,088.47.
    2. Said she should confirm if she wanted to proceed, so it could make the necessary arrangements. It had instructed a member of staff to contact her within 3 months’ time to check in on her situation and to see if there was anything more it could do.
    3. Explained It reviewed all complaints and feedback and used this to improve the service it delivered to residents. The key learning it had taken from his complaint was to ensure it kept its residents informed.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome and continued to contact the landlord. She explained the situation to us on 18 September 2024, and said she felt she should not have to contribute towards the costs. She had also obtained 2 quotes from local electrical companies whose quotes were cheaper than the landlord’s. She also expected it to compensate her for how poorly it dealt with the issue, the negative impact on her mental health and risks to her physical health, particularly whilst pregnant amongst other reasons.

Post complaint

  1. We mediated between the parties. We asked the landlord on behalf of the resident if it would pay the costs of the intercom system. It initially maintained its position that it would pay half the cost of the intercom system. In February 2025, we asked the landlord to confirm it agreed to use the resident’s contractor, match the fund, and that it start its internal process. The resident was unhappy that she had to cover half the cost as she said it had previously stated it would cover all the cost. We explained this to the landlord, and in March 2025, it offered to cover the full installation cost of £736 from the quote she provided in August 2024. It also, in recognition of its service failure, awarded her £500.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the situation on her health. We are however unable to consider this. This is because such decisions require a determination on liability and causation which only a court can make. The resident may wish to seek independent advice.
  2. The resident stated that her concerns go back to 2021. She explained that the landlord promised to install the intercom system following her complaint in 2021. She also raised this within her current complaint. Due to this we shall consider the landlord’s response in 2021, and the actions it took following this as it relates to her current complaint.

Installation of an intercom system

  1. The lease says that the resident will pay the landlord a service charge for all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection to repair, management, maintenance, and provision of services for the building and common parts.
  2. It is important to note that the landlord has no obligation to install an intercom system in the first instance. As any such installation is an improvement to the property, and the landlord has no responsibility to make this improvement Also as the resident is a leaseholder, and according to the terms of the lease, the landlord can recover the costs of any such work through service charges.
  3. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that should the resident choose to use her own contractor for the works, it would be her responsibility for the repairs and maintenance of the system.
  4. We can see that in 2021, the landlord completed a consultation with the resident’s neighbours around the installation of the intercom system. It however contradicts itself around the results. In an internal email on May 2022, it says that it did not receive any responses from the resident’s neighbours. It then later explained to us that it had a verbal conversation with one of the neighbours who said that they did not want the installation of the system, nor did they want to contribute financially.
  5. We can also see that the landlord explored obtaining a quote for multiple different systems. It identified in December 2021 after the resident asked that it had no records showing that it agreed to the installation of the system. At this point it would have been reasonable for the landlord to refer to the complaint response and confirm what actions it would take. It should then have clarified this with the resident. We cannot see that it did so and this was inappropriate.
  6. Doing so would have allowed the landlord to assure itself of the actions it needed to take and also decide on a definitive stance around the issue and if it needed to install the system. The failure to do so led to the resident continuing to chase an outcome and raise her concerns between 2022 and 2023. She raised another complaint, and we cannot see that the landlord responded to this.
  7. The resident then raised another complaint in 2024. Within its stage 1 response, it confirmed that it had not actually said it would install the system, but instead said it would consult with residents in the building and form a decision based on responses, which it did, and that was to not install the system.
  8. It also confirmed in its response that it realised there were opportunities to resolve the matter at an earlier point, and it also failed in its communication, and apologised. In the 2024 complaint the landlord said it would fund half the costs of the one way system. The landlord also completed another consultation in June 2024, prior to its stage 2 response, and received a response which confirmed its previous findings in 2021. As explained in the background, the landlord has since agreed to fund the installation costs of the intercom system.
  9. In summary, the landlord appropriately consulted with the resident’s neighbours around the installation of the system. It however failed to show that it clarified whether it did in fact promise to install the system promptly. It identified in December 2021 that it had no records to show that it made any such promise and then did not show it thoroughly investigated this until the stage 2 response in August 2024, almost 32 months later. This was inappropriate.
  10. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £500 in March 2025 as part of the Ombudsman’s mediation process. It is unclear what service failures the landlord was referring to, however we identified shortcomings around the landlord’s investigation of the matter to identify what it told the resident in 2021, and its communication, and we consider that the landlord’s offer of £500 to be a reasonable offer of redress.
  11. This is because we believe the amount offered sufficiently addresses the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is especially when considered that the landlord did not have an obligation to install the intercom system and has not charged the resident for the works.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 27 April 2024, as such its response was due on 20 May 2024. While the landlord did contact the resident and ask for an extension to provide its response, this was on 5 June 2024, 16 days after it needed to provide its response. It then responded on 12 June 2024. The delay in its request for an extension was inappropriate. The landlord however apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says where it makes financial payments, its policy aims to ensure that they are appropriate, proportionate to the loss or inconvenience caused. It says it will award compensation where it has failed in providing a service. In line with its compensation policy, the landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation. Assessing this against our own remedies guidance, we consider its offer reasonable. This is because despite the delay, there is no evidence of significant detriment caused to the resident by the delay in the landlord’s complaint response. As such we find that there was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.c. of the housing Ombudsman Scheme we find that the landlord’s handling of the request for an intercom system was resolved with our intervention.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we find that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.