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 (202424751)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424751

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 September 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. Reports of repairs to the communal entry fire doors.
    2. Reports of repairs to the intercom system.
    3. Concerns regarding staff conduct.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated:
    1. Complaint.
    2. Record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a 2 bedroom flat (the property) on the first floor. She moved into the property in 2016. She lives there with her partner and her son. The landlord holds the freehold title to the property.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 6 June 2023. She explained she had experienced issues with the door entry system since the end of 2020. She had reported in January 2023, that she was unable to buzz people in and had made a makeshift lock. She said 3 operatives attended but could not resolve the issues. At the last appointment 3 months prior, the landlord said it would escalate the repair as emergency because the door was not secure, but the repair remained outstanding.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 August 2023. It noted that it had raised jobs on the wrong door. Its operatives attended between March 2023 and August 2023. On one of these visits, the back door lock was removed and installed on the front door. It eventually established that a specific failsafe lock was required which would be installed once it was delivered. It recognised that it had not completed the repair in accordance with its timelines. It offered £100 for the inconvenience caused and to acknowledge that the resident had to chase it. It also offered £50 in recognition of its delayed stage 1 response.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 August 2023. She explained she had reported the door issues in mid-January 2023. She said she clearly stated that she was unable to buzz people in, and it was not closing properly. This was causing her difficulties as she was pregnant at the time and had to physically go down to collect parcels. She said the first two operatives could not fix the door and told her it would need replacing. Another operative told her he would return with the necessary parts and a further operative “claimed to” fix the door, but it was not fixed. She added that the operative swore at a neighbour’s child and the back door remained insecure without a lock. She expected that no additional charges would be added to her service charge in relation to this issue.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 November 2023. It apologised for quoting some incorrect dates in its stage 1 response, and for the excessive time and attendances taken to carry out the repair. It said since its contractor installed a lock, it had raised a further job as the door frame had warped. It completed this on 31 October 2023, but a new lock was still required which it would install once it was in stock. In relation to the intercom, it said the last inspection found it to be working. It said it raised the issue of staff conduct with its contractor. The contractor investigated this, and the landlord would take no further action. It acknowledged that there had been several different issues with the communal door, which caused a lack of “cohesion” with the repair. It offered a further £200 compensation for its handling of the door repair and £100 for complaint handling failures.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us on 26 September 2024. She said despite her numerous calls and emails, the door does not work as it should. She said it was causing her family a lot of stress and worry about the security risk, with “random people” coming into the block. She wants the landlord to fix the door. The complaint became one we could investigate on 27 March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is noted that there is a history of reported issues with the intercom system and communal entrance door. However, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Therefore, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from June 2022.
  2. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience issues with the communal entrance doors as some of the subsequent repairs failed. This investigation report cannot consider those issues. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those repairs. Any such issues that have not been subject to the formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Reports of repairs to the communal entrance fire doors

  1. The landlord’s obligations under the terms of the lease are to maintain, repair, redecorate, renew, and improve the common parts.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy states that emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 days. The landlord’s policy states that an emergency repair can be classed as one that would present an immediate danger to the resident or would jeopardise the safety or security of the resident.
  3. The landlord’s records show that on 30 January 2023, the communal entrance door was reported as “not secure and not locking”. The landlord’s stage 2 response noted that it attended on 3 February 2023. However, this is not reflected in the attendance log. It is therefore unclear what evidence the landlord relied on when responding to the complaint. This information should reasonably have been recorded at the time of the attendance in the repair log, together with what was found on attendance and what action was taken. That it was not, is a record keeping failure. Given that it had been reported that the door was not locking and was unsecure, this should reasonably have been attended to by the landlord as an emergency. We have not seen any evidence that it responded appropriately.
  4. The evidence shows that the contractor attended the property on or around 18 February 2023.It is not clear what prompted this attendance, or whether this was regarded as an emergency repair. Given the lack of evidence, we cannot determine that the landlord responded appropriately.
  5. The notes for this later visit confirmed that the landlord needed to replace the door and frame. In an internal email 2 days later, the landlord asked to send an operative to replace the door and frame and raised a job for 1 March 2023. However, a further internal note confirmed the matter had been referred to the area manager to advise on what to do next. There is a lack of evidence to support what the area manager advised at the time and what happened to the job that was raised for 1 March 2023. This is not appropriate. The need for the repair had been identified, and it would have been reasonable to ensure that any decisions in relation to what works were to be carried out and when were recorded.
  6. The landlord attended the property on 14 March 2023 and 22 March 2023. There is no information about what happened on either of these visits. As a result, it is not clear what the landlord did and whether that was reasonable. This is further evidence of poor record keeping, which likely impacted the timeliness of the repair. The Ombudsman’s 2023 “Knowledge and Information Management” Spotlight report highlights issues that can arise from record keeping failures such as this. It said, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action.”
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response referred to a job number WOR100132760, where it said it attended on 28 May 2023, and noted that the door did not need replacing. However, the corresponding entry in the repairs log states this was in reference to the main door of a different block. Given that the job did not relate to the door in question, it is unclear why the landlord referred to this attendance within its stage 2 response. However, the poor record keeping again appears to have impacted the landlord’s overall management of the repair. It is unclear from the evidence if the landlord also inspected the resident’s block on this date. However, if it did, this should reasonably have been recorded.
  8. There is also no evidence to show what happened after this date, which led to the resident making her complaint on 9 June 2023. The landlord’s investigation into the matter revealed that the operative who attended had left the business and had not ordered the door after the previous inspections. It is unclear why the landlord did not have systems in place to ensure that jobs were appropriately monitored to avoid the risk of them being missed in the event of staff changes. Nevertheless, once the landlord became aware of the situation, it arranged for a further inspection. It said it would order a door if required. It was reasonable for it to organise another inspection to ensure there was clarity about the work required. However, it did not complete this inspection until 2 August 2023. This was outside of its 28-day timescale for communal repairs and 7 months after the issue was reported. It is not clear why there was a delay in arranging this and whether it was unavoidable. Given the delays that had occurred until that time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to try to expedite the inspection.
  9. There is a lack of evidence to show the landlord updated the resident throughout the process. This resulted in her chasing the landlord on at least 3 occasions. She also expressed her concerns about the security risk of the door being insecure. The landlord missed the opportunity to demonstrate it was taking her concerns seriously by keeping her updated with its actions.
  10. During the landlord’s visit on 3 August 2023, it established that it needed to replace a lock. It completed this on 28 August 2023, however this did not fix the issue. A further visit on 4 October 2023, noted the door frame was out of line. The contractor recommended that the door frame be replaced. The landlord’s contractor attended on 10 October 2023, and it was noted that the rear and front doors were secure. However, a further job was raised and attended on 31 October 2023, where it was established that a new lock was needed. The landlord in its stage 2 response made an assurance to complete this once the part was delivered. The repairs logs shows that it fitted this on 15 February 2024.
  11. It is not clear why the contractor subsequently decided that the frame and door did not need replacing as it had previously decided so. The reasons for the decision should reasonably have been documented. It is noted that the change in the scope of works would have been disappointing for the resident. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to follow the advice of its contractors. It did, however, fail to keep the resident appropriately updated during this time. This ultimately led to concerns that the landlord was not being transparent in its handling of the matter.
  12. Overall, the landlord’s handing of the repair was not in accordance with its policies. The landlord failed to:
    1. Respond in a timely manner to the resident’s initial report that the door was not locking and was not secure.
    2. Proactively progress the repairs. There was a lack of clarity as to the work required and what appears to be a lack of ownership for the repair.
    3. Appropriately monitor the repair. As such, the repair was not progressed after the departure of one of the operatives.
    4. Keep the resident updated about what it was doing and when. It also failed to communicate with her in a transparent manner.
  13. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation in recognition for the failures it identified. However, we have identified further failings by the landlord which have yet to be put right. For that reason, the amount of £300 is not a proportionate amount. We order the landlord to pay a further £100 in addition to its offer of £300 for repair related failures. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for the failures identified and acknowledges the further delays that followed.1

Reports of repairs to the intercom system

  1. The resident reported an issue with the intercom system on 30 January 2023. The landlord attended the property on 18 February, 14 March and 22 March 2023. While reference was made to the door not closing properly, there is no mention of any inspection relating to the intercom system. This suggests the landlord did not record its inspections or did not inspect it at all, which is not appropriate. The landlord had been put on notice of the repair, and it was therefore obliged to ensure that it was completed in accordance with its applicable policies.
  2. The resident raised the issue with the intercom in her complaint and again in an email on 27 June 2023. General estate inspections conducted on 16 May 2023, 24 July 2023 and 4 November 2023 indicated no issues with the door entry system. However, it is not clear how this was tested and whether the resident’s intercom specifically was checked.
  3. The landlord failed to address this in its stage 1 response. Having been put on notice this was an issue, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns and provide a response. In line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) the landlord should have done so to ensure the resident’s comments were addressed. Its failure to do so, meant it missed an opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage.
  4. In internal notes from 4 October 2023, when the landlord was investigating its handling of the repair at stage 2, it noted that a then recent inspection revealed that the intercom in the resident’s block was working. The landlord’s contractor also attended, tested it with the resident, and it was working. While it was appropriate for it to do this, it did not do so in accordance with its policy. It took approximately 9 months to send someone to inspect the issue, and this was not a reasonable response time. As a result, we have made a finding of service failure. Given the failings we have identified, and with consideration to our guidance on remedies, the landlord should pay the resident £75 compensation. This is in addition to its offer. It takes into consideration the lengthy delay in investigating the matter.
  5. The resident has informed us that the intercom is not working again. As such, we recommend that the landlord contacts her so that it can investigate this matter further.

Concerns regarding contractor staff conduct

  1. When considering complaints relating to staff conduct, it is not our role to reach a determination on whether the incidents have taken place as reported. Rather our role is to determine whether the landlord has taken appropriate steps in line with its policies, to investigate the reports and take proportionate action, where necessary.
  2. The resident in her escalation request raised a concern about the conduct of the contractor who attended on 3 August 2023. She reported that the contractor on site had sworn at the neighbour’s 16 year old child. On 9 October 2023, the landlord’s surveyor appropriately asked the contractor to investigate the concerns.
  3. The stage 2 response noted that the contractor had carried out an internal investigation. While it did not accept that events occurred in the way the resident described, it did offer an apology about any miscommunication or misunderstandings on the day. It also said it would not take any further action but rather leave it to the contractor to take further action in line with its internal procedures. It was appropriate for it to ask the contractor to investigate, and its response was reasonable. By offering an apology it demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It said it its stage 2 response its contractors are aware of its expectations about standards, but it would have been reasonable for it to remind its contractors of this.
  4. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to corroborate its communications with the contractor which it referred to in the stage 2 response. This is a further record keeping failure. The evidence also does not suggest that the landlord was proactive in considering the resident’s concerns. It took 30 days to ask the contractor and a further 29 days to provide an answer to this in its stage 2 response. This was not appropriate.
  5. As a result, we have made a finding of service failure. When assessing its handling of the matter, it missed the opportunity to identify this failure and to put things right. In line with our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50. This is a proportionate amount for the identified failings and reflects that the detriment of this failing on the resident was minimal.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord had a temporary complaint policy in place at the time it accepted the resident’s complaint. This was following a cyber security incident and applied to complaints received after 17 June 2022. The policy had two stages which required the landlord to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 20 working days and to complaints at its peer review (stage 2) within 40 working days.
  2. The Code which was in place at the time of the complaint outlined that landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 days. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. It should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  3. The resident in her escalation request also raised her concerns about additional charges being added to her service charge bill. The stage 2 response made no mention of the landlord’s position in relation to this. It should have at the very least acknowledged her point and either addressed it or considered it as part of a separate complaint.
  4. The landlord offered overall compensation of £150 in recognition of its delays in providing responses and incorrect dates in the stage 1 response. Despite the landlord’s offer of compensation, we cannot make a finding that it provided reasonable redress. This is because we have identified additional failings. Given the procedural failing, and the associated detriment to the resident, we have made a finding of service failure.
  5. By not responding to the resident’s concerns about the service charge, she was left without an answer. Therefore, we order the landlord to make a further payment of £50 compensation in recognition of the detriment caused by this. This amount is in line with our remedy guidance for similar failings which adversely affected the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise for the additional failings identified and respond to the service charge issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal entrance fire doors.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the intercom system.
    3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding contractor staff conduct.
    4. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
    5. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s associated record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for all the failings identified by this investigation, in line with our guidance on making apologies.
    2. Pay the resident a further £275 compensation in addition to its final offer of £450. This comprises of:
      1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal entrance fire doors.
      2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the intercom.
      3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about contractor staff conduct.
      4. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
    3. Arrange an inspection of the communal doors front and rear, establish what repairs are outstanding and what further work is required. A copy of the inspection should be provided to the resident. Given the previous attempts have not been successful, it may wish to instruct a door specialist.
    4. Provide a written response to the resident’s concerns about her service charges.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to consider the record keeping findings highlighted in this investigation. The landlord must provide a written report to us detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified.
  3. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the orders within the period set out above.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the intercom system at a time when she can be present.