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 (202426448)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426448

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of inappropriate conduct by staff in its contact centre.
    2. The associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident has made several complaints to the landlord. These have been broadly summarised below.

Complaint 1

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 August 2024 about members of staff disconnecting her calls on 5 August and 14 August 2024. A team leader responded on 21 August 2024, stating they had listened to the calls and provided feedback to those involved. They regarded the matter as closed.
  2. On 21 December 2024, the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint from August 2024. Within her email, she also set out her dissatisfaction with a call that took place on 3 December 2024. She contacted it again towards the end of December 2024 about another call that had disconnected.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2025. It upheld her complaint as its advisor did not follow the proper process for ending a call. It offered the resident £100 compensation.
  4. The resident replied on 25 January 2025, stating that she felt the landlord investigated the wrong call. She said her complaint related to a call that occurred at 15:50 on 3 December 2024. It treated this as an escalation of the complaint.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 27 March 2025. It said it did not listen to the call of 3 December 2024 at stage 1. It offered the resident an additional £150 compensation to reflect her experience during the call, inadequate information at stage 1, and the delayed final complaint response. This resulted in a total award of £250.

Complaint 2

  1. On 16 February 2025, the resident complained to the landlord about a manager creating “an environment of hostility” towards her. She felt this caused the contact centre to disconnect 2 calls on 24 January 2025. She also expressed dissatisfaction with a call that took place on 14 February 2025.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 March 2025. It said it listened to the calls from 24 January 2025 and identified the advisors did not follow the correct call termination process. It awarded the resident £100 compensation. For the call dated 14 February 2025, it did not identify any failings in the service provided.
  3. The resident disputed that the call of 14 February 2025 was handled professionally. She said the advisor provided misleading information and lied about her open antisocial behaviour (ASB) case.
  4. On 8 May 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It reiterated its position as per its initial response and did not award additional redress.

Complaint 3

  1. On 9 March 2025, the resident chased the landlord for a response to an email she initially sent on 22 August 2024. This referenced issues with staff in its contact centre and the live chat.
  2. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 April 2025. It addressed the resident’s concerns and reminded her that under the contact restriction in place, its contact centre advisors could terminate non-emergency inbound calls or online chats. It recognised the delay in responding to the complaint and awarded £50 compensation.
  3. On 23 April 2025, the resident said the landlord’s complaint response was poor. She stated that she initially complained on 1 July and not 22 August 2024. She cited several other parts of the stage 1 response that she disagreed with.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 June 2025. It explained it had lifted the contact restriction on 16 May 2025. It recognised it did not retain a copy of the live chat transcript from January 2024. It offered her £100 compensation for the shortcoming in its record keeping and subsequent impact. It also awarded £50 for the delay issuing its final complaint response, resulting in a total compensation offer of £200.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with all the landlord’s complaint responses and referred her complaints to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. On 26 February 2025, we issued determination 202317755 to both parties. On 25 July 2025, we issued determination 202402709. The resident has referenced some of the same issues within her correspondence on this case. We may not investigate matters which we have already decided upon. Any reference to events previously considered is to provide context only.
  2. When investigating a complaint about a member landlord, we will consider its response as a whole. We will only comment on the actions of individuals as far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of a staff member give rise to a failure in service, we make our determination against the landlord rather than the individual. We cannot order it to take disciplinary action against individual staff members. This is in accordance with our Scheme which states we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern terms of employment or other personnel issues.

Staff conduct

  1. We consider whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, a landlord ought to investigate and make an informed decision based on its findings.
  2. The landlord’s professional conduct policy states it has built its culture and working environment on trust and professionalism. It has not provided us with a copy of its code of conduct.
  3. Within the resident’s correspondence, she raised several issues about the landlord’s staff including:
    1. Calls disconnecting.
    2. Refusal to discuss anything about her property.
    3. Putting her on hold for lengthy periods.
    4. Unprofessional attitude.
  4. The landlord defines a complaint within its complaints policy as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. We find this definition is in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will address complaints about the conduct or behaviour of staff in line with its human resources and contract management policies. It will ensure it gives residents relevant information about the outcome of their complaint, but it will not share personal data and employment-related information in line with its duties around staff confidentiality and data protection.
  6. The landlord has not provided to this Service copies of its human resources or contract management policies referenced above.
  7. Within the landlord’s complaints policy, it defines a service request as, “a request from a resident to the landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right.” This will usually be the first time a resident made it aware of dissatisfaction with its service. It does not consider a service request as a complaint.
  8. On 14 August 2024, the resident complained about staff hanging up on her on 5 August and 14 August 2024. A team leader responded on 21 August 2024. They stated they had listened to the calls and given guidance to the staff involved. They said they regarded the matter as closed. While it was appropriate for a more senior member of staff to listen to the calls, the landlord did not properly explain that it considered her reports as a service request as opposed to a stage 1 complaint. It ought to have provided more clarity to the resident here.
  9. The resident replied via email the next day, citing various issues including dissatisfaction with landlord processes, being on hold, and allegations of staff misinformation and dismissiveness. Within her correspondence, she referenced some things that she had already raised in previous complaints, such as incidents of ASB from 2023. While this complicated matters somewhat, it was clear she was dissatisfied and therefore the landlord needed to act in accordance with its complaints policy to consider any concerns not yet addressed.
  10. Within the information provided to this Service by the landlord, it demonstrated that it listened to several call recordings between the resident and the staff in its contact centre across several complaints. It has not provided call recordings to us. The resident has provided some excerpts. Without the full calls, we are unable to fairly consider these. Nonetheless, it was reasonable for the landlord to listen to the call recordings as part of its investigation into her complaints. Where it identified failings, such as staff not following the call termination process, it apologised and offered compensation. We have addressed this further below.
  11. The resident alleged a staff member was dismissive and terminated a live chat conversation in 2024. She provided a screenshot to the landlord. Within its stage 1 response of 17 April 2025, it identified a service failure in that its staff member failed to upload a copy of the conversation to her account. It further explained that at the time the conversation occurred, it required staff to manually copy and paste every online chat to its internal system to maintain an accurate record of events. As a result, it was unable to review the full conversation that took place.
  12. The landlord told the resident that it had since upgraded its systems to store live chat conversations automatically. Within its stage 2 response of 26 June 2025, it apologised again for its shortcoming and offered compensation. This was fair in the circumstances. Given the changes it had implemented to its system, we are minded it has taken appropriate steps to ensure this failing does not occur again. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  13. The landlord’s internal records demonstrate that in September 2024, it added a note to its system explaining that it no longer permitted the resident communicate with its contact centre by any means including calls, emails, and online chat, except for emergencies. It said if she made contact, staff needed to politely explain that it had restricted her contact under its managing unacceptable behaviour policy, and her neighbourhood response officer would contact her on her allocated day.
  14. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the contact restrictions it had applied and appealed its decision. We considered this within determination 202402709, so we have not addressed this here.
  15. Within the stage 1 response of 7 March 2025, the landlord explained that the restricted access note remained pinned in its internal system, which has caused some confusion for contact centre advisors. It stated there were conflicting notes regarding the restriction. We find the landlord missed an opportunity to clarify the matter internally and advise the resident accordingly. This was a failing which impacted the level of service she received from its staff. This subsequently affected time spent on hold and the termination of calls.
  16. On 26 June 2025, the landlord informed the resident within its stage 2 response that it had lifted the contact restriction on 16 May 2025. We have since ordered it in another case to set out its position in writing to her concerning any contact restrictions based on her more recent correspondence with our Service.
  17. Within its complaint responses, it offered the following redress:
    1. 24 January 2025 – £50 for the recognition of failure to follow process.
    2. 7 March 2025 – £100 for the call termination process not being followed.
    3. 27 March 2025 – £50 for call experience, £50 for inadequate information at stage 1.
    4. 26 June 2025 – £100 for its failure to record information concerning a live chat from 2024.
  18. Our remedies guidance states that compensation between £100 and £600 may be reasonable when there are failures that adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact. Across the 3 cases considered within this report, we find the landlord’s total offer of £350 to be fair and proportionate when considering the circumstances and impact to the resident. We have considered its complaint handling separately below.

Complaint handling

  1. The Code is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 response should be issued in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a 10 further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. Within its complaint responses, the landlord recognised there were delays in its handling of the resident’s complaints. It apologised and offered the following compensation in response:
    1. 24 January 2025 – £50
    2. 27 March 2025 – £50
    3. 17 April 2025 – £50
    4. 26 June 2025 – £50
  3. We understand the resident raised several complaints and contacted the landlord frequently. Within its internal records, it commented that she, “has 20 inactive complaints, with 13 created and closed in 2024, which complicates the process of reviewing the timeline history”. In the circumstances, it was challenging for it to manage multiple complaints and correspondence, some of which it had previously addressed. This evidently had an impact on its complaint response times and is a mitigating factor that we have considered.
  4. The landlord has a duty as a member to respond to complaints in line with the Code. Its failure to do so meant it missed opportunities to remedy the resident’s concerns, address, and resolve the wider aspects of her complaint.
  5. The landlord offered a total of £200 compensation for its delays responding to the resident’s complaints. As its total offer was in line with our remedies guidance for failings that affected a resident with no permanent impact, we find that it offered reasonable redress for the delays incurred.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of inappropriate conduct by staff in its contact centre.
    2. The associated complaints.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £350 compensation it offered for its handling of her reports of inappropriate staff conduct. It should also pay the £200 it offered for its complaint handling shortcomings. This redress recognises genuine elements of service failure. We have made the reasonable redress finding on the basis that it pays these sums to her.