Clarion Housing Association Limited (202430316)

Decision
Case ID	202430316
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 4-bedroom house with her family.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her kitchen.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her kitchen.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of kitchen repairs

The landlord did not conduct the initial inspection in line with its policy. It also did not communicate or respond to the resident on several occasions. Despite committing to undertake the replacement of the damaged cupboard doors in its complaint responses, it did not do so. This led to ongoing distress and inconvenience for the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not conduct a thorough investigation of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and so did not respond to all of the resident’s complaint points.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 10 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the kitchen repairs. This amount includes the £600 offered at stage 2. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling. This amount includes the £50 awarded for the delays at stage 1. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 10 November 2025

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is provided by a senior manager.
The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

10 November 2025

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows:

£1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the kitchen repairs. This amount includes the £600 offered at stage 2.
£150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling. This amount includes the £50 awarded for the delays at stage 1.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.

No later than

10 November 2025

Inspection order

The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. It should not be the operative who inspected the inspection on 28 October 2024 without first speaking to the resident to ensure she is comfortable with that person.

If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.

What the inspection must achieve

The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:

Inspects the entire kitchen of the property and produces a written report with photographs.

The survey report must set out:

Whether the kitchen is in a reasonable state of repair and whether there are any hazards.
The most likely cause of the damage to the kitchen units.
Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible.
A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible).
The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.

No later than

21 November 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident and ask if she wants to make a complaint about the behaviour of the operative during visit that took place on 28 October 2024.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 January 2024	The resident contacted the landlord about issues with her kitchen cupboards. She said they were “falling apart”.
2 March 2024	An operative visited the resident’s property and found that the laminate was peeling off several of the kitchen cupboard doors. The resident asked for a new kitchen as she was aware that others in the street had received new kitchens. The operative advised the landlord would be able to provide new cupboard doors but not in the same shade. The resident confirmed she did not want doors that were different colours.
26 March 2023	The resident contacted the landlord and said she was happy for it to install the replacement cupboard doors, even if they were not the same shade.
21 May 2024	The landlord visited and confirmed the findings of its previous inspection on 2 March 2024.
16 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that she did not want her kitchen cupboard doors to be replaced with doors that were a different colour. She said that she wanted the landlord to provide a new kitchen. She noted the landlord had been due to attend on 23 May 2024 but did not, and that she had contacted it again on 4 June and 14 August 2024 but did not get a response. She said that she was still unaware if the cupboard doors and worktops were being replaced.
18 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said it had visited on 21 May 2024 and had found that the kitchen cupboard doors had begun to delaminate. It confirmed the resident had refused the replacement doors because they would not be the same colour. It noted that the resident had since changed her mind and that it had scheduled the repairs for 27 September 2024. It said it had put measures in place to ensure it followed the work through to completion. It acknowledged that its complaint response was late and offered £50 compensation.
24 September 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s stage 1 response had not acknowledged her requests for updates, appointments, or a plan of action. She explained that she had repeatedly called the landlord, but nobody had responded to her.
23 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that the resident had contacted it numerous times for information and that it had not responded. It said that the work order for the kitchen repairs had been incorrectly closed when she initially refused the work. It confirmed the repairs remained outstanding and advised a new work order had been raised to replace the delaminated cupboard doors on 28 October 2024. It apologised for the lack of communication and offered £600 compensation, comprised of: Poor communication – £200 Delay in completing the work to the kitchen – £250 Inconvenience due to additional inspections – £150
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has asked us to investigate because the landlord has not conducted the work in the kitchen that it said it would in its complaint responses. As an outcome, the resident wants the landlord to complete the kitchen repairs and provide compensation for the delays she has experienced.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility, outlined in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to maintain the structure of the property. The tenancy agreement also explains that the landlord can consider the age, condition, and how long a component is likely to last when deciding what repairs or maintenance is reasonable.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines a number of repair categories. The category relevant to this case is responsive repairs, which it defines as minor building repairs through to major repairs such as flood or fire damage. The landlord commits to responding to responsive repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s first visit to the property on 2 March 2024 exceeded its responsive repairs timescale by 22 calendar days. During that visit, the operative acknowledged that the laminate was peeling off several cupboard doors. It advised the resident that it would replace the doors but not the kitchen as it remained functional. This decision was in line with the landlord’s policy.
On 26 March 2024, when the resident told the landlord that she would accept the replacement doors, it said it would create an internal request to arrange the work. This did not happen. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 and 17 April 2024 asking for an update. The notes from the call on 17 April 2024 indicate that it had to raise the job again because it had closed the case after the resident refused the work on 2 March 2024. This indicates the landlord did not check the records and take the action it said it would in the call on 26 March 2024. This caused unnecessary delays and additional time and trouble for the resident having to pursue the repairs.
The landlord visited on 21 May 2023. There are no records of what took place during the inspection or what the operative discussed with the resident about the repairs. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said that a supervisor visited on 23 May 2024. Again, there are no records of this inspection.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy as in this case.
The resident chased the landlord for information on 4 June 2024 and again on 14 August 2024, advising she had heard nothing since the inspection on 21 May 2024. Unreasonably, the landlord did not respond to either communication. This was frustrating for the resident and indicates poor communication by the landlord.
The resident then complained to the landlord on 16 August 2023. It was unreasonable that she had to complain to obtain the information she had been requesting. In its complaint response on 18 September 2024 the landlord advised it had arranged for the repairs to take place on 27 September 2024 and would follow them through to completion. However, the repairs did not take place. The operative’s notes from the inspection indicate they told the resident that the items she had highlighted were cosmetic and “probably would not be done as a standard repair”. This would have been confusing for the resident and demonstrates the landlord did not deliver on the commitment to replace the doors made in its stage 1 response.
Further, previous inspections and photographs show that the laminate was peeling from several cupboard doors and drawers. The inspection on 27 September 2024 also highlighted a hole in a cupboard caused by rot, and deficiencies in the worktop and cupboard upright sections due to damp. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) identifies conditions likely to give rise to a food safety hazard, specifically the absence of smooth, impervious easy to clean surfaces. Any surface that had laminate peeling off, leaving exposed manufactured board, would be cause for concern and would need to be considered for repair or replacement. This conflicts with the operative’s opinion that the repairs were cosmetic.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it made a further commitment to replace the delaminated kitchen cupboard doors on 28 October 2024. The operative’s notes from that inspection state that the resident refused the works. However, she told us that she disputes this was the case and was upset at the operative’s version of events. She said that when the operative attended on that date, they did not know why they were there and had been told by their manager to “come and have a look”. She does not disagree that she has always asked for a new kitchen, but said after agreeing to the installation of the new cupboard doors in March 2024 she had not since refused them. She said the suggestion that she had was wrong and upsetting.
The resident also informed us that the operative who attended on 28 October 2024 was challenging to deal with. She said they made her feel like she was lying and laughed at her. While this is outside the scope of this investigation, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to ask the resident if she wishes to make a formal complaint about the operative’s conduct during the inspection.
The resident called the landlord after the operative had left on 28 October 2024 to discuss the inspection. The call notes state that she was “very confused with the visit”. She called again on 7 November 2024. The records from that call indicate that she was “very upset that this work order had not been completed” and also highlighted to the call handler the contents of the stage 2 response. Instead of investigating what had happened, the landlord signposted her to our service and, unreasonably, took no further action.
In summary, 22 months after the resident raised the repair issues with her kitchen, they remain unresolved. The landlord has significantly exceeded the timescales in its repairs policy for such repairs.
For the reasons above we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs.
The landlord’s offer of £600 compensation was reasonable for the issues listed in its stage 2 response. However, its failure to complete work that it had identified as necessary in both of its complaint responses has led to further distress and inconvenience for the resident. For this reason, we have made an additional award of £400 compensation. In the absence of any suggested payment categories in the landlord’s compensation policy, we have used our own remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the required timescales. The stage 1 response was issued 12 working days late, but the landlord appropriately apologised and offered £50 compensation. The stage 2 response was issued in line with the required timescales.
When escalating her complaint, the resident indicated that the landlord had not responded to her concerns about communication and her requests for information. It recognised these failures in detail in its stage 2 response and offered compensation for the detriment caused. The findings of the stage 2 response indicate that the landlord did not conduct a thorough investigation at stage 1 and had not addressed all of the resident’s complaint points. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint in the first instance.
For the above reason we have made a finding of service failure and an award of £100 compensation in line with our own remedies guidance.

Learning

As highlighted above, the landlord’s stage 2 response was robust and indicated a thorough investigation had taken place. This was not the case for the stage 1 response. The landlord may wish to use the case as an example to complaint handlers of the importance of investigating thoroughly and attending to all complaint points at each stage of the complaint. Had the thorough investigation been undertaken initially, it is possible that the resident would not have felt it necessary to escalate her complaint. Resolving complaints at stage 1 save time and trouble for both the landlord and complainant.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was found to be missing or lacking on a number of occasions. While there are photographs from the inspection on 21 May 2024, there are no records detailing the contractor’s observations on the condition of the kitchen or what work was required. Similarly, there are no records of the inspection on 23 May 2024 and only limited records of the inspection on 28 October 2024. The landlord should aim to obtain and keep records that detail the main findings of each inspection and visit.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communication was poor. However, it acknowledged this in its complaint response. Further issues with communication were noted after this point when the resident called the landlord about the inspection on 28 October 2024. In this instance, it would have been helpful if the landlord had spoken to the resident again to understand her confusion and to discuss what it could have done to resolve the issues.