Clarion Housing Association Limited (202433896)

Decision
Case ID	202433896
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	28 November 2025

Background

The resident complained about defects and issues in his new build flat and communal areas on a new development. He is unhappy with the compensation that the landlord offered.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of snags, defects and issues in his new build flat.
2. Reports of communal issues and repairs in the new development.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of snagging issues and defects in the property.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of defects, repairs and issues in the communal areas.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The reports of snags, defects and issues in the resident’s new build flat

The landlord did not consider the resident’s concerns about water costs. The defects also took longer to resolve than the landlord estimated, so its compensation offer does not recognise the full extent of the delays.

The reports of communal issues and repairs in the new development

The landlord has acted in ways we would expect. There is no evidence of significant issues to lead us to find a failing.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not satisfactorily acknowledge that its acknowledgement and response at stage 1 were delayed.

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	The landlord must pay the resident £900 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the defects and complaint. This replaces the £400 it offered at stage 2. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 07 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

The landlord must pay the resident £900 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the defects and complaint. This replaces the £400 it offered at stage 2.

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

No later than

07 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord is recommended to offer to review the resident’s water bills when he is able to supply these, to consider whether any further compensation may be applicable for the delay resolving the toilet leak issue.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 May 2024	The resident made a formal complaint. He raised dissatisfaction with the amount of snagging issues he had experienced since he moved into the property in March 2024. He said that only a handful of issues were resolved before completion. He said some issues such as repainting of walls were resolved several weeks after completion and caused disruption. He said that some issues remained ongoing. He raised dissatisfaction that an issue with a bubbled kitchen floor tile was unresolved and that a recent visit was only to assess it. He raised dissatisfaction that it had taken 2 months to start works to rectify issues with the bathroom shower wall ‘flexing.’ He also raised dissatisfaction with the inconvenience the works had caused and the builder’s behaviour during the works. He raised dissatisfaction that issues extended beyond his flat. He said lift issues meant residents were having to rely on just 1 or 2 out of the 3 lifts. He said an automatic front door for the lobby had not worked for a month, meaning side entrances had to be used. He also said recent issues with the intercom had caused missed deliveries. He said he sought compensation for the unacceptable condition the property was handed over in, the chasing he had done to progress issues, and the disruption caused.
5 July 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1: It said it was satisfied that snagging issues raised before the resident moved in were addressed. It said that after he moved in, there appeared to be some confusion and he did not report some issues in line with the process advised by staff and outlined in his guide. It said this may have led to some delays resolving the issues. It said it expected defects to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, generally 12 weeks. It said the time to address most snags and defects was reasonable, apart from some exceptions. It acknowledged that reasonable timeframes had been exceeded for the kitchen flooring and there had been miscommunication about the purpose of a recent visit. It updated that the builder would contact the resident to book the works and it would monitor this. It noted that bathroom wall and floor tile defects were completed on 15 May 2024, but a post-inspection of the bathroom had identified issues with the works. It said it was in discussions with the builder to rectify these and it would monitor this. It said it had no record that issues with bath panel silicone and a leaking cistern were reported to the correct team before the complaint but had logged them. It noted there had been several communal issues that had caused inconvenience and impacted the resident’s enjoyment of his home. It said it was seeking to ensure that the builder identified and resolved the root causes of these. It acknowledged and apologised for issues such as delays, repeated visits, miscommunication and inconvenience. It also acknowledged that while the resident was provided access to alternative bathroom facilities during the bathroom works, this will have been disruptive. It awarded £944.02. This comprised £200 for snags and defects, £15 for a kitchen flooring visit being an inspection and not a repair, £180 for loss of the bathroom during works, £400 for the bathroom issues, and £149.02 for communal issues. It said that as a gesture of goodwill its award was for between March 2024 and the end of September 2024. It said it was happy to review this if there were delays beyond then. It noted the resident had accepted the compensation and it would contact him to arrange payment.
30 September 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said issues had continued past September 2024 and asked the landlord to review compensation, as promised, to reflect the impact of issues over the past 7 months. He said he had experienced repeat visits for the toilet leak and this was still outstanding. He said a new contractor had visited to assess the kitchen floor but the repair had not yet been done. He raised dissatisfaction with bathroom works completed in early September 2024, which included contractor behaviour, damage, substandard workmanship, the condition of the alternative bathroom during the works, and the condition his bathroom was left in. He said there were 6 outstanding issues, which comprised the shower wall regrouting, the toilet leak, bath re-enamelling, a bathroom re–paint, silicone repairs, and the kitchen floor tile replacement. He raised dissatisfaction with cancelled and unannounced visits related to these. He raised dissatisfaction with communal issues. He said the 3 lifts continued to break down, the intercom and fob systems continued to fail regularly, the front door was still out of commission, and he believed there were more issues such as inaccessible communal gardens. In further correspondence on 26 November 2024, he raised dissatisfaction that residents had been told that netting would be put around the building due to safety concerns about the cladding. He said he sought compensation for the impact of this.
3 December 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2: It said it was satisfied that the stage 1 response was reasonable, appropriate compensation was awarded, and an action plan was proposed to follow up actions. It noted that the resident had experienced some inconvenience with snags and defects in his new home. It said that unfortunately these were expected, there were procedures in place to manage them, and it did not compensate for them when they occurred. However, it apologised for the poor service he had received from the builder and his frustration and inconvenience due to their behaviour, poor communication, missed appointments, repeat visits and failure to complete works. It assured the resident that it was taking the issues seriously. It noted it had said in a newsletter that it would arrange for defects to be resolved by other contractors if the builder delayed in resolving defects beyond October. It said it understood the resident had now been contacted by a new contractor to replace defective kitchen flooring. It said that remaining defects would be completed in early 2025 and it expected to be able to provide a programme of works and indicative dates by January 2025. It confirmed an action plan to complete 6 works. These were regrouting of wall tiles, a new cistern and flush, cistern access, bathroom re-paint and mastic, replacement of vents to balcony soffits, and re-enamel bath chip. It said it would maintain monthly contact until these were completed. It apologised that communal issues affecting all residents were not fully resolved. It said it was frustrated with lack of progress by the builder and had acted to bring in a new contractor to complete works the builder had failed to complete. It assured the resident that it was working to resolve all the issues as soon as possible. It noted it had begun regular communications to residents and would continue to provide updates though newsletters and resident meetings. It noted that at a most recent resident meeting information was shared about installing temporary netting to external cladding as a precaution. It said it would provide an update about commencement of this as soon as possible, but it was not in a position to offer compensation arising from the proposal to install netting. It awarded an additional £400, which comprised £50 for issues with communal cleanliness, £50 for its delayed response, and £300 to recognise a delay in completion of outstanding items from October 2024 to March 2025. It said it would review this if there were further delays.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us. He said the landlord had not satisfactorily addressed and compensated for issues during the bathroom works. He also said the landlord had not compensated for multiple issues with the building and the communal services. He said he was seeking considerable compensation for the issues.

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 reports of snags, defects and issues in the resident’s new build flat
Finding	Service failure

The evidence shows the resident moved into the property on 20 March 2024 and that before and after this, a number of snagging and defects were reported and attended. He then complained in May 2024 about the number of defects that had arisen, the delays resolving them, and some still being unresolved. The outstanding issues mainly related to a kitchen floor tile, and issues with the bathroom wall tiles ‘flexing’ which developed into more major floor and wall tile works.
The landlord’s responses show it sought to consider and address the resident’s complaints to a large extent. It reviewed its records about snagging and defects and set out a reasonable position. It acknowledged issues such as delays and the impact on the resident. It provided appropriate assurances that it was committed to progressing and resolving outstanding issues. Its subsequent action to engage other contractors, due to wider issues with the builder, shows its commitment to resolving issues in what will be complex circumstances.
The landlord also awarded compensation to recognise the impact of some aspects. The compensation of around £1,100 for the defects issues is in line with amounts our remedies guidance says is applicable for cases where there has been severe maladministration, significant failures over a significant period of time, and a seriously detrimental impact on a resident.
The resident evidently experienced lengthy delays and went to time and trouble. He will also have experienced much distress, inconvenience, frustration and upset due to the many issues arising with his new home. We do not make definitive decisions about negligence and liability for more specific impact such as impact on physical and mental health. The compensation of around £1,100 for issues and delays up until March 2025 is generally proportionate to what our guidance says may be applicable for the issues and evident impact. The compensation therefore went a long way to remedy the resident’s complaint. However, it was not entirely proportionate.
The resident said before the stage 1 response that the toilet had developed a leak due to the May 2024 bathroom works. It is not reasonable that the landlord did not address the concerns about additional water usage costs due to this issue. Its complaints policy says it may incorporate further issues before it has responded if these are related. The issue was reasonably related since it was caused by the bathroom works. The landlord would have been expected to consider this further. It could have awarded some compensation to recognise the potential incurred costs, or invited the resident to provide water bills.
The compensation the landlord awarded in December 2024 was also intended to reflect delays up until March 2025. The resident confirms that outstanding works for the bathroom, kitchen floor tile, toilet leak, balcony vents, and a bath chip were not fully completed until September 2025. This was likely due to complexities such as the landlord having to engage another contractor, multiple flats having bathroom issues, and July 2025 investigations identifying that the programme for the remedial work had to incorporate additional works.
However, given the above, the compensation the landlord offered will not recognise the full extent of the delays or the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble the resident will have experienced. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 for the lack of consideration of water costs, the £400 it offered for delays up until March 2025, and a further £300 to recognise the delays up until when the works were completed in September 2025. This takes into account our remedies guidance, the issues and evident impact.

Complaint	The reports of communal issues and repairs in the new development
Finding	No maladministration

The resident complained about multiple issues and repairs that have been required in the new development, such as lift, intercom and door issues. He has requested significant compensation for this.
In such cases, it is not in our authority or expertise to make definitive decisions about negligence, liability and damages for such issues. Our spotlight report for complaints in respect to new builds indicates the considerations we may have. These include a landlord’s plans to resolve issues, how it has communicated to residents, and how it has responded to individual circumstances of a resident.
The multiple issues at the building will clearly be very frustrating and upsetting for the resident. We understand how distressing these must be. However, in this case, the landlord has acted in ways we would expect to see.
The landlord shows it acknowledged issues and developed plans in a reasonable timely way in the complaint timeframe. Around the time of its July 2024 stage 1 response, it provided a resident update which acknowledged issues, provided details of a planned resident meeting, and detailed who to contact for any issues. It is evident that it has since sought to progress the various issues, given ultimatums to the builder, taken legal action, and commissioned alternative contractors to help resolve issues.
The landlord also shows that it has communicated in a reasonable and timely way. It is evident that it has sought to continue to provide regular updates, hold regular meetings, and communicate updates and plans about the issues.
The resident raised some general dissatisfaction with the impact of communal issues. However, it is not evident that he complained about the handling of any previous, specific reports made about such issues. These would be our main focus when considering if a landlord had appropriately responded to a resident’s individual circumstances. The landlord’s responses about communal issues therefore seem proportionate to the issues raised in the complaint.
While the resolution of the issues is clearly a long and frustrating experience, there is no evidence of significant issues that would lead us to find a failing on the part of the landlord. The resident has the option to contact the landlord about any plans for redress, or to seek independent advice.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The resident complained on 15 May 2024. The landlord sent an acknowledgment on 11 June 2024, after chasing from the resident, almost a month later. It then provided its stage 1 response on 5 July 2024, over 7 weeks later.
The resident then escalated his complaint on 30 September 2024 and the landlord sent an acknowledgement on 9 October 2024, slightly outside its stated timeframes. This said it would respond by 6 November 2024. The resident chased a response and on 7 November 2024 the landlord said it aimed to respond by 4 December 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 December 2024.
The landlord was appropriate to acknowledge and compensate for its delayed response at stage 2. However, it did not satisfactorily acknowledge that it took a month to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint, or that it took over 7 weeks to respond to the stage 1 complaint. Its responses and compensation awards at stages 1 and 2 did not acknowledge this, which may have been reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 was also confusing, as it referred to having responded at stage 1 on 14 October 2024, and referred to some issues which did not seem to relate to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaint handling is likely to have caused the resident more frustration and time and trouble than it has acknowledged. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 to recognise this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

The record keeping and communication were generally reasonable. However, the resident clearly found the experience frustrating and went to much time and trouble to progress defects. The landlord could reflect on how it manages and communicates in respect to more complex cases such as this, where alternative contractors are necessary, for example considering single points of contact.