Clarion Housing Association Limited (202500409)

Background

1. The property is a second-floor maisonette. There are 4 properties in the block and a garden at the front of the property. Prior to the period considered by this investigation, there was a history of leaks at the property which caused extensive damage. A large volume of external repairs and internal remedial works were known to be required, resulting in a surveyor’s visit in January 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Communication with the resident about repairs and remedial works.
   2. Handling of a tenancy breach process.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s communication with the resident about repairs and remedial works.
   2. The landlord made an offer which provides reasonable redress in respect of its handling of a tenancy breach process.
5. The landlord made an offer which provides reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s communication with the resident around repairs and remedial works

6. The landlord’s communication with the resident was reasonably frequent, but came from several departments, staff members and contractors. There was no single point of contact for the resident to raise concerns. Communication was sometimes unclear or contradictory, causing confusion and frustration to the resident. There was no centralised oversight of the landlord’s communication around the works, preventing the landlord from communicating clearly, in line with its policy. The landlord missed some call backs and failed to respond to some correspondence during the period assessed. The landlord apologised and made an offer of compensation, but this did not consider all of its failings or reflect the likely impact caused.

The landlord’s handling of a tenancy breach process

7. The landlord followed its policy but failed to consider if it was reasonable to do so based on the evidence it had. It failed to consider the most appropriate way to communicate this with the resident or the impact it may have on him. There were unreasonable delays in progressing and concluding the process. There was inadequate communication with the resident during these delays. The landlord made acknowledgement of the impact this had on the resident and made an offer of compensation, which was sufficient to put things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

8. There were some minor delays at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord apologised and offered compensation that was proportionate to these delays.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

9. The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of his reports of a roof leak in December 2024. While the landlord responded to this at stage 1 of the complaints process, the resident did not ask the landlord to respond to this at stage 2, in his escalation request. We may not investigate matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, so we have not investigated this element of the resident’s complaint. We have investigated the landlord’s handling of the works which resulted from the landlord’s survey in January 2025, in line with the resident’s complaint to the landlord.
10. The resident told us that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs which began after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to these concerns through its internal complaints process. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated as part of its complaint response. It is not reasonable to investigate these concerns and we have advised the resident to raise a new complaint with the landlord if he remains unhappy. We have investigated events up until the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in May 2025.

What we have investigated

11. On several occasions, the evidence shows that communication with the resident around the large volume of works needed in this case was prompt and proactive. For example, after the surveyor’s visits on 24 January 2025 and 5 February 2025, it contacted the resident to arrange an initial round of works on 10 February 2025. This was due to begin on 7 March 2025, providing the resident with good notice. The resident did not want the works to start until after a visit by his neighbourhood officer, who he wanted to discuss some outstanding concerns he had about the work.
12. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a neighbourhood officer to attend on 25 February 2025. The staff member spoke with the resident and took appropriate actions such as feeding the resident’s concerns back to the relevant departments as well as raising some other works at the resident’s request. The resident’s concerns, such as his request for temporary accommodation during the works, were responded to in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 20 March 2025.
13. The evidence shows that the landlord took further positive actions throughout the period assessed. For example, the landlord met with the resident on several occasions to discuss the repairs in person, such as on 16 April 2025. However, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication with him.
14. For example, when adding to his complaint on 3 March 2025, the resident still did not feel informed about the schedule of works or when they would start. On 17 March 2025 the landlord told him that some internal works were planned. The resident cancelled these because he said he had been told the external repairs should come first, to prevent leaks and damage. The landlord agreed. But on 19 March 2025 a different staff member contacted the resident to arrange the same internal works, before confirming the external works. This likely confused and frustrated for the resident. The landlord explained that dates were not fixed and each stage would be booked after the last had been completed.
15. The evidence shows that the resident had informed the landlord that he wanted the works to be completed together to reduce the impact on him, on 8 February 2025. However, many different contractors, surveyors, insurer’s representatives, and other landlord staff members, independently spoke with the resident, or tried to schedule separate rounds of works and inspections, throughout the period assessed. The resident’s wish for centralised oversight and communication did not happen. This appeared to overwhelm and frustrate the resident, who felt that he was being ignored.
16. The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy sets out the landlord’s objectives. This includes communicating with residents clearly and regularly regarding any actions it plans to take. Although communication from the landlord was frequent, it was often unclear what actions the landlord was intending to take, which caused confusion, frustration, distress, and inconvenience. This was a failing which ultimately gave rise to this complaint. As a result, the resident’s concerns that a large volume of work, that was likely to cause high levels of disruption, were being booked ‘in dribs and drabs’ and not in the correct order, were not responded to appropriately. The landlord’s leak, damp and mould policy states that it has a dedicated working group focussed on leaks, damp and mould that can facilitate engagements with residents. There is no evidence the landlord considered using this resource, which could have improved the resident’s experience.
17. Some of the complaint correspondence between the resident and landlord focussed on a lack of contact from the resident’s neighbourhood officer. The landlord was right to state in its stage 1 complaint response that there was not always a need for this staff member to attend and that the absence of this particular staff member’s involvement was not in itself a failing. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to use the resident’s neighbourhood officer or other relevant staff member to act as a central point of contact to address his concerns.
18. Our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance – Repairing Trust was published in May 2025. It highlights the importance of a landlord’s ability to effectively manage its relationships with its contractors and to manage its communication with residents effectively. It states that by not doing so, it can sometimes place residents as intermediaries between landlords and contractors. Although the landlord followed its policies, the landlord might have reduced the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, by centralising communication. If the landlord had considered centralising oversight of the scheduling of the works themselves, it may have been in a position to be provide firm dates for all of the works required, as sought by the resident.
19. The landlord did acknowledge in its stage 2 complaint response that there had been examples throughout the period assessed of clear communication failings, such as missed call backs or instances where it had failed to reply to the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged these failings.However, the landlord’s overall communication with the resident during these works fell short of the expectations set out in its policies.
20. Our remedies guidance states that where there have been failings that affected the resident, compensation of least £100 should be considered. In view of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication with the resident, the £150 compensation it offered for missed call backs and failures to reply alone was not reasonable. We have ordered the landlord pay the resident £250 compensation.

21. Both parties agree the resident was notified of a potential tenancy breach in writing on an unknown date, most likely on or shortly after 21 November 2024. The landlord did this after receiving a report that the resident had left rubbish in the garden at the front of the property.
22. The landlord’s neighbourhood management framework states that where it receives a report of an untidy garden, a tenancy breach process should be created. It will then communicate this with the resident and arrange visits where necessary. The resident was unhappy that a tenancy breach was opened, disputed that he had left the rubbish in the garden, and that the landlord had not written to other residents at the block.
23. The landlord explained that the information it had received suggested the resident was responsible for leaving the rubbish in the garden. However, the resident disputed this. There is no evidence that the resident accepted that he had been responsible for leaving the rubbish in the garden. Before sending a letter to the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to conduct further investigations. This is because the landlord’s policy states that it should ensure tenancy breach cases are investigated. It also states that it should undertake initial enquiries and try to resolve the issue with the resident concerned, giving residents the opportunity to put things right where appropriate. There is no evidence that it investigated further, which was a failing.
24. If the landlord had established with confidence that the resident was responsible for leaving the rubbish, it should have then considered the most appropriate way to communicate with the resident. The resident reported having mental health issues, which the landlord was aware of. In view of this, sending the resident a letter which referred to a tenancy breach at the first time of contact was likely heavy handed. It may have been reasonable for example to have first spoken with the resident about the untidy garden, or asked him to remove the rubbish without causing worry about the security of his tenancy.
25. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord arranged to inspect the garden and discuss the matter further with the resident, which was appropriate and in line with its policy. The landlord told the resident that it was due to inspect the garden on 18 December 2024 and 29 January 2025, but failed to attend either appointment. It also did not communicate proactively with the resident about these missed appointments.
26. The landlord explained that this was due to technical errors in its appointment booking system, which have since been resolved. The evidence corroborates this. The landlord also said in its stage 1 complaint response that it had given feedback to the relevant team to ensure more timely and clear communication in future, which was appropriate and proportionate learning.
27. The landlord’s failings led to the resident experiencing distress, frustration, and worry about the security of his tenancy, until 13 March 2025 when the landlord attended. It was then able to confirm that the rubbish had been removed and close the tenancy breach process against the resident.
28. The landlord said in its complaint responses that it was sorry for poor communication and that it had missed the 2 appointments and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused. The resident contacted the landlord throughout this period to express his distress and worry about the potential tenancy breach. In doing so, he went to avoidable time and trouble to get the landlord to resolve the matter. He experienced this impact for approximately 112 days, which was an unreasonable length of time. This impact was likely heightened by the resident’s mental health issues.
29. The landlord accepted that there were failings in its complaint responses. It acted appropriately and apologised by making a reasonable offer of compensation.

30. The landlord called the resident 5 days after his initial complaint on 3 February 2025 to acknowledge his complaint and discuss it further. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of acknowledging it. However, it took the landlord 28 working days to issue its stage 1 complaint response. The evidence suggests a portion of this delay was likely because the resident raised new issues to add to the complaint on 3 March 2025. However, the stage 1 response was already 5 working days overdue at this point. The landlord offered an apology and £50 compensation for this delay in its stage 1 response, which was reasonable.
31. The landlord did not provide any evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request within 5 working days, in line with its policy. In total, the landlord took 28 working to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint response. This exceeded the 20 working day timescale set out for stage 2 responses in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord was right to apologise for this and offer a further £50 compensation for this delay in its stage 2 complaint response. The reason for this delay is unclear, however we note that the landlord was in communication with the resident during this time and that delay was not significant. As such, the compensation offered was reasonable. The landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.
32. The landlord also offered £250 compensation for matters which we have not investigated. The resident declined this offer as he awaited our determination. Now that this investigation has concluded, we have made a recommendation that the landlord may choose to reoffer this compensation to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. During this investigation we noted that some evidence that we would expect to see was missing. It is possible that some of the missed call backs and replies referred to by the landlord could have been avoided with improved record keeping practices, though there is no clear evidence of this. We also did not see evidence that the landlord centrally held information relating to repairs carried out by its contractors. During this investigation therefore it was challenging to verify the information that the landlord provided to the resident as part of its complaint handling.
34. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) was published in May 2023. It states that failing to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify failings, and can contribute to inadequate communication.