Clarion Housing Association Limited — case 202312346

Decision Case ID 202312346 Decision type Investigation Landlord Clarion Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Leaseholder Date 10 February 2026 Background The resident first reported cracks on an external wall in October 2022. He told the landlord he was worried about possible subsidence. When the landlord did not carry out repairs, he made a complaint. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s: reports about cracks on an external wall.

complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports about cracks on an external wall. reasonable redress in how the landlord handled the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Reports about cracks on an external wall The landlord had not started repairs when it sent its stage 2 response. The repairs took over 2 years to complete. During this period, the landlord’s communication was poor.

It did not explain what work it had completed or provide any reassurance about the quality of repairs. Complaint handling There was a significant delay in the landlord responding at stage 1 and further delays responding at stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the delays, apologised, and offered appropriate compensation. 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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than 10 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750, made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports about cracks on an external wall. £250 awarded at stage 1. £400 identified during the complaint review in April 2025. The landlord must pay this amount directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than 10 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend that the landlord pays the £250 (£150 from stage 1 and £100 from stage 2) compensation it awarded to the resident during the complaints process for complaint handling failures, if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that the landlord makes this payment. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 11 May 2023 The resident made a complaint.

He explained that he had reported concerns over cracks on the outside of the property and potential subsidence in October 2022. He said the landlord had not resolved the issue. He also said he had contacted the repairs team several times but they had not responded. 13 March 2024 The landlord responded at stage 1. It said: It referred the cracks to its surveyors in October 2022 and May 2023 but it did not follow up on these referrals. It arranged for a structural engineer to visit in December 2023.

Its inspection found that it would need to remove some shrubs outside the building before it could complete the repairs. It would produce a schedule of works once it had the report from the structural engineer. It acknowledged failings. These included not responding to call back requests and not raising a complaint when asked to do so in May 2023. It awarded £400 compensation for inconvenience, poor communication, and not following its own policies. 9 April 2024 The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2.

He said he was unhappy that the landlord had still not repaired the cracks. He asked the landlord for a copy of the structural engineer’s report, a schedule of works with timescales, and evidence of any work it had completed. 20 June 2024 The landlord responded at stage 2. It said: It had agreed a schedule of work. It enclosed a copy of the schedule with the response. There had been delays removing the shrubs because its usual contractor could not do the work. It had found an alternative contractor who removed the shrubs on 7 June 2024.

It attached before and after photos. It was awaiting confirmation from its contractors about when work could start and would inform the resident when it had the date. It would monitor the progress of the repairs and provide the resident with photos once it had completed the work. It apologised for how long it had taken to provide the complaint response and awarded £100 compensation. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate. He was concerned the landlord had only completed cosmetic work and it had not addressed the underlying cause of the cracks.

He wanted the landlord to carry out an independent survey and provide a clear plan, with timescales, for any further work it was responsible for. 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 Reports about cracks on an external wall Finding Maladministration The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete routine and communal repairs within 28 days. There is no timescale set out in the policy for it to complete complex repairs. The landlord has not disputed it was responsible for repairing the external wall of the building. The resident reported the cracks to the landlord in October 2022 and said he was worried about possible subsidence. He also said that the issue had caused his property sale to fall through.

The landlord treated this as a routine repair, meaning it should have acted within 28 days. It did not take any action within this timeframe. This likely left the resident uncertain about the building’s safety. It also meant he could not put his property back on the market. The resident continued to chase for updates on the repairs. The landlord told him several times he would receive call backs, but it did not do this. This demonstrated continued poor service. The resident was left not knowing what it was the landlord planned to do to repair the issue, causing avoidable frustration and ongoing distress about the condition of the property.

When the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2024, it had still not started repairs. It had made referrals to its surveyors in October 2022 and May 2023. However, it did not act on these referrals. It also accepted its communication with the resident and its own internal communication had been poor. The landlord did not explain how it had broken down the compensation between issues related to repairs and other issues related to complaint handling. Our compensation guidance says we can divide the amount as we consider fair and reasonable when the landlord does not do this.

We consider that £250 of the compensation is appropriate for the poor communication and delays to the repairs. Our remedies guidance says this amount is suitable when a failure adversely affects a resident. The landlord also said a structural engineer inspected the property in December 2023. It recommended external repairs including replacing bricks, repairing, and repointing the cracks. It said that it would need to remove shrubs before it could start these works. The landlord raised a job to remove the shrubs on 15 January 2024.

However, it did not complete the work until 7 June 2024, 5 months later. This was an unreasonable delay, significantly outside its policy timescale. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 June 2024, at which point repairs had not been started. This was approximately 20 months since the resident first raised the repair. The response failed to provide an indication of when work would start, which added to the resident’s ongoing distress regarding the property condition The landlord’s insurer was responsible for arranging the works relating to the damage exterior wall.

It told the landlord all work was completed by 17 December 2024. It also gave the landlord a certificate of structural adequacy confirming the works it had carried out were completed to the relevant standards. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would monitor progress of the repairs and provide the resident with photos once it had completed them. However, there is no evidence it did this. There was also no evidence that the landlord updated the resident on what work it had completed or reassured him about the quality of the repairs.

This showed that communication remained poor, even though the landlord had already identified this as a problem earlier in the complaints process. This meant it had not learned from the outcomes or improved its service. As a result, the resident faced an extended period of uncertainty, after the complaints process, about whether the landlord had completed the repairs to a satisfactory standard and had effectively addressed the root cause of the cracking. The landlord completed an internal review of the complaint on 8 April 2025.

It identified that the compensation it had awarded during the complaints process did not adequately reflect the amount of time it had taken to complete the repairs, or the inconvenience caused to the resident. It suggested it should pay an additional £400 compensation. However, there is no evidence that the landlord shared the outcome of the review with the resident, or that the compensation was offered to him. There were serious delays in completing the resident’s reported repairs, significantly outside of what is considered reasonable.

The landlord’s communication also remained poor, even after it recognised this was a problem. It did not meet the commitments it made in its final response, and it did not explain what work it had completed or give reassurance about the quality of the work. Repairs took more than 2 years to complete. During this time, the resident experienced prolonged uncertainty about the condition of the building, disruption to his plans to sell the property, and ongoing distress due to the landlord’s poor communication.

Although the landlord offered £250 compensation through the complaints process, we do not consider this amount to be proportionate to the failings identified. The £500 compensation ordered, £400 of which was suggested during the landlord’s review, is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there are failings that have adversely affected the resident. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress Up to March 2024, the landlord’s interim complaints policy required it to acknowledge complaints within 10 working days.

It also required it to provide a stage 1 response within 20 working days. The resident made a complaint on 11 May 2023. He chased for an update on 19 June 2023 but the landlord did not provide one. He then contacted us, and we asked the landlord to provide a response in February 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2024, 10 months after the resident raised the complaint. This was well outside its policy timescales. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to raise a complaint in May 2023 and apologised.

It awarded £400 compensation for all the failings it had identified, including not following its own policies. As previously explained, we have divided the compensation in a fair and reasonable way. We consider that £150 of the £400 compensation is appropriate for the landlord’s failings in complaint handling. We reached this figure because our guidance says that this amount is fair when the landlord delays its complaint response by months, affecting timely resolution of the dispute.

The landlord introduced a new complaints policy in April 2024. The policy said the landlord should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and send a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The definition of a complaint and the timescales in the policy were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 9 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 April 2024. This was 7 days later than its policy allowed. It then sent its stage 2 response on 20 June 2024, 18 working days later than the timescales set out in its policy.

In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the time taken to provide the complaint response and awarded £100 compensation. This amount aligned with our compensation guidance for responses delayed by more than several days. The landlord recognised that it had unreasonably delayed its responses and awarded the resident a total of £250 compensation, across 2 separate offers of compensation. This offer is in line with our remedies guidance. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord acknowledged that internal miscommunication caused it to miss referrals to its surveyors.

It also missed opportunities to call the resident back and raise a complaint when the resident asked. Poor record keeping may have contributed to these errors. We encourage the landlord to consider how it can improve the accuracy and consistency of its records, taking into account the guidance we have published on knowledge and information management. Communication Communication during the complaints process was often poor. We encourage the landlord to review how it can respond to enquiries more clearly and on time.

This includes setting realistic expectations, so residents do not need to chase for updates unnecessarily.