Clarion Housing Association Limited (202330554)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330554

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 June 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s application of the lease in respect of exclusive parking and electronic charging.
2. The level of the charge for electronic charging.
3. The resident’s concerns about exclusive parking and electronic charging.
4. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and holds the lease to a 2-bed first-floor flat dated 11 March 2015. The landlord is the freeholder, and it has appointed a managing agent (‘the agent’) to manage the site, including block services, grounds maintenance, and the collection of service charges.
The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 23 May 2023 about its ongoing actions related to the parking space associated with his property. He said it could have avoided the complaint through constructive, transparent, and meaningful engagement with an authoritative representative. Additionally he said the landlord:
1. Reneged on its commitment to provide a copy of their electric vehicle (EV) consultant’s report and to arrange a meeting.
2. Breached the terms of the lease by stating that others could use the EV parking space which it could move at will.
3. Shifted responsibility for its actions on to its agent who denied any responsibility other than to act under instruction from the landlord.
4. Set, increased, and reduced tariffs for the electricity supplied to the EV charge point without providing a basis for the tariffs.
5. Provided misleading information to the Housing Ombudsman, regarding his lease, his payments, and the number of charge points.
6. Did not appropriately manage or retain documents.
7. Refused to engage with his legal representative to resolve the matters constructively and fairly.
8. Bullied him which was unprofessional and designed to cause maximum stress and damage in full knowledge of his poor health.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 7 August 2023. It apologised for its delayed response, and it said:
1. It had emailed the resident a summary of its EV consultant’s advice and concluded that it had given its final response on the matter.
2. Its solicitor had set out its position on its interpretation of the lease and the alleged breaches. It denied the breaches and said its legal team agreed with its view.
3. It appointed an agent to provide communal services, and it was appropriate for the resident to engage with it as he has a direct relationship. It had said that it would intervene to assist with resolutions as needed.
4. Its agent had previously confirmed how it had calculated the EV charges. It had sought further advice about this in response to the resident’s complaint which it repeated.
5. It had no further commentary on any inaccuracies or misleading information it had provided to matters that had exhausted the complaint procedure.
6. It had no further commentary on the resident’s complaint abouts its retention of documents which the Housing Ombudsman had previously determined.
7. He was at liberty to begin legal proceedings; he did not need to wait for its solicitor’s response and should engage with his solicitor to pursue the claim.
8. Its position about the resident’s complaint that it had bullied him was the same as in its solicitor’s correspondence dated 12 April 2022. It apologised that he felt that way, but it had found no evidence of bullying.
9. It had addressed an incident in 2021 during which its agent had emailed inappropriate communication. Its view remained the same as there was nothing new or beyond a previous Housing Ombudsman determination.
10. It apologised for a delay in providing its complaint response outside of its published timeframe for which it offered the resident £100.
The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 1 September 2023. He restated and explained further the elements of his stage 1 complaint. He also:
1. Said it continued to refuse to engage and referred ownership of matters to its agent. His complaint was about the landlord’s actions whether directly or indirectly through its agent.
2. Said that he had previously engaged with senior staff. A less senior person was likely to undermine these staff if they addressed his complaint. He wanted a person responsible for governance to answer the complaint to evidence that it demonstrated openness, honesty, and respect.
3. Listed a series of corrections and queries related to information the landlord had provided in its stage 1 complaint response.
4. Said he wanted the landlord to respect its own values, stop sending multiple emails, stop making unsubstantiated statements about its position, engage constructively at an authoritative level, clearly establish the state of the EV parking space it had sold to him, and resolve matters with his solicitor.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 28 September 2023. It sent a response to the resident on 26 October 2023 in which it said:
1. He had raised his claim regarding the use of the EV charging points some time ago. This had resulted in substantive legal correspondence. His solicitor had advised it would issue legal proceedings, but it had not been in contact since August 2022.
2. It recognised that its agent had suggested a meeting and the supply of an EV report. It should not have offered this as it was a decision for the landlord to make. It apologised for this and recognised that this may have caused frustration.
3. Its position about all other aspects of the complaint remained the same as in previous response and it would not comment further on the complaint.
4. It restated its previous offer of £100 compensation for its stage 1 delay. It offered him an additional £50 as compensation for its delayed complaint response, thereby totalling £150.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 3 January 2024 in which he said his complaint was about the landlord’s handling of his complaint relating to his EV parking space. To put matters right he said that the landlord should respect what it had sold to him and avoid putting him under pressure, engage with his solicitor to prevent unsubstantiated tariffs, avoid presenting an unsubstantiated position on the matters, be open and honest. Further, for it to arrange for a senior member of staff to engage with him constructively, transparently, and honestly in keeping with its values.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where we feel it would be “quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the landlord’s application of the lease in respect of exclusive parking and electronic charging falls outside of our jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42.f.
The resident’s complaint about the exclusivity of the parking bay hinges upon the differing interpretations of the lease. The First Tier Tribunal best decides leasehold disputes of this nature.
Paragraph 42.d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.”
Should the resident wish to pursue a dispute about the purchase and ownership of a parking bay, the ownership of the charging point, and/or the level of the service charge, or electronic charging, he has the option of making an application to the First-Tier Tribunal.

Scope of the investigation

The Housing Ombudsman previously determined the resident’s complaint about charges for use of an EV charging point on 19 August 2022 under reference 202105519. We upheld our determination on 27 February 2023, in response to the landlord’s review request. We explained in our previous investigation report that our investigations will not assess the resident’s allegations that the landlord discriminated against him, nor the related actions of the agent (which was already subject to a determination by the Property Ombudsman in February 2021). This advice applies to the resident’s current complaint under this reference for the same reasons.

The resident’s concerns about exclusive parking and electronic charging

Bullying and not taking a resolution focussed approach

In pursuing this matter the resident has explained that he feels the landlord has bullied him because it is forcing him to court. It is evident that the landlord held opposing views about the interpretation of the lease in respect of the parking spaces. In various items of correspondence the landlord clearly explained it held a different view to the resident, and it restated this position in its final complaint response. The resident sent considerable amount of further correspondence about the matter because he disagreed with this view. However, we do not see the landlord restating its own contrary interpretation of the lease as evidence that it had bullied him. It had based its position upon advice it received from its own legal team which was reasonable under the circumstances. The consequences of the disagreement between the parties – that an application to a court may be necessary – is due to both parties’ opposing views, rather than bullying.
The landlord was entitled to decide how to approach the matter, however we not seen any evidence that it considered alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR, such as mediation, can increase understanding between parties, bring resolution, and reduce legal cost implications. The resident has expressed that he feels the landlord had not taken a resolution focussed approach. The landlord’s decision therefore not to consider offering mediation was a missed opportunity to evidence that it sought to find solutions to the matter. This was and remains an option for the parties to consider. We have therefore recommended the landlord considers offering the resident mediation as ADR below. Given that mediation is not compulsory, the resident is not under any obligation to engage in it.
There is evidence that the landlord used inappropriate language in its communication with the resident which was not in keeping with its values. He raised this with the landlord in his complaint and further email of 30 June 2023 in which he copied examples of the landlord’s terminology between 2020 and 2021. This language was inappropriate, and we can understand that it was likely to have affected the resident’s confidence in the landlord. The landlord should maintain professional relationship with the resident throughout its handling of these matters and therefore avoid using emotive or language which the resident could interpret as threatening.
However, the landlord has not disputed that it used inappropriate communication. It apologised to the resident for this in its stage 1 complaint response. It also said that it had apologised that the resident had felt it bullied on numerous previous occasions, as this was not its intention. The landlord referred him back to its solicitor’s letter of 12 April 2022 which also addressed the matter. This was reasonable under the circumstances. The landlord explained that it had addressed a related incident that took place in 2021, which we have also referenced in our previous determination. The landlord concluded in its final response that the Housing Ombudsman and the landlord had addressed these matters. It would have been better if it had considered, or restated, any compensation it may have offered to him for any distress this may have caused.

The provision of the EV consultation report and a meeting

The landlord sent an email to the resident on 6 July 2021 inviting him to a meeting on 9 July 2021 to meet its specialist EV consultant and to discuss ongoing matters related to the parking space. It sent him a further undisclosed email on 8 July 2021 confirming that it would provide its consultant’s report to the resident in place of his attendance at the meeting. It also said that it could arrange a further meeting with the resident once it had reviewed the report and his comments.
The landlord did not dispute the resident’s complaint that it had reneged on its agreement to hold a meeting and provide a copy of the EV report. Instead it explained that these agreements were not for its agent to make in its final response. There is evidence that the landlord itself emailed the resident on 6 July 2021 inviting him to a meeting, using wording its agent had prepared on its behalf. Consequently its advice in its final response was misleading.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord agreed to provide a copy of the EV report. Notwithstanding this, the landlord did not dispute this matter in its final response. It was reasonable for the agent to offer to provide a copy of the EV report in pursuit of a resolution to the resident’s concerns. We can see no reason for the landlord not to have provided the report or discuss the findings at a meeting to reach a resolution. Given the landlord had advised the resident to engage with its agent about the matters and said it would intervene to assist with resolutions as needed, this was a failing.

The landlord’s referral to the managing agent

The landlord’s handling of the provision of the EV report represents an example of a wider issue of the resident’s complaint. He has explained that the landlord repeatedly referred him to the agent for matters, such as the application of the lease and charges, which he considered the landlord was responsible for. The landlord explained in its complaint response that this was because the resident had established a relationship with the agent. Furthermore, its agent was employed to oversee the resident’s communal housing services. It was reasonable for the landlord to address the complaint and seek to explain this to the resident. However, its explanation did not clarify clearly enough the relationship between the parties. We have seen evidence, such as whether it would provide the resident with an EV report, that the relationship between the landlord and its agent appeared to be unclear, or interchangeable. Furthermore we have seen evidence that the landlord sought complaint responses from its agent which it copied into its own emails. It was appropriate for the landlord to source information to best respond to the resident’s complaint. However, the lack of clarity about who was responsible for responding to the resident was likely to cause time, trouble, and confusion to the resident when seeking answers to his housing concerns.
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord sought to address the resident’s complaint by explaining its position and interpretation of the lease. However, it did not consider its general handling of communication such as by recognising that its limited supply of information caused the resident to repeat his requests. Furthermore, it failed to clarify the relationship between the landlord and its agent. This lack of clarity led to the resident incurring further time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience than was necessary when seeking answers to his housing concerns. The landlord missed the opportunity to work with the resident, such as via ADR. Furthermore, it has not considered awarding compensation in keeping with its compensation procedures to put right the failings this investigation has identified. Consequently, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about exclusive parking and electronic charging.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 as compensation for the failing this investigation has identified. This level of award is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance. It is proportionate to the likely impact of the failings identified by our investigation that the landlord has not put right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident advised that a less senior person reviewing his complaint was likely to undermine the senior staff he had previously engaged with. He asked the landlord to refer his complaint to a person responsible for governance to evidence that it demonstrated openness, honest communication, and respect.
The landlord is itself entitled to arrange how its responds to complaints in keeping with its complaint procedure. Its customer solutions staff responded to the resident at stage 1 and a head of service responded to him at stage 2. To compile and produce its complaint responses, the landlord sought information and advice from its staff and agent at different levels of seniority.
We have found no evidence that the staff the landlord assigned to the complaint negatively impacted its handling of the complaint. Its decision to arrange for a specialist complaint handler and an appropriately senior member of staff to address the complaint was in keeping with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code. Consequently, the landlord has demonstrated impartiality and openness in its approach to the complaint which was reasonable under the circumstances.
However, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
1. Did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of this complaint which says a landlord should acknowledge and log a complaint within 5 days of receipt.
2. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 23 May 2023 until 7 August 2023 which was 43 working days later that the landlord’s 10 working day policy target timescale.
3. Incorrectly said it had received the stage 1 complaint on 30 May 2023.
4. Did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within 5 working days in keeping with its complaint policy.
5. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 1 September 2023 until 26 October 2023 which was 19 working days later that landlord’s 20 working day policy target timescale.
6. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in line with paragraph 5.16 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s final response is lacking in any sincere acknowledgement of its delayed handling of the matter and missed the opportunity to work with the resident to improve the situation. Given the resident had set out his preference to engage with a senior member of staff at an authoritative level this was unreasonable. This investigation has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its complaint handling failings. It was entitled to do so in keeping with its compensation policy which says it could offer compensation where a resident has incurred unnecessary inconvenience or there has been a failure in its service.
The complaint handling failings had no permanent impact on the resident but may have had an adverse effect in terms of the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, given it had awarded £100 for its delayed stage 1 response we can see no reason for it not to offer the same amount for the same failing at stage 2. We therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional award of £50 for its delayed stage 2 response, and £50 for further inconvenience given the landlord did not get this right first time (totalling £250). This is in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where we have found failings that the landlord has not proportionately addressed.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s application of the lease in respect of exclusive parking and electronic charging is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.d of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the level of the charge for electronic charging is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about exclusive parking and electronic charging.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for response to the resident’s concerns about exclusive parking and electronic charging, and its handling of the complaint.
2. Pay the resident the £150 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
3. Pay the resident an added £600 in compensation made up as follows:
  1. £500 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience that may have been to him by the landlord’s response to his concerns about exclusive parking and electronic charging.
  2. £100 for any time and trouble that the landlord’s complaint handling failures might have caused to him.
4. Write to the resident to clearly explain its own responsibilities and those of its managing agent in responding to resident enquiries about housing related matters.
The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset this against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Recommendation

We recommend the landlord considers offering mediation to the resident about his reported concerns about the exclusive use and management of his EV parking space. As noted above, the resident is not under any obligation to engage in it, given mediation is not compulsory.