Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202419009)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419009

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of works to the bathroom.
  2. The Ombudsman has also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since April 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. The landlord said in its complaint response that the resident asked for a bathroom refurbishment in May 2023. In September 2023, a contractor measured the bathroom.
  3. The resident complained on 11 October 2023 about the time it was taking to start the work and a lack of communication.
  4. On 6 Decem ber 2023 the resident told the landlord she was not happy with the work the contractor had done. She said it had not done some agreed work, and other work was not good quality. She said the landlord had told her she was getting a new bathroom, but this had not happened.
  5. In its complaint response on 15 February 2024, the landlord said after it approved a quote for a new bathroom, there was miscommunication between teams which caused a delay. It apologised for the lack of updates and the upset and inconvenience this caused. It acknowledged the resident was disappointed with the bathroom works. It said a surveyor attended in January 2024 and raised repairs, which it would do on 20 February 2024. At the same time, it would inspect again and raise repairs for any outstanding work. It offered £550 compensation for the delayed complaint response, delayed work, and lack of communication.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 February 2023. She said the landlord had not completed the repairs and there had been no communication on what it would do.
  7. In its final response on 12 April 2024, the landlord said further delays were due to a surveyor leaving. It said there had been access problems, but if it had actively managed the work, the delay would have been shorter. It said it would do the remaining repairs on 18 April 2024. It offered further compensation of £300 for the delayed stage 2 response, and delays to the repairs.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She wanted compensation for the stress caused and the landlord to complete the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In May 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman about problems she had experienced since the landlord’s final response. She said there had been leaks from the bathroom that affected her kitchen ceiling. After carefully considering the evidence, the Ombudsman cannot consider the leak affecting the kitchen. This is because the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate matters that have not exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. If the resident wishes, she may raise a new complaint with the landlord about the leak.

The landlord’s handling of works to the bathroom

  1. The Government’s Decent Homes standard requires bathrooms to be “reasonably modern. This usually means less than 30 years old.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will offer residents appointments for non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days.
  3. The repairs policy says a request for a new bathroom is not a responsive repair. It will refer requests for new bathrooms to its planned investment programme to ensure it meets standards and provides value for money.
  4. The Ombudsman has not seen a record showing when the resident first requested a new bathroom. However, in its complaint response in February 2024, the landlord said the resident asked for a new bathroom in May 2023. Because the Ombudsman has not seen a record of when the landlord originally fitted the bathroom, the Ombudsman cannot say whether the bathroom was due for replacement in May 2023. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the request through its planned investment programme process.
  5. Records provided by the landlord include an email to a surveyor on 9 October 2023, which says it has received a complaint about the time taken to install a new bathroom. It asked for an update. In response, the surveyor said they had approved the bathroom works, but the cost was over their approval limit, and it had gone for management approval. On 11 October 2023, the surveyor confirmed a manager had approved the work. They said a contractor would contact the resident in “due course”. It is unclear from the records whether the landlord updated the resident on what work it had approved.
  6. On 7 November 2023 the resident said she wanted to escalate her complaint as things were taking longer than she expected. An internal email on 16 November 2023 said there had been confusion over what work the landlord had agreed. It said it would place an order with a 28-day priority and aim to complete it before Christmas. Records show the landlord raised an order on 17 November 2023.
  7. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s timescale on how long it should take to agree a new bathroom through the planned investment programme. However, the Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s policy of doing repairs within 28 days does not cover bathroom replacements. This is because the landlord needs to consider whether the bathroom meets the Decent Home standard and consider the cost of the work through its planned investment programme. Once it agrees major work, it also needs to plan in time to do it. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to decide on whether to do the work in a reasonable time and clearly communicate its decision to the resident. If the landlord agrees the work, it should clearly explain what it will do and when.
  8. Records show a contractor took bathroom measurements and provided a quote in September 2023, which was 4 months after the request. The landlord said in its complaint response the delay was due to the contractor’s work commitments. This was a reasonable explanation.
  9. However, it took the landlord a month to approve the work and a further month to raise a work order. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the further 2-month delay in raising the order once the contractor had visited was unreasonable. In addition, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of communication with the resident in the 4 months after she requested a new bathroom in May 2023. There was a further lack of communication after the contractor’s visit in September 2023. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found the delay in ordering the work and the lack of communication with the resident were failures by the landlord.
  10. Once the landlord raised the work on 17 November 2023, it acted reasonably and did work in early December 2023. However, on 6 December 2023, the resident complained about the quality of the work. She also said the landlord had told her she was getting a whole new bathroom, but this had not happened. She said the shower was not working, there were faults with paint work, silicon, door handles, skirting, a light switch, and tiling. She said contractors had not fitted extractor fans and the toilet did not flush.
  11. The landlord’s records say it spoke with the resident on 11 December 2023 about the work she was unhappy with. It arranged to fix the flush on the toilet on 14 December 2023 and told her it would investigate the other issues and update her the following week. It said it told the resident she was not due for a new bathroom under its planned investment programme until 2033, and the resident accepted this. It asked for an inspection of the bathroom.
  12. The Ombudsman has found that parts of the response were reasonable, as it arranged a repair for the most urgent issue, said it would investigate the other matters, and asked for an inspection. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not explain its position on a bathroom renewal sooner. This was a further communication failure.
  13. On 15 December 2023 the landlord sent an internal email asking for an update on the bathroom works. It said the resident had called and was particularly concerned about the shower not working. On 19 December 2023, the landlord texted the resident and said it had arranged to repair the extractor fan. The resident replied and asked about the other jobs. She said she had had no updates about the outstanding work since 11 December 2023, and the bathroom was “getting worse”.
  14. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 January 2024 and told her a manager had called to inspect the bathroom, but she was not in when he called. It asked her to call to make an appointment. The resident replied that the landlord had not told her about the appointment. She said she wanted the repairs finished but did not want the original contractor back because of the condition they left her bathroom in. She said she had a back injury and was struggling to use the bath due to the shower not working.
  15. The Ombudsman has seen that although the landlord fixed the toilet and extractor fan, it had not repaired the shower and had not inspected the other reported faults. Records show the resident was chasing the landlord about the work, and there was also internal communication about the need for an inspection. When the landlord visited to do an inspection on 3 January 2024, which was a month after the resident raised concerns, it did not tell her it was coming. The Ombudsman has found this was a failure by the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns about faults with the work in a reasonable way. This caused her inconvenience as she was unable to use the shower, and she took time chasing the landlord about the repairs.
  16. In an internal email on 15 January 2024 the landlord said it had spoken to the resident, and she was frustrated and unhappy that no one had contacted her. The resident chased the landlord again on 22 January 2024. In an internal email the same day, the landlord said it was over 2 weeks since it agreed how to move forward with the repairs, but it had made no progress. It noted the resident was very unhappy that no one had been in contact with her. There are further records showing the resident chased the repairs on 26 January 2024, while internal emails show the landlord was having discussions about who was responsible for the repairs. A surveyor attended at the end of January 2024 to take photos of the work needed.
  17. In its complaint response on 15 February 2024 the landlord accepted it did not do work to refurbish the bathroom within its timescales. It said it provisionally approved the work but needed a quote from contractors. It said there was a delay in contractors attending due to their work commitments. When they took measurements in September 2023, the cost was over its threshold. This meant it needed to refer the work to a manager. It said miscommunication between its teams about responsibility then caused delays. It said it was sorry for the upset caused and acknowledged the inconvenience as the resident had to continuously chase for updates.
  18. On the work it had done in December 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident was disappointed with the standard of work. It said after its surveyor attended in January 2024 it replaced the shower at the beginning of February 2024. It also said it would inspect the property on 20 February 2024 and raise any further repairs. It offered £300 compensation for delays, which recognised inconvenience caused and household vulnerabilities. It also offered £150 compensation for inconvenience caused by communication failures.
  19. The Ombudsman has found it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for the failures. The communication failures included not being clear on what work it would do, not keeping the resident updated, and not telling the resident about an appointment. These failures caused frustration and inconvenience for the resident because she was not clear on what work the landlord would do and she had to repeatedly chase for updates. It is the Ombudsman’s view that £150 compensation for these communication failures was a reasonable amount for the frustration and inconvenience caused.
  20. On the compensation for delays, the Ombudsman accepts the work was not a straightforward responsive repair and so the 28-calendar day timescale did not apply. However, after contractors attended in September 2023, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord arranging the work. There was a further failure following the work in December 2023. This related to delays in responding to the reported faults with the work. Although the landlord acted reasonably on repairs to the toilet and extractor fan, it took 2 months to repair the shower. On 5 January 2024, the resident told the landlord about back problems which meant she was “struggling to get in and out of the bath”. In its complaint response the landlord offered £300, which recognised the inconvenience caused by the delays. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable redress for the inconvenience caused by the delays at this time.
  21. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 February 2024 as she was frustrated with further delays. In its final response on 12 April 2024 the landlord said there had been a delay to the work because the surveyor overseeing it had left the organisation. It said this meant it did not effectively manage the work. It said in mitigation there had been some access issues, but it accepted delays were due to it not overseeing the work properly. It said it would complete all outstanding repairs on 18 April 2024. It offered £250 compensation for the further delays.
  22. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there were failures in the way the landlord communicated with the resident from May 2023, which caused frustration and inconvenience. Internal communication failures and record keeping errors led to delays after the landlord received a quote for bathroom works in September 2023. There were then further delays related to the landlord’s record keeping after the resident reported faults in December 2023. However, the landlord apologised for the delays, undertook work to put things right, and offered a total of £600 compensation for delays and communication failures. It is the Ombudsman’s view this was reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s handling of works to the bathroom.
  23. The Ombudsman has noted that some of the delays related to the landlord’s record keeping when a surveyor left the organisation. The Ombudsman would expect the organisation to have processes in place to ensure that it can easily pick up work if an officer leaves. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews why the work was not handed over and what it can do to ensure this does not reoccur.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days. When a resident escalates their complaint, the landlord aims to respond in 20 working days. This approach is in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  2. The resident complained about delays in works to her bathroom on 11 October 2023. Although the landlord was in contact with the resident about the work, it did not send a complaint response until 15 February 2024. During this time, the resident regularly chased the landlord for a response. Records show an officer dealing with the complaint repeatedly asked colleagues for updates on progress with the work but there seemed to be a lack of response. This led to a delay in sending the response.
  3. By the time the landlord sent its complaint response on 15 February 2024, it had done some work on the bathroom. However, the landlord’s response took 89 working days. In its complaint response it apologised for the delay in sending a complaint response and offered £100 compensation.             
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 February 2023, as she said there were outstanding works. The landlord sent its final response 35 working days later, on 12 April 2024. The landlord apologised for the delay in sending its response and offered £50 compensation.
  5. The Ombudsman has found the landlord did not follow its complaints policy as both complaint responses were outside of timescales. This caused inconvenience for the resident, who chased the landlord for a response. In both of its complaint responses the landlord apologised for the delay. It offered a total of £150 compensation for the failure to meet the standards in its complaints policy. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was reasonable redress by the landlord for the failures in complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord on its:
    1. Handling of works to the bathroom.
    2. Complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews why the surveyor’s work was not handed over and what it can do to ensure this does not reoccur.