Clarion Housing Association Limited (202315710)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315710

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 February 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 handling of the resident’s reports about communal repairs, and standards of grounds maintenance and communal estate management.
2. The landlord’s handling of queries related to service charges.

Background

The resident is a shared owner. The lease began in April 2018. The property is a house, which is situated on a mixed tenure estate, which is also managed by the landlord.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 28 April 2023. The resident was dissatisfied because the landlord had not carried out repairs to the communal lighting on the estate, within a reasonable timescale. She said the landlord had not contacted her when it carried out its estate inspection as it had committed. She suggested that it was the landlord’s inaction in relation to such matters, that had led her to challenge the service charges on her latest bill.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 1 June 2023. The landlord noted that it had recently contacted the resident to discuss her concerns about the grounds maintenance on the estate. It reassured her that these issues had been raised with its contractor. It apologised for the “significant” delay in repairing the communal lighting and responding to the resident’s service charge queries, and for its poor communication. It made a commitment to address these matters and offered £100 compensation, recognising the inconvenience that had been caused to the resident. This compensation was broken down as follows:
1. £50 compensation for poor communication and delays.
2. £50 compensation for issuing the stage 1 complaint response outside of expected timescales.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 12 June 2023, as she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 resolution. The resident explained that:
1. Repairs to the communal lights were still outstanding and she had not been informed of a date when the lights would be fixed. She suggested that the landlord should investigate the increased energy costs caused by the landlord’s inaction and adjust the service charge accordingly.
2. There were a number of other unresolved issues on the estate, including broken lights, broken fences, a caravan, and an abandoned vehicle. She claimed that the only action the landlord had taken was to cut the grass, which had been left in awful state. She suggested that the landlord ought to review its processes and make improvements where appropriate.
3. The landlord had not been in contact with her to discuss the grounds maintenance issues, as it had committed. She suggested the landlord ought to have had knocked on her door when it carried out its estate inspection, given the complaints she had made. She noted that the landlord had raised performance issues with its grounds maintenance contractor. But expressed concern that this was not a resolution and it ought to have communicated its plan to address the ground maintenance issues and its timescale for doing so.
4. There had been no resolution to her queries about service charges.
5. She was having to constantly chase the landlord for responses and make complaints, while the substantive matters of complaint remained unresolved.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 19 June 2023. It sent a further email to the resident 6 July 2023, setting out its timescales for conducting the stage 2 complaint investigation.
The landlord issued the final stage 2 complaint response on 9 August 2023. In summary, the landlord:
1. Apologised for delays in issuing the stage 2 response, for which it offered £50 compensation.
2. Said it was satisfied that its stage 1 response had sufficiently identified service failure in relation to the communal lighting repair. It noted that repairs had been completed within expected timescales under its service level agreement, after re-raising the repair.
3. Set out the action that it had taken in relation to the issues with grounds maintenance and that it was continuing to take, to address the performance of its ground’s maintenance contractor. It confirmed that the resident’s service charge would be adjusted to reflect occasions when works were not completed to the required specification.
4. Clarified that the caravan had not been parked on land belonging to it, but it had supported the police and the local authority, which had led to the caravan being removed. It noted that a removal notice had been served on the abandoned vehicle. It said the outstanding fencing repairs and repairs to the communal lighting had been escalated internally.
5. Apologised for the lack of communication in response to her service charge queries, which it attributed to a high volume of enquiries received in February 2023. It attached a revised notice of service charges for the financial year ending 2024, and its actual expenditure for the financial year ending March 2022. It explained how it had calculated the resident’s service charges in relation to street lighting.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in August 2023, as she was dissatisfied with the stage 2 complaint resolution.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case. There are sometimes reasons why a complaint or parts of a complaint will not be investigated.
This investigation will consider the issues raised by the resident during the complaint process and that were addressed by the landlord in its final stage 2 response. The Ombudsman’s assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions between 6 April 2023 and 9 August 2023. This being the date the resident first raised the substantive issues of complaint, through to when the landlord’s internal complaint procedure was exhausted. However, this report may reference events outside of this timeframe, when taking into account any commitments made by the landlord in the stage 2 response.
This investigation will not consider whether the resident’s service charges were reasonable or payable, or whether any reimbursement of the service charge was due. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme which states, the Ombudsman may not consider “complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge are best suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can make a binding decision on whether service charges are reasonable or payable.
But this investigation may consider the landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to service charges and whether its response was reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case.

Obligations, policies and procedures

The lease stated that the resident must contribute towards all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance, and provision of service for the estate.
In accordance with the landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours, to make safe or carry out a temporary repair. Non-emergency repairs, including those in communal areas, will be completed as soon as possible, within 28 days.
According to the landlord’s compensation and remedies policy in operation at the time, compensation would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about communal repairs, and standards of grounds maintenance and communal estate management.

The resident first raised issues with standards of grounds maintenance and estate management on 11 April 2023. The resident also reported that the communal lighting was on 24 hours a day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 April 2023, thanking her for reporting her concerns about the lack of grounds maintenance and the bin store not being cleaned. The landlord said that it would raise these issues with both its grounds maintenance contractor and its estate management team. It committed to checking the site itself and said that it would update the resident following this. The landlord’s response was appropriate and suggests that it was treating the resident’s concerns with the attention they deserved.
The landlord inspected the estate on 26 April 2023, as it had committed. According to the estate inspection report, the grounds were maintained to “an acceptable standard”. The fencing in the car park, levels of litter, and the condition of the external lighting were all marked as “acceptable”. It recorded there being no abandoned vehicles. The landlord noted that there was some rubbish on the estate but this had “already been reported”. The report also referenced concerns raised by “a resident” about grounds maintenance and fly tipping, which were being deal with. It would have been helpful had the landlord taken photographs during the estate inspection, which it could have later relied upon as evidence.
The landlord emailed the resident the same day, to update her on the outcome of the estate inspection. This was positive, given the commitment the landlord had previously made. It explained that it would be arranging an internal meeting to discuss issues with grounds maintenance. It referenced speaking to some residents about this, during the inspection. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord may not have known when this internal meeting would happen. But it could have committed to providing the resident with an outcome from this, within a reasonable timescale, which may have helped to manage the resident’s expectations. However, it was unclear why such action was necessary, given that the landlord’s estate inspection had recorded the grounds to be in an acceptable condition. This may suggest there was an issue with the landlord’s estate inspection record.
The landlord also explained that it would be raising a repair for the lights and would see if the timer could be changed, noting that the lights were on at the time of the inspection. It would have been better if the landlord had clarified an expected completion time for this repair. The Ombudsman suggests, if the landlord had noted there were issues with the communal lighting at the time of the estate inspection, this should have been recorded on the estate inspection form.
The landlord’s records show that a works order was subsequently raised to repair approximately 9 communal lights, that had been knocked over by vehicles or where replacement bulbs were required. The works order also referenced the lights being on 24 hours a day. According to the job notes, a repairs appointment was arranged for 5 May 2023, which would have been within expected repair timescales for non-emergency communal repairs.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 28 April 2023, which was 2 days after the landlord’s estate inspection and update. The resident questioned the lack of urgency by the landlord to repair the communal lighting and to adjust the timers. It is accepted that the resident may have felt that repairs to the communal lighting ought to have been completed as a matter of urgency. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that, at this stage, the landlord ought to have treated these repairs as an emergency.
The resident also expressed disappointment during the landlord’s internal complaint process, that it had spoken to some of its social housing tenants during the estate inspection. But it had not knocked at her door or any of the other shared owners who had an investment in the estate. It may have been courteous for the landlord to have let the resident know that it was on the estate on the day of the inspection. But the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord had made a prior commitment to do this. It is understood that those residents who did speak to the landlord on that day, had proactively approached the landlord themselves.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 May 2023, with an update. The landlord explained that it had raised a complaint with its ground maintenance contractor, which implies that it shared the resident’s concerns about contractor performance. The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord committed to contacting the resident the following week, with a further update.
The landlord provided the resident with an update 5 working days later, as it committed. It explained that its grounds maintenance contractor was behind with the grass cutting schedule due to inclement weather and staffing issues. It apologised for the inconvenience this had caused, said that it would adjust the service charge, reassured her that it was in weekly contact with its contractor, and confirmed that it had asked its contractor to prioritise the estate. This was fair in the circumstances.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 June 2023 with a new issue, concerning a caravan that had been left in a parking bay. The landlord responded to the resident promptly on the same day, explaining that it had referred the matter on and would contact her if further information was required.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she also chased the landlord for an update concerning the communal lighting repairs on 1 June 2023, after more communal lights were knocked over. The Ombudsman was unable to verify this from the evidence seen. But notes that the landlord’s complaint handler did chase its repairs team about repairs to the communal lighting on the same day. The landlord’s internal communications show that the landlord took decisive action to speed up repairs to the communal lighting, after establishing these repairs were still outstanding.
The landlord accepted in the stage 1 response, that there had been a significant delay in repairing the communal lighting and adjusting the timers, for which it apologised and offered compensation. The landlord committed to repairing the communal lighting promptly. But it would have been better if the landlord had provided the resident with an expected timescale for completing these repairs. It may have offered the resident greater reassurance, had the landlord committed to monitoring progress of these repairs and issuing her with regular updates, through to completion.
The landlord also set out the steps that it had taken in response to the resident’s concerns about standards of grounds maintenance. The landlord’s response suggests that it was taking decisive action to the address contractor performance. The landlord’s commitment to adjust the resident’s service charge where a service was not received, was fair in the circumstances. But the landlord’s response fell short, because it did not explain its plan for bringing the grounds up to expected standards and its anticipated timescale for doing this.
The resident made a new report about some broken fencing on 2 June 2023. The landlord responded promptly on the same day, providing her with a job number and a completion date of 16 June 2023.
The landlord provided its repairs contractor with instructions on 6 June 2023, regarding the outstanding repairs to the communal lighting. The landlord asked its contractor to attend within 24 hours, to make safe any communal lights with exposed wires, after spotting an exposed wire in a photograph. It is unclear what photograph the landlord was referring to or when the photograph was taken. But it was encouraging that the landlord acted promptly to address this, once this was noticed.
The landlord’s repairs contractor attended on 7 June 2023, to make safe any exposed wires. It also “overhauled the time clock and reset the breaker” for the communal lighting. But it was unable to complete the job due to difficulties obtaining parts. This resulted in the landlord having to order several new communal lights. This was unfortunate and is likely to have created some unavoidable delay in the repair being completed.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 12 June 2023, believing that no action had been taken to fix the communal lighting. This might have been avoided if the landlord had committed to providing the resident with regular updates as part of the stage 1 resolution. The resident expressed concern that there were still several other unresolved estate matters, including a caravan, inadequate cleansing and grounds maintenance, dumped rubbish, and an abandoned vehicle. The resident said that the only action taken by the landlord was to cut the grass and this had been left in an awful state. She noted that the landlord had raised performance issues with its grounds maintenance contractor but said this was not a resolution. She expressed concern that the landlord did not appear to have any plans to address the situation or a timescale for doing so.
There is no evidence that the landlord repair’s contractor attended to the broken fencing on 16 June 2023, as it had committed. If this job was rearranged for another date, this has not been evidenced.
The landlord’s repairs contractor attended on 21 June 2023, to fit the new communal lights and to carry out associated works. It is reasonable to assume that its repairs contractor checked that the lights were fully operational and were working correctly on their timers, before logging the job as complete.
But when the landlord carried out another estate inspection a week later, the communal lights were still on. The estate inspection records state that this matter “had already been raised”. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this was the case, which is a concern. The estate inspection records also suggest that the landlord identified no abandoned vehicles. It found that the grounds maintenance, fencing, and external areas were all in an “acceptable” condition. It commented that while there was some accumulated waste, this had already been identified and raised for removal.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 July 2023, reporting the communal lights were still on 24 hours a day, despite the landlord attending to complete repairs. She said the landlord had not addressed the broken fences, the grass was still not being maintained, the weeds were knee high, there were ongoing issues with dumped rubbish, and there was now someone living in the caravan in one of the parking bays. It is understood that the resident sent the landlord some photographs on 11 July 2023, to illustrate her concerns. The landlord told the resident that it had passed the resident’s concerns onto the appropriate team, who would make contact with her directly.
It is unclear why the landlord did not identify that the communal fencing still broken and there were issues with weeds across the estate when it carried out the estate inspection on 28 June 2023. This calls into question the reliability of the landlord’s estate inspection records and may suggest a lack of understanding by the landlord’s staff about the importance of such inspections. Recommendations are made later in regard of this.
The landlord worked in partnership with the police and the local authority in July 2023, to address the issue with the caravan, as this was not parked on its land. The Ombudsman notes that it also took further steps to address performance issues with its grounds maintenance contractor. The landlord’s repairs contractor reattended on 19 July 2023, to resolve issues with the timer on the communal lighting. According to the job notes, the landlord identified a damaged time clock, which it resolved the same day. Its repairs contractor said it had tested the communal lights, which were all “left in working order”.
However, the resident emailed the landlord again on 6 August 2023, stating that the communal light outside of her property had still not been fixed. This suggests that repairs to the communal lighting may not have been fully resolved. The resident added that the estate was in a diabolical state and there was still no maintenance being carried.
The landlord noted in the stage 2 complaint response on 9 August 2023, that the communal lighting had been repaired on 21 June 2023. It accepted that this ought to have been resolved sooner, which it attributed to an internal error. It mentioned that it had completed identified repairs to the communal lighting within its service level agreement, after reraising the works order. But noted that there were still some outstanding repairs to the communal lighting, which it committed to monitoring through to a successful resolution. This was positive. The landlord might have considered making the resident a further offer of compensation, in recognition of her time and trouble, chasing the landlord for updates after issue of the stage 1 response.
The landlord also explained in the stage 2 response, that it had investigated the issues raised by the resident about grounds maintenance and other estate issues. It repeated that it had supported the police and the local authority to ensure that the caravan was removed. It explained that it had issued a removal notice for the abandoned vehicle, however, it did not clarify an anticipated timescale for its removal. Nor did it confirm when the broken fencing would be repaired. This is likely to have left the resident uncertain as to when these issues would be fully resolved.
The landlord also noted in the stage 2 response, that the grass had recently been cut but there were still issues with weeds. It reassured the resident that it was addressing this with its grounds maintenance contractor. It explained that if its contractor did not deliver the services they had been contracted to deliver, it would not pay their contract fees and it would adjust the resident’s service charges accordingly. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord explained that it was monitoring its grounds maintenance contractor closely and would consider taking further action if there was no improvement in its performance. This was encouraging and shows that the landlord was committed to securing a long-term solution. But the landlord’s response fell short again, because it did not provide the resident with an anticipated timescale for bringing the grounds up to an acceptable standard.

After issue of the stage 2 response

The landlord employed a different grounds maintenance contractor to bring the grounds up to expected standards in August 2023, which was positive. The landlord completed further repairs to the communal lighting in September 2023.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 14 February 2024, that identified repairs to the communal lighting had been completed. But there were still intermittent issues with the communal lighting from time to time. She said the standard of grounds maintenance had been much better since the landlord changed its grounds maintenance contractor. But said it would be helpful if the landlord were to provide her with a schedule, setting out when its grounds maintenance contractor was meant to attend and what duties should be carried out on each occasion. The resident said she had asked the landlord for this several times but this had not been provided. She confirmed that the abandoned vehicle had been removed. But said the landlord had never repaired the communal fencing. This was a concern given that this job should have been completed within 28 days of the repairs being reported, in line with its repairs policy.

In summary

The length of time taken for the landlord to complete repairs to the communal lighting, significantly exceeded the expected repairs timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. It was inappropriate that repairs to the communal fencing remain outstanding at the time of this investigation.
The landlord identified during its own complaint investigation, that there were failings in its handling of repairs to the communal lighting. The landlord took positive steps to address the resident’s concerns about the caravan, the abandoned vehicle, and performance issues related to its grounds maintenance contractor. It endeavoured to put things right for the resident by apologising for the failings it itself had identified, by committing to complete outstanding repairs, by adjusting the resident’s service charges as appropriate, and by offering compensation. But in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the overall level of compensation offered by the landlord, does not fully reflect the likely inconvenience, time and trouble, that was caused to the resident by the failings identified by this investigation.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about communal repairs, and standards of grounds maintenance and communal estate management. The Ombudsman makes an order for compensation later, which has been calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of queries related to service charges.

The landlord notified the resident on 7 February 2023, of the new rent and service charge payable for the property from 1 April 2023. Accompanying the letter was a statement of the actual expenditure for the financial year ending March 2022 and an estimate of the service charge for the financial year ending March 2024.
According to the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident raised queries about her service charges on 6 April 2023. It is unclear if the landlord had a service level agreement, setting out its expected timescale for responding to service charge queries. But it would have been reasonable to have expected the landlord to have acknowledged the resident’s query, setting out its expected timescale for providing a response. If an acknowledgement was sent, this has not been seen by Ombudsman.
The landlord did explain to the resident in the stage 1 complaint response, that it had been experiencing high levels of enquiries since issuing its service charge notifications in February 2023. The landlord took decisive action by allocating the resident’s enquiry to one of its service charge officers for investigation. But it did not confirm an expected timescale for completing its investigation and issuing a full response. This was unfair and left the resident unclear on when she would receive the information she was seeking.
The landlord accepted during its internal complaint investigation, that there had been a significant delay in it providing the resident with a response to her service charge queries, that its communication had been poor, and that the resident had needed to repeatedly chase for responses. The Ombudsman notes that resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions between 6 April 2023 and 9 August 2023, before it issued her with a full response to her service charge enquiries.
The landlord tried to put things right by apologising for the failings it itself had identified, and by offering compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident. But in the Ombudsman’s view, the overall level of compensation offered by the landlord was not quite proportionate to the likely inconvenience that was caused to the resident by the failings it identified.
Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of queries related to service charges. The Ombudsman makes an order for compensation later, which has been calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure:
1. In the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about communal repairs, and standards of grounds maintenance and communal estate management.
2. In the landlord’s handling of queries related to service charges.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must pay compensation of £200 directly to the resident, which is reduced to £150, if the landlord has already paid the compensation that it previously offered. This compensation has been determined in line with Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
1. £150 compensation, which reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident by failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about communal repairs, and standards of grounds maintenance and communal estate management.
2. £50 compensation, which reflects the inconvenience caused to the resident by failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
The landlord must carry out an inspection of the communal fencing. The landlord must write to the resident confirming its findings and setting out its next steps, as may be appropriate in the circumstances. Where fencing repairs are identified, the landlord must provide the resident with an expected date of completion. The landlord must commit to monitoring the progress of the fencing repair and providing regular updates to the resident, until the repair is completed.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its repair records in respect of the communal lighting. The landlord should consider if there are any patterns in the faults reported, which might require a different approach by the landlord, to secure a lasting solution. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter.
The landlord should provide the resident with a grounds maintenance schedule, confirming when its grounds maintenance contractor is contracted to attend the estate and clarifying the tasks which should be carried out on each occasion.
The landlord should reflect on the Ombudsman’s observations concerning its estate inspection records. As a minimum, the landlord should:
1. Identify the reasons for any disparities identified by this investigation and then act accordingly thereafter.
2. Consider the merits of taking photographs during estate inspections.