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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202322054)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322054

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement door and frame.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling and offer of redress.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. The tenancy began in 2021. The property is a house, which according to our desk top research, was built between 1950 and 1966.
  2. There is an area at the back of the property, which the resident describes as an “alcove”. From the photographs we have seen, the alcove is a large area, with a concrete floor. The alcove is within the curtilage of the building, within which it is possible to access the back door to the property, a store cupboard, and a second toilet. The alcove is not fully enclosed, as there is a large opening in the flank wall of the building, which is supported by a lintel.
  3. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 6 March 2023. The resident said that she was unable to use the second toilet because there was no door to the alcove. She suggested that “according to the architecture of the house, there should be a door”.
  4. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 9 May 2023 which found no evidence of any failure of service. The landlord said:
    1. It had removed the door, prior to the tenancy starting.
    2. The door, which was not a standard fitting, was removed because the old door frame was rotten, was a safety concern, and was beyond economic repair. It said it had advised her of this prior to her moving in. It said it had also explained it would not be replacing the door.
    3. It was common for residents to install their own door to this area to create a garden porch, which is why all the properties looked different. But there was no requirement for a door, as the property itself had a secure back door.
    4. It had no plans to demolish the second toilet.
  5. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 16 May 2023. The resident said:
    1. She had not asked the landlord to remove the second toilet.
    2. Its suggestion that the property had a secure back door when she moved in was incorrect. She explained that the back door was in a state of disrepair, so she had replaced this herself.
    3. According to the plans for the house there should be a door on the alcove. She commented that the landlord had recently replaced a similar door at a neighbouring property when it renewed their windows.
    4. The landlord was negligent by not installing a door on the alcove and asked it to reconsider its position.
  6. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 30 June 2023. The landlord:
    1. Did not change its position on installing a door on the alcove and it maintained there had been no failure of service. It added that the alcove was intended to be an external entryway, which she had accepted at the point of sign-up. It noted that it had provided her with written advice on 20 October 2021 about installing the door herself.
    2. Said it had no record of any repairs being reported in connection with the back door. The landlord concluded there had been no failure of service, as it had not been given opportunity to address any repairs issues itself.
    3. Did accept that the resident had not asked it to remove the second toilet and it could have worded the stage 1 complaint response better. It apologised for this and offered £100 compensation to try to put things right. It also offered £50 compensation for issuing the stage 2 complaint response outside of its published service level agreement.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to us in September 2023. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of redress and because it had not agreed to reinstate the door to the alcove. The resident said the landlord should install a door.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement door and frame

  1. The landlord was statutorily and contractually obliged to provide the resident with safe, secure, and habitable accommodation at the point of letting and thereafter throughout the lifetime of the tenancy. This is in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) and the tenancy agreement. The landlord is obliged to keep the property in reasonable state of repair but it is not obliged to make improvements to the property.
  2. It is not in dispute that:
    1. There was a door frame and door to the alcove at the point the property became vacant (void).
    2. The landlord had removed the door frame and door to the alcove prior to the resident viewing the property, during its void works.
    3. The landlord made no commitment to the resident at the viewing or the tenancy sign-up to replace the door frame and door.
    4. The landlord told the resident prior to the tenancy starting, that she may consider replacing the door frame and door herself if she wanted to.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 October 2021 asking if she needed to seek formal permission to fit a new door frame and door on the alcove. This suggests she had accepted the landlord’s position at the time. The landlord replied promptly, explaining the process she would need to follow to obtain the relevant permissions. The resident did not submit a tenant alteration request, which suggests she decided not to progress this. It is unclear what prompted the resident to a raise a complaint nearly 17 months later. It was positive that the landlord revisited the matter.
  4. The resident maintained during the landlord’s complaint process that the alcove was fully enclosed at the time the property was built, so the property should have been let to her in a similar manner. She suggested to us this was also a building control requirement, given that the second toilet was accessed from the alcove. The resident has not provided us with evidence to support her position.
  5. We cannot conclude, from the limited evidence we have seen, that the alcove was fully enclosed by a door frame and door at the time the property was built. We were unable to verify from our own research, that there was any obligation on the landlord to keep the alcove fully enclosed throughout the duration of the tenancy.
  6. The landlord would have had a working knowledge of its housing stock to be able to effectively maintain its properties. It is reasonable to conclude that it would be able to identify any non-standard fittings or features when the property became void. In this case, the landlord identified that door frame and door on the alcove was a non-standard fitting.
  7. The voids policy states that non-standard components may be gifted to an incoming resident upon reletting. But in this case, the landlord removed the alcove door frame and door because they were in poor condition, were unsafe, and beyond economic repair. This was an appropriate course of action given the landlord’s obligations.
  8. Ultimately, the landlord decided there was no need to replace the alcove door frame and door because this was not something it would typically do where there was a secure external back door already in situ. We note that the resident challenged the landlord’s suggestion that the back door was secure when the property was let. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude there had been no failure of service in relation to its handling of repairs to the back door, as the resident had not given it opportunity to address this.
  9. The landlord accepted during its complaint investigation that there were similar alcoves in neighbouring properties that had been enclosed. But suggested these had been resident led alterations. The landlord had already demonstrated a willingness to consider a similar request from the resident, which shows it was being fair.
  10. We note from the landlord’s own internal communications in June 2023, that it had reservations about resident’s enclosing these alcoves because this was likely to cause a “cold spot with no form of heating / insulation, which will be prone to be cold / damp problems”. The fact there was no heating or insulation in this area, adds weight to the landlord’s position that the area was built as an unenclosed entryway through which it was possible to access the shed, the main property, and the second toilet, from the garden.
  11. The resident has told us she erected a temporary structure across the entrance of the alcove to combat damp and mould issues that had arisen in the alcove. We have seen no evidence to suggest the resident has ever reported issues with damp and mould in this area to the landlord. It is unclear if the resident’s actions have resolved this matter. But it would be prudent for the landlord to inspect the alcove to assess the current position in relation to damp and mould and establish if any measures ought to be taken.
  12. We can appreciate that the resident may have felt the landlord was treating her differently, after she noticed it had replaced the neighbour’s alcove door frame and door when it upgraded their windows. But we cannot conclude the landlord should have changed its position, based on works that it may have carried out at a neighbouring property, as we do not know the circumstances surrounding this.
  13. On balance, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement door and frame.

The landlord’s complaint handling and offer of redress

  1. The landlord was operating under an interim complaints policy at the time of the complaint, following a cyber-attack. The landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and issue the full stage 1 complaint response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord aimed to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 10 working days and issued the full stage 2 complaint response within 40 working days. The landlord would write to the resident if it needed an extension to its expected response timescales.
  2. The landlord had a compensation policy which set out its approach to compensation. This states that the landlord may offer compensation where it has identified a failure of service. The landlord may award between £50 and £250 compensation in instances where there has been some service failure, resulting in some impact on the complainant.
  3. The resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form on 6 March 2023 concerning the substantive matter. The landlord emailed the resident on 10 March 2023 explaining that it had sent her “back door query” to its repairs team who would contact her directly. The landlord did not identify until 31 March 2023 that the resident’s complaint had been misdirected to its repairs team. However, it did email the resident to apologise as soon as it became aware of its error.
  4. The landlord sent an initial complaint acknowledgement later the same day stating that a member of staff would respond as soon as possible. But it did not send a formal complaint acknowledgment until 13 April 2023. Therefore, the landlord did not meet its own timescale for acknowledging the stage 1 complaint.
  5. The landlord’s complaint acknowledgement stated that a member of its customer solutions team would be contact within the next 10 working days. But it did not set out its understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident was seeking, which would have been in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This meant the resident could not check prior to the landlord’s complaint investigation, that it had fully understood her complaint. And resulted in the landlord investigating and referring to issues in the stage 1 complaint response, that the resident had not raised.
  6. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 9 May 2023, which was 16 working days after the date of its formal acknowledgement. As such this was within the expected response timescale under its interim policy.
  7. We accept that the landlord had already apologised for directing the resident’s stage 1 complaint to the wrong team in the first instance. But we would have expected the landlord to have recognised in the stage 1 complaint response, that this had created avoidable delay in it carrying out its investigation and issuing the stage 1 complaint response. And then made an offer of compensation, in recognition of the likely inconvenience caused to the resident.
  8. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 16 May 2023. It sent an initial acknowledgement on 22 May 2023 stating that a member of its team would “be in contact” within the next 20 working days. The landlord sent the formal stage 2 acknowledgement on 16 June 2023 explaining its process for reviewing the stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s concerns, which it attributed to high levels of customer contact. It said that it would issue the full stage 2 response within the next 20 working days.
  9. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 30 June 2023. While this was within the timescale it specified in the formal acknowledgement, this was 32 working days after the resident escalated the complaint.
  10. The landlord did identify that its stage 2 complaint response was issued outside of its published service level agreement, for which the landlord offered £50 compensation as redress. This compensation which was proportionate to the failing the landlord identified and was in line with its complaint policy. However, it again missed opportunity to compensate the resident for delays that arose in its complaint handling at stage 1.
  11. It was encouraging that the landlord did itself recognise in the stage 2 complaint response, that it had referenced matters within the stage 1 complaint response that were unrelated to the complaint and that it could have worded its stage 1 complaint response better. It apologised for this and offered £100 compensation to try to put things right. This was a reasonable offer of compensation for the failings it had identified and was in line with its compensation policy.
  12. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint.
  13. To put things right the landlord ordered to pay £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident arising from delays in its complaint handling at stage 1. This compensation is in additional to the compensation the landlord previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response, for the failings it identified during its own complaint investigation.
  14. This compensation is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there has been a failure in the landlord’s service, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement door and frame.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and offer of redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay £200 compensation directly to the resident, which may be reduced to £50 if the landlord has already paid the £150 compensation it previously offered. This compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £100 compensation, which the landlord offered at stage 2, for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by investigating and referring to issues in the stage 1 complaint response that the resident had not raised.
    2. £50 compensation, for the inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from the complaint handling delays we identified at stage 1.
    3. £50 compensation, which the landlord offered at stage 2, for the inconvenience caused to the resident by issuing the stage 2 complaint response outside of the landlord’s publish service level agreement.
  2. 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

  1. The landlord should endeavour to inspect the alcove to assess the current position in relation to damp and mould and establish if any measures ought to be taken. The landlord should act accordingly depending on its findings.