Clarion Housing Association Limited (202446846)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446846

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. Conduct of contractors.
2. Repairs to the property, and damp and mould issues.
3. Asbestos at the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, including poor mental health.
The resident made an earlier complaint to the landlord about repair issues. During its investigation of the earlier complaint, the landlord identified various works, including:
1. To grit (a pre-coat applied to provide better adhesion for plaster) and plaster the kitchen ceiling.
2. Renew the kitchen door and door frame.
3. Replace the toilet and panel behind the toilet and basin.
4. Tile above existing tiles on the bath wall.
The landlord set out these repairs in its stage 2 complaint response to the earlier complaint of February 2024. It issued work to a contractor, who contacted the resident to agree a start date of 25 March 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 April 2024. She said that the contractor who attended on 25 March 2024 had “deviated” from the work she was told would be completed. She said she was unhappy with the amount of work completed and about texts messages from the contractor. The resident said the contractor had:
1. Refused to replace her toilet.
2. Said they would not remove a panel covering pipework despite her concern of unaddressed leaks/damp in that area.
3. Would not give her a choice of grout colour for the tiles.
4. Would not replace the door frame.
5. Failed to cover her belongings during work.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 May 2024. It apologised for any inconvenience the resident had been caused. It said it had spoken to its area manger about the issues and noted that:
1. The contractor had to wait for plaster to dry before completing further work to the kitchen, as well as having to ensure the ceiling was in a safe condition following reports of possible asbestos.
2. Following the second day of work, the resident communicated with the contractor about the start time for the third day of work.
3. The contractor advised the landlord that it found the resident’s messages “abusive” and that work should be allocated to another contractor.
4. It apologised that the resident had not received the level of work she had expected. However, it said it was unable to evidence that the contractor had worked slower than expected. It said it would update her once the work had been allocated to a different contractor.
5. It said it had reviewed text messages she received from the contractor, and it apologised that the resident considered some of these “discriminatory and threatening”. It said it fed this back to those involved to provide training where necessary.
6. The landlord said it had communicated with the contractor. It said the contractor stated they gave the resident options for the grout colour and denied they had said they would not replace the door frame or toilet. The landlord said it could not identify any failing in service. However, it awarded the resident £50 for the delay in responding to her complaint.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 10 May 2024. She said:
1. The contractor had “lied” and that her concerns about discrimination and harassment had not been addressed.
2. She disputed that she had been abusive in messages to the contractor.
3. Plaster had been left over her new cooker, and she wanted this to be replaced.
4. “Asbestos dust” was left all over her boiler and her property was not left tidy.
5. She wanted the landlord to compensate her for the distress caused to herself and her partner.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 9 July 2024. It said:
1. It had discussed the resident’s concerns about staff behaviour with its contractor, but it could not provide any further details due to General Data Protection Regulations. However, it apologised again for any upset caused.
2. It had attached a copy of its asbestos report.
3. Its surveyor would attend on 16 July 2024, and it would arrange any outstanding work following this.
4. It could not compensate the resident for distress but would consider whether compensation was appropriate after its surveyor had attended.
5. It would not be replacing the resident’s cooker, but she could make a claim through its insurer. It provided details.
6. It had awarded her further compensation of £150. This was in recognition of the delays in escalating her complaint and providing a stage 2 response.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property on 16 July 2024. The surveyor noted:
1. Work to the resident’s door frame was outstanding but an order had already been raised for this.
2. Decoration to the kitchen ceiling was outstanding but this was the resident’s responsibility.
3. The area over the bath was not fully tiled but they could not order this as it was “not essential”.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2025. She said she was still waiting for the landlord to complete outstanding repairs. She wanted a sincere apology, compensation and for work to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In February 2025 we issued our determination in respect of the resident’s earlier complaint. This considered issues addressed by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response of February 2024. As part of that investigation, we considered the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet. We ordered that it complete necessary work to replace the toilet.
In this report we have considered the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the contractor who attended in March 2024 to complete repairs, including to the toilet. However, we have not made any specific orders or recommendations about the completion of work to the toilet as this has been covered by our earlier investigation.
The resident said the landlord’s handling of issues had negatively impacted hers and her partner’s health. We acknowledge her comments about this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter which is more appropriately decided by a court. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer. The resident may wish to seek legal advice around this.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s code of conduct outlines the standard of behaviour it expects of its staff/contractors. It sets out that it follows the National Housing Federation’s code of conduct. Among other things, this says that staff/contractors should treat residents with “equal respect, care, and consideration”.
The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy outlines its aim to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may consider discretionary compensation to recognise an adverse impact on a resident. It says the impact experienced by the resident could include distress and inconvenience.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Conduct of contractors

The resident raised concerns about text messages she received from the contractor. She said she found it “disgraceful” and “demeaning” that the contractor had sent her a message referring to the fact she did not work. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord took steps to contact the contractor to seek recollections of events. It also obtained the text message exchange between the resident and the contractor. These were appropriate actions. It is apparent from the stage 1 complaint response that the landlord had reviewed the content of messages.
It was positive that the landlord said it had fed back to those involved so that training could be provided where necessary. Further, it was appropriate that it apologised to the resident and acknowledged that she had found the messages “discriminatory and threatening”. But its apology to the resident focused on how she had perceived those messages. It should reasonably have gone further and acknowledged any failings/shortcomings in the contractor’s communication with the resident.
We acknowledge that the landlord was unable to provide the resident with details of any internal process or action taken in respect of the issue. It appropriately explained this in its stage 2 complaint response. However, this did not prevent it from fully reviewing the service she had received from the contractor.
As set out earlier, the landlord’s code of conduct details the standard of behaviour it expects of its staff and contractors. The landlord had seen the text message exchange. It should have acknowledged that some of messages from the contractor, such as the reference to the resident’s work status, were not appropriate.
The landlord did not fully address other concerns the resident raised about her communication concerns with the contractor. She said the operative had “demand[ed]” to attend at a time that was convenient to them, rather than a mutually convenient time. The landlord noted the contractor had advised the resident they needed to start work at 8am due to the amount of work. However, it did not give any consideration to how the contractor had responded to the resident’s request that work start at 9am instead.
The resident had outlined in her communication to the contractor, and her complaint to the landlord, that she had requested a later start time as she was on sedative medication. The landlord should reasonably have considered whether more could have been done to accommodate her request. Instead, it left this concern without a full response.
Further, the landlord made no attempt to respond to concerns the resident raised that the contractors had said she sent “abusive” messages. Not doing so gave the impression it had accepted what the contractor had said without reviewing the messages for itself.
The resident also raised concerns about the amount of work completed by the contractor during its attendance at her property. The landlord’s consideration and response to the resident on this point was reasonable.
The landlord said the contractor had needed to wait for plaster to dry before completing further work. The landlord also said the contractor had temporarily stopped work to the kitchen ceiling due to concerns raised about potential asbestos.
The resident stated in her escalation request that it was the contractor, rather than her, who had raised concerns about asbestos. The evidence we have seen does not allow us to conclude who had raised the possibility of asbestos. However, both parties agree that a concern was raised. While we have not seen records relating to this, the resident said both her and the contractor contacted the landlord about the asbestos survey. There would have been some reasonable delay to work while appropriate enquiries were made about asbestos concerns.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors. While it apologised to the resident for any upset that may have been caused to her, it failed to adequately address all her concerns about the communication she had with the contractor.

Concerns about repairs to the property and damp and mould

In her complaint the resident raised concerns that the contractor had “deviated” from the work and had refused to complete some repairs. Repairs to completed to her property were in response to a previous complaint. The extent of work was set out in the landlord’s stage 2 response of February 2024.
The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns that the contractor had refused to complete repairs to her door frame, replace her toilet, and about giving her a choice of grout. It noted that the contractor had said it would have replaced both the toilet and the door frame. It also said the contractor stated it had given the resident a choice of grout colour. The landlord said it had been unable to identify a failing in service.
We acknowledge the resident disputes what the contractor said to the landlord in response to her concerns about this. However, in the absence of clear evidence about what was said during the contractor’s attendance, the landlord conclusions were reasonable.
The resident expressed her belief that the contractor had not completed work in line with the stage 2 complaint response. This set out that it would grit and plaster the kitchen ceiling. However, the resident said the ceiling was not gritted. The landlord did not respond to this concern. It did not confirm whether this work had been completed.
Further, the resident had raised concerns that the contractor had refused to remove a panel covering pipes, where she believed there was unresolved leak/damp and mould. This concern was also left without a response by the landlord.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that it would take steps to reschedule outstanding work with a different contractor. However, it should reasonably have also explained the work its contractor had completed to the kitchen ceiling. Or it could have set out actions it would take to address the resident’s concerns about this and about unresolved leak/damp.
If there was any doubt about the extent of work needed/completed, then it would have been reasonable for it to arrange an inspection. That it did not take timely steps to do so was a failing.
The resident also raised concerns about “mess” left at her property and that her belongings were not covered during work. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that its contractor had stated it had left the resident’s property clean and tidy. However, it should have been apparent that the resident was disputing this.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately directed the resident on how she could make a claim through its insurance for the cooker replacement. However, it should have gone further to fully address the concerns she had raised. She specifically said in her escalation request that she wanted “mess” left by the contractor resolved.
It was reasonable for the resident to expect the contractor to protect her belonging, and clear any mess left following repairs The landlord should have appropriately offered to inspect her concerns or review any photographic evidence about this. While we have not seen photographs, the resident emailed the landlord on 10 May 2024 stating that she had attached evidence her property was “not left tidy”.
There is no indication the landlord reviewed this information or considered other steps it could take to resolve the apparent disagreement about whether the resident’s property was left clean and tidy after repairs. That was a failing, which left her concerns unresolved.
In its stage 2 complaint response of July 2024, the landlord agreed it would arrange for its surveyor to attend to inspect the resident’s concerns about the standard of work. While that action was appropriate, it came more than 3 months after the resident had raised these concerns. It should reasonably have arranged earlier action to inspect issues.
The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that its surveyor’s inspection would establish the standard of work and identify any outstanding work required. It also said that if compensation was “deemed to be applicable” following its surveyor’s visit, then it would look at this.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property on 16 July 2024. However, we have seen no evidence it appropriately communicated the outcome of this inspection to the resident. It is difficult to see how it could effectively resolve the matter without communicating the outcome of its inspection to the resident. Its failure to do so left this issue without a clear resolution or a plan for completing outstanding repairs Nor have we seen evidence it made appropriate arrangements to complete the outstanding work. For instance, we have seen no evidence it has attempted to arrange or complete work to the door frame, or to tile the bathroom wall.
The landlord surveyor noted following his inspection in July 2024 that he could not book work to fully tile over the bath as this work was “not essential”. Yet the stage 2 complaint response of February 2024 had set out that this work was to be completed. This is evidence that the landlord had failed to appropriately review the repairs it agreed previously. If anything had changed around this, the landlord should have clearly communicated this to the resident. There is no evidence it did so.
The surveyor also noted that the kitchen ceiling, while plastered, was not decorated. However, the surveyor noted they could not order this work as this was the resident’s responsibility. If the landlord considered that to be the case, then it should have communicated this to the resident. That we have seen no evidence it did so is a failing. Without doing so, the resident may still consider these to be outstanding repairs for the landlord.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the property and damp and mould. It failed to:
1. Arrange a timely inspection of the resident’s concerns about the extent of repairs and standard of work.
2. Appropriately consider the resident’s concerns that her property was not left clean following repairs.
3. Communicate with the resident about the outcome of its July 2024 survey, or act to arrange outstanding repairs.
4. Appropriately consider the extent of repairs it had agreed in its stage 2 complaint response of 29 February 2024.
As a result of the failings set out above, the resident was left without adequate response to all her concerns. While some repairs were completed in March 2024, she has waited far longer than was reasonable for outstanding repairs to her property.
So far, the landlord has made no award to the resident in respect of repair issues. With consideration to all the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that it make an award to her aimed at recognising the impact of its failings. We have also ordered that it take appropriate action to resolve repairs that remained outstanding following its contractor’s attendance in March 2024.
Finally, we note the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it did “not compensate for distress”. However, its compensation policy clearly sets out that it may award compensation to residents for the adverse impact, including distress and inconvenience. We have ordered that the landlord remind its complaint handling staff of this.

Asbestos at the property

In her complaint escalation, the resident expressed concerns about the possible presence of asbestos in her kitchen ceiling. She said the ceiling was supposed to be “gritted” to ensure asbestos was not disturbed during work. She also raised concerns that she may have been exposed to a “carcinogenic”.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord provided the resident with a copy of its asbestos report of January 2024. While this report set out that the kitchen ceiling was “non-asbestos”, the landlord did not attempt to highlight or explain this information to the resident.
The asbestos report was approximately 20 pages in length and contained technical information that may not have understood by the resident. Given this, the landlord should reasonably have highlighted and explained the relevant part of the report. Doing so would have ensured the resident understood and was reassured by the findings of the report.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos at the property.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s complaint was approximately 2 weeks outside its target response time set out in its complaints policy. However, it appropriately apologised to her for this. Its award of £50 was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also delayed. While the resident requested escalation of her complaint on 10 May 2024, the landlord delayed taking appropriate action to do so. As a result, it did not provide its stage 2 response to her complaint until 9 July 2024, approximately 1 month outside its target response time.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its eventual complaint response and the £150 it awarded in recognition of this was reasonable. It follows that we have made a finding of reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the property and damp and mould.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £500, made up of:
  1. £100 for failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.
  2. £350 for failing in its handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the property and damp and mould.
  3. £50 for failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos at the property.
3. Remind complaint handling staff that compensation awards may be considered for distress and inconvenience, in line with its compensation policy.
4. Review text message communications between the resident and contractor. It should then provide the resident with a clear response to her concerns about the appropriateness of messages, with reference to its code of conduct.
5. Take appropriate action to resolve the repairs that remain outstanding following its contractor’s attendance in March 2024. It should:
  1. Contact the resident agree to provide a clear timeframe for completing the outstanding repair work.
  2. Provide the resident with a point of contract through to completion of this work.
  3. Contact the resident to address her concern that the kitchen ceiling was not gritted in line with the stage 2 complaint response of February 2024.

Recommendations

The determination of reasonable redress was made on the basis that the landlord pays the resident £200 it previously awarded, if it has not already done so.
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to ensure it has accurately recorded all vulnerabilities for her, and that it considers any appropriate adjustments for repairs attendance/appointments.