From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202315657)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315657

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 April 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 the resident’s reports of defects.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, and the landlord is the freeholder of the property. The resident moved in to the property in April 2023. When the resident moved in the property was newly built and was still within the ‘defect liability period’. This is the period of time that the developer (not the landlord) is responsible for rectifying defects in the construction of the property. Throughout his complaint the resident raised multiple defects with the landlord. For clarity, this report only refers to the defect issues the resident asked us to investigate when he contacted us in May 2024.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 May 2023 to let it know about defects he had identified at the property. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 June 2023 and explained its position on each of the issues raised. It said it did not classify his concerns about a toilet being installed “too close” to a wall as a defect. It said the installation was signed off by building control and the warranty provider.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 July 2023 to make a complaint. He said he had a “long list” of defects and was unhappy with its response. On the 21 July 2023, the resident raised a concern about a defect with a communal fire exit. He said people could access the building by using a button on the intercom.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2023 and said:
    1. It was unable to take further action on his concerns about the positioning of the toilet. It was installed in line with the plans for the property and was signed off by building control.
    2. He had reported a concern about a crack in the bath panel, reported in early August 2023. It had no evidence of the crack before or shortly after the property was finished. It was therefore unable to accept the issue as a defect and it was the resident’s responsibility to resolve.
    3. In relation to his concerns about the communal fire exit, it said no further action was needed. The design and system was signed off by building control and adhered to its “fire and security strategy”. It gave advice on how the resident could raise concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    4. It would update him on a weekly basis about its progress with resolving the defects.
    5. It offered £250 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by the time taken to progress with repairs and its communication about the issues raised.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 August 2023 and reported further ASB in the communal area. He said people were accessing the building using the emergency fire release system for the door. He said the fire exit was not covered by CCTV, and the ASB was causing him anxiety. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint investigation. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s communication about the defects. He said the toilet was so close to the wall, and it was “unusable”.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 August 2023 to report an issue with a communal walkway. He reported water was not draining away when it rained.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 8 September 2023 and said:
    1. The toilet was installed “as per the design”. As it was an en-suite it was not subject to the same regulations as main bathrooms. It restated its position that both building control and the warranty provider signed it off. It explained this was its final decision on the matter, and it would take no further action.
    2. Its inspection had not identified any defects with the bath panel. It was of the view it had carried out a “sufficient” number of checks. It did not accept responsibility for resolving the issue.
    3. It said it was attending to raise to fire exit door release switch, as it should be at a height of 2.5 metres. Its managing agent was going to install CCTV to cover the fire exit.
    4. It had reported his concerns about water pooling on the walkway to the developer. It was aware of what the issue was and would “step in” to resolve it if the developer failed to.
    5. It restated its offer of £250 in compensation, plus a further £15 for a missed appointment in August 2023.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The landlord chased the developer about the balcony issue in December 2023. It contacted the resident on 20 February 2024 and said the developer had made a final decision that the issue was not a defect. It said it has raised the issue with the warranty provider (National House Building Council (NHBC)) and its final position was it has taken “every step” to compel the developer to fix the issue. It said the NHBC would provide its position within 20 working days, and it would provide an update in 4 weeks.
  2. The resident contacted us on 3 May 2024 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said some of the defect issues were resolved, but he asked us to investigate the outstanding issues. These were:
    1. Issues with the communal fire exit, and the associated ASB.
    2. Drainage on an external walkway.
    3. The toilet installed “too close” to the wall.
    4. A crack in the bath panel.
  3. The managing agent instructed a contractor to install CCTV covering the fire exit in May 2024. It did not install it at this time.
  4. The landlord installed additional security to the door release box on 4 March 2025.
  5. The landlord told us in June 2024 the developer and NHBC stated the walkway issue was not a defect. It said it had appointed its own contractor to try and remedy the issue. The landlord arranged for an additional inspection of the walkway in November 2024. The original installer confirmed the water pooling issue was associated with not following the manufacturer’s guidelines for maintenance. The landlord told us in April 2025 it had changed managing agent. The landlord has said the new managing agent was following the maintenance guidance, and the issue had not been reported since.
  6. The landlord told us, in April 2025, that it had not yet installed the CCTV, but was now progressing with the matter.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.

  1. The landlord’s new home information guide states the defect period was 12 months from when the property was handed over to the landlord from the developer. It states defects did not “include resident misuse, general maintenance or wear and tear. Any cracks, dents, or scratches which may have picked up since moving in may also not be accepted”.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and non emergency repairs within 28 days.
  3. Whether all of the concerns raised by the resident were defects that were the responsibility of the landlord/developer to rectify is disputed.
  4. As set out above, this investigation has focused on the defect issues the resident raised when he brought his complaint to us. For clarity we have addressed the landlord’s handling of each issue separately below. Some of the defects raised were outstanding at the time of the landlord’s complaint response. For fairness, we have increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is so we can fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.

Issues with the fire exit, and the associated ASB

  1. The landlord was on notice about the resident’s concerns about the fire exit from July 2023. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to outline its position on the matter. It explained that the design of the property was signed off by building control. The landlord explained its position with clarity. It was appropriate to give advice on how the resident could report ASB if the issues persisted.
  2. When the resident raised more concerns about ASB due to people gaining access to the property through the fire exit, the landlord opened an ASB case, in August 2023. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 August 2023 to advise the ASB case was closed and it would take no further action. The response lacked any detail about the actions it had taken or an explanation of why the case was being closed. This was inappropriate and a failing in the landlord’s communication. The response lacked the appropriate consideration of the resident’s concerns.
  4. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to explain that the design of the building design met its fire strategy and was done in consultation with local fire brigade. It restated its position that it had also been signed off by building control. The landlord communicated its position about the design with clarity. This was appropriate and, while evidently disappointing for the resident, its position was consistent throughout.
  5. In relation the resident’s concerns about the fire exit being a source of ASB, it used its stage 2 complaint response to set out what actions it planned to take. This was appropriate and went some way to putting right the lack of detail in its earlier communication about the ASB. It explained it would raise the door release box to an appropriate height and ask the managing agent to install CCTV. This was appropriate in the circumstance, and evidence the landlord sought to take action to reduce the ASB.
  6. The landlord instructed its managing agent to install the CCTV 5 months after its final complaint response. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident had expressed his distress and “anxiety” related to the ongoing ASB. The unreasonable delay in taking the actions it said it would in its stage 2 response may have increased the distress he experienced.
  7. In April 2025, the landlord told us that it had not yet installed the CCTV and it was liaising with its managing agent and contractor to progress the matter. It inconvenienced the resident by not following up on its original instruction to all the CCTV. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter. We welcome the fact that it is now progressing with the matter. It must write to the resident now to outline when it expects to install the CCTV.
  8. The landlord installed additional security on the door release box in March 2025. This was 18 months after it said it would in its final complaint response. This was an unreasonable delay that caused the resident an inconvenience. The further delay did little to reassure the resident it was taking his concerns seriously. We have considered this delay when assessing compensation, as detailed further below in this report.

Drainage on an external walkway

  1. The landlord was on notice about the external walkway from August 2023. The evidence seen for this investigation shows it raised the issue with the developer on 10 August 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  2. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to explain its latest position, and that it would take responsibility for the repair if the developer did not. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and evidence its sought to reassure the resident it was seeking to resolve the issue.
  3. The evidence we have seen shows the landlord regularly chased the developer about the issue from August 2023 onwards. The evidence also shows the landlord and developer were in dispute about whether the issue was a defect the developer was responsible for. It was unreasonable the landlord did not update the resident about the latest position on the issue until February 2024. This was an unreasonable delay and a failing in its communication. The resident was inconvenienced by the lack of updates from the landlord. It was appropriate that the landlord raised its concerns with the NHBC (the warranty provider) in February 2024, but it could have done this sooner when it was unable to resolve the matter with the developer.
  4. It is apparent the dispute between the landlord and developer contributed to a delay in resolving the issue. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise its concerns with the developer who was responsible for such defects. The landlord cannot reasonably be held responsible for the entirety of the delay.
  5. The evidence shows that the NHBC did not recognise the issue as a defect. As a result, the landlord took responsibility for the repair. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it sought to resolve the matter itself when all other avenues were exhausted.
  6. The evidence the landlord provided shows that it investigated the matter further with the original installer and concluded the matter was not a defect but a maintenance issue. It wrote to the resident on 21 November 2024 with a detailed explanation of its position. It also explained it had reminded the managing agent about the appropriate maintenance of the area. We welcome the actions the landlord took at that time. However, the resident was inconvenienced by the delay in appropriate maintenance being undertaken in order to reduce the impact of the issue. We have considered this when looking at compensation.

The position of the toilet

  1. The landlord was on notice about resident’s concern about the position of the toilet when the resident reported numerous defects in May 2023. The evidence shows the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the toilet on 2 June 2023. This was within a reasonable timeframe. It used its response to explain its position that the NHBC and building control had signed off the installation, so it would not take further action, because the issue was not a defect. We appreciate the disappointment this may have caused the resident. The landlord’s response was clear and it explained the reasons for its decisions. The landlord was entitled to deny responsibility for the toilet position as there was insufficient evidence to show it was a defect. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

Crack in the bath panel

  1. The landlord was on notice about the crack in the bath panel from August 2023. As part of our investigation, we have considered a ‘void inspection’ report completed in March 2023 prior to the resident moving in. The void inspection report did not identify any issues with the bath panel. We note the resident disputes this and maintains the issue was present when he moved in. However, we have not been provided with any evidence that supports this claim. We cannot say the landlord has done something wrong without evidence to support this conclusion.

The landlord’s offer of redress for its handling of the defects

  1. The landlord accepted that its handling of the resident’s reports of defects, and its communication, was poor. At the time of its final complaint response, its total offer of £265 in compensation was appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors. However, some matters were outstanding at the time of its final offer. Due to the failings and further delays outlined above, we have determined its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. We have decided there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  2. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. Considering the failings identified above, we have decided an order for a further £275 in compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident. This would mean the total compensation would be £540, including the landlord’s earlier offer.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling the resident’s reports of defects.

 

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £540 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects. The landlord’s offer of £265 should be deducted from this total if it has already been paid.
  2. Write to the resident outlining when it plans to install the CCTV.