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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202120114)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120114

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 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 repairs to the front entrance door.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 8 May 2008. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the second floor. The landlord’s records note that the resident has mobility issues due to a broken right wrist and issues with her left wrist.
  2. The landlord’s repair logs show that on 11 February 2021 it raised a works order to check the front entrance door which had become “stuck.” The notes say that the door also became stuck the day before and the fire brigade attended to release it.
  3. On 21 February 2021 the resident called the landlord to report that she had called the fire brigade when residents got locked in because the door would not open. She said the lock had been removed from the door and it did not close flush. 
  4. An entry on the repairs log dated 14 April 2021 noted there was no lock in the door. People were sleeping rough on the landing and parcels had gone missing. The contractor noted that he “and others” had been reporting that the door needed to be replaced for the past 4 to 5 years.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord to report the ongoing issue with the door during August, September, November and December 2021.
  6. During a telephone call with us on 1 December 2021 the resident advised the door was still not fixed and that people continued to sleep in the block. She said she had contacted the landlord on “numerous” occasions but had not received a response. We wrote to the landlord on the same day to request that it provide a stage 1 complaint response by 15 December 2021.
  7. On 7 December 2021 the landlord decided to install a temporary barrel lock and provide keys to residents. On 16 December 2021 it started the process to renew the door, including carrying out a Section 20 consultation process if necessary. It expected the door to be fitted in the 2022 to 2023 financial year.
  8. On 17 December 2021 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
    1. The door was attended to during May 2021. It attended again in October 2021 when it agreed to replace the door.
    2. In line with its procedure the planned investment team reviewed the request and obtained quotes for a replacement. After that it would carry out a Section 20 consultation with leaseholders. The process took approximately 18 months and it apologised if this was not communicated to the resident.
    3. The planned investment team confirmed letters were being posted to residents that day to provide an update and it anticipated that the door would be replaced during 2022 to 2023.  
    4. As a temporary measure it was arranging for a barrel lock to be fitted to the door to secure the block. It would do this as soon as keys had been provided to all residents which it hoped to do within 2 weeks.
    5. It noted that it had fitted several new locks over period of time but they had broken making the door insecure. It understood the frustration caused and apologised for any miscommunication around timescales. 
    6. There was no failure of service because it attended within the timescales set out in its policy. It had also followed the correct process to refer the replacement of the door to it planned investment team. The complaint was not upheld.
  9. An entry on the repairs log dated 15 February 2022 noted that the lock it fitted a few weeks prior had not stayed in place because it could not be secured properly.
  10. The resident telephoned us on 9 September 2022 to request assistance with resolving their complaint. The status of the complaint was unclear therefore we wrote to the landlord to request that it issued a further stage 1 complaint response by 23 September 2022.
  11. On 30 September 2022 the landlord issued it second stage 1 response, the main points being:
    1. It apologised for the delay in its response which was caused by a cyber incident.
    2. It had tried to call the resident on 20 September 2022 to discuss the complaint but was unsuccessful.
    3. Its mechanical and electrical team confirmed its contractor assessed the intercom system in February 2022.  It was deemed to be “beyond repair” and full replacement was needed.
    4. Its mechanical and electrical team advised that the referral was received from the contractor and that it needed to establish if there were leaseholders in the block. If so it would need to carry out a Section 20 consultation.
    5. During a call with the landlord on 21 September 2022 the resident advised there were no leaseholders. The resident also said they received a letter from the landlord on 27 February 2022 advising they would be updated but nothing had happened.
    6. It contacted its repairs team regarding the door and its area manager referred the case to one of its surveyors. The surveyor confirmed the planned investment team accepted a referral on 9 November 2021.
    7. The team also advised that the replacement door had been ordered. It was chasing its contractor for updates who had advised there were “potential issues” with the supply chain. It was “actively” seeking timeframes and residents would be updated with any developments.
    8. It concluded there had been a lack of communication and a delay in resolving the issues raised by the resident for which it offered £200 compensation.
  12. The resident contacted us for further assistance on 14 June 2023 in order to escalate her complaint to stage 2. On 21 July 2023 we wrote to the landlord to request that it provide a response by 28 July 2023 if it had been over 40 working days since the resident requested to escalate her complaint. Alternatively, it should provide us with a copy of its response by 28 July 2023. If it had not received a request to escalate it should provide a response within 40 working days of the date of the letter, by 18 September 2023. On 24 July 2023 the landlord emailed us to confirm that it had raised a stage 2 complaint and would respond in line with its interim complaints policy.
  13. During the landlord’s telephone call to the resident on 8 September 2023 it said it was liaising with its planned investment team for updates on when the door would be replaced. The landlord’s records confirmed that the doors were ordered on 22 September.
  14. On 2 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, as follows:
    1. The resident had escalated their complaint due to ongoing delays and a lack of updates.
    2. Its cyclical decoration programme was completed at the end of 2021. Since then it had been “actively” chasing its contractor to progress replacing the door.
    3. This was complex due to the standard door specification (maglock) being incompatible with the existing door entry system. The door entry system had not been included in the earlier Section 20 consultation.
    4. In response to the delay and to support the progress of works it had decided to renew the door entry system at no cost to residents.
    5. It had instructed its contractor to arrange manufacture of the door which it anticipated would take 14 to 20 weeks to complete, subject to gaining access to all the flats.
    6. It recognised the effort made by the resident to chase the matter and the gaps in communication during its response.
    7. It offered £200 compensation plus an additional £50 for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response.
  15. During a call to us on 5 December 2024 the resident confirmed the door had still not been replaced therefore she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The complaint became one we could investigate on 29 January 2025.

Events post internal complaints process.

  1. In its email to us dated 4 March 2025 the landlord confirmed that the door had been replaced but that the door entry was yet to be commissioned. This was due to difficulties in gaining access to 3 flats.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy (repairs policy) says that:
    1. It will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days of the repair being reported, including communal repairs.
    2. Major component replacements are not responsive repairs and these items should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes.
    3. Mechanical and electrical maintenance is excluded from the responsive repairs services and installations are maintained by specialist teams with specialist contractors. This includes door entry systems.
    4. If a contractor believes that a repair is not economical, they can refer it to the landlord so that a decision can be made as to whether it should be added to the planned investment programme. Prior to the referral process, all repairs needed to keep an item safe and serviceable should be completed.
  2. Its Interim Complaints Policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 10 working days of receipt. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days. If it is unable to do so it will contact the resident to set out the timescale for when they can expect to receive the response.
  3. Its Compensation Policy says it will consider paying discretionary compensation to recognise a particular adverse effect and impact on a resident.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front entrance door.

  1. An entry on the repairs log dated 11 February 2021 notes that the door became stuck the previous day, leaving resident’s “locked in the block.” The fire brigade attended to release the door.  A works order was raised to arrange an “urgent” appointment to check the door to ensure it opened and closed securely. It noted that there were issues with Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) in the block.
  2. On 21 February 2021 the resident called the landlord to report that she had called the fire brigade to release the door. She said the lock had been removed from the door to allow access so now it was unlocked and did not close flush. She said she suffered from anxiety and was concerned about the lack of security in the block. The landlord said it would inspect the door within 10 days.
  3. There is no evidence that the landlord attended to inspect the door after either of the reports set out above. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the risk posed to residents by the door not releasing, such as fire safety, or the increase in ASB due to the block being insecure. That it did not do so was a failure.
  4. The landlord’s repair log dated 14 April 2021 noted that the lock was missing from the door. It had received reports that people were sleeping “rough” on the landing and parcels had gone missing.
  5. It raised a works order and attended on 21 May 2021. This was inappropriate because it was over its 28 day response time. The notes stated that a lock could not be fitted because the door did not close property. It was likely it would snag causing the fire brigade to attend again.  It went on to say that as the contractor “and others had reported for the past 4 to 5 years” the doors needed to be replaced as all the pivotal hinges were “broken.”
  6. An entry on the repair log dated 19 August 2021 noted that the door was “not shutting property and unable to lock” and that the problem had been ongoing for over 2 years. It raised a works order to inspect and repair. However, it also stated that the planned investment team was renewing all the main entrance doors as part of a programme of works. If the locking mechanism was beyond repair it would be addressed with the fitting of the new doors. It would try to get an update on timescales and update residents.
  7. The evidence shows that the landlord had been aware that the door’s locking mechanism had been faulty for at least 2 years. It had been put on notice that the lock was removed by the fire brigade in February 2021. That was 6 months ago and since then the door had not closed flush and the block was insecure causing ASB in the block. It failed to adhere to its repairs policy to keep items in a safe and serviceable condition prior to being referred to its planned investment team.
  8. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the impact on residents and what it might do to assist. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it communicated with residents to provide updates. While it was positive that the planned investment team were looking at longer term options the landlord’s inaction was unreasonable.
  9. The repair logs show that the resident reported the ongoing issue to the landlord on 14 September 2021. On 21 September 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to advise the doors were due to be replaced. However, there is no evidence that it provided an update about timescales to reassure the resident and manage expectations. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord to report the problem again on 11 October 2021. The repair logs show that the landlord attended on 15 October 2021 and spoke to the resident. It subsequently raised another order for the door to be replaced. There is no evidence that, having attended again, the landlord considered whether it might be able to make a temporary repair to secure the door in the meantime. 
  11. An internal email dated 7 December 2021 proposed to fit a new barrel lock once keys had been cut and delivered to residents. It requested that this be actioned that day. While this was positive it came late in the process.
  12. A further internal email dated 16 December 2021 noted that the resident had been reporting the broken door for “nearly 3 years.” On 21 May 2021 a referral had been made to the planned investment team for a new front door which had been accepted. However, the process to obtain a quote and carry out any necessary Section 20 consultations would take time. It noted the overall process would take approximately 18 months meaning the new door would likely be installed during the 2022 to 2023 financial year.
  13. The landlord set out the process to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 17 December 2021. It also set out the steps it intended to take to secure the block in the interim. It is unclear why this was not actioned as requested on 7 December 2021. It apologised for any “miscommunication” but said it did not consider there had been a failure of service which was inappropriate. Furthermore, it failed to identify the overall delay in its response and the associated distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  14. The landlord’s repairs log entry dated 21 December 2021 set out that the communal intercom was not working. It requested that an electrician attend to fix the main switch board. There is no evidence regarding the action it took which is a record keeping failure.
  15. An entry on the repairs log dated 20 January 2022 noted that the new lock was not working meaning the door was not locking. The notes state that the landlord attended on 15 February 2021 however, the lock would not stay in place because it could not be secured properly. It also said that “in the past there have been occasions they have not been able to get out of the building due to the lock.”
  16. On 3 March 2022 the landlord received a report that the door was “jamming shut.” The resident could not open the door from the outside and could not get into the block. A works order was raised to attend that day however, it is unclear what action was taken which is a record keeping failure.
  17. An entry on the repair log dated 7 April 2022 noted that the front door was still not closing and anyone could access the block. An update noted that it had inspected on 25 April 2022 but had passed the issue to planned investment because there was “nothing more that could be done.” An internal email dated 3 May 2022 enquired about timescales to replace the door because the resident was “very frustrated” as it had been going on for years.
  18. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 30 September 2022 advised that the delay in replacing the door was due to issues with the supply chain and that it was actively chasing its contractor. However, its internal email of 16 December 2021 noted a referral to the planned investment team was made on 21 May 2021 therefore, it is unclear why the stage 1 response said the referral was made in October and accepted on 9 November 2021, which was 6 months later.
  19. The response also provided an update on the door entry system which failed in December 2021. It had carried out an assessment in February 2022 and concluded this too was beyond repair and in need of replacement. Again the landlord failed to provide regular updates to residents to keep them informed of progress.
  20. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 2 October 2023 was issued over a year after the stage 1 response of 30 September 2022. It is acknowledged that the landlord:
    1. Experienced issues with the compatibility of systems.
    2. Appropriately used its discretion to expedite the process by not passing on the cost of replacing the door entry system.
    3. Complied with its repairs policy in terms of the process for works outside of responsive repairs.
  21. Its response said the doors had been ordered and provided timescales. However this is at odds with its stage 1 response dated 30 September 2022, a year earlier, which also said the doors had been ordered and that it was chasing its contractor for updates. It is also unclear why there had been such a lengthy delay in progressing the door entry system replacement between February 2022 and October 2023, a period of 20 months.
  22. The landlord’s response to the issues with the front entrance door were unreasonably delayed causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s evidence recognised that the issue had been ongoing for between 2 to 3 years.
  23. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord’s offer of £200 compensation is not considered proportionate to the failures identified in this report. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends that compensation between £600 to £1000 should be paid where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Taking into account the duration of the issue and the impact on the resident the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £900. It may deduct the £200 it has offered is this has already been paid.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. Following the resident’s request for assistance we wrote to the landlord on their behalf on 1 December 2021. We asked it to provide a complaint response no later than 15 December 2021. The landlord provided its response on 17 December 2021. This was 2 working days out of time however, it is acknowledged that the detriment caused to the resident was low. It appropriately spoke to the resident on the same day to talk through its response.
  2. The resident contacted us for assistance again on 9 September 2022. Given the time that had passed since the first stage 1 response we requested that the landlord raise a fresh stage 1 complaint. It was required to provide its response by 23 September 2022.
  3. It provided its response on 30 September 2022 which was 7 days later and therefore out of time. The landlord appropriately explained the reason for the delay. However, given that the cyber incident occurred in June it would have been appropriate for it to have contacted the resident to advise her that it may not be able to comply with the deadline we set.
  4. The resident contact us for further assistance on 14 June 2023 to escalate her complaint to stage 2. On 21 July 2023 we gave the landlord the option to provide a response within 40 working days if it had not received a request to escalate the complaint. On 24 July the landlord emailed us to confirm that it had raised a stage 2 complaint and would respond in line with its interim complaints policy.
  5. On 10 August 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it would respond within 20 working days, meaning the response was due on 7 September 2023.
  6. During a call with the resident on 8 September 2023 the landlord apologised for the delay and said it would issue a response within 10 working days and by 22 September 2023. The landlord called the resident again on 22 September 2023 to advise that it was actively chasing its response. 
  7. While it was positive that the landlord provided updates these were apologies for not having done something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 October 2023. This was 51 working days after our letter of 21 July 2023. Therefore it was 11 working days out of time. Furthermore, it failed to adhere to the timescales it set out to the resident.
  9. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation. This investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front entrance door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £900 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of repairs to the front entrance door. The landlord may deduct the £200 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
  3. Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out a review of the failings identified in this report to establish what went wrong and what it will do differently. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £50 offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.