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 (202228885)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228885

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about their service charges.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since July 2008. The property is a 2 bedroom, second floor flat.
  2. On 16 February 2023 the landlord sent the resident a letter about the upcoming years rent and service charges. In response the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to breakdown and explain the service charges. She asked the landlord to confirm if the increase was an error as she said it appeared that a previous fault in the building was the cause. The landlord responded to the resident on 22 February 2023. It confirmed the service charge the resident was querying was for fire protection and the increase was not an error.
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 2 March 2023. She said she was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord in relation to her query about service charges. She said she wanted a breakdown of the service charges and how the landlord came to this figure as she said she did not benefit from the services outlined in the letter she received. She also said she had spoken to the landlord that day but it had not been helpful or forthcoming with information. She said it just kept telling her what she had to pay and not answering her questions.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 March 2023. It apologised if the resident felt the agent she spoke to on 2 March 2023 did not address her concerns. However, it said it had not identified a service failure. It said it was satisfied with its communication as it had sent out a letter with the breakdown of the service charges to the resident.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 April 2023. She said a large part of her service charge amount was for a previous installation which had already been paid for. She said this included a maintenance cost of £200 for the replacement of a fire alarm in her neighbour’s flat. The resident said there were only 3 flats in the building and as such she alone being asked to pay £1,200 for the year did not ‘add up’. She said the landlord was not answering her questions about how it came to these figures.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 September 2023. It explained why the amount spent on fire protection from 2021 to 2022 had influenced the estimated service charge for 2023 to 2024. However, it said that having reviewed the costs from 2021 to 2022 it had identified that it had recharged 2 jobs in error. It confirmed that it had amended this charge on the resident’s account and had credited any surplus charges paid since 3 April 2023 to her account. The landlord acknowledged that in its stage 1 response it had not adequately investigated or addressed the issues raised about the service charges themselves. It also apologised for the delay in it responding to the resident’s complaint escalation request. In recognition of these failings the landlord offered £250 compensation for not addressing the resident’s concerns and £100 for the delayed stage 2 response.
  7. On 20 October 2023 the resident contacted this Service and confirmed that she wanted us to investigate the complaint. She said the landlord had not yet amended her account and she was still overpaying on the service charge despite it acknowledging its failings and saying it would put things right.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which have not gone through the landlord’s complaints process. We cannot fully consider any events after the landlord’s stage 2 response but may reference them for contextual purposes. This includes the account issues raised by the resident to this Service in her email of 20 October 2023.
  2. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the level or reasonableness of service charges, as that would be a matter for the First Tier Tribunal. However, we can consider how the landlord handled the resident’s queries about service charges.

Information about service charges

  1. The information provided by the landlord shows that on 10 February 2023 the resident contacted it about the service charges. She said that she had received a letter about a fault which was costing her £5 per week in services charges and that this was going to increase. She asked the landlord to confirm if this was an error. It is unclear what letter the resident was referring to as the only letter provided by the landlord about an increase in service charges was dated 16 February 2023. However, the Ombudsman is of the understanding that the information the resident queried on 10 February 2023 came from a letter similar or identical to that of the 16 February 2023.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s query on 22 February 2023. It confirmed that the charge she had queried was not an error and was for fire protection. It also explained what fire protection included. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain this information to the resident and it did so within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. On 27 February 2023 the resident contact the landlord again to query the service charges. She said she believed the landlord was charging an excessive amount for services that were not being provided. She said the total amount she had to pay was £1,200 and she believed the landlord was splitting the full service costs between 2 flats when there were 3 in the building. She also said the landlord had never inspected her fire alarm and it had only inspected the communal alarms once since 2022.
  4. The landlord spoke to the resident on 2 March 2023 in response to her query. The call notes provided say that it explained the service charges to the resident and confirmed how much she had to pay each week. It also says that when the resident said she could not afford such a high service charge, it advised her to speak to the ‘benefits people’. Following this conversation the resident raised her complaint. Based on the evidence provided about this call, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns and questions about how it had reached the service charge figure. Rather, it appears the landlord simply repeated back to the resident the information presented in the letter it had sent her. This was not an appropriate response to the resident’s queries and ultimately led to her raising a complaint.
  5. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that service charges are variable and what this means in terms of actual and estimated charges each financial year. It also said it then carries over the difference between what it estimated and what it actually spent on service charges to the next financial year as a ‘service charge adjustment’. The landlord also included a copy of the previous breakdown sent to the resident with its stage 1 response. The information the landlord provided was factually accurate. However, it did not address the resident’s concerns about how the landlord had reached the service charge figure. Additionally, it also referred her back to the breakdown which she had already said she did not understand. This was not an appropriate response and indicates the landlord did not properly investigate the resident’s questions and concerns.
  6. Overall, the landlord’s failings as set out above, can be summarised as failing to adequately look into and address the resident’s concerns about how it had reached the figure provided in the service charge letter. This failing caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience as it led her to contact the landlord multiple times to try and get the information she had requested.
  7. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it was satisfied with its response at stage 1 to the resident’s concerns about the conversation it had with her on 2 March 2023. However, it acknowledged that it had not adequately investigated or addressed the issues she had raised about the service charges themselves. It also said it had reviewed the costs from 2020 to 2021 and had found that it had mistakenly recharged 2 jobs from that period. It confirmed that it had amended the charges on the resident’s account and had credited any surplus charges paid since 3 April 2023 to her account. In recognition of these failings it offered a total of £250 compensation. It said this was made up of:
    1. £200 for the service charge errors and the length of time it took to identify these.
    2. £50 for providing inadequate information in its stage 1 response.
  8. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  9. Having taken into consideration the landlord’s failings and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £250 offered for this head of compensation is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord has compensated the resident for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its failure to adequately look into and answer her concerns. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 2 March 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 March 2023. The landlord’s response was 6 working days late and not compliant with the timescales referenced within the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy. Whilst any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience for the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 April 2023. Following this, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 September 2023. It took the landlord over 5 months to provide its stage 2 response. This was a significant delay and not in keeping with the timescales referenced above.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s failings as set out above, can be summarised as failing to issue its complaint responses within the timescales set out in the Code and its complaints policy. The delays would have caused inconvenience to the resident and delayed her bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman as she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised there were failings in its complaint handling and offered the resident £100 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident but which have no permanent impact. As such, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which adequately resolved its poor complaint handling. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s queries about their service charges.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £350 compensation it offered through its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determinations are made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should look into the resident’s concerns raised to this Service in October 2023 and ensure it has fulfilled the commitment it made in its stage 2 response to amend her account.
  3. The landlord should review its complaints process to ensure there is adequate oversight of the completeness of complaint responses as well as the timeliness of its responses.
  4. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendations.