Clarion Housing Association Limited (202231118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231118

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 March 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 communal door.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat. The resident advised the landlord that she lives with Asperger’s syndrome.
3. The resident then notified the landlord on 3 August 2022 that the communal door was stuck open and could not be closed. She said the issue was creating a security risk. On 4 August 2022, the landlord told the resident that it had submitted a repair request to its contractor for the communal door. An operative attended on 6 September 2022 but was unable to fix the door. After further reports from the resident, operatives visited 4 times between 11 October 2022 and 6 March 2023.
4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 13 March 2023. She said it had failed to repair the communal door for a third time in 4 months.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 9 June 2023. It said:
   1. It was sorry she had had to chase the repairs to the communal entrance door and that she had not received the level of service it expected.
   2. Its contractor had attended on 3 April 2023 and identified parts were required for the repair. It had attended again on 17 May 2023 but was unable to fully repair the door. It considered the door automation required replacement.
   3. The contractor attended once more on 6 June 2023. During this visit it discovered that further damage had been caused and parts stolen from the door. This required further quotes to be obtained. It expected the repair to be completed no later than “July 2023”.
   4. It offered £100 compensation for failing to repair the door within the timescales outlined in its service level agreement.
   5. It offered a further £50 for not responding to the resident’s complaint within the required timescales.
6. On 10 June 2023, the resident told the landlord she disagreed with the dates in the stage 1 response. She said she had reported the issues with the communal door in 2022. She also advised she lived with Asperger’s syndrome and other physical health conditions, and the issues with the communal door exacerbated her conditions. She said she wanted the landlord to consider these factors in its stage 2 response.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 August 2023. It confirmed that it had received the resident’s email regarding her escalation points. It also confirmed it had spoken to her on 14 July 2023, when she had raised additional points for consideration. These included:
   1. The occupant of a neighbouring flat and their visitors were responsible for damage to the communal door.
   2. She suggested the installation of CCTV to address antisocial behaviour (ASB) and fly-tipping.
   3. She also requested replacement of the current door with a stronger door.
8. In the stage 2 response the landlord listed the following points and conclusions:
   1. It acknowledged that the resident had reported the issues with the communal door on several occasions. In total, between 19 July 2022 and 6 March 2023, issues with the door had been reported 6 times. Its engineers had visited 10 times between 19 July 2022 and 25 July 2023. It had raised an order for the door to be replaced on 11 August 2023.
   2. It apologised for the inconvenience this had caused the resident. It noted that its efforts had been impacted by repeat incidents of vandalism causing damage to the communal door.
   3. It had investigated the resident’s reports that occupants of a neighbouring flat were responsible for the damage to the communal door. It was unable to find sufficient evidence to raise an ASB case. The last report of ASB concerning the neighbouring flat was in July 2020. The report did not relate to the communal door.
   4. It said it would look into the resident’s requests for CCTV and additional lighting to decide if they were viable options. As the additional costs would be rechargeable to all occupants of the building, it would have to carry out a consultation.
   5. In recognition of the issues and service failures, it offered £300 compensation. This was comprised of:
      1. £250 for inconvenience, the resident’s numerous calls and emails, and “vulnerability”.
      2. £50 for the delay in issuing a stage 2 response.

Events post internal complaints procedure

9. The landlord replaced the automated entrance door on 12 October 2023. The engineer advised the door was bent at the bottom, and despite adjustments it sometimes did not lock. The notes state, “would recommend replacement door”. On 24 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that the door was not closing and that it was “just resting on the frame”.
10. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 November 2023. She said the door had been broken again. She told it someone had forced open the door and ripped the self-closer from the wall. She said she was “so angry … after a whole year trying to get the door fixed it is broken again”. She reiterated her view that CCTV was required as well as a theft–proof door.
11. The landlord’s contractors attended on 28 November 2023. They undertook some repairs and left the door working, but identified further defects that needed attention. A follow-up visit took place on 11 December 2023. The engineer reported that further vandalism had occurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. We recognise that there were numerous reports of ASB after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, which continued into 2024. We appreciate that these events and experiences would have been both distressing and concerning for the resident. However, the landlord has not had the opportunity to address this matter through its complaints process as the reports came after the completion of its investigation. The reports of ASB and the landlord’s actions will therefore not form part of this investigation. The resident has the option to make a further complaint to the landlord and to bring it to the Ombudsman if she is not satisfied with its final response. However, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident about any current ASB concerns, with the aim of resolving this issue.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door

13. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it is the landlord’s statutory responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property, including the communal door to the building in which it is located, in good repair.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that if a communal area needs to be repaired, the work must always be completed within 28 calendar days. If it is an emergency repair, then works to make safe or carry out a temporary repair must take place within 24 hours. Emergency repairs are classed as those that present an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident.
15. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. A property that is not secure or where there is a failure to maintain defensible space can result in the presence of a category 1 or 2 hazard. The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle, the landlord must ensure the dwelling is free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 response states that the resident’s first report about the door was on 31 August 2023. However, records provided by the resident show that she first reported the issue on 3 August 2022. This was evidence of poor record keeping and unreasonably put the onus on the resident to provide copies of documents produced by the landlord. There was also an earlier report regarding the door on 19 July 2022. This was mentioned in the stage 2 response, but it is not clear from the records whether it was the resident or a different occupant making the report.
17. In the resident’s report to the landlord on 3 August 2022, she advised the communal door was stuck open and could not be closed, which was creating a security risk. She also noted that the ground–floor flats in the block were for disabled people, including some in wheelchairs. The landlord’s first visit on 6 September 2022 was 35 days after the first report. This was a failure to comply with the 28-calendar-day timeframe set out in its policy.
18. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2022 to advise that the door was still broken and that it had exceeded its repair timescales. She said that the door was creating difficulties for disabled residents who could not enter or exit the building independently. She stated that she was going to report it as an emergency repair. The landlord responded on 9 September 2022. It said that it would not raise an emergency repair for the door because the door was “open”. The landlord’s position here is concerning. So far it had exceeded its repair timescales, with no date planned or communicated for a lasting fix. The resident had told it that the door presented a security risk and was causing issues for disabled residents. At this point we would have expected the landlord to re-assess the situation and consider the impact being caused. It would have been appropriate for it to raise an emergency repair and to provide regular updates up until the door was fixed. Not considering an alternative course of action in light of the information presented by the resident was a failure.
19. A lockable communal door provides security and peace of mind to residents. It prevents entry by unauthorised persons and helps prevent ASB within the communal parts of the building. Even if there has been no ASB or direct attack, the mental stress associated with the fear of both can be significant for some individuals. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken the time to discuss the resident’s fears and understand the impact of the building being insecure.
20. On 9 September 2023, the landlord requested a quote for the parts and repair, but the quote was not obtained or followed up on. This was inappropriate as it lengthened the delays and caused further frustration for the resident. The resident reported the door not working again on 28 September 2022 and 10 October 2022. She said that the issue with the door was leaving the building insecure. There were then further inspections on 11 October 2022 and 7 December 2022. At both these inspections the landlord’s operatives reported that the door was not working and that they were unable to fix it. The ongoing repairs were causing the resident to expend considerable time and trouble reporting the door and chasing the landlord about the repairs.
21. The resident made a further report of the same issue with the door on 19 December 2022, which led to a visit on 22 December 2022. At this visit the landlord states that the operative undertook adjustments resulting in the door closing securely. This was 4 months after the resident had first reported the door, which was an unreasonable timeframe and a failure to comply with the landlord’s repairs policy.
22. The extended timescales involved and the repeated visits with no action taken indicate a failure of communication between the landlord and the contractor. They show the landlord was not taking responsibility for establishing what was causing the delay, and therefore failed to initiate actions to provide a resolution. This was unreasonable and left the resident feeling frustrated and fearful due to her perceived insecurity arising from the broken door.
23. The report and observations from the visits on 6 September, 14 October and 22 December 2022 come from the landlord’s stage 2 response. The evidence and records it provided for this investigation do not contain contemporaneous notes for any of these visits. This amounts to a record keeping failure.
24. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Failure to produce and record information accurately can result in them not taking appropriate and timely action and missing opportunities to resolve repairs, as happened in this case. In addition, if the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
25. Reports of additional damage to the door were made on 14 and 27 February 2023. In the latter report, the resident said, “security door broken, tenant’s parcels being stolen”. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this report, which is evidence of poor communication and a failure to follow up on safety concerns. In its stage 2 response the landlord referred to an inspection on 6 March 2023 where repairs were attempted but follow-on work was required. Again, there are no repair records or contemporaneous notes of the inspection on 6 March 2023, indicating further issues with record keeping.
26. On 24 April and 3 May 2023, the resident reported that the door had still not been repaired and that it was not locking and could not be shut. However, the landlord’s next inspection was not until 17 May 2023. This was a period of 24 days, which, given the security concerns raised in the last 3 reports, was unreasonable. The engineer’s notes from the visit on 17 May 2023 stated that the damage impacted the automatic functioning of the door. They also reported that the “inner door would not close properly, which left the building insecure”.
27. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it said the delays in repairing the door had been due to a high workload in the area and vandalism. Where problems with vandalism are occurring, we would expect the landlord to take swift and comprehensive action and work with partner agencies where necessary. We would also expect it to share information with residents. Despite the landlord’s reference to vandalism and the resident’s voiced concerns, it did not communicate with her on the topic. This was unreasonable, as it may have helped her feel safer if she knew the landlord was taking some form of action.
28. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 June 2023. In her escalation request she told the landlord that she had Asperger’s syndrome. She said the issues with the door exacerbated her condition and asked that it consider this and treat security as a priority. In a further email on 25 June 2023, she told the landlord that a group of men associated with a neighbouring flat had forced their way through the communal door. She asked it to consider CCTV and additional lighting. In a conversation between the parties on 14 July 2023, she said she believed associates of a neighbouring flat were the cause of the ongoing damage to the door. The landlord referred to the conversation with the resident in its stage 2 response. However, we have not been given any record or detail of the conversation. This is unfortunate, as it would have provided the landlord with an opportunity to evidence any support and reassurance it may have offered to the resident. Its omission to demonstrate that it offered relevant support and risk assessed the situation was unsatisfactory.
29. In the stage 2 response the landlord advised the resident that the missing parts and door would be replaced by 6 September 2023. However, the door was not installed until more than a month later, on 12 October 2023. This was an additional failure by the landlord to fulfil its commitments and again outside the requirements of its repairs policy.
30. On 22 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord in evident frustration. She said she was “so angry” that “after a whole year of trying to get the door fixed it had been broken again”. An engineer visited on 28 November 2023 and carried out repairs so that the door was operating, but advised further repairs were needed. The engineer’s report on 11 December 2023 read: “It is concerning the level of violence from someone attempting entry here … the main entrance door has been attacked with what looks like a hammer, security glass is smashed in and boot marks are all up the door … There is only so much we can do as the electricians … the site needs the issues with vandalism dealt with.” These comments support the resident’s concerns and indicate that her reports to the landlord around security were substantiated. It was unreasonable that she was having to put up with such behaviour. The landlord has not provided the resident with any evidence or information on what it was doing to address these issues, which was unfair. This left her feeling vulnerable and unable to enjoy the peace and comfort of her own home.
31. In the stage 2 response the landlord advised that it would investigate to see if CCTV was a viable option. It noted that this would require a consultation. However, it never came back to the resident with any update on her request for CCTV. It did not ask her to take part in a consultation or provide any evidence that it had engaged in one. This would have likely left her feeling frustrated and unheard and that her request had not been taken seriously. Given the circumstances of the case, the absence of any update to the resident was a failure.
32. The resident told us in March 2025 that the door locked but still did not fit correctly. She advised there is a gap that could be used to pull the door open. As it appears the issue is ongoing at the time of completing our investigation, we have made an order for a further inspection of the door.
33. In summary, the landlord initially took 14 months to carry out a lasting repair to the communal door. The door was then damaged again, with makeshift repairs undertaken on 12 December 2023. During the entirety of the period assessed there were extensive gaps in inspections and repeated visits requiring the same actions. The resident was continually required to report the continuing disrepair, which caused her ongoing time and trouble over the course of 16 months. Despite raising concerns about safety and security, the landlord did not provide her (or this Service) with any evidence to show what it was doing to prevent the vandalism to the door. The landlord’s ‘patch and mend’ approach to the repairs left the building insecure. It missed a number of opportunities to support the resident and ensure she was able to benefit from the peaceful enjoyment of her home. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal door.
34. As compensation the landlord offered the resident £350 for the delays associated with the communal door. This was to cover the period up until the door was due to be replaced on 9 September 2023. However, the resident suffered ongoing distress and inconvenience beyond this point as well as further time and trouble. She was also left with no answer to her query about the installation of CCTV. Additionally, we do not believe the original award adequately reflected the detriment caused to the resident over the timeline of the complaint. We have therefore made a further award of £200 compensation. This brings the total compensation for the issues with the communal door to £550, in addition to the £100 the landlord awarded for complaint handling.
35. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for instances where there has been considerable failure but may be no permanent impact. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance recommends awards of this level where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident £550 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the repairs to the communal doors. This sum is inclusive of the £350 already offered. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
    3. Conduct an inspection of the communal door at the resident’s block. It must then provide a report to confirm whether the door is opening and closing as expected and whether it locks. The report must also confirm that the door fits correctly and cannot be prised open due to poor fitting. The landlord must provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service.
    4. Provide a response to the resident regarding its decision and any actions it has taken regarding the installation of CCTV in the block.
38. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders within the lime limits specified.

Recommendations

39. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered her for the errors in its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £550 ordered above.
40. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss any current concerns she has in relation to ASB at her block. If any concerns are raised, it should address them in line with its ASB policy.