Clarion Housing Association Limited (202317990)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317990

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of a hole in the roof.
2. Response on repairs to a fence.
3. Response on communication preferences.

Background

The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since October 2009. The property is a 2-bedroom house.
On 26 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that squirrels had got into his loft through a hole in the roof. He said a pest control company had removed the squirrels, but he was concerned they could get back in and this was harmful to his health.
The landlord asked the resident on 27 April 2023 if he wanted it to repair the roof. The resident replied that he wanted the landlord to cut back an overhanging tree and repair the roof within 24 hours. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 May 2023 and said it had not done the work, and he wanted it doing within 48 hours.
On 4 May 2023 the landlord told the resident a tree contractor would attend the next day to assess the work. It said it had not been able to arrange an emergency roof repair, but it would attend the next week to assess it from the ground. On the same day, the resident told his contact officer that he no longer felt they were the correct person to communicate with as they had “no concern” for his wellbeing. He wanted a new designated contact.
The resident complained on 5 May 2023 that the landlord had left him at risk of a squirrel infestation. He said the landlord had lied about a contractor assessing the tree and the situation was detrimental to his mental health. He said the failure to make reasonable adjustments was discrimination.
On 16 May 2023 the resident told the landlord there was mould on his fence. He wanted the landlord to remove the mould and paint the fence.
In its complaint response on 27 June 2023, the landlord said it did not class the roof repair as an emergency. It said it had checked the roof but could not see a hole from the ground. It said it then attended with ladders on 23 May 2023 but did not find any holes. It said the garden was the resident’s responsibility under the terms of the tenancy, but as a gesture of goodwill it had cut back the tree. It said it would not clean the fence as this was his responsibility. On a designated contact, it said it understood the resident’s contact preferences, but he could use its general email addresses. It said this ensured it had a log of his contacts.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 June 2023. He said the landlord had not inspected the roof and there was still a hole. He said the landlord owned the fence, which meant it should remove the mould. He said the original decision to give him a designated contact was a reasonable adjustment because of his mental health. He said to renege on this was a breach of the Equality Act 2010.
In its final response on 15 August 2023 the landlord said contractors attended on 23 May 2023 and it had evidence of its visit. On the fence, it said as part of the tenancy agreement, painting the fence was his responsibility. It said its standard process was for residents to report issues through the contact centre. It said while it tried to agree reasonable adjustments, it could not do so when it meant there was a risk of emails getting lost. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had not repaired the roof. He said the landlord should maintain the fence, as it told him in 2022 that all fences were the landlord’s responsibility.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman has noted the resident complained the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010. After carefully considering the evidence, the Ombudsman will not investigate this part of the complaint as it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Under the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about breaches of the Equality Act, as these usually fall within the jurisdiction of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord behaved reasonably when dealing with the resident’s request for a designated contact.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a hole in the roof

The landlord is responsible under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. This means the landlord has an obligation to repair the resident’s home, including the roof. The landlord did not dispute it had responsibility for the repairs.
The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy says an emergency repair is one that “presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident”. It says it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours to make the issue safe. The policy says it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
When the resident reported a problem with squirrels on 26 April 2023, he told the landlord that family members had arranged for a pest control company to remove the squirrels. He said before they were removed, he could hear noise from the squirrels, which kept him awake. He said the squirrels had caused damage to the outside of the house and roof, and he was concerned they would get back onto the roof from an overhanging tree. He said the landlord needed to repair the hole from the outside because of mould in the loft. He also referred to his social anxiety, which he said meant he found any interaction with operatives “virtually impossible”. He said the squirrels posed a risk to health and safety and the landlord needed to urgently do repairs.
On 27 April 2024 the landlord asked the resident if he wanted it to raise repairs. The resident replied and asked the landlord to clarify that it would repair the roof and cut back an overhanging tree. The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 April 2023 and said he wanted an assurance the landlord would do the work within 24 hours. The landlord replied the same day and said it had ordered the work and was waiting for an operative to be allocated.
The Ombudsman has seen there were 2 days between the report of squirrels on the 26 April 2024 and the landlord saying it had ordered repairs on 28 April 2024. This was reasonable in the circumstances. This is because the resident made his report to a specific officer rather than through a general email address.
It is also the Ombudsman’s view that the repair was not an emergency. This is because the resident told the landlord that family members had already arranged for a pest control company to remove the squirrels. The resident’s concern was they would return. Because of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange repairs but to not treat it as an emergency, as there was no immediate danger or health and safety risk.
On 2 May 2023 the landlord asked the resident if it could have a report and photos from his pest control company. The resident replied and said as family members arranged the work, he did not have a report or photos. He said there was mould growing on his bedroom ceiling because of the hole in the roof. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 May 2023 and said it was 7 days since he reported the problem. He wanted an assurance the landlord would repair the hole and cut back the tree within the next 48 hours.
The landlord replied to the resident the same day and said it only classed a roof repair as an emergency if it was causing a severe water leak. It said it was booking non-emergency roof repairs into August, and it understood that leaving the repair for this long would cause him stress. It said if he could send photos of the mould and hole, this would help in trying to bring the work forward. It said it could arrange for a surveyor to attend but this would mean accessing his bedroom to assess the mould. The resident replied and said he would deal with the mould himself, and his social anxiety meant a surveyor could not come into his property. He said he did not have photos of the damage.
The Ombudsman has found the landlord was acting reasonably at this stage. This is because it explained why it did not class the repair as an emergency and what information would help it to raise the priority of the repair. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord was being empathetic towards the resident’s concerns and was trying to resolve the problem he had reported.
On 4 May 2023 the landlord told the resident a contractor would attend on 5 May 2023 to assess the work needed on the tree. The landlord told the resident on 5 May 2023 it had been able to bring the roof repair forward to 23 May 2023.
The resident complained on 5 May 2023 that the landlord was leaving him at risk of further infestation by squirrels.
On 15 May 2023 the resident confirmed a contractor had done work on the tree.
In its complaint response on 27 June 2023 the landlord said following the resident’s report, it checked the roof from the ground but could not see any damage. It said the repair was not an emergency, but it had been able to arrange an appointment using specialist ladder equipment on 23 May 2023. It said it attended on 23 May 2023 but was unable to find any holes. On the tree, it said under the terms of the tenancy, it was the resident’s responsibility, but it had arranged to cut it back as a gesture of goodwill.
The Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable response from the landlord. From the records provided by the landlord, it is unclear when it did the check from the ground and why it did not initially attend a roof repair with ladders. However, the landlord’s records show it did arrange to attend with ladders on 23 May 2023, which was within the timescales for a non-emergency repair.
In his complaint escalation on 27 June 2023 the resident said there was still a hole in the roof and at no time had any operatives looked to see if there was a hole. He said an operative claimed to be at his property, but no-one had been.
In its final response on 15 August 2023 the landlord said contractors attended on 23 May 2023. It said the contractors had photographic evidence and it had tracked the contractor’s vehicle to the resident’s address on the date.
Within the complaint there is a disagreement about whether a contractor attended on 23 May 2023. However, the landlord has provided evidence showing a contractor’s vehicle outside the resident’s address on the morning of 23 May 2023, as well as undated photos of the exterior of the property. It has also provided a repairs record which shows a contractor reporting back on 23 May 2023 that they cannot see any areas that require repair. Because of this, on the balance of probabilities, the Ombudsman has found the contractor attended as arranged.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably. It arranged an appointment within the timescales for a non-emergency appointment. It also cut back the tree as a gesture of goodwill, which reduced the risk of squirrels getting onto the roof. Records show the landlord recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities and the stress the situation was having on him. It also responded promptly and regularly to his emails when he reported the problem and chased the repairs. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration by the landlord.
Following the final response, the resident told the landlord there was still a hole in the roof. On 13 September 2023 the landlord said it had been unable to find a fault from its external investigation. It said it would like to make another appointment to find where the problem was and to fix it. It said to do this it needed access to the roof void. It said it wanted to attend on 12 October 2023. The resident replied and said because of his mental health issues, it was impossible to allow entry into his home. He said the hole was simple to fix from the outside. The landlord said it was unable to attend unless it was able to have access to the roof void and it would cancel the appointment. It asked the resident to contact it if he wanted to rearrange.
The Ombudsman has seen the landlord understood the concern an internal inspection would cause for the resident. It is unclear from the records whether an inspection took place. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to find out whether there is still a problem and discuss what action it could take to find a way forward.

The landlord’s response on repairs to a fence

The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of a tenancy agreement that sets out responsibility for specific repairs. However, the landlord’s website says it is responsible for fences that divide the property from communal areas, such as public pathways. It says dividing fences are the resident’s responsibility.
Records provided by the landlord show it repaired a fence and gate in May 2023. On 15 May 2023, the resident complained the landlord had not removed mould from the fence panels. He said the fence was the landlord’s responsibility and the mould was a health hazard.
In its complaint response on 27 June 2023, the landlord said it would not remove the mould. It said it would repair the fence as it bordered a road, but the responsibility for painting, treating, and cleaning the fence was the resident’s responsibility.
In his complaint escalation on 27 June 2023, the resident said it was not his responsibility. He said the landlord had previously told him it owned the fence, and because of this only the landlord could paint or treat it.
In its final response on 15 August 2023, the landlord said removing mould was the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord’s website clearly says that fences that border communal areas are its responsibility to maintain. It accepted in its complaint response that it would repair the fence as it was a boundary to a communal area. The disagreement is about whether removing mould is part of the landlord’s maintenance responsibility.
The Ombudsman has found that the landlord is responsible for ensuring the property is in good repair. This includes boundary fences. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that mould on a fence does not necessarily mean the fence is not in good repair. The landlord should have assessed the fence when the resident reported the mould. It should then have decided whether it needed to do any further repairs. Instead, the landlord told the resident the fence was his responsibility. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s report of repairs to a fence was a service failure.
The Ombudsman has found the detriment to the resident was minor. This is because the reported mould was not in the property and was undisturbed in open air. However, the resident was inconvenienced by having to escalate his complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused. It must also arrange to assess whether it needs to do any repairs to the fence.

The landlord’s response on communication preferences

The landlord’s reasonable adjustments policy sets out its approach to meeting its duty under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord says a reasonable adjustment involves making a change to the way it usually does things to ensure services are accessible and it is fair to all residents. It says this may involve changing its usual practice if it places a person at a “substantial disadvantage”.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents’ policy says it aims to make sure services are easy to access. It says it will deliver services to disabled residents, as far as is reasonably possible, to the standard usually offered to non-disabled residents. It says it will consider additional needs, and where appropriate will vary service delivery to ensure vulnerable residents still receive the same level of service. It says it will record any communication or access needs.
Records provided by the landlord show that because of his social anxiety, the resident prefers communicating through email. They also say the resident does not want direct contact with operatives who come to his home to do repairs.
On 7 February 2023 the landlord’s officer emailed the resident about his contact arrangements following a management change. It told him they would remain his contact officer as they had built up a good relationship.
On 4 May 2023 following an exchange of emails with the contact officer about squirrels, the resident said he no longer felt the officer had concern for his wellbeing and he asked for an immediate change of contact officer. He said the landlord had previously agreed that because of his health conditions he would have a designated contact as a reasonable adjustment. He said the landlord must provide a new contact officer.
In his complaint on 5 May 2023, the resident said he had asked for a reasonable adjustment because of his disabilities. In its complaint response on 27 June 2023, the landlord said it understood the resident’s concerns about being able to contact it. However, it said he could make enquiries through the customer services or repairs email addresses, and it would pass them to the relevant teams. It said this ensured it had a log of his contacts. It said there was a risk that when he sent emails to an individual they would not be picked up if they were on leave, absent through illness, or had left the organisation.
In his complaint escalation on 27 June the resident said the designated contact was a reasonable adjustment. He said it was made in recognition of his mental health and the stress of trying to go through other processes. He said he would be happy to have the original officer reinstated as his contact.
In its final response on 15 August 2023, the landlord said its standard process was for residents to go through its contact centre. It said this ensured the correct team dealt with enquiries and respond effectively. It said it made every effort to agree to reasonable adjustments, but it could not do what he had asked for. This was because there was a risk of emails getting lost and not having oversight of his requests.
The Ombudsman has not seen records explaining why the landlord originally gave the resident a designated contact but has seen the landlord confirmed this arrangement in February 2023. Because of this, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the original decision.
The Ombudsman has noted there were several emails from the resident to the contact officer about the squirrels and fence in April and May 2023. On 26 April 2023, when the contact officer was away from work, the resident directly emailed other officers with his enquiries. The contact officer was not able to respond until 2 May 2023 when they returned to work.
When the resident asked for a change of officer on 4 May 2023, the landlord explained in its complaint response on 27 June 2023 that it would not continue with the arrangement. It explained the reasons. The landlord could have told the resident this sooner, but in mitigation the resident continued to email the contact officer and receive responses in the period between these dates.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the explanation for withdrawing the contact officer after the resident’s request for a change was reasonable. This is because the landlord gave the resident other reasonable contact options which met his preference to send emails and gave access to its services. It is also reasonable for the landlord to require service requests and enquiries to go through its contact centre so it can manage its resources and ensure it had proper records. Because of this the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response on communication preferences.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord on its:
1. Handling of reports of a hole in the roof.
2. Response on communication preferences.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord on its response on repairs to a fence.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation for inconvenience caused.
The landlord must arrange to assess whether it needs to do any repairs to the fence.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to find out whether there is still a problem with the roof and discuss what action it could take to find a way forward.