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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202320442)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320442

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 February 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 how the landlord handled works to replace missing bricks.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 6th floor flat within 1 of 4 blocks of an estate built by a developer in 2013. On 25 May 2020 the resident reported that some bricks had fallen out of the exterior of the property. He explained he was concerned that someone could be injured if it were to happen again and asked the landlord to replace the missing bricks.
  2. On 2 August 2020 the resident complained that the landlord had yet to replace the missing bricks. At some stage in August 2020 the landlord contacted the developer to report the issue. It also relayed that many other residents living across all 4 of the blocks had reported the same issue. It asked the developer whether it would assume responsibility for addressing all of these repairs as latent defects. The landlord and developer then communicated over the next few months about this.
  3. On 13 November 2020 the landlord issued the resident a stage 1 response. It explained that it was inspecting all properties throughout the estate to allow it to draw up a schedule of works for the developer to then implement. The landlord assured the resident his property would be included in these works. It explained it was unable to give timescales as to when this would be completed, because a decision had not been reached on whether the brick slips were classed as latent defects. It explained that, if it was determined they were, the repairs would be completed within the developer’s timeframes.
  4. Throughout 2022 the landlord and developer met on occasion to inspect properties throughout the estate and discuss outstanding works. By early 2022 the developer had accepted responsibility for all the repairs as latent defects.
  5. On 31 January 2023 the developer emailed the landlord and explained it had scheduled the works to start on 20 February 2023 and that it anticipated these would take 4 weeks. To complete the works it explained it would be erecting 2-3 towers at a time then dismantling these and erecting again for subsequent properties. It also explained that it complete works 1 block at a time before moving onto the next.
  6. The landlord replied on 16 February 2023 and advised it would put up notices in each of the blocks outlining the works the developer was going to complete. The developer replied on 17 February 2023 and asked whether this was enough notice for the residents, and whether it would be able to go ahead with the works given the short notice.
  7. On 6 March 2023 the resident complained that the developer had yet to address the missing bricks, and that the landlord failed to provide meaningful updates. On 23 March 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It apologised for the length of time it was taking the developer to complete the works. It explained that delays were due to covid-19 restrictions, the complexity of the works, materials having to be ordered and manufactured, and a cyber incident. It also offered the resident £50 in recognition of the ongoing delays.
  8. On 24 March 2023 the landlord contacted the developer and asked for an update on the works to the resident’s flat. It noted he was 1 of the first residents to complain, and asked it to clarify whether it had already these specific works “in hand”. On 12 April 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 and asked for assurances that his property would be included in the upcoming works. He also complained that the missing bricks were allowing water ingress.
  9. The landlord emailed the developer on 18 April 2023 and noted that a leaseholder in the resident’s block had not allowed access to erect scaffolding the week prior. It also asked the neighbourhood team to contact this leaseholder to arrange access. The landlord then sought updates from the developer about the outstanding works on several occasions over the following couple of months. On 22 June 2023 the landlord met with the leaseholder and they agreed to allow access so long as the developer gave adequate notice and assurances that it would reimburse him for any potential damage caused by the scaffolding. The landlord emailed the developer on the same day to seek clarification on these points.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 June 2023. It explained that it had run open forum meetings and invited all residents to attend for updates on the outstanding works. It also advised that it had put up notices around the blocks to this effect, but that these had been removed “likely due to ASB”. It explained that a leaseholder in the resident’s block had refused access when the developer had attempted to erect scaffolding. However, it explained that it had since resolved this and was liaising with the developer to reschedule. It explained that the developer would erect scaffolding within 2 to 3 weeks and complete the works in approximately 8 weeks. It then qualified this by saying it had yet to confirm these timeframes.
  11. The landlord also referenced the same reasons for the delay which it outlined at stage 1, and noted that a senior member of the developer’s staff had retired which delayed things by 4 months. It apologized for the ongoing delay and offered the resident £50 for inconvenience, £100 for delays, and £100 for a delayed complaint response.
  12. On 18 July 2023 the developer advised the landlord it was erecting scaffolding on 24 July 2023, and the landlord replied and asked it to clarify that the associated works would include the resident’s property. The developer did attend on 24 July 2023. The resident then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 September 2023. He also complained to the landlord about ongoing delays on 19 September 2023.
  13. The resident then asked the landlord for an update on 10 October 2023. Internal emails from 27 October 2023 note that the landlord was “waiting for a reply” from the leaseholder who previously refused access regarding whether they would allow access from their garden. On 15 April 2024 the resident complained again to the landlord that the works remained outstanding. Over the following couple of weeks the landlord communicated with the leaseholder about access for the future works.
  14. On 30 August 2024 the landlord completed works to clear an overgrown area of the leaseholder’s garden to allow the scaffolders access. On 5 September 2024 the developer erected the scaffolding, and it completed the repairs across the following 2 weeks.
  15. The resident remains unsatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these works because he considers it failed to proactively progress things or keep him updated. To resolve things, he would like the landlord to implement service improvements, and to give reassurances that it does not intend to charge him for these repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Under paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we may not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, unless we can see evidence of a relevant complaints handling failure.
  2. Under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. The resident has asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of works at the property since May 2020. While we can see he complained about this at the time, he did not escalate his complaint to stage 2 when he received a stage 1 response in November 2020. He then raised a new complaint in March 2023 about delays and a lack of communication. He escalated this complaint to stage 2, and the landlord issued its final response in June 2023.
  4. Therefore, the only complaint to have exhausted the landlord’s process is the one he made on 6 March 2023. For this reason, as per 42.a and 42.c, this investigation only consider the events that occurred from 6 March 2022 until the works were completed in September 2024.

How the landlord handled works to replace missing bricks

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the exterior of his property. However we can see that at some point in 2022 the developer defined the brick slips at the resident’s property and throughout the estate as latent defects. On this basis it accepted responsibility for the repairs.
  2. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for actually completing the works to replace the missing bricks. However, it was responsible for liaising with residents to assist with organising the works. It was also responsible for proactively seeking updates from the developer about the works progress and relaying these updates to residents.
  3. On 11 April 2022 we can see the landlord emailed the developer and asked for an update on how the wider works were progressing. The developer responded on 22 April 2022 and asked if the landlord could wait until 26 April 2022 for an update as the responsible member of staff was on leave. The developer also asked for some further information related to 1 of the 4 blocks.
  4. Following this there is no evidence of communication between either party until 22 August 2022. It is unclear whether this is due to a record keeping issue or whether communications actually ceased. In any case, the absence of these records does not persuade us that the landlord proactively sought to progress things here.
  5. On 22 August 2022 the landlord emailed the developer and referenced a joint site visit. It outlined a number of properties throughout the estate which were impacted by brick slips and asked for these to be included on the programme of works. There is no evidence of any response from the developer or follow up by the landlord. This does not persuade us that the landlord was proactively communicating with the developer to progress things.
  6. Following this there is no further evidence of communication until an email the developer sent the landlord on 31 January 2023. In this email it explained that it intended to start the works on 20 February 2023, and that it would do so by completing all the repairs within 1 block before moving onto the next.
  7. The landlord replied on 16 February 2023 and advised it put notices in all of the blocks on 17 February 2023 to advise residents of the schedule. The developer replied on 17 February 2023 and asked if it would still be able to commence works on 20 February 2023 given the landlord had not given the residents much notice. The landlord did not respond to this. The landlord has also been unable to provide any record of the notices it said it would issue.
  8. We are also unable to say whether the works commenced as planned, or whether the landlord’s failure to give the residents adequate notice delayed things  due to a lack of evidence. In any case, the lack of evidence to demonstrate the landlord issued these notices does not persuade us that the landlord acted suitably to keep the resident informed.
  9. On 6 March 2023 the resident complained about the length of time it was taking the developer to complete the works to his flat. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 23 March 2023 and apologised for the delay. It explained this was due to: previous covid-19 restrictions, a cyber incident, the complexity of the works, contractors having to carry out inspections, and materials having to be manufactured. It apologised for the ongoing delays and offered him £50 in compensation.
  10. We consider these explanations were reasonable, and the reference to the cyber attack may also explain the lack of relevant records throughout 2022. Clearly, given the number of properties impacted by the brick slip issue, these works were complex and likely to take some time. However, the developer advised the landlord of its schedule of works on 31 January 2023, and it appears to have advised that the resident’s block was the last it would attend. The landlord then failed to relay this advice to the resident in its complaint response. We consider this was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and keep him informed.
  11. On 24 March 2023 we can see the landlord emailed the developer to ask if it could prioritise the resident’s repairs because he was one of the first to complain. It also asked it to clarify that his property was actually included in the schedule of works. This was a positive step towards getting the clarity that the resident sought. However, the developer did not respond to this email, and there is no evidence that the landlord followed up on it. We consider this was a missed opportunity to try and get some clarity on the works, and as a result the resident remained largely in the dark.
  12. The resident then escalated his complaint to stage 2 on this basis on 12 April 2023. He complained that the stage 1 response gave no assurances that his property was included in the schedule of works. He also reported that the missing bricks were causing water ingress.
  13. Emails from the landlord to the developer on 18 April 2023 note that a leaseholder in the resident’s block had refused to allow access for installation of the scaffolding necessary to complete the works to the resident’s property. The landlord included the Neighbourhood Response Officer in this email “for further assistance”. We accept that it is not possible to always mitigate against this type of issue, and that the leaseholder’s refusal of access led to unavoidable delays.
  14. Following this, we would expect to see the landlord promptly engage with this resident to secure access and progress the works. We can see it did so on 21 June 2023 and the leaseholder agreed to allow access so long as the landlord provided some assurances that the developer would reimburse them for potential damage to their property, and give them adequate notice. We can see the landlord emailed the developer on 21 June 2023 and asked it to confirm this.
  15. It is positive that the landlord contacted the developer to get the assurances required by the leaseholder to allow access. However, it is not clear why it took 2 months to make contact with the leaseholder following their initial refusal on 18 April 2023. Ultimately, we cannot discern any reasonable explanation from the records to account for this delay. In the absence of this evidence, we consider the delay was unreasonable and likely contributed to delays in completing the works.
  16. On 26 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised again for the ongoing delays and cited the same reasons referenced at stage 1. It also explained that a leaseholder within the resident’s block had refused access to erect the scaffolding which delayed things.
  17. It advised that it had posted notices about the works in the resident’s block in January 2023, but that these had been removed “likely due to ASB”. The landlord also explained it had run open forum meetings for all residents where it provided updates about the progress of works. This is corroborated by meeting minutes taken on 16 May 2023 which note the landlord attended a residents meeting and explained where the works were up to. This was a reasonable means of providing updates given the number of residents which the works impacted.
  18. It also explained in its stage 2 response that the developer would erect scaffolding at the resident’s block within 2-3 weeks and complete the works within 8 weeks. Confusingly, it then qualified this by saying it had yet to confirm this with the developer. The landlord should have confirmed this with the developer before updating the resident. If was unable to do so, it should have at least given the resident some assurance in this complaint response that it would update him once the developer had confirmed this. Its failure to do so here means the resident was again left largely in the dark as to when the works would commence.
  19. On 18 July 2023 the landlord asked the developer to confirm it would commence works on 24 July 2023, and explained that it needed to give the resident notice to access the property. The developer responded and confirmed it would commence works by installing the scaffolding on 24 July 2023. On 21 July 2023 the landlord asked the developer to update the resident on this because its own computer system was not allowing it to do so. The developer replied that it was now unable to attend as planned, and that it would confirm a new date on 24 July 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident to explain that the works were delayed and we consider this was likely distressing.
  20. On 4 August 2023 the developer emailed the landlord and said “we will need to install the scaffold in [the resident’s block] from the 14th onwards.” However, these works did not take place. The records do not offer any insight as to the reasons for this. On 18 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for an update. He also complained that it had failed to update him since its stage 2 response despite it having exceeded the timescales it indicated for the works. The landlord did not respond, and so he asked again on 10 October 2023. The landlord also failed to respond to this.
  21. Based on the records it appears the developer agreed to works in July and August 2023 which it then did not attend. While this is not the landlord’s fault, it should have mitigated the impact of this by proactively chasing the developer and updating the resident, especially given he had repeatedly requested this. We consider its failure to do so likely caused the resident further distress and frustration.
  22. Internal emails between landlord staff on 10 October and 27 October 2023 note that the developer had at this point provided the assurances sought by the leaseholder in the resident’s block regarding accessing their property. The emails note that the landlord was waiting on the leaseholder to agree to a date to allow access to erect scaffolding. While we accept that the landlord had to wait for the developer to provide the reassurances sought by this leaseholder before they would agree to access, we do not consider it made suitable efforts to chase this.
  23. Following the email it sent the developer about this on 22 June 2023, there is no evidence it made further attempts to clarify this. We have also seen no evidence that the landlord made contact with the leaseholder to relay these reassurances and request access as stated in the October 2023 emails. Therefore, we do not consider the landlord suitably acted to progress the access issues with the leaseholder and we consider this likely contributed to delays.
  24. There are no further relevant records until 25 January 2024 when the landlord emailed the developer and advised that the leaseholder had now agreed to provide access. It also asked the developer to confirm a start date for the works. There is no record of any communication between the landlord and the leaseholder to corroborate this or to indicate when they agreed to allow access. Therefore, the records offer no evidence or explanation as to why it took a further 3 months from October 2023 for the landlord to agree access with the leaseholder. In the absence of any such evidence, we are not persuaded that the landlord acted reasonably to engage the leaseholder and progress things during this period. 
  25. On 15 April 2024 the resident complained again about ongoing delays and poor communication. We can see landlord emailed the leaseholder on 16 April 2024 and confirmed they had agreed to allow access. It also asked them whether the developer could attend on 7 May 2024 to install scaffolding. The leaseholder replied and asked for clarification on whether their decking would need to be removed for this. The landlord then emailed the developer on 23 April 2024 and asked whether it could attend to commence works on 6 May 2024.
  26. On 27 April 2023 the landlord emailed the leaseholder and assured them the decking did not need to be removed. We consider this was a positive step towards progressing the access issue and the eventual works. The landlord chased the developer for a response to its previous emails several times over the next few days. On 30 April 2024 the developer responded and advised it could not attend on 6 May 2024, but could commence works from 20 May 2024. The landlord advised it would contact the leaseholder and the resident to arrange this.
  27. There is no evidence it did so, or of any related communication or action until 11 July 2024. It is unclear why the landlord did not progress things here by contacting the resident and leaseholder. In the absence of any evidence to explain this, we consider this delay was unreasonable. This also feasibly contributed to ongoing delays.
  28. On 11 July 2024 the landlord emailed the leaseholder and advised that the developer had indicated that it may be able to commence works from 22 July 2024. On 30 July 2024 it then advised them to disregard this email and asked if they could allow access for works commencing on 5 September 2024. The leaseholder did not respond and so the landlord chased this on 21 August 2024. It was positive that the landlord chased confirmation of access from the leaseholder.
  29. The leaseholder responded on 27 August 2024 and agreed to allow access but advised the communal garden area was overgrown which could impede access to the back gates. The landlord addressed this by clearing these areas of the garden on 30 August 2024. We consider the landlord acted positively here by addressing this issue promptly to progress things. The resident advises that the developer then attended from 5 September 2024 until mid-September 2024 and completed the works.
  30. Ultimately, we consider the landlord delayed unreasonably at various stages between March 2022 and September 2024 in liaising with residents and the developer to progress the works. We also consider it failed to meaningfully update the resident despite his repeated attempts to contact it. For this reason, we will order it pays the resident compensation to put this right. We will also order it to reflect on its obligations to communicate meaningfully with residents and implement related service improvements. Finally, we will order it to provide clarification to the resident on whether he will be charged for the works and explain the reasons for this decision.
  31. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay sums of £250 to £700 to put right considerable failure where there is no permanent impact on complainant. It cites the following as typical examples:
    1. Misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about complainant’s rights.
    2. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses.
    3. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy.
    4. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of the complaint.
  32. The landlord has so far offered the resident £150 to put right the failures it identified in its handling of the repairs. However, we do not consider this is sufficient to put right the impact of its failures. The £150 offered was to address its failures up until its stage 2 response on 26 June 2023.
  33. However, it then failed to update the resident suitably following its stage 2 response when the works were not completed as per the 8 week timescales it set out. Following this, the works were delayed by another year, and it missed further opportunities to progress things during this time. The resident was also repeatedly forced to chase updates, and the landlord consistently failed to provide these. For this reason, as per its policy, we will order it pays £400 to put this right. This is inclusive of the £150 it has already offered.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy sets out that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days. It says it will update complainants and explain why when it is unable to meet these timescales.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 6 March 2023, and the landlord provided a response on 23 March 2023 in accordance with its timescales. He escalated this on 12 April 2023, and the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 26 June 2023. This was 10 working days past its timescales.
  3. We can see that it has already offered £50 to put this right. We consider this is in line with its policy which sets out that it will make payments of £50 to £250 to put right failures which have not had a significant impact. Given the relatively slight nature of this delay, any impact caused was likely very minor. Therefore, we consider it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation at the bottom end of its scale. The sum also aligns with the kind of payment we would likely order for this type of failure and associated impact. For this reason, we consider the landlord has already done enough to put this delay right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled works to replace missing bricks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £400 for its delays in progressing the works and failure to provide meaningful updates. This is inclusive of the £150 already offered.
  2. The landlord is to reflect on how it can meaningfully communicate with resident’s about major works and confirm how it will implement any related service improvements.
  3. The landlord is to clarify whether it intends to charge the resident for the brick repairs and explain the reasons for this decision.
  4. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £50 compensation for complaint handling delays if it has not already paid it.