Clarion Housing Association Limited (202425097)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425097

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
2. Concerns about the condition of his garden and fencing.
3. Reports of a rodent infestation.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a property with a garden. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having a mental health condition.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 March 2023 and raised concerns about damage to the loft insulation at his property as a result of a pest infestation. The landlord completed repairs in the loft on 14 April 2023.
The resident made a complaint on 4 August 2023. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of various issues at his property which were:
1. A pest infestation he had reported “multiple times” but it was still affecting the whole block.
2. A concern about his garden and fly tipping that it still had “not dealt with” following a previous complaint.
The landlord completed a pest control visit on 27 September 2023. Its notes state it found evidence of mice in the loft area. It put down bait and left a note for the resident (who was not in) stating it would return on 11 October 2023.
The landlord inspected the loft insulation on 29 September 2023 and its notes state it found loft insulation in place.
The landlord inspected the resident’s garden around 9 October 2023 (the exact date is unclear). It raised works to clear the overgrown vegetation coming from a neighbouring garden and put up a new fence.
The landlord completed a pest control visit on 11 October 2023. The notes say it found the bait untouched and there was no evidence of squirrel activity.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 20223 and said:
1. It had inspected the garden in “early October 2023” and found it planned to cut back the neighbour’s overgrown garden. It would then assess whether the fence needed replacing.
2. It gave the history of its pest control visits as outlined above.
3. It offered £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint. (It also offered £250 for its handling of a flooring repair, but this aspect of the complaint is not being considered in this investigation).
The resident asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint investigation on 30 October 2023. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs at his property.
The landlord completed a pest control visit on 31 October 2023. Its notes say it found the bait was “untouched”. It said there was no evidence of rodent activity and it removed the bait and closed the case.
The landlord completed works to remove the vegetation and install a new fence by the communal pathway on 16 November 2023. The notes from the time say it still needed to arrange to clear the neighbour’s garden and inspect the other fence.
The landlord send the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 30 January 2024 and said:
1. It had cleared the communal pathway and put up a new fence. It had not arranged access with the neighbour and would be in touch once it had done this and decided whether it would replace the fence. It apologised for not updating him on its progress.
2. It gave a history of its pest control visits and encouraged him to report the issue again if it returned.
3. It offered £150 for its communication about repairs issues, including the garden/fencing.
4. It offered £50 for the delay in sending the stage 2 complaint response.

Events after the complaints process

The resident chased the landlord about the fencing issue on 7 October 2024. The work did not go ahead at that time.
The resident contacted us on 3 February 2025 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said there was “inadequate” fencing in his garden which led to fly tipping. He raised a concern that the rodent infestation has caused damage to his possessions, and wanted compensation for this. He also said he was unhappy about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould issues in his property.
The landlord contacted the resident on 24 March 2025 and offered him a further £100 for its complaint handling. It said this was for a failure to keep him updated about its progress throughout the complaints process.
Following our request for an update, the landlord inspected the garden in May 2025. It told this Service on 14 May 2025 the garden would be cleared on 15 May 2025, and the fence would be put up by 1 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by our Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of our Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould is outside of our jurisdiction. Paragraph 42.a. of our Scheme says we will not consider complaints which, in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure.
When the resident asked us to investigate his complaint he raised a concern about damp and mould in his property, and a crack in the ceiling he believed was contributing to the issue. The evidence provided to us by both the resident and the landlord show the landlord was on notice about the damp and mould when the resident reported it on 27 November 2024.
The complaint that is the focus of this investigation was made in August 2023 and the landlord issued its final complaint response in January 2024. We have seen no evidence to indicate the resident raised a concern about damp and mould during the complaint process set out above.
We acknowledge the resident did report a crack in the ceiling as part of his stage 1 complaint. However, he did not raise this concern when he asked the landlord to open a stage 2 complaint investigation. The landlord did not address its handling of the ceiling repair in its stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, we do not consider this particular matter to have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident is evidently unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs. We therefore recommend it opens a complaint investigation into its handling of the matter.
Throughout his complaint the resident raised multiple issues with the landlord. When the resident asked us to investigate he said he was satisfied some matters raised with the landlord were resolved. These were the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to a communal handrail.
2. Repairs to the flooring in his property.
3. Repairs to a communal light.
For clarity, this report only refers to the issues the resident asked us to investigate when he contacted us in February 2025. This is also limited to those issues raised that are within our jurisdiction to investigate. Therefore, we have not investigated the repairs to the handrail, flooring or communal light.

Concerns about the condition of the resident’s garden and fencing

The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says it regularly inspects communal areas to ensure they are in a good condition. This includes inspecting whether “poorly kept gardens” are causing issues within communal areas.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will carry out routine communal repairs within 28 days.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairing boundary fences and paths used for access to the property.
The information provided for this investigations shows the resident raised concerns about fly tipping and the boundary fence in 2021. The issue went through the landlord’s complaints procedure at that time. Our Scheme says we will only investigate matters that are brought to us within a reasonable period, normally no more than 12 months after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Due to the passage of time since the complaint from 2021, we have decided it would be unreasonable to investigate matters dating back to 2021. This is because evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events the from August 2023.
When the resident complained about the fencing and fly tipping issue in August 2023 he raised a concern the landlord had not done something it agreed to as part of a previous complaint response. We have not seen the landlord’s previous complaint response, and have not been able to verify this claim. However, when the resident raised his concerns again, the landlord did not inspect the garden until October 2023. This was an unreasonable delay and outside of the timeframes set out in its neighbourhood management policy. This delay inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to set out its position. It said it had inspected the garden and said it planned to clear the garden and then assess the fence. It was a shortcoming in its response it did not set out when it hoped to clear the garden. We acknowledge this was dependent on the resident’s neighbour giving access. It would have shown transparency and help manage the resident’s expectations had it set this out in its complaint response. It was inappropriate that it failed to acknowledge or offer compensation for the delay in inspecting the garden. The landlord missed an opportunity to show learning and put things right for the resident.
The landlord did some clearance works in November 2023, and replaced a fence. This was 3 months after the resident reported the issue and an unreasonable delay. This inconvenienced the resident. However, we welcome the fact after it inspected in October 2023, it progressed with the clearance works within a reasonable timeframe.
The evidence shows the landlord had not progressed with the clearance of the neighbour’s garden at that time due to difficulties in getting access. The delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord kept the resident updated about the delay. This was unreasonable and he was inconvenienced by the landlord’s poor communication around that time.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position on the clearance works. It explained it had not yet been given access to clear the neighbour’s garden. This went some way to putting right its earlier poor communication on the matter. It was also appropriate to apologise for errors in its communication, which showed learning. It offered a total of £150 compensation for its handling of the garden issue and another repair not subject to this investigation. We consider it reasonable to split the compensation offered, and have determined the landlord offered £75 for its handling of the garden issue.
The stage 2 complaint response did not set out what actions the landlord was taking to try and get access to the neighbour’s property to clear the garden. It missed an opportunity to reassure the resident it was taking the matter seriously. At the time of its final complaint response the matter was outstanding which impacts on the degree to which the landlord’s offer of compensation put things right. The evidence indicates the matter was still outstanding in October 2024, as the resident raised further concerns about the fence and fly tipping.
We acknowledge that access issues appear to have impacted on the landlord’s ability to progress with the garden clearance. However, we have not been provided with any evidence that indicates the landlord was trying to progress with the matter in the intervening period. This inconvenienced the resident. He was evidently distressed at the conditions in the garden. The landlord’s failure to progress with the matter may have increased the distress he experienced.
It is concerning the landlord did not seek to progress with the remaining garden clearance works until we asked it for its latest position on the matter in May 2025. We welcome the fact it is now progressing with the work with the appropriate urgency. But the resident was inconvenienced by a further 7 month delay.
Considering the failings identified above we have determined the landlord’s offer of £75 in compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. We have decided there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that findings of maladministration may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. We have decided an order for a further £250 is appropriate to put things right for the resident. This is in addition to the £75 the landlord already offered for its handling of the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation

The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy says its responsibilities are to:
1. Identify and block any access holes.
2. Repair any damage to the structure of its buildings, and eradicate any infestations in communal areas, or those caused by repair issues.
The evidence we have seen as part of this investigation shows the resident reported further concerns about rodents in October 2024. This was 9 months after the issue exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and 12 months after its previous pest control visit. Based on what is reasonable in the circumstances we do not consider the resident’s report of rodents in October 2024 part of the original complaint. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s handling of the later report. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the rodent infestation, following his report in October 2024, he may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord.
When the resident asked us to investigate in February 2025 he raised a concern that his possessions were damaged as a result of the rodent infestation. While we acknowledge the resident’s concerns we have not seen any evidence he raised these concerns during the complaints process. As such, the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this particular concern through its complaints process. It is therefore not something we can investigate. We have instead considered the landlord’s response to his reports of a rodent infestation in the period leading up to his stage 1 complaint of August 2023.
The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord in March 2023 and raised a concern about damage to the loft insulation. He claimed it was caused by a rodent infestation. The evidence shows the landlord sought to inspect the loft on 14 April 2023. This was in a reasonable timeframe. However, there is no recorded outcome for the repair, which is shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping. We acknowledge the landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response it had limited information about repairs due to ending its partnership with its previous contractor. However, it is reasonable to expect a landlord to be able to know what repairs it has completed even when it changes contractor so it can effectively manage its housing stock and keep track of ongoing issues. It is not possible to corroborate what actions it took at that time.
It was inappropriate the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not assess its handling of the repair in the months leading up to the resident’s complaint. This lacked transparency. It only assessed its handling of the pest issue from after the resident complained. This was unreasonable and the landlord missed an opportunity to show learning about its handling of the matter covering a reasonable period. It was appropriate to apologise for the lack of detail it was able to offer in its complaint response. Considering its accepted shortcoming, of a lack of information, it would have been appropriate to offer compensation. The resident was inconvenienced by a lack of detail in the complaint response. The landlord missed an opportunity to try and put this right by offering compensation.
After the resident complained in August 2023, the landlord handled his reports of a rodent infestation appropriately. It raised a visit within a reasonable timeframe (September 2023) and did 2 follow up visits that found no evidence of an infestation. After 2 visits without any evidence of an infestation, the landlord closed the case. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position and the actions it had taken. It also encouraged the resident to report any further concerns about an infestation to it. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Considering the errors identified above we have decided there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the rodent infestation. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where the landlord’s errors were of a short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. We have determined an order for £100 is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 55 working days after he complained. This was an unreasonable delay and a failing in its complaint handling. The resident was inconvenienced by a protracted complaints process. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the delay.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response 64 working days after he asked it to open a stage 2 complaint. This was an unreasonable delay and a failing in its complaint handling. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay. It was appropriate to apologise and offer compensation for the delay. However, the landlord offered no meaningful learning about the cause of the delay, or what it would do to prevent similar delays in the future. The tone of its response citing “higher customer contact” did little to build trust with the resident.
The landlord made an increased offer of compensation in March 2025. It made this offer over a year after its final complaint response, which means we do not consider it an offer made as part of the complaints process. However, we welcome the fact the landlord revisited its complaint handling compensation offer in March 2025. The landlord showed learning and explained it had failed to keep the resident updated throughout the complaints process. It explained it had completed staff training and reminded its staff of the importance of addressing all aspects of a complaint in detail. This was reasonable and evidence the landlord sought to put right the earlier errors in its complaint handling.
The landlord made a total offer of £250 in compensation in recognition of its complaint handling errors. Our remedies guidance sets out an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. Considering the landlord’s overall offer of compensation for its complaint handling, we have decided it was sufficient to fully put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs is outside our jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of his garden and fencing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.
In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £425 in compensation. The £75 it offered for its handling of the garden/fence issue should be deducted from this total if already pad. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £325 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of his garden and fencing.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rodent infestation.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Opens a complaint investigation into its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
2. Pay the resident the £250 it offered in recognition of errors in its complaint handling (if it has not already done so). Our finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.