Clarion Housing Association Limited (202343292)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343292

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 January 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. Response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of door repairs at the property.
3. Handling of the residents reports of a faulty smoke alarm at the property.
4. Response to the resident’s reports of noise caused by contractors and inadequate soundproofing.
5. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy started in March 2015. The property is a 1-bedroom ground–floor flat. The landlord is aware of the resident’s multiple health vulnerabilities, including auditory hypersensitivity and a visual impairment. It has agreed reasonable adjustments in place to support the resident.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 12 and 16 May 2023. They considered the landlord’s staff knocking on their door harassment. They reminded the landlord to email them in advance as agreed by way of a reasonable adjustment request and Tomlin order. They advised that a contractor had misgendered them “8 times” during a visit on 12 May 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 August 2023. It apologised for the delay to provide them with a response. It said that it:
1. had previously responded to their concerns about misgendering under a separate complaint
2. reassured them that the mistakes were not intentional but acknowledged the upset it would cause
3. had committed to additional equality, diversity, and inclusion training and made it mandatory for all staff
4. updated its contractors on a daily basis with client data, including customer titles and preferred methods of contact
5. reminded staff of the importance of adhering to customer preferences and asked the resident to inform any operative of how they should address them if a mistake took place
6. responded to the resident’s repair concerns, and explained it was satisfied that it had addressed all appropriately. It advised that there was no mandatory requirement to notify neighbouring residents of essential repairs to other properties
7. offered £100 compensation for the complaint handling delay
On 22 August 2023 the resident asked to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP). They said they considered the landlord had failed to satisfactorily address their reasonable adjustment concerns. They did not feel the landlord had taken steps to prevent harm due to the effects of repair noise, nor had it considered their repairs through the “lens of a disability adjustment.”
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 15 April 2024. It summarised its position regarding the practicality of meeting the resident’s requests for notice of repair work to neighbouring properties. While it explained the limitations of such a reasonable adjustment, it apologised that it had failed to fully consider the resident’s noise reports. It offered an additional £300 compensation as redress for this failure and a further £50 for its complaint handling delays.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought their complaint to us. They said the landlord had reneged on soundproofing and it had failed to take action to minimise harm to them as a disabled tenant. They sought an apology from the landlord and that it and its contractors follow their reasonable adjustment requirements.
In November 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding their complaint. It advised that upon review of its stage 2 final response, it considered it had not fairly compensated them for its stage 2 complaint handling delays. It apologised and raised its stage 2 offer from £50 to £100.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note the resident’s correspondence said the landlord’s handling of their reasonable adjustment requests and misgendering them during conversations caused “substantial psychological harm.”
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore, we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if they want to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on their health.
We also note the resident’s correspondence to us raised concerns that the landlord had treated them differently due to their gender and disabilities. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. Furthermore, we note that the resident says the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) as they believe it has failed to adhere to and or apply reasonable adjustments. We will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and whether it considered its duties under the Act. We will not determine whether the landlord breached the Act as this would be a matter for the courts to decide.
These matters therefore fall outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if they want to pursue their concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
The resident also raised dissatisfaction relating to the service charges for the property’s alarms in November 2024. Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. This falls outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). As this matter did not form part of the complaint brought to us, and made after the landlord’s stage 2 final response, we encourage the resident to raise a new complaint with the landlord and or seek independent legal advice.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment

Paragraph 2.1 of the landlord’s vulnerable resident and reasonable adjustment policy commits to assist disabled and vulnerable residents in line with its legal duties and regulatory requirements.
Paragraph 11.2 of the same policy recognises its duty for reasonable adjustments where its arrangements for accessing or receiving services place a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with those without a disability. The Act defines ‘substantial’ as ‘more than minor or trivial,’ so should be more than a minor inconvenience. The landlord states its focus is on achieving the same or a similar outcome for the disabled resident through making a reasonable adjustment.
We are aware that the resident’s reasonable adjustment requests relating to communication formed part of a Tomlin order settlement on 27 September 2022. The settlement prohibited parties from disclosing the terms of the agreement to anyone other than the parties and their legal representatives. The landlord has provided evidence of its request to the resident on 25 September 2023 for consent to disclose information. The resident did not respond.
Therefore, the landlord has advised that it is satisfied that it has facilitated the resident’s communication reasonable adjustments. We advise the resident to seek advice from their legal representative if they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s compliance with the terms of the settlement.
Our role is to consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s reasonable adjustment request about it notifying them of work to neighbouring properties. The resident considered this necessary to minimise the effects on their auditory sensitivity.
In its stage 1 response the landlord advised that there was no mandatory requirement to inform residents of neighbouring properties of any essential work it undertook. While its repair and vulnerable person policies are silent on this matter, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to consider the effects of noise on the resident in more detail in its stage 2 response. This demonstrated the landlord gave due regard to the resident’s reports that repair noise affected their health.
The Act requires landlord’s to provide reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities. In the majority of circumstances, landlord’s will be able to agree to and deliver the reasonable adjustments a resident asks for. However, in some cases, there may be limitations depending on factors which include:
1. the effectiveness of the adjustment in preventing the disadvantage
2. the extent to which it is practical for the service to make the adjustment
3. the cost and availability of resources
4. the extent to which the adjustment would disrupt the activities of the service provided
The landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrated a thorough investigation and consideration of the resident’s situation. While it acknowledged it had informed the resident of void repair works to another property on 26 February 2024, it considered whether there was more it could do to warn them of future repair noise. In which it said:
1. any notification of works to neighbouring properties could only be effective if its repair systems allowed it to capture the resident’s circumstances on other properties. As this was not currently possible, it had asked for its project team to investigate the possibility of future modifications
2. it was not presently practical to provide the requested adjustment as its repair system would not facilitate the resident’s preference. Therefore, the resource implications to change its systems would be significant
3. in the event of any emergency repair need to other properties, their request was not operationally possible, as priority would be the safety and security of the neighbour and their property
4. there would be a risk to other residents privacy and potential repair delays for other residents accessing its repair services
5. while it determined that implementing the resident’s request was not reasonable, it had installed underlay and carpet in the neighbouring property to mitigate noise transference
6. it had requested that its repairs team notify in advance of any additional void repair work where possible
We find that the landlord has thoroughly considered the resident’s request for it to inform them of any repair work at neighbouring properties. It has updated its customer records to ensure staff are aware of their reasonable adjustments and made equality, diversity, and inclusion training mandatory. It has demonstrated giving due regard to the resident’s health and its legal duties. While it was unable to meet the resident’s specific request, it demonstrated steps to install floor coverings to minimise noise transference and sought to inform the resident of planned work where possible.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Response to the resident’s reports of door repairs at the property

Paragraph 5.5 of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it will attend to an emergency repair within 24 hours. It will make safe or temporarily repair the issue during that visit. It will arrange further repairs if required.
Paragraph 5.6 of the same policy states it will offer resident’s appointments within 28 calendar days for all non-emergency repairs.
On 8 June 2023 the resident reported a fault with the door lock which prevented them leaving the flat. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord attended as an emergency the same day. This was in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
We note the resident’s dissatisfaction that they had previously reported similar faults. While this would understandably cause upset, we have identified the landlord attended as an emergency on 19 January 2022 and within 3 days for a routine repair on 14 February 2022. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair timescales. The landlord cancelled a further check on 9 February 2022 as the attending operative reported the resident refusing to answer precautionary Covid health and safety questions and being rude to them. There is no indication that a fault prevented the resident using their door or locks at this time.
Having attended in line with its repair timescales on 8 June 2023, the landlord returned the next day and installed a new lock. We note the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the replacement lock and described it as challenging and causing them pain.
It is reasonable for the landlord to install a suitable working replacement mechanism to ensure the security of the property. Upon receipt of the resident’s dissatisfaction, it was reasonable for the landlord to encourage the resident to consider an occupational therapist (OT) assessment. This approach is to ensure a landlord appropriately selects an option that is medically appropriate for a resident’s needs.
We note the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s proposal and expressed concern for the time it would take for an OT assessment. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances that the landlord agreed to fit a mechanism which the resident felt was suitable for their needs. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to offer them assistance and giving due regard to how the replacement lock affected them.
We also note the resident’s desire for a new front entrance door. They sought legal advice and started a disrepair claim against the landlord. Our guidance on pre action protocol for housing conditions encourages landlords to take appropriate steps to ensure there is effective communication channels between its own teams and the resident, throughout the repairs and complaints process. In this case, the landlord received a letter of claim and completed a property survey on 16 January 2024. In which, it found the door in a reasonable condition and did not require replacing. However, it suggested replacing a threshold bar for a thinner trim to minimise any trip hazards based on the resident’s reports of difficulties.
Based on our findings, the landlord’s actions demonstrated that it acted on the resident’s concerns and took appropriate steps to complete a survey. There is evidence the survey considered the resident’s reported difficulties of avoiding the door’s threshold and made recommendations to minimise any hazard for the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of door repairs at the property.

Handling of the residents reports of a faulty smoke alarm at the property

The resident states that they have been waiting for the landlord to return to their property since November 2022 to fix the property’s smoke/fire alarm. They say the alarm had sounded for 6 to 8 hours causing them harm due to their auditory disabilities.
The landlord’s repair records show that it received a report of the smoke alarm sounding on 22 October 2022. It was therefore appropriate that it recorded responding to this job as an emergency. There is evidence its engineer completed further work on 9 December 2022. It identified the interlinked detector would sound as it was set to the wrong frequency. Therefore, other alarms would activate it. While the landlord acknowledged that this would have caused nuisance, the evidence shows it attended to the resident’s reports when notified and in line with its repairs policy. It took further action following investigation and has no further record of repeat issues.
Based on our findings, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. The resident is encouraged to inform the landlord if they have experienced any new issues since its stage 2 final response.

Response to the resident’s reports of noise caused by contractors and inadequate soundproofing

We acknowledge the distress and impact that noise can cause on a resident’s wellbeing. While statutory noise is outside of our jurisdiction, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that void repair noise affected them.
It is reasonable that the landlord’s repair teams needed to undertake work to a void property. With such construction related work, a level of noise is often unavoidable. That said, given the landlord’s awareness of the resident’s auditory sensitivity, it is unclear what steps it took to communicate with them or the steps it took to minimise any affects.
The landlord’s stage 2 final response acknowledged the resident had made reference to noise concerns. In which, they said that void repair staff had entered a neighbouring property throughout 2023, contributing to noise transfer which affected their auditory sensitivity. While it had made efforts to inform the resident of work in February 2024, we have been unable to identify any prior communication to address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord was satisfied that these matters did not constitute antisocial behaviour, and therefore managed the resident’s concerns as a service complaint. It was therefore appropriate that it acknowledged its failings and sought to offer a remedy via its ICP.
The landlord apologised for not responding sooner to the resident’s concerns and offered £300 compensation for its failure to address their reports of noise. This is in line with our remedies guidance when a landlord’s failure has adversely affected a resident.
We note the resident also referred to inadequate soundproofing and their opinion that the landlord failed to comply with matters under a historic Tomlin order. The landlord disputes the resident’s statement and says that it installed underlay and carpeting as a gesture of good will. It states it received no court instructions to undertake any specific soundproofing work to its properties. While it is not our role to comment on court orders, we have been unable to identify any evidence which contradicts the landlord’s position.
Part E of the Building Regulations came into force in the UK in 2003. It prescribes acoustic insulation levels for new and converted residential buildings and sets decibel levels (dBA) for airborne and impact noise. These standards do not apply to any home built or converted before 2003. There is case law that landlords are under no obligation to soundproof homes to a standard above the one that was in force at the time of its construction.
We encourage the resident to report any future noise transference to the landlord. The landlord’s stage 2 final response explained that it had drafted a good neighbour policy based on the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s October 2022 Spotlight report on noise complaints. Its policy is specific to noise transfer cases which do not amount to ASB. The landlord should have the opportunity to assess the resident’s concerns, and where reasonably practicable, monitor and develop good neighbour relations to minimise any noise affects.
Based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. If it required more time, this should not have exceeded a further 10 working days without good reason. It should also agree any extension with the resident in advance. We are satisfied that the landlord’s relevant complaints policy met the expectations of the Code.
The resident raised their formal complaint to the landlord on 12 May 2023. It was therefore reasonable for them to expect an acknowledgement by 19 May 2023 and a formal complaint response by 26 May 2023. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to meet either of these expectations, with its stage 1 response being 60 working days late. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to put right this failure and offer £100 compensation.
There is evidence that the resident asked to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 22 August 2023. While the landlord appears to have been coordinating a number of complaints for the resident at this time, it is unclear why it failed to acknowledge or respond to this request. This demonstrates a record keeping failure which caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience while they sought to progress matters.
Following our intervention on 12 February 2024 and 14 March 2024, we asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 final response by 10 April 2024. The landlord informed us that it was unable to meet this deadline but would ensure it provided its response by 17 April 2024. It was reasonable in the circumstances that it apologised to the resident for this delay and offered additional compensation of £50. It revised this offer in November 2024, increasing its offer by a further £50. Which it said more fairly recognised the detriment of its complaint handling failure. This demonstrated the landlord’s actions to learn from outcomes and to put things right.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to assess whether the landlord offered proportionate redress. In situations, of maladministration, our guidance on remedies recommends that a compensation payment should be £100 to £600 to put things right.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged and apologised that it failed to provide its responses in line with its complaints policy timescales. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s offer of £150 reasonable redress. As the landlord has offered an additional £50 outside of ICP, we recommended that the landlord honours this offer. This sum is in accordance with the remedies guidance available to us when a failure has adversely affected a resident. Therefore, based on the evidence, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of door repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of a faulty smoke alarm at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise caused by contractors and inadequate soundproofing.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord reoffer the resident the £300 compensation for its response to the resident’s reports of noise caused by contractors and inadequate soundproofing, if not already paid.
We recommend that the landlord reoffer the resident the £150 complaint handling compensation, and its additional offer of £50 made post ICP, if not already paid.