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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202231459)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231459

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Complaint about damage caused to his kitchen. 
    2. Concerns about his son being removed from his tenancy.
    3. Request to transfer from a joint to sole tenancy.
    4. Concerns about its administration of his rent account. 
    5. Concerns about harassment by the landlord.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint the resident was a joint assured tenant with the landlord which is a housing association.
  2. The resident’s joint tenancy with his ex-partner commenced on 17 July 2018. Prior to that the resident held a sole tenancy with a landlord which subsequently merged with his current landlord.
  3. The property is a 2 bedroom house which the resident occupies with his son. The evidence shows the resident is diabetic and his son has autism and “very severe physical disabilities” on the right hand side of his body.
  4. On 23 March 2012 the previous landlord for the property wrote to the resident to give him permission to carry out works including to:
    1. Build a new shed at the bottom of the garden on the condition that there would be no electric supply to the structure.
    2. Build a lean to conservatory at the rear of the property.
    3. Install a door and windows to the rear of the property.
  5. On 9 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to request to inspect the conservatory and shed so it could grant retrospective consent. On 19 March the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that he had been given the necessary approval “years ago” but that he would allow for the inspection to take place.
  6. On 3 February 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response in relation to the resident’s request for a joint to sole tenancy and its associated management of the rent account. The complaint was not upheld. On 18 March it provided a stage 2 complaint response in which it also did not uphold the complaint.
  7. The landlord has provided this Service with a stamped court order dated 7 September 2022 in which it is the defendant and the resident is the claimant. It notes that the claim was struck out and marked as “totally without merit.” The order made provision for the claimant to set aside, vary or stay the order within 7 days after the date of service of the order.
  8. The landlord’s surveyor visited the property to carry out an inspection on 10 January 2023 which the resident felt was harassment by the landlord because it was the third inspection and he had already been given permission to make improvements.
  9. On 20 January 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint, as follows:
    1.  A surveyor visited the property on 10 January to inspect the shed, conservatory and fence. The reason given by the landlord was “falsely claimed” and therefore the landlord’s actions amounted to harassment. This was the third survey in less than a year. He had provided the landlord with evidence that his previous landlord had given consent. He felt harassed by the landlord and was “living in fear” of what it would do next.
    2. The landlord did not provide a proper waste connection to the boiler which “slowly destroyed” the kitchen. He and his son had to spend £10,000 on a new kitchen.
    3. It had removed his son as a household member “forcing” him to add him again. It failed to remove his ex-partner from the tenancy due to rent arrears even though it had told him on 10 January that his account was clear.
    4. Even though Universal Credit (UC) pays rent 1 month in arrears it had refused a rent payment from UC which placed him in arrears again.
    5. It ignored his request that his son succeed him to the tenancy.
  10. On 23 February 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, the main points being:
    1. It apologised for its delay and offered £50 compensation.
    2. Regarding the request for a sole to joint tenancy, adding his son so he could succeed to the tenancy, it had already provided a complaint response on 18 March 2022. As the complaint had already been investigated it would not be investigated again.
    3. Damage relating to the kitchen was part of legal proceedings and it advised the resident to contact his legal representative.
    4. It had contacted its surveyor who confirmed he attended 10 January as requested by its customer support team. He was unaware of previous surveys and only knew once the resident informed him.
    5. Having reviewed its systems there was no record of the resident reporting issues historically which could be due to a cyber issue when its data was lost.
    6. It assured the resident that the purpose of the visit was to ensure the safety and workmanship of the improvements were up to standard.
    7. It acknowledged that the resident was given permission by the previous landlord to install a conservatory and shed. During his visit its surveyor had explained he had no concerns. It concluded there was no failure of service.
    8. It apologised if the resident felt harassed and for any distress and inconvenience caused.
  11. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 3 May 2023, as follows:
    1. The landlord failed to explain why he had to provide information he knew it already had given its response to his SAR request. He noted that this was provided after the cyber incident. He felt this was evidence of harassment. 
    2. It ignored 10 years of service checks that failed, causing damage to the kitchen.
    3. It had advised it could not remove his ex-partner due to rent arrears but did not respond with regards to giving UC false information.
    4. It was aware he had signed the new tenancy agreement under duress due to abuse from his ex-partner therefore it was not legal. It had not explained why his son was removed from the tenancy agreement as an occupier.
    5. He requested an update on repairs reported to the surveyor during his visit. He said he had a recording and could prove repairs were reported.
  12. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 23 June 2023, the main points being:
    1. It apologised for the delay and offered £100 compensation.
    2. The stage 1 complaint response was “fair, reasonable and accurate” in that it gave correct information & identified there were no failures of service. It apologised if its responses made the resident feel harassed but its actions did not reflect that it had been malicious or had discriminated against him.
    3. The resident had issued a court claim on 24 February 2022 in which he alleged that its negligence resulted in damage to the kitchen which he replaced at his own expense. The claim was struck out on 7 September 2022.
    4. The landlord had provided a stage 2 complaint response on 18 March 2022 regarding removal of his ex-partner from the tenancy. Therefore the resident had exhausted the complaints procedure. It also formed part of the court claim which was struck out for “being without merit.”
    5. The landlord had provided a stage 2 complaint response on 18 March 2022 regarding the resident’s son not being added to the tenancy. The resident had exhausted its complaints procedure and it also formed part of the court claim which was struck out.
    6. It acknowledged that permission had been granted for the resident to install a conservatory and shed without an electricity supply. However, during December 2021 it had reason to suspect electricity was being supplied to the shed. It had followed its permissions process.
    7. In May 2022 it wrote to the resident to confirm permission for the conservatory had been granted but that it wanted to check the shed was satisfactory.
    8. It had made “various” appointments between December 2021 to January 2023 due to staff leaving or lack of access. It had been unable to identify that a visit had taken place prior to the one in January 2023.  The inspection was appropriately in line with its policy and procedure. “In no way have the actions taken been deployed maliciously or as a form of harassment and there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case.
    9. It was satisfied that the complaint was handled correctly. Its response was based on relevant information and there was no evidence the resident’s concerns had been misinterpreted. Therefore there was no failure of service in its complaint handling.
    10. Its surveyor had only attended to inspect as part of the permissions process. He did not recall discussing or inspecting the property for outstanding repairs. It signposted the resident for reporting any outstanding repairs.
  13. On 30 June 2023 the resident wrote to this Service to request that we investigate his complaint. The complaint became one we could investigate on 18 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction.

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that “concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.”
  3. The resident’s stage 1 complaint dated 20 January 2023 asserted that the landlord’s failure to adequately service the boiler over a 10 year period damaged the kitchen. He subsequently had to pay to install a new kitchen at a cost of £10,000.
  4. In his stage 2 complaint of 3 May 2023 the resident complained that he had signed a joint tenancy with his ex-partner under duress and that the landlord was aware she had directed domestic abuse towards him. This resulted in his son losing his right of succession. The resident asked the landlord to reinstate his previous sole tenancy and grant his son the right of succession.
  5. The resident’s stage 2 complaint also set out his concerns that the landlord had failed to remove his ex-partner from the tenancy. He said it also failed to inform UC that she was no longer residing at the property which caused rent arrears.
  6. In its stage 2 complaint response of 23 June 2023 the landlord advised that these elements of the resident’s complaint formed part of the court case that was struck out on 7 September 2022. There is no evidence that the resident disputed this was the case.
  7. After carefully considering all the evidence, the complaints set out above sit outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint which has already been determined by the court.

 

 

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord’s permissions policy says that residents may be entitled to carry out improvements to their homes however, they must seek its approval before starting any works. They must also comply with any conditions it sets to ensure the safety of occupants, neighbours and visitors from unsafe or illegal alterations to the property.
  2. Its interim complaints procedure for complaints received since 17 June 2022 says it will acknowledge and log complaints within 10 working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about harassment by the landlord.

  1. The landlord’s letter to the resident of 9 March 2022 set out is intention to visit him to provide retrospective consent for the conservatory and shed. In his stage 1 complaint of 20 January 2023 the resident said he already had permission and that this would be the landlord’s third survey in less than a year which he felt amounted to harassment.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 23 February 2023 said that the information held on its systems did not show that previous surveys had been carried out. However, it noted that data may have been lost due to its cyber attack in June 2022. The surveyor had been tasked to attend by another team specifically for the purpose of ensuring the improvements were satisfactory. The landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. It appropriately acknowledged that consent had already been given. However, it failed to recognise the distress caused to the resident by its letter of 9 March 2022 which implied this was not the case. Furthermore, it failed to clarify why the inspection was required which compounded the resident’s frustration and belief that he was being treated unfairly.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 23 June 2023 corrected this to some degree by explaining the reasons for its request to inspect which were appropriately in line with its permissions policy. The landlord’s assertion that there was no evidence of harassment or malicious intention was therefore reasonable.
  5. In his stage 2 complaint of 3 May 2023 the resident said he could prove that he had reported repairs to the surveyor. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 23 June advised the surveyor did not recall discussing repairs. Given the surveyors response it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident for any evidence he may have as part of its complaint investigation. That it did not do so was a shortcoming.
  6. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident causing distress and frustration. This amounts to service failure because it may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord which it failed to acknowledge.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 20 January 2023. The landlord appropriately emailed the resident on 23 January to acknowledge receipt. However, it failed to advise when it would respond. This caused uncertainty which led to the resident emailing the landlord on 12 February to chase, causing time and trouble and inconvenience.
  2. On 14 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the complaint had been passed to its complaints team. The landlord provided its response on 23 February, 24 working days later and 4 working days over target. In its complaint response it appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation.
  3. The resident made a further complaint on 3 May 2023. The landlord appropriately emailed the resident on 9 May to acknowledge receipt. However, it again failed to advise when it would respond. This caused inconvenience to the resident when he emailed the landlord on 11 May to seek confirmation.
  4. The landlord did not respond until 26 May 2023 which was an unreasonable delay. The email set out its understanding of the complaint definition and said it would provide a response within 20 working days, which would be the 2 June.
  5. An internal email dated 15 June 2023 confirmed the response was overdue and that it would extend the deadline to 21 June. There is no evidence that it communicated this to the resident to manage his expectations. This was inappropriate, causing him additional distress.
  6. The stage 2 complaint response was issued on 23 June 2023, 35 working days after the complaint was received. Given its response was in line with its interim complaints policy it is unclear why the landlord offered £100 compensation for its delay. While the lack of clarity may have caused the resident inconvenience, the detriment was low.
  7. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about its response times. However, the £150 compensation it offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the failure was minor and of short duration.
  8. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about damage caused to his kitchen is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his son being removed from his tenancy is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to transfer from a joint to sole tenancy is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its administration of his rent account is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about harassment by the landlord.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports that it was harassing him.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders above to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

  1. The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £150 it has offered if it has not already done so.