Clarion Housing Association Limited (202306144)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202306144
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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
- Concerns about a reference provided to another landlord.
- Request to check storage heaters.
- Request for a housing transfer.
Background
- The resident lived in the property as an assured tenant from July 2019 to August 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom house.
- The resident applied to move to a property with a new landlord. On 16 May 2023, she complained the new landlord had not agreed her application because of her landlord’s reference. The resident said she was in debt because her storage heaters were too expensive to use, and she wanted the landlord to check them. She wanted the landlord to move her to another property.
- In its complaint response on 9 June 2023, the landlord said it had to tell the new landlord about reports of noise. It said it had a report of a barking dog. But as the noise report had not met the threshold for investigation, it had not told the resident. It said it understood the inconvenience caused by the new landlord’s decision, but it had followed its process. It said it would now meet the resident to discuss the report, and it might not have been clear in the reference that it had not investigated.
- On the storage heaters, the landlord said it did a check before the resident moved to the property, and this was valid for 5 years. Because of this, it did not need to do another check. It said it would look at the resident’s circumstances on her request for a move. It offered £150 compensation for communication and complaint handling failures.
- On 12 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not dealt with the effect the “false information” had on her. She said the landlord told the new landlord it was investigating her, which was not true. She said there had since been a mix up with the visit arranged to discuss the report. She did not feel the compensation was enough.
- On 19 June 2023, the landlord gave the resident details of her housing options. The resident said she was disappointed with the options. She thought the landlord would offer a move as its actions led to her losing the new property.
- In its final response on 2 August 2023, the landlord said the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer and it had given her other options. It said the reference referred to the report being under investigation. It accepted this could have caused confusion, but said it was not responsible for the new landlord’s decision. It apologised for the mix up with the visit and offered additional £50 compensation for this.
- The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord had not helped her find a new property and its reference was the reason the new landlord withdrew the offer. She said the compensation offered was not reasonable for the stress caused.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the investigation
- The resident said the withdrawal of the offer of a new property affected her mental health and the landlord should compensate her for this. After considering the evidence, the Ombudsman will not consider this part of the complaint. This is because the Ombudsman cannot decide effects on health. Paragraph 42.o of the Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot consider matters where the resident is seeking an outcome that is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
The landlord’s response to concerns about a reference provided to another landlord
- In its complaint response the landlord said it followed its process for providing references. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its mutual exchange policy. On disclosure of information, it says when providing a reference, it will disclose all complaints of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
- The landlord’s ASB policy says there are thresholds it will consider when deciding whether to investigate. The thresholds for noise reports are 3 separate incidents in the past 7 days by the same person, 5 separate incidents in the past 28 days by the same person, or 2 separate incidents in the past 28 days by people from different households. It says it will record noise complaints to show the frequency, severity, and duration. It will start an investigation once noise reports meet a threshold.
- On 4 May 2023, the resident told her landlord she was waiting for it to send documents to her new landlord about her house move. She wanted someone to call her as she could not sign the new tenancy agreement until the new landlord received the documents. The Ombudsman has not seen whether the landlord responded to the resident.
- The resident complained on 16 May 2023 that because of the reference provided by her landlord, the new landlord had withdrawn its offer. She said she was devastated, and the offer withdrawal was affecting her mental health. She wanted to know what the landlord had said in the reference.
- On 31 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update. She said she was bidding for another property and was concerned about getting another bad reference. Records provided to the Ombudsman include an internal email on 1 June 2023 where the landlord acknowledged the resident had spent 2 years trying to move. It said the situation was affecting the resident’s wellbeing.
- In its complaint response on 9 June 2023, the landlord said when the new landlord asked for a reference, it had to give it information. It said there was a noise complaint about the resident’s dogs, and it included this in the reference. It said as the noise did not meet the threshold for investigation, it did not have to tell the resident. It said the reference did not give a view or opinion and the other landlord made the decision to withdraw the offer.
- The landlord said it understood the inconvenience caused by the other landlord interpreting the complaint of noise as an investigation. It said it had followed its process but may not have been clear it was not investigating the noise report. It offered £100 compensation for poor communication on the reference.
- The Ombudsman has found the landlord followed its process when providing a reference, as the policy says it will disclose all complaints of ASB. However, the landlord did not provide the new landlord with any context about the single report of barking dogs. This report had not met the threshold for investigation. The landlord had not discussed the noise complaint with the resident and had not found whether the resident caused the noise.
- The Ombudsman has seen a letter to the resident dated 16 May 2023 from the new landlord that says it rejected the resident’s application because it had received an “unsatisfactory reference”. This does not say why the reference was unsatisfactory, however, in its complaint response the landlord accepted the reference was not clear as it had not investigated the noise report. It offered £100 compensation for inconvenience cause by “poor communication”. Because of this, on the balance of probabilities, the Ombudsman has found the new landlord withdrew the offer because the reference gave details of an unproven noise complaint.
- When the resident escalated her complaint on 9 June 2023, she told the landlord about the effect the loss of the new property was having on her and her daughter’s wellbeing. She said they had packed their belongings and were ready for a “fresh start”. She said the loss of the new home was devastating and it was the landlord’s fault as it told the new landlord she was under investigation. She said the landlord should have told her about the noise complaint. She did not feel the compensation was enough for the stress and effect on her mental health.
- In its final response on 2 August 2023, the landlord said the reference it gave referred “to the noise report being under investigation”. It said it understood “this could have caused some confusion”. It said at the time it gave the reference, the noise report had not met the threshold for investigation. It said it did not always contact residents when it received reports, including when they did not meet the threshold or there was no evidence.
- The single report of noise nuisance did not meet the threshold for investigation as set out in its ASB policy. This means that in the usual course of events it would not investigate and there was no need to tell the resident about the report.
- However, the landlord has a duty to the resident to ensure that information it holds and provides to a third party is fair and accurate. This is particularly important when the information may affect a decision. Although the landlord was not responsible for the new landlord’s decision, it is the Ombudsman’s view that by not providing clear information, the landlord did not meet its obligations to the resident. This had a significant negative effect on her, as she lost the new home because of the other landlord’s decision, which was based on information provided by the landlord. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the failure to provide fair and accurate information was maladministration.
- The resident told the Ombudsman in February 2025 that when she found out the new landlord had withdrawn the offer, she had already packed her belongings. She said she was due to pick up the keys on 19 May 2023, 3 days after the new landlord withdrew the offer. She said the withdrawal of the offer caused her and her daughter significant distress. The resident also experienced significant inconvenience as she was ready to move to her new home.
- In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration when there has been a significant failure by the landlord. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged the “poor communication” on the reference and offered £100 compensation for this. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was insufficient in the circumstances.
- Because of the failings, the landlord must pay the resident £500 compensation for the failure to provide a fair and accurate reference as follows:
- £200 for failure to ensure its communication to the new landlord was fair and accurate. This includes £100 offered in its stage 1 response.
- £150 for distress caused.
- £150 for inconvenience caused
The landlord’s response to a request to check storage heaters
- The landlord is responsible under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) for repairing installations for space and water heating. This means the landlord has an obligation to repair heating systems in the property.
- The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will attend non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days.
- Records provided by the landlord show that when it contacted the resident to discuss her complaint on 24 May 2023, she said she was in debt due to the cost of running the storage heaters. She said the landlord had refused to check the heaters. The Ombudsman has not seen any records of the resident asking for the landlord to check the heaters before this date.
- In its complaint response on 9 June 2023, the landlord said it did an electrical check on the heater before the resident moved to the property, which was valid for 5 years. Because of this, it said it did not need to do a further check.
- The Ombudsman has not seen a record of the electrical check the landlord did before the resident moved to the property. However, it appears to have been a safety check. When the resident asked the landlord to check the storage heaters her concern was about running costs rather than safety. She wanted the landlord to check whether the heaters were working correctly. While the landlord did not need to check safety, it should have checked whether the storage heaters were working correctly following the report of concerns, in line with its repairs policy.
- The resident had also raised concerns about fuel poverty and said this was a reason she wanted to move. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord discussed the resident’s concerns about fuel poverty or gave her information on help available.
- It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was a service failure as it did not arrange to check whether the heaters were working within 28 days of the report. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman finds service failure when there is a minor failure. Because of the failure to check the heaters in line with the repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation.
The response to a request for a housing transfer
- The landlord’s management transfer policy says transfers happen in a small number of circumstances. This includes when a resident is experiencing ASB, harassment, or domestic abuse that puts them at risk of serious harm. It says in exceptional circumstances it may use a management transfer when a resident has a significant change, such as a life changing injury.
- After the new landlord told the resident it had withdrawn its offer of a property in May 2023, the resident told her landlord it should offer her a new home. She told it she was unable to afford to heat her property and was isolated.
- An internal email on 1 June 2023 said the resident had spent 2 years trying to move to a new property. It acknowledged the situation affected the resident’s mental health. It said it could not approve a management move but could help with a mutual exchange.
- In its complaint response on 9 June 2023, the landlord told the resident it would look at her circumstances. It said its team would contact her that day to discuss her request for a management move.
- The landlord sent details of housing options to the resident on 19 June 2023. It said the first option was for the resident to contact her local council and ask to join the housing register. The second option was to join its mutual exchange site. The third option was to say she was interested in properties through its transfer system.
- The resident escalated her complaint the same day as she was disappointed with the options. She said the landlord was not taking responsibility for the situation. In its final response the landlord told the resident she did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. It said it discussed 3 options with her and sent her details.
- The Ombudsman has found that when the landlord sent its complaint response on 9 June 2023, it could have been clearer about options at this stage. However, the resident did not qualify for a management transfer as set out in the landlord’s policy. Because of this, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to a request for a housing transfer.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
- Maladministration by the landlord in its response to concerns about a reference provided to another landlord.
- Service failure by the landlord in its response to a request to check storage heaters.
- No maladministration by the landlord in its response to a request for a housing transfer.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings found in this report.
- The landlord must pay the resident £550 compensation. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and not offset it against any arrears. Compensation includes:
- £200 for failure to ensure its communication to the new landlord was fair and accurate. This includes £100 compensation offered in its stage 1 response if it has not already been paid.
- £150 for inconvenience caused.
- £150 for distress caused.
- £50 for failure to check heaters.
- The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Recommendations
- The landlord should reoffer the £100 compensation it offered for complaint handling and a mix up with an appointment if it has not already paid it to the resident.