Clarion Housing Association Limited (202309690)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309690

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 March 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:
1. The resident’s requests for adaptations and repairs at the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in December 2013. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. The resident has vulnerabilities known to the landlord in relation to her mobility.
In July, August and November 2021 the resident’s occupational therapist (OT) contacted the landlord regarding “significant safety concerns” following some works that had been carried out by builders employed by the resident. The OT said that they were assisting the resident with a disabled facilities grant (DFG) application and would not be able to start the process until the landlord had viewed the property and resolved the safety issues. During this period, the repair log shows that the landlord carried out works in relation to the wet room drainage. The repair log does not provide any details as to what these works were.
The landlord visited the resident on 28 February 2022 as part of an “advice and support appointment”. The case notes said that the resident had had a new kitchen installed and some work done in the conservatory, but the builders did not finish the works. The notes also said that there were loose sockets, water pooling in the wet room, and the flooring was lifting in places. An internal email was sent by the landlord on 4 March 2022 highlighting the need to raise an order “ASAP” for a full check of the electrics. An electrician attended the property on 4 and 10 May 2022. The repair log shows that on 8 June 2022 the electric box was refitted and tested.
On 5 August 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she had fallen, and the kitchen floor needed replacing as it was uneven. The repair log shows a repair was carried out on 16 August 2022. No further details were provided.
The landlord’s internal correspondence between September 2022 and June 2023 noted that:
1. The flooring was a “major trip hazard” and the resident was disabled.
2. The works were “nowhere near complete” and a schedule of works was required.
3. A structural survey of the property was arranged. The resulting structural report was provided to the landlord on 26 June 2023.
4. Its contractors were going to make direct contact with the resident about using a “self-leveller” for the kitchen floor. The repair log shows this was completed on 20 July 2023.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 19 June 2023, saying that she had been trying to resolve the issues over the past 3 years. She outlined a timeline of events. She said that she wanted an action plan in relation to the repairs and a named point of contact. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 July 2023 outlining the action it had taken. It acknowledged that it had not taken the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration, and she had had to “repeatedly” contact it regarding the kitchen floor. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered the resident £250 compensation.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 18 July 2023. She again requested a named point of contact and an action plan of the works. She said that the landlord had ignored repairs she raised over several years. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 September 2023. It apologised that the resident had reported repairs to the kitchen and bathroom floor in July 2021 and had received multiple visits to try and resolve these. The landlord went on to say that the resident had arranged works without permission, which was a breach of tenancy, and that it would not be taking any further action on this occasion. It offered her an additional £300 due to the further delays in repairing the kitchen floor and bathroom drainage.
Between September and October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord 4 times saying that the majority of the repairs remained outstanding. She once more requested an action plan for the repairs. In response the landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the works and directed the resident to this Service. The resident again notified the landlord of a fall she had on 17 October 2023.
The resident then requested to raise a further stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 3 November 2023. She chased a formal response twice and clarified that her complaint was in relation to new matters that had arisen following her fall and the landlord’s failure to provide an action plan despite her requests.
On 11 January 2024 the landlord sent a “peer review addendum response”. It said that the works required were as a result of unauthorised works carried out by the resident, which it was “not liable or responsible for completing”. It went on to say that the work was a tenancy breach, and as a gesture of good will it had agreed to undertake associated required works and cover the costs. Furthermore, it could not agree the works were subject to its standard service level agreements or timeframes.
An inspection of the property was carried out on 23 January 2024 and a schedule of works was prepared for each room. On 9 April 2024 the resident confirmed that the majority of the works had been completed, and the contractor was “great”. She noted that there was still a trip hazard as the flooring had not been carried through to the kitchen area. She also said the doorway to the conservatory still had a considerable step.

Assessment and findings

Adaptations and repairs

The landlord’s repair policy says that:
1. Emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours. An emergency repair is classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident.
2. Non-emergency repairs will be completed as soon as possible and within 28 days.
3. When a resident reports a repair, the contact centre will confirm if there are any disabilities or support needs which should be taken into account, so that the service can be delivered appropriately and aligned to the needs of the household.
4. In exceptional circumstances, it may sometimes agree to carry out works that are not its responsibility. These do not form part of its repair policy and process and should be addressed under a mutually agreed process with the resident and contractor.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that:
1. No alterations to the structure of the property should be made without written permission from the landlord.
2. Residents are responsible for repairing and maintaining all improvements, fixtures and fittings that they install.
3. The landlord is not responsible for any repairs or maintenance which are needed due to damage or neglect by residents, or if residents break the terms of the agreement.
It is a reasonable condition of the tenancy agreement that prior consent be sought before making any alterations to the property. Obtaining prior consent allows the landlord to inspect the property to assess the situation before approving any changes and ensure that any adaptations do not compromise the safety of the property. That said, it is not the role of this Service to assess the resident, but instead to consider how the landlord responded to her reports.
The resident’s OT contacted the landlord on 1 July 2021. They explained that the resident had employed builders to carry out some works which were left incomplete and posed safety concerns. They highlighted issues with the boxing around the boiler, the electrics, the floor which had been removed in some parts exposing concrete, and an archway between the dining room and the conservatory. They recommended that the landlord carry out an inspection. They made the landlord aware that the resident had already had a fall in the kitchen and was hospitalised.
From the evidence provided, it does not appear that an inspection was carried out around that time. While the landlord may not have been responsible for the repairs, it should have inspected the property promptly to satisfy itself that the property was safe, especially as it was aware the resident had fallen in the kitchen.
A repair was raised on 1 July 2021 in relation to slow drainage in the wet room, with the notes saying water was pooling on the floor. This repair did not fall within the scope of unauthorised works. The repair log shows that this was attended to on 19 July 2021. The drainage repair was carried out within 18 days, and although inside of the landlord’s non-emergency repair timescale, there is no evidence to suggest that it considered the resident’s disability or support needs in line with its policy. This meant that it did not consider adjustments such as raising the repair as an emergency. This was particularly relevant as the resident had mobility issues, and the slow draining of water could have caused a slip hazard. The landlord’s omission to consider the full circumstances was not appropriate and unfair to the resident.
The OT chased the landlord on 18 August and 12 November 2021 in relation to the necessary repair works. They said that the issue with the electric was affecting the functioning of the resident’s stair lift. It was not appropriate that the landlord had not inspected the property or updated the resident or the OT as to its proposed action. This failure delayed the progression of the resident’s application for adaptions to the property. We find that its approach to the matter was unreasonable and unsympathetic. The landlord would have been aware of the resident’s mobility issues, and the OT had said over 4 months prior that the reason for the grant was to “improve wheelchair accessibility in the downstairs of her home and facilitate access to garden”. The landlord’s inaction had a detrimental impact on the resident’s day–to–day use of the property.
On 22 November 2021 the resident reported repairs in relation to the wet room floor and the electrics. She said that the water was not draining away in the wet room and the issue with the electric was affecting the stairlift. The repair log shows these were attended to on 25 November 2021, which was 3 days later. This was in line with the landlord’s non-emergency repair policy timescale. In our opinion, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not raise the repairs as an emergency. This is because the reported repairs could have met the criteria of an emergency, as they “would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident”.
The OT contacted the landlord again on 16 February 2022 saying that the resident reported she still did not have a resolution to the issues within the property. The landlord visited the property on 28 February 2022 “as part of an advice and support appointment”. An internal email was sent following this, asking “Where does [the resident] stand with the general health and safety of the property?” It was noted that the sockets were loose in the kitchen, the wet room water was pooling, and the flooring had lifted. The landlord should have responded promptly to the concerns raised, especially as they were in relation to health and safety issues. This did not happen in this case. The repair log shows that repairs to the electrical box and cabling were completed on 12 May 2022, which was 51 days later. Some repairs were carried out to the flooring on 16 August 2022, 117 days later. These delays were unreasonable given the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and concerns had been raised by both the OT and its own staff member.
The extent of the works was unclear from the notes. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to this Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. The lack of sufficient information in this case is considered a record keeping failure.
On 5 August 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the floor needed replacing and was uneven. She said that she had fallen. On 2 September and 13 October 2022, internal correspondence suggested that the flooring in the kitchen was uneven due to “tiles laid underneath”. It suggested the resident be contacted with a “plan of action” or to confirm if the job was complete. It also noted there was a major trip hazard “throughout” and the resident was disabled. Following this, the evidence does not demonstrate that any meaningful contact was made with the resident. The landlord should have maintained clear communication about the timeline for the repairs and any potential limitations in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
The lack of urgency the landlord applied in this situation is concerning, because at this point, it had been notified of 2 falls the resident suffered within the property. This warranted a prompt safeguarding response to assure it of her welfare. For example, it could have liaised with the OT about how it may have been able to reduce the immediate risk of further falls by loaning the resident suitable equipment until a more permanent solution could be found. Its omission to demonstrate that it responded accordingly is unsatisfactory.
An internal email of 23 January 2023 shows that a visit was made to the resident and found the works were “nowhere near complete”. The notes said that the landlord needed to compile a full schedule of works. It explained to the resident that the works would take some time to complete and she “seemed ok with that”. This indicates the landlord may have inappropriately placed the onus on the resident to agree or object to further delays in completing urgent works. This is concerning given the health and safety implications. There is also no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment, taking into account the resident’s specific circumstances and the potential impact of any delay, which was unreasonable.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint 5 months later on 19 June 2023. She requested an action plan to address the repairs, which she said had been outstanding for the last 3 years. She also requested a named point of contact. A structural survey was carried out on 22 June 2023. It noted that the alterations to the building structure did not pose any structural safety concerns, but did pose insulation issues. It also raised concerns about the rear access ramp to the property. The resident chased an update to this on 26 June 2023. The landlord’s internal correspondence said that there were no notes on the system so it could not update the resident. Accurate and complete records enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case.
This Service notes the positive attitude towards the resident that was demonstrated by the landlord’s internal correspondence at this point. On 2 separate occasions, it said it was “keen to provide her with good news” and “keen to be able to assist her”. This was indicative of a personal and solution-focused approach.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 July 2023. It said that:
1. It agreed it had failed to follow its process, and the resident had had to repeatedly contact it.
2. It accepted that it had failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, and acknowledged the inconvenience and disruption this may have caused her.
3. It apologised and offered the resident £250 compensation.
This was a positive step by the landlord to acknowledge its failings, apologise, and take action to put things right. Nevertheless, it did not address the resident’s queries in relation to producing an action plan and providing her with a named point of contact, which was not appropriate.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 18 July 2023. She again requested a named point of contact and an action plan of works. She said that the landlord had ignored her repair requests over several years. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 15 September 2023, apologising for the length of time that had passed since the resident reported the issues and the multiple visits carried out to try and resolve them. It explained that the work she had previously carried out was without its permission and a breach of tenancy, but it was not taking any action in relation to the matter. It offered the resident an additional £300 for the delay in repairing the kitchen flooring and the wet room drainage. This was a further positive step by the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer compensation. However, it still failed to provide the resident with an action plan and named point of contact. This was clearly frustrating for her, and the lack of clarity around the works caused her distress and inconvenience.
The resident chased the landlord 5 times between 22 September and 26 October 2023, saying she was still unclear as to when the repairs would be carried out. She advised the landlord she had a fall on 17 October 2023 and again requested an action plan for the repairs. The landlord did not provide the resident with any meaningful response, which was unfair to her.
On 3 November 2023 the resident requested to raise another stage 1 complaint as a result of the landlord’s failure to respond to her emails and “constant avoidance” of her questions. She chased a response a further 2 times in November 2023. On 11 January 2024 the landlord provided the resident with an addendum response. It said that:
1. The works required at the property were because of the poor standard of work the resident had carried out without its permission. Therefore, it was not liable or responsible for completing and resolving the matter.
2. It had arranged for an inspection to be carried out and would then provide its final position on what works were outstanding.
3. It would raise the access ramp works as a priority with its contractor.
4. It “somewhat agreed” that there had been confusion surrounding what work would be carried out, and that “there had been a lapse in communication” internally, for which it apologised.
This response was unsympathetic and did not address the resident’s concerns in relation to the landlord’s failure to respond to her emails. Furthermore, had it taken some of these steps earlier – such as carrying out an inspection and prioritising the access ramp works – it is possible a resolution could have been found sooner.
In summary, the tenancy conditions are clear that any alterations are the resident’s responsibility to repair and maintain and not the responsibility of the landlord. The repair policy says that in exceptional circumstances, the landlord may sometimes agree to carry out works that are not its responsibility. However, such works would not form part of its repair policy and process. It is evident that this case is an exceptional circumstance. The landlord had agreed to carry out the works as a gesture of good will and bear the cost. This was positive action by it in assisting a vulnerable resident.
However, even taking this into account, the landlord’s overall approach to the repairs was unreasonable because of the significant disruption to the resident. The delay in carrying out the repairs to which it had agreed delayed her adaptation application for the property. The landlord was advised by the OT in July 2021 that the application could not progress until the landlord had “resolved the safety issues”.
While some repairs were carried out between 19 July 2021 and 15 April 2024, they were fragmented, and no real plan was put in place to address them. The resident had asked on more than 1 occasion for an action plan and named point of contact to assist in managing the repairs and timescales. These were reasonable requests. Had the landlord put an action plan in place, it could have prioritised the repairs based on the risk to the resident, and in turn managed any financial implications as a result of the necessary repairs for which it was not responsible.
It is clear that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience over an extended period of time due to the delay. While the landlord’s repair policy says that works it agrees to carry out that are not its responsibility do not form part of its repair policy or timescale, it did agree to carry out the works. Therefore it was unreasonable that, for 2 years and 9 months, the resident was unable to fully and safely use the property. This impacted her day–to–day life and enjoyment of the property. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident a total of £550, but we find this was not sufficient to reflect the impact on her.
The relationship between residents and landlords regarding adaptions should be collaborative and based upon open communication. It is clear that this was not the case here, and that the landlord’s actions led to misunderstandings regarding repair responsibilities and ultimately gave rise to the complaint.
In all the circumstances of the case, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations and repairs at the property. As a result, £1,000 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. It is also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where its failure has had a severe long-term impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided this Service with an interim complaint policy effective from June 2022. This was to be reviewed in November 2022. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint in June 2023, and it is unclear if the complaint policy provided was the applicable version at the time of her complaint. Therefore, our complaint handling code will be applied in this case, as landlords’ policies should be in line with the code.
This Service’s complaint handling code states that responses to stage 1 complaints should be provided within 10 working days of receipt, and stage 2 responses provided within 20 working days from the day escalation was requested.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 19 June 2023. The landlord responded on 6 July 2023, which was 3 working days outside of the timescale detailed in the complaint handling code. This was therefore not appropriate. The landlord did, however, recognise its delay and apologise, which was a positive step.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 18 July 2023. The landlord advised the resident on 15 August 2023 – 20 working days later – that it would be delayed in providing the stage 2 response. It provided an amended timeframe. While it was appropriate to update the resident of the amended timescale, it was not appropriate that the landlord failed to do so before the response was due.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 15 September 2023, which was 3 working days later than the amended timescale. It was not appropriate that the landlord was late in sending its response, despite extending the deadline. Though the delay was not excessive, it likely caused some distress and inconvenience to the resident as well as undermining her confidence in the landlord.
The resident requested to raise another stage 1 complaint on 3 November 2023 as she said that the landlord had failed to respond to her emails sent in September and October 2023. She chased a response on 11 and 13 November 2023. The lack of response was evidently frustrating for the resident.
Internal email correspondence on 15 November 2023 suggested responding to the resident as an addendum response. Despite this, the response was not sent until 11 January 2024, which was 46 working days after the resident requested to raise a complaint. The complaint handling code in place at the time of the complaint said that where a landlord believes a stage 3 response is absolutely necessary, a response should be sent within 20 working days from the request. The response was sent significantly outside of this timescale, which was not appropriate.
In summary, the landlord provided both the stage 1 and 2 responses late. It introduced a stage 3, with the response also being late. This was likely confusing for the resident. The evidence shows that she had spent time and trouble pursuing the complaint, which was frustrating for her. While the landlord apologised for the delay in providing the response at stage 1 and 2, it failed to offer any compensation to put things right. This was unreasonable.
Due to the failures outlined above, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. £150 compensation has been awarded to the resident, which is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Our award is also in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s requests for adaptations and repairs at the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £1,150, made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her and loss of enjoyment of the property.
  2. £150 for the time and trouble she spent pursuing the complaint.
3. This should be reduced by any amount already paid.
4. Arrange for relevant staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/ if this has not been done recently.
5. Contact the resident in order to confirm the nature of her vulnerabilities. It should then update its records to reflect these, and any reasonable adjustments required.
6. Liaise with the resident as necessary and support her in submitting a DFG application if required.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers assessing its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This could include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM for landlords and relevant staff if this has not been done recently.