From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202320116)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320116

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 August 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. rodents coming into her home.
    2. the size of her child’s bedroom.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy agreement started in October 1994 and states that the property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has told us that she has mental health concerns.
  2. On 1 March 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. She said:
    1. she had a long standing issue with pests entering through the kitchen floorboards. The pests were contaminating her home environment.
    2. her flat was a 1 bedroom property not a 2 bed. She was overcrowded which was affecting her mental health. She asked the landlord to measure the room her daughter slept in, as she deemed it too small to be classed as a bedroom.
  3. In March and early April 2023, the landlord’s contractor (Contractor A) investigated the resident’s reports about rodents entering her home. It recommended that the landlord:
    1. filled all holes and gaps [in the floorboards] under kitchen units.
    2. complete a drain survey.
    3. cover vents in the back garden.
  4. Contractor A attended again on 18 April 2023 but was unable to gain access. It contacted the landlord twice in June 2023 for an update. There is no evidence that the landlord responded.
  5. In July 2023 the landlord measured the resident’s daughter’s room. It is unclear whether it updated the resident on the outcome. In the same month the local authority’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) also measured the room. It told the landlord that it did not meet the required size for a bedroom therefore it was unsuitable. During this period, the resident told the landlord that the room in question had been classed as a playroom in the original plans for the flat.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 September 2023. It said:
    1.  the property was correctly categorised as a 2 bedroom flat.
    2. the resident had refused access. Therefore, it was unable to carry out the remedial works to stop the rodents from entering her home. It told the resident to call it to arrange an appointment.
  7. It offered the resident £100 for its delayed complaint response.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint in mid-October 2023. She said:
    1. the landlord had not taken into consideration the EHO’s comment that the room was too small. She asked the landlord for a management transfer.
    2. her kitchen floorboards still had gaps in it which was allowing the rodents to come into her home.
  9. On 3 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
    1. it did not take into consideration the EHO’s inspection that noted that her daughter’s room was not a suitable size. It said it was a “genuine oversight, caused by human error”. It said the mistake should not have happened in particular as the resident had been raising her concerns about the matter for a long time. It offered the resident £50 compensation.
    2. it would measure the room again to validate the EHO’s findings. It explained that once it had done so, it would take legal advice on whether the room met the space standards set out in housing legislation. It would then share the outcome with the resident.
    3. while it was investigating the bedroom size, it would place the resident on the management transfer list.
    4. on the 18 April 2023 the resident refused access to Contractor A. It did not provide any further visits. General works had now been carried out to the resident’s kitchen which included renewing and sealing the kitchen floorboards.
  10. It offered £50.00 compensation for its delayed stage 2 response.
  11. The resident referred her complaint to this Service because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident stated in her stage 1 complaint that rodents had been coming into her home for many years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account this assessment has focussed on the period from the resident’s March 2023 complaint onwards. We have seen no evidence that reports about a pest infestation were made in the months leading up to this.
  2. In March 2025 the resident told us that she is concerned about the landlord’s handling of her reported issues such as antisocial behaviour and damp and mould in her home. While these concerns were raised when the resident initially complained to the landlord, there is no evidence they were escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. As such, we have not assessed how the landlord investigated these complaints as they did not exhaust its complaints procedure. If the resident wishes, she may ask for her concerns to be escalated now. Given the passage of time, she may wish to raise a new complaint to the landlord about any outstanding concerns that she may have.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rodents coming into her home

  1. The landlord’s pest policy states that it will identify and block any potential access points in the structure of its properties.
  2. When the resident made a complaint in March 2023 about rodents coming into her home, Contractor A attended in a timely manner. It attended again on 18 April 2023 to carry out some works. The resident did not allow access as she was concerned that the contractor did not close the kitchen kickboards at its last visit. While the reasons for the resident’s decision are noted, her decision not to allow access prevented the landlord from ensuring that the necessary works were completed without delay. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns and to try to reschedule the works. Taking such action would have been reasonable. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to progress matters and resolve the infestation.
  3. Following a call from the resident, Contractor A contacted the landlord twice in June 2023 to help facilitate access to the resident’s home to progress the repair. There is no available evidence that the landlord responded.
  4. It is noted that in stage 1 complaint response (September 2023) the landlord stated that the issue was outstanding and asked the resident to contact it to book an appointment. This was reasonable. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was in touch. However, given that the landlord was aware that the issue was outstanding, it would have been reasonable for it to make a further attempt to contact the resident and schedule a mutually convenient appointment. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
  5. In the resident’s October 2023 complaint escalation request, she explained that rodents were still coming into her home. It is unclear how the landlord responded. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord carried out work to fill in the gaps as part of the overall kitchen works that it was carrying out in November 2023.
  6. It is noted that the landlord also carried out works to the resident’s flooring to prevent the rodents from coming into her home. This was reasonable. However, there were other recommendations that Contractor A provided the landlord to ensure the matter was fully resolved. These included a drain survey and covering vents in the communal garden. It is unclear whether these were carried out. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to ascertain whether she has any current concerns about rodents. If she does it should review Contractor A’s recommendations and consider whether any additional work should be completed if relevant.
  7. During the course of our investigation, the landlord informed us that Contractor A attended in June 2023 and August 2023 to complete works. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous evidence in relation to these visits, or further detail. Therefore, what action was taken during these attendances is unknown. It is also noted that these visits were not referred to within the landlord’s stage 2 response (January 2024) – and it had advised that Contractor A’s last visit was on 18 April 2023, and no further visits took place. As such, while the landlord’s comments have been noted, they are not supported by any of the evidence that is available. As a result, the events that transpired after April 2023 are somewhat unclear. It is acknowledged that the landlord has undertaken some works to prevent the infestation. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure that the works recommended to resolve the infestation were completed.
  8. Overall, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took proactive and reasonable steps to progress and resolve the infestation in a timely manner. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about rodents coming into her home. The evidence suggests that the resident has current concerns about rodents entering her home. Therefore an order has been made for the landlord to contact her to discuss any concerns that she may have.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the size of her child’s bedroom

  1. In her March 2023 complaint, the resident explained that she was concerned that the room her daughter was sleeping in was too small. She asked the landlord to measure the room and consider her concerns further.
  2. What transpired over the following months is unclear. There is no evidence that the landlord considered or progressed the resident’s request. It was not until approximately 4 months later, in July 2023 that the landlord measured the bedroom. While the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one was unreasonable. The length of the delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this failing when it investigated her complaint, and to have offered her compensation for the inconvenience that she was caused.
  3. During this period, the resident also told the landlord that her daughter’s room was classed as a playroom in the original layout of the flat. However, there is no evidence that the landlord looked into the matter, or responded to this specifically. That it did not was a missed opportunity to fully and meaningfully investigate the resident’s concerns. That was unreasonable. If it had done so it may have prevented any further distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident.
  4. The EHO measured the bedroom around the same time and told the landlord on 31 July 2023 that it was unsuitable to be classed as a bedroom as it was too small. However, it was not until the resident escalated her complaint in October 2023 that the landlord realised that it had not addressed the EHO’s comments. In its January 2024 stage 2 response, it said that this was a “human error” and acknowledged that this mistake should not have happened. It offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the failing. This was reasonable and went some way to put matters right.
  5. It also explained that as its measurements differed from the EHO’s, it needed to re-measure the bedroom. It is understandable that this may have caused the resident frustration as the bedroom had already been measured twice. However, as the landlord had to verify the EHO’s measurements before it could take any further action on the matter, its response was reasonable. It also said that it would place the resident on its management transfer list while it looked into the matter further. As the resident had requested to be placed on the list, that was reasonable.
  6. The resident raised a further complaint about the size of her daughter’s bedroom in October 2024.  This falls outside the scope of our investigation. However, its January 2025 complaint response to this complaint, the landlord explained that it had looked at the original layout of the resident’s flat. In doing so, it identified that her use of the rooms differed from the plan. It explained that the resident was using the kitchen/living room area as a kitchen/diner, the main bedroom as a living room, the second bedroom as the main bedroom and the playroom as her daughter’s room. It acknowledged that it had taken it too long to identify the issue and offered the resident £1200 for its failing. This was calculated at £200 for every year she had raised the issue which was 6 years from December 2018 to January 2025.
  7. This has meant that the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for its delay to resolve the issue that covered the period of this investigation. It also offered the resident £50 in recognition that it did not address the EHO’s comments in a timely manner. Taking this into consideration, the landlord has offered £250 compensation in relation to its failings for the period covered in this investigation. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance and is proportionate and reasonable for the failings highlighted in this report. Therefore, no further compensation will be ordered.
  8. However, it has been highlighted in this investigation that during 2023-2024 the landlord missed opportunities to meaningfully and fully investigate the issue. If it had done so, the resident may not have incurred further inconvenience and distress raising the matter again in October 2024. Especially as the landlord had acknowledged that the resident had been raising this concern for many years. Nevertheless, the landlord has now offered £1,200 compensation and an explanation on the room layout – so this is now resolved with reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord took approximately 6 months to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. That was a significant deviation from its 10 working days policy timescale. While sporadically, it is noted during that period, it updated the resident on the status of her complaint. It offered the resident £100 for its delayed response. Given the circumstances, this was reasonable and proportionate for this failing.
  3. The landlord issued it stage 2 response 3 months after the resident had escalated her complaint in October 2023. This was a significant deviation from its 20-working day response policy timescale. The landlord offered the resident £50 for this failing. This was reasonable.
  4. Overall, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within its policy timescales. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In recognition of these failings, the landlord offered the resident reasonable compensation. Therefore, no further compensation has been ordered.
  5. However, given the length of time it took it to respond to each complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether there were any lessons learnt. This may have gone some way to ensure that it mitigated any similar delays from occurring in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that there were rodents coming into her home.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to resolve the complaint about its handling of the resident’s concerns about the size of her child’s bedroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about rodents coming into her home.
    3. contact the resident to ascertain whether she has any current concerns about rodents coming into her home. If she does, it should reasonably investigate, including whether any further works are required as stated in Contractor A’s report.
  2. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident pay the compensation it offered to resolve the issues about the size of the room, if it has not already.
  2. The landlord may wish to consider completing learning lessons reviews on:
    1. the time taken to answer the queries about the room size in this case to take forward learning that could prevent similar delays in future.
    2. the complaint handling in this case – to understand what went wrong and to prevent similar failures in the future.