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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202414154)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414154

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for adaptations to the front door.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 4-bedroom house, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her husband and 4 children. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for her or her household. She has a 9-year old son who has ADHD and multiple other vulnerabilities, which she has informed the landlord of.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 12 March 2024. She said that she had been waiting for its adaptations team to contact her about a new adapted front door for her son. It had reportedly broken promises to call her about this, and she had been chasing the matter since July 2023, when the occupational therapist (OT) had made the referral for the door. She explained that the door was crucial to prevent her son from leaving the property to keep him safe.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 15 May 2024. It acknowledged that it had failed to follow its policies and resolve matters within its timescales. It had originally stated that it would replace the front door, however following a review, it had decided that the door did not need replacing. It had suggested an alternative solution to prevent her son from escaping the property. It apologised for its failings and offered her total compensation of £965, which comprised:
    1. £50 for its late complaint response.
    2. £100 in recognition of its failure to follow its complaint policy.
    3. £200 discretionary payment.
    4. £15 for a failed appointment on 22 December 2023.
    5. £600 for failing to follow its adaptations policy and for its miscommunication.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 19 May 2024. She said that she understood that financial considerations may have been the main factor in its decision, however saving money should not come at the expense of her child’s safety. She believed it had “discriminated” against her son as a result of his disabilities and put him at risk. She said she had waited for almost a year and the situation had caused “unbearable stress” due to its lack of service. It had promised to install the new front door in April 2024 and said it would fund this via disability grants.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 25 June 2024, the landlord said that it did not feel that a full front door replacement was necessary and it could be adapted to provide suitable security. Having spoken with the OT, it agreed to install 2 lockable sash stoppers at the top of the door. This, along with the existing locks, would prevent her son from being able to open the door unassisted. It had raised a works order with its repairs team who would make contact to schedule the work. It apologised for its late complaint response and offered £50 compensation for this, bringing its total compensation offer to £1,015.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She complained that she had been caused stress and upset by its missed calls and lack of replies to her about her attempts to make her front door safe for her disabled son, as recommended by the OT. The resident requested a new front door with a higher handle and locks to fix the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s correspondence, she stated that the delays and situation had caused “unbearable stress”, resulting in her becoming more reliant on prescription drugs. While we appreciate that the situation would likely have been distressing, it is beyond the authority or expertise of the Ombudsman to establish legal liability for such damages, or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts. We can, however, consider any inconvenience or distress that was likely caused as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. The resident also raised concerns that the landlord had “discriminated” against her son due to his disabilities. Allegations of discrimination are serious legal matters, which require a decision by a court of law. These matters therefore also fall outside of our authority and expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to the Equality Advisory and Support Service for guidance.
  3. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue these matters further, she can consider this via the courts.

Request for adaptations to the front door

  1. As part of the Ombudsman’s request for evidence, we asked for copies of the landlord’s policies which related to the complaint. The landlord did not provide a copy of its aids and adaptations policy. However, its website states that minor adaptations, costing less than £1,000, include grabrails, lever taps, and installing alert devices such as fire alarms. It requires an OT referral and aims to complete minor adaptations within 28 days. It states that major adaptations cost between £1,000 and £30,000, and include level access showers, stairlifts, and wheelchair accessible spaces. It also requires an OT referral for these, and will consider funding arrangements with the OT, but it has no timescale to complete major adaptations.
  2. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations. In its stage 1 response, it acknowledged that it had failed to follow its process and resolve the matter within its timescales. It also acknowledged that its communication had been confusing. It apologised for its failings and offered her compensation for these.
  3. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation, and offer to complete adaptations) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  4. The landlord received an OT referral on 11 July 2023, which explained the resident’s son having ADHD, ASD, anxiety, and sensory processing difficulties. It said that he often escaped from the home and recommended a new front door with a 5–point lever lock and key system.
  5. The records of 22 November 2023 show that the OT had been chasing an update, as the resident had heard nothing from the landlord since 19 July 2023. Its records also show that it had raised the work in-house. However, it was not until December 2023 that it made an appointment to complete the work. This demonstrates that the landlord did not follow its process of completing minor adaptations within 28 working days of receiving the OT referral. At this point there had been a delay of 5 months. This does not demonstrate that the landlord considered the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities, or that it gave due regard to its duties to make reasonable adjustments for these set out in the Equality Act 2010.
  6. The evidence also shows that the resident had made contact in December 2023 asking to discuss the proposed work. She did not feel that the addition of the lock would be suitable and wanted to speak to someone about it. She said that its operative had failed to attend on 22 December 2023 within the advised timescale. The landlord apologised and re-arranged the appointment for 3 January 2024.
  7. In the resident’s further correspondence in December 2023, she explained that she could not have a key for the front door. This was due to the fact that her son escaped from a window and it would take longer for her to find the key. Her son also managed to find keys and escape. She said it was a very difficult situation and suggested a door with a handle at the top.
  8. The resident chased the landlord on 2 January 2024, stating that she had not heard anything since 22 December 2023. She had received a reminder text of the appointment the following day but said that this should have been cancelled as per her instructions. She wrote again on 3 January 2024, expressing her disappointment that it had been 6 months without resolution. She felt there had been a misunderstanding with the referral. She wanted a new front door with a handle high up that her son could not reach. She had paid for other adaptations in her home, such as fencing and gates, and said that a door was not affordable.
  9. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day, apologised for the delay, and confirmed it had cancelled the appointment. It suggested that, if she believed the scope of the work was not appropriate, she should contact the OT who made the referral. The referral from the OT had recommended a 5-point lever lock and key system. The OT would be able to advise on available alternative options.
  10. The landlord’s response was reasonable in referring the resident back to the OT. It is appropriate for landlords to consider whether adaptations are necessary, appropriate, reasonable, and practical, and for their decisions to be guided by a suitably qualified OT. It is therefore reasonable for a landlord to decline requests where a referral has not been made. While the referral stated that a new front door was required with a 5-point lever lock, it had said that it could add the lock to the existing door. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  11. The evidence shows that the OT contacted the landlord on 9 January 2024. They asked if it was possible for an “outside” door to be offered with a 2–handle option. The family were asking for a high handle so that it was out of the child’s reach. They asked if this were something the landlord could source.
  12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 January 2024 stating that an auto lock would be her ideal solution. She said that she had contacted a company, who had visited to discuss her needs. This meant that the front door would lock upon closing. She asked if it could arrange the work.
  13. The landlord responded the following day stating that it was exploring the feasibility of a bespoke front door with a 2–handle option. This was not something it routinely installed and it had requested advice from its area manager. It would provide an update when it had a response.
  14. The landlord sent a further response to the resident on the same day, which said that it had received an updated adaptation proposal from the OT and had passed this onto the area manager. As soon as it had been approved, it would raise the works and book a suitable appointment.
  15. The landlord’s records of 29 January 2024 demonstrate that it was enquiring about the cost of the new front door, and whether this would exceed its minor adaptation budget. This demonstrates that it had not considered its policy or the costs prior to advising the resident that it would book in the works to replace the door. It appears to have confused the OT’s enquiry as being a new referral.
  16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 January 2024 stating that it would require a new OT referral confirming the need for a new front door. It would then obtain a quote for the work. This demonstrates that the landlord had provided conflicting information to the resident, having previously raised her expectations that it would go ahead with the work.
  17. On 6 February 2024, the resident responded to the landlord stating she was confused with its response. It had agreed to the work and then said it needed a new OT referral. She said it was unacceptable and had been ongoing since July 2023. The landlord responded the same day stating it had checked its system and did not have a referral for a new front door. It again asked her to liaise with the OT and advise them to forward their recommendation assessment report to enable it to action the required works accordingly.
  18. The resident wrote again to the landlord on 26 February 2023, stating that her complaint had not been resolved or responded to. She asked to escalate her complaint.
  19. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had failed to follow its policy and resolve matters within the timescales. It apologised for the inconvenience and acknowledged it had been a “drawn out” process. It had originally stated that the front door would be replaced and all that was required was authorisation. However, a review had been made and the team did not believe there was a requirement to replace the door. It said a 5-point lock could be added to the existing door with a key that could be removed. It acknowledged that she had expressed her concerns about the proposed work months prior. It apologised and empathised that its response was not the outcome she had been seeking, and that this had impacted her wellbeing due to worrying about her son.
  20. The landlord also stated that it was aware the resident had looked into hiring a private contractor to replace the front door and the cost was around £1,200. Due to this information, it was awarding an additional discretionary payment of £200 on top of a compensation award of £750. She would be able to review the cost of replacing the front door herself and it believed the award would go towards assisting in achieving this. This would also reduce any further upset the process had caused. It acknowledged that its communication had been misleading without any team taking ownership for the situation and updating her. It also offered £15 compensation for the missed appointment on 22 December 2023.
  21. While we appreciate that the situation was likely distressing for the resident, the landlord’s response was appropriate. It acknowledged that it failed to follow its policy and process. It showed empathy and apologised for its failings. At the time of its response, it had not received a new referral from the OT specifying the type of front door the resident had referred to. It could therefore only consider the previously recommended work. Had it replaced the door with a 5-point lever lock and key, this would not have satisfied the resident’s request. Its compensation offer was also reasonable and in excess of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommended award for maladministration, for such failures that adversely affected the resident, in the range of £100 to £600.
  22. In the resident’s escalation request, she stated that she had hoped for a positive outcome, however, this had not resolved the matter. She said that her family life had been stressful and she believed the landlord had “discriminated” against her son. It had been almost a year with no resolution. She had seen “a light at the end of the tunnel” only for this to be taken away. She said that she had been told to remove the key so her son could not unlock it, however she believed this was a fire risk if the key was elsewhere. Also, he would climb to reach a key. Her son was registered disabled and the landlord had let her down.
  23. The landlord’s records of 5 June 2024 show that it was chasing the OT for a response. It queried whether a new door would attract a disability grant. It suggested installing a sash jammer, which could be sited near the top of the front door. This would be out of reach of the child and restrict access. It was unable to replace the front door and was continuing to try to make contact with the OT.
  24. The following day, the landlord made contact with the OT to discuss the original referral of a 5-point lock. It explained how the lock would work and that a key would still be required to lock the front door. It also discussed the fact that the child was able to stand on a stool and there was an awareness that this was a challenging adaptation to achieve. The OT was aware of its proposal of a sash jammer and agreed this was something that could be offered in an attempt to help.
  25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had been in touch with the OT and property services manager. It said that the property was relatively new and the front door was in good condition. However, the resident felt that it was not sufficiently secure to prevent her son from escaping onto a potentially dangerous road. Having assessed the situation and possible solutions, it could adapt the door to provide suitable security. Following a discussion with the OT, it had recommended installing 2 lockable sash stoppers at the top of the door. This, along with the existing locks, would provide the same security as a specialist door and prevent her son being able to open it unassisted. It had raised a works order with its repairs team, who would contact her to schedule the work.
  26. The landlord’s response was reasonable and demonstrates that it had considered alternative solutions, having discussed these with the OT. It would appear that no new referral had been received to support a bespoke front door. It also shows that the landlord was committed to assisting the resident in resolving the situation.
  27. Following its final response, the landlord’s records of 1 July 2024, refer to attending to install a sash stopper on the front door. However, it had been unable to install the sash jammer and recommended the sourcing of a suitable lock. It is not known why a further order was raised in September 2024 to install a sash jammer, given that it had already attempted this remedy. The resident declined the sash jammer on 20 September 2024 and was advised to contact her OT to discuss alternative options.
  28. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that a further referral was made by the OT on 3 October 2024. This recommended to replace the existing front door lock with one that could be locked internally with a key. It also recommended a key safe internally near the front door to allow the keys to be kept near the door to reduce the risks in the event of a fire and prevent the resident’s son from accessing the keys. Its records indicate that she declined the work.
  29. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation and the distress that this must have caused her. While the landlord did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint, or state how it would prevent similar delays in the future, its response was reasonable. It acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered to put things right. We appreciate that the solution it offered was not feasible, but it had attempted to carry out the work recommended and discussed with the OT. Without a further referral and specification for a new bespoke front door, the landlord was limited in taking further action. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in this matter.
  30. The landlord has, as a result, been recommended to pay the resident the compensation it previously offered her for its failures in handling her front door adaptation requests if not already paid. It has also been recommended to consider liaising with her and the OT to try and identify a suitable solution to resolve her outstanding concerns about the door. It has been further recommended to ensure its records are up to date in relation to her and her household’s vulnerabilities, and to review this complaint and consider how it can prevent delays in its aids and adaptations process in the future.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The evidence demonstrates that the resident asked to raise a complaint in December 2023 and February 2024. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge her requests.
  3. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of May 2024, it apologised for failing to raise complaints and offered £50 for its late response and a further £100 for failing to follow its complaints policy. In its June 2024 stage 2 response, it apologised for its late reply and offered £50 compensation. Its compensation offer of £200 was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration in the range of £100 to £600 for such failures that adversely affected the resident. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the associated complaint. It has therefore been recommended below to pay this to the resident if not already paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Request for adaptations to the front door.
    2. Associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that:
    1. The landlord should pay directly to the resident £1,015 offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, if not already paid.
    2. The landlord should consider liaising with the resident and the OT to try and identify a suitable solution.
    3. The landlord should ensure its records are up to date in relation to the resident and her household’s vulnerabilities.
    4. The landlord should review this complaint and consider how it can prevent delays in its aids and adaptations process in the future.