Clarion Housing Association Limited (202414657)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414657

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 April 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 handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 16 February 2024. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom property. The resident’s son has ADHD, additional needs and suffers from epilepsy.
Prior to the resident accepting the property from the landlord, due to her son’s need for adaptations in the property, she visited the property with an occupational therapist (OT) from the Local Authority to assess the suitability of the property. Following this, the OT sent a minor adaptation brief to the landlord, on 9 February 2024, requesting the following in the property:
1. Window restrictors on 1 of the bedroom windows.
2. To remove a sash window in the son’s bedroom and replace with a standard window.
3. Install high level locks on the front, kitchen, bathroom, and main bedroom doors.
4. Fit high fencing on all sides of the garden.
5. Fit a higher banister on the stairs and enclose the balustrades with a transparent material.
6. Fit a rail going up the stairs.
The landlord wrote to the OT on 9 February 2024 confirming that all the adaptations should be feasible and be completed within the remit of the aids and adaptations team, and it had booked the works for 26 February 2024.
On 11 March 2023, the landlord’s repair team confirmed that it had reviewed the request and as the cost would exceed its £1,000 aids and adaptations budget, the OT would need to apply for disabled facilities grant (DFG). The landlord informed the OT of this on 13 March 2024.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 19 March 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord cancelled the adaptations due to being over budget, but no one had informed her of the cancellation.
2. The landlord had told her someone would contact her within 28 days which she found unacceptable given the original request was made 4 weeks earlier.
3. Her home was unsafe which she said was disappointing especially given her previous tenancy was due to end on the 23 March 2024.
The resident added to her complaint on 4 April 2024 that the landlord had initially accepted the adaptations request made by her OT which had led her to give notice on her previous property.
The landlord confirmed to the OT on 8 April 2024 that it would install window restrictors to the bedroom, locks to the doors and install the rail but the DFG would be needed for fencing, banister, and the replacement of the window.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on the 30 April 2024 to undertake a joint visit with its surveyor and the OT.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 May 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed that it had initially agreed to adaptations requested by the OT on 9 February 2024 following which the resident had signed the tenancy agreement.
2. The landlord scheduled the works for 10 March 2024 but on review it realised the works would be over the £1,000 budget allowed for aids and adaptations and therefore, it cancelled the work. The landlord apologised for not communicating this to the resident.
3. On 8 April 2024, the landlord agreed to complete some of the minor works and agreed with the OT that it required a DFG to fund the fence and banister and other major works.
4. The landlord completed the minor work on 30 April 2024, and it apologised that this was outside of its 28 day service level agreement.
5. It accepted that its communication between itself, the resident and the OT was not of the standard it strived for and accepted that if the property was unsafe, it should have made a decision to delay the move in date while it carried out the aids and adaptations.
6. It confirmed it had scheduled further minor works for 3 June 2024, but the fencing and banister would be assessed with the OT with the intention of applying for a DFG.
7. It upheld the complaint and offered compensation of £1894.45, made up of the following:
  1. £100 for the delayed complaint response.
  2. £50 for completing repairs outside of the agreed timescales.
  3. £100 to reflect the repeated chasing by the resident.
  4. £100 for its poor communication.
  5. £1544 rent rebate which it retained on the rent account.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on the 3 June 2024 as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had originally agreed to complete all the works prior to her accepting the tenancy.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 July 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed the history of the complaint and confirmed that following the joint visit with the OT on 30 April 2024, it was agreed the major works would be progressed by the OT via a DFG.
2. The landlord said any adaptations needed should be identified prior to sign up to ensure it can both accommodate and agree any requests. It confirmed it was working closely with the local authority to ensure all followed the process in line with its aids and adaptations policy. It accepted that, regarding the resident’s complaint, that process had not been correctly followed. It awarded £50 compensation for this failure.
3. It accepted it had not fully considered the costs of works and the need for local authority funding at the outset and it had previously awarded compensation to reflect its poor communication around that.
4. It said it had since reflected that it should have considered the works prior to scheduling them and although the outcome would not have changed, it would have enabled it to manage expectations better. It awarded £50 compensation for this failure.
5. It confirmed the fencing work would take place on 15 and 16 July 2024.
In referring her complaint to this Service, the resident remained dissatisfied that the adaptations requested remained outstanding.
Throughout the rest of 2024, the OT continued to request a joint visit with the landlord to undertake a feasibility assessment for the balustrades and other safety concerns in the property. The Ombudsman understands this took place on 3 February 2025 and the landlord has completed no further work.
On 24 January 2025, the landlord offered the resident a further £250 compensation to reflect the delay in completing the joint feasibility assessment.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy set out that it will consider formal adaption recommendations on a case by case basis for any components or areas of the home that it is usually responsible for maintaining.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint and escalation request within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Any extension at stage 1 would not exceed a further 10 working days and would not exceed a further 20 working days at stage 2.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations in the property.

This Service does not have the expertise to assess whether the property was suitable for the resident or whether it met her son’s needs. We have, however, considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for adaptations and whether this was done promptly and in line with its policies and procedures.
When the OT sent the request for adaptations to the landlord, prior to the resident accepting the property, the landlord responded the same date to say the requested adaptations should be feasible within its aids and adaptations team. However, this response came from the landlord’s available homes team. Given the cost was not adequately considered at this stage, it suggests a lack of understanding of cost and it, therefore, would have been useful and more appropriate in this case for the request to have been considered by aids and adaptations team themselves to ensure the requests could be made without the need for the DFG. The lack of effective communication between the teams led to the complaint and delays in this case and the landlord should consider any learning it can take from this going forward.
As soon as the landlord sent the request to its repairs team, it noted that the adaptations would exceed the landlord’s £1,000 budget for such requests. While it was unfortunate the landlord did not consider this at the earliest opportunity, the landlord has a policy which is must follow.
In these circumstances, we would expect the landlord to have clear communication with the resident, to set out the items which it could still complete under the budget and to explain to the resident her options with regards to the OT applying for a DFG. In this case, the landlord did not communicate any of the above to the resident and instead it cancelled the appointment without explanation. This was completely inappropriate and left the resident in a situation where she had a house that was unsafe for her son and without a timeline of when, or if, it might complete any of the requested adaptations.
The landlord did however communicate its decision to the OT and explained to the OT the need for the DFG to complete the further works.
However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered which of the adaptations it could have completed within its budget and to have held discussions with both the OT and resident with regards to this. Not doing so caused unnecessary delays and further highlights a lack of effective communication between different teams within the landlord.
It was not until a telephone call with the resident on 22 March 2024 when the landlord considered if it could complete some of the adaptations while awaiting the DFG. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered this prior to the resident asking. Especially given that during that time the resident raised a formal complaint setting out how unsafe the property was for her family due to her son’s additional needs. The landlord’s lack of response highlighted a lack of understanding for the resident’s situation, a lack of empathy and was not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
Following contact from the OT on 8 April 2024, the landlord appropriately agreed to undertake the minor works under its aids and adaptations budget and agreed with the OT that the other works, including the balustrades and fencing would be completed following a DFG application to be completed by the OT.
While it was reasonable to schedule further works for completion on 18 April 2024, the evidence shows that no one attended to carry out these tasks. Internal communications reveal that the landlord was still unclear about the agreed-upon works. The landlord must ensure it has effective and robust systems to track and monitor repairs, ensuring it completes them as scheduled. Failure to do so not only caused the resident to take an unnecessary day off work but also required her to chase the landlord for updates.
The landlord completed the minor works on 30 April 2024. This was outside of the landlord’s published timescales for completing aids and adaptations, which it says in its policy it would complete within 28 days. While this was unreasonable, especially given the unsafe nature of the property without the adaptations, the landlord accepted this failing in its stage 1 response and offered the resident £50 to reflect the failing.
Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged that it should have considered delaying the resident’s move until it completed the adaptations. While it was appropriate for the landlord to accept this failing, there is no evidence of further discussions with the resident about the property’s suitability given the outstanding adaptations. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss this matter further with the resident, outline its position on alternative accommodation, or explore temporary measures to ensure safety in the home for the resident and her son.
On the 30 April 2024, the landlord and OT undertook a joint visit to the property to assess the home for further adaptations and understand the feasibility of the outstanding requested adaptations. While it is not clear why it took the landlord almost 2 months after initially rejecting the aids and adaptations request to undertake a visit to complete the feasibility assessment, it was useful that it did undertake such a visit to ensure the adaptations could be progressed for the resident.
Throughout May 2024, it is clear from the internal communications that there was lots of confusion around the outstanding works, who was to be obtaining further information for the DFG and what other works it would complete and when. The communication is further evidence of a lack of effective working between the different teams within the landlord. Furthermore, during that time the resident was unsure herself what works the landlord was due to complete and when, all the while trying to keep her son safe in the property. The confusion and delays led to the resident adding the landlords further lack of accountability in completing the aids and adaptations to her complaint.
It is also clear from the evidence that some of the delays in this case were due to the uncertainty around whether the OT had sent a DFG application. While the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of the OT, in this case, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have kept regular contact with the OT to ensure a joined up approach to resolving the urgent housing situation for the resident. Instead, the OT spent a significant amount of time chasing the landlord for updates on the works it intended to complete and consistently asking for a further joint visit.
The landlord completed further minor adaptations, on 3 June 2024, following the joint visit. The further works were agreed on 30 April 2024; therefore, the landlord appropriately completed these works within its published 28 day timescale.
In the resident’s request for stage 2 of the complaint process, she raised the issue of the landlord not addressing the fencing. Although the landlord considered the request to replace the fencing too costly under the aids and adaptations policy, the landlord agreed in June 2024 to undertake repairs to ensure its safety. While this may have been disappointing for the resident, the landlord has limited resources and is entitled to perform repairs instead of a full replacement when a repair would resolve the issue.
Furthermore, the landlord clearly outlined the areas of the fencing it would replace to manage the resident’s expectations. Although it was disappointing that it took the landlord five months to agree to the minor repairs, there was ongoing communication with the OT about the request for a full replacement as a major repair through a DFG. Therefore, not all delays can be attributed to the landlord. However, when delays occur due to awaiting funding or more information, we expect the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident to manage expectations. The lack of communication during this period about the fence is further evidence of the landlord’s failings in this case.
One of the main concerns for the resident about her son was the banister on the internal stairs and the need to enclose the gaps between balustrades to prevent her son from climbing through. The evidence related to this adaptation request shows that the landlord appropriately told the OT this would need to be pursued using a DFG. As with the other items raised in this request, while it was reasonable for the landlord to await further funding, its communication with the resident and the OT about this issue did not meet the required standard, resulting in poorly managed expectations. We understand that these issues can be complex and time-consuming. The evidence suggests that the landlord did not grasp the seriousness of the situation.
The issue of enclosing the balustrades was complex and the landlord and OT seemed unable to find a material suitable, that met the required health and safety standards, to complete the requested task. However, following the stage 2 response, the OT spent months chasing the landlord, asking repeatedly for a joint visit to the property with the surveyor to undertake a further feasibility study. The OT clearly set out the reasons for a further joint visit and the importance of working together to find a solution to the issue of the stairs. The Ombudsman understands this visit did not take place until February 2025, a year after the first request. During the period from the stage 2 until the joint visit, the landlord has provided no evidence to show it communicated with the resident with regards to the delay to manage her expectations.
While the landlord wrote to the resident on 24 January 2025, as an extension of this complaint, and offered the resident a further £250 compensation to reflect the delay in undertaking a further feasibility assessment, the extra compensation offered is not reflective of the failings by the landlord during that period.
In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident a rent rebate of £1,544.45 which it kept on the account. Although it is unclear exactly how it came to this calculation, given the delays in completing the adaptations it could through its aids and adaptations policy, it was reasonable of the landlord to provide a rent rebate to the resident. However, the resident questioned this amount to which the landlord did not provide a response. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided a calculation on how it came to this amount to ensure it managed the expectations of the resident.
Overall, the landlord did not appropriately address or manage the concerns raised by the OT and the resident, neglecting the family while they lived in a home considered unsafe by professionals. The landlord’s ineffective communication systems between departments to track aids and adaptations resulted in prolonged and unnecessary delays in making the required adaptations. Operational failures prevented the implementation of the OT assessment. When the landlord did take action, its did not follow procedures effectively. The further delays and poor communication compounded these failings which significantly affected the resident.
In this case, the landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £2,144.45, including the £1,544.45 rent rebate for its handling of the aids and adaptations request. The landlord had tried to put things right for the resident through its offer of compensation and had acknowledged some of its failures. However, its offer of redress did not go far enough to reflect the full impact of its failures here.
As such there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations.
The landlord is to pay compensation of £2,644.45, made up of the following:
1. £1,544.45 rent rebate if it has not already credited this to the resident’s account.
2. £600 previously offered in this case if it has not already paid this.
3. An added £500 to reflect the failings in this case, made up of the following:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience.
  2. £250 for the time and trouble.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident raised a formal complaint on 19 March 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this, in line with its complaints policy, on 22 March 2024.
The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 24 May 2024, 36 working days after the response was due. This is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Not only did the resident chase the landlord during that time, but the landlord did not communicate the delay to the resident to manage her expectations. The Code sets out that where a landlord cannot provide a response within the required timescales, it must communicate that to the resident, provide an explanation and a timescale of when to expect a response. The landlord’s lack of communication was not appropriate in this case.
However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord accepted that its response was outside of its published timescales and offered the resident £100 compensation to reflect the failing found.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident 1 day outside of the published timescales. While this delay is minimal, the landlord needs to ensure it strives to provide complaint responses within the timescales set out.
While the landlord’s complaint handling could have been improved, it accepted its failing and offered compensation commensurate with the failings identified.
Therefore, there was an offer of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress in the landlord’s compliant handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this case.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £2,644.45. The landlord must pay this less any amount previously paid in this case.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a timebound action plan setting out the actions it intends to take to complete the aids and adaptations for the resident. If there are any adaptations it is unable to complete, it must set this out to and explain the reasons why.
Within six weeks of this determination, the landlord should review the circumstances of this case and its processes in relation to aids and adaptations requests. This review should aim to understand why its policies and processes were not followed and identify any lessons to improve future practices. The landlord should provide a report on its findings to this Service and the resident once complete.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation, the landlord should pay the £100 compensation offered to the resident for its failings found in its complaint handling.
The repair of the fencing remains a concern for the resident and the landlord should consider discussing this further with the resident and considering if it could undertake any further work, or obtain further funding, to replace the fence as per the recommendation in the OT report.