Clarion Housing Association Limited (202425422)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425422

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 May 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:
1. Transfer request.
2. Requests for repairs to the back door following an attempted break–in.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in September 2016. The property is a 2–bedroom ground–floor flat.
In September 2024, the resident reported an attempted break-in at the property, during which both lock mechanisms on the back door were damaged. On 2 September 2024 the landlord attended outside of normal hours and secured the door by screwing it shut. The resident contacted the landlord the following day, saying:
1. She had reported that someone had attempted to break into the property, causing damage to the back door.
2. She was unhappy in the property as she could not use the garden due to the neighbours throwing items into it.
3. She felt vulnerable due to her ex-partner driving past the property.
4. Her car had been vandalised.
5. She felt unsafe and wanted a management move.
On 6 September 2024, the landlord contacted the police to request information regarding the reports the resident had made. The landlord informed the resident that it was waiting for the police’s response before deciding whether her case qualified for a management move. In response, the resident requested an email confirming that her home was unsafe, so she could present this to the local authority to support her housing application. She also expressed concerns about a fire hazard at the property, noting that the back door had been screwed shut, which could pose a safety risk.
On 25 September 2024, the resident complained to the landlord and it raised a stage 1 complaint. She again reported experiencing antisocial behaviour (ASB) and requested a management transfer following the attempted break-in. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had informed her she did not meet the criteria for a transfer, which she disagreed with. Furthermore, she stated that she was unhappy with the outcome of her tenancy transfer request and requested that the landlord arrange for her to be rehoused.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 October 2024. It said that:
1. It was sorry for its delay in responding to the complaint. It had required additional time to ensure a full and comprehensive response was provided.
2. It had discussed with the resident the findings of its investigation and the steps it had taken to resolve the issue and any outstanding actions. It did not uphold her complaint as it said it had followed its policies and procedures when denying the transfer and rejecting her appeal.
3. Although the resident had reported the issues to the police, the reports were not investigated by the police and no further action was taken. Therefore the landlord was unable to confirm a serious risk and satisfy its management transfer criteria.
4. It had provided the resident with alternative rehousing options, such as a mutual exchange or registering with the local authority. In addition, it had offered additional security measures for the property by way of battery powered alarms for the windows and doors. It had not heard back from the resident in relation to this.
The same day, the resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its decision. She reiterated that she was experiencing ASB which included an attempted burglary, garden furniture being stolen, and her car being vandalised. She said the situation was affecting her mental health as well as her children. Furthermore, she said she had 3 emails from the police to support her need for a move.
On 23 December 2024, the landlord issued its final response. It reaffirmed that the resident did not meet its criteria for a management move. The landlord clarified that the police evidence did not indicate a significant risk of harm, and after the resident’s appeal, the decision was upheld as no additional evidence of risk was provided. Regarding the ASB, the landlord stated that an action plan was put in place and Victim Support contact details were shared with the resident. It also confirmed that the door was made safe and follow-up work was arranged; however, these appointments were rescheduled due to resource constraints. The landlord further explained that it was experiencing difficulties sourcing the necessary parts for the door, and as a result, the door would be replaced once quotes were obtained. Finally, it offered the resident a total of £255 compensation. This was made up of:
1. £30 for the 2 rescheduled appointments.
2. £100 for its delay in carrying out the repair.
3. £50 for its failure to follow the correct process.
4. £75 for its delay in responding to the complaint.
When the resident initially contacted this Service, she was seeking a replacement for the rear door and to be rehoused. The landlord has confirmed that new French doors were fitted on 5 April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service acknowledges that the situation has been difficult for the resident and recognises that the issues reported to landlord have caused her distress. We note that as a resolution to the complaint she asked to be rehoused.
It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to the management transfer request and repairs raised, and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience in making orders to put things right. This does not include ordering a landlord to rehouse a resident. Therefore, our investigation will consider the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation has had on her mental health and wellbeing. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, as mentioned above, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.

Transfer request

It is recognised that there is a shortage of social housing across England. Landlords are therefore required to manage their stock effectively. This means allocating homes to those most in need. The key questions for this investigation are whether the landlord followed its policy and procedure, treated the resident fairly, and communicated with her effectively.
The landlord’s management transfer policy sets out when it will rehouse tenants outside its allocations criteria. For example, it may do so in the event of a “serious risk of harm or threat” to a resident or their family making it unsafe for them to live at the property following ASB or harassment. Such a risk has to be confirmed in writing by “the police or other specialist professional agency”. The policy also says that additional security measures will be considered.
The evidence shows that on 3 September 2024, the resident asked the landlord to consider a management transfer, explaining that she was experiencing ASB and did not feel safe in her home. On the same day, the landlord’s records show that it made 2 attempts to contact the resident. This was an appropriate action in the investigation process to establish the facts.
On 4 September 2024, the evidence shows that the landlord and the resident completed an action plan. This plan outlined that the resident would contact the police regarding any future ASB incidents and would provide any relevant evidence to the landlord upon request. Additionally, she was advised to contact the local authority to explore her housing options. The resident was also given details for Victim Support. These measures were appropriate for the landlord to take, as they demonstrated support for the resident in seeking a resolution. Furthermore, it was suitable for the landlord to advise the resident that she should contact the police and share any information requested by the landlord. This approach aligns with the landlord’s management transfer policy, which states that confirmation in writing from the police is required to establish any risk associated with a resident continuing to live at a property.
On 6 September 2024, the landlord contacted the police to request a disclosure of information regarding the resident’s reports. On the same day, it also reached out to the resident, informing her that the ASB was under investigation according to its ASB policy and that a full police disclosure had been requested to determine whether her case met the criteria for a management transfer. Additionally, the landlord asked her to confirm if she was involved with any other agencies. This approach was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord was adhering to its management transfer policy, which, as highlighted above, requires written confirmation of risk from the police or other relevant professional agencies.
On 9 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the local authority had requested a letter from the landlord supporting her rehousing request. She also stated that the ASB was worsening. The landlord responded on 11 September 2024, explaining that it was awaiting the complete police disclosure regarding the issue before it could assess whether her case met the criteria for a management transfer. This response was appropriate and aligned with the landlord’s policy.
On 17 September 2024, the landlord received the police disclosure information. The same day, it contacted the resident to inform her that the police-provided information did not satisfy the management transfer criteria. Based on the details in the police disclosure, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the criteria were not met. Additionally, the landlord acted promptly in informing the resident of the outcome, which was fair to her.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to transfer her to another property and raised a stage 1 complaint on 25 September 2024. She said she had emails from the police supporting her move, dated 4, 9, and 18 September 2024. Internal correspondence of 7 October 2024 said that the landlord had not received any emails from the police supporting a move, only a disclosure which confirmed the reports the resident made and demonstrated no risk. It went on to say that it had provided the resident with information on how to explore other housing options.
On 10 October 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated that it had not received any information indicating a risk of harm, despite the reports the resident had made to the police. The response advised the resident to contact its tenancy team, which had previously provided information about housing options such as mutual exchange. Additionally, the landlord reiterated its offer of extra security measures, as it had not received a response from the resident regarding this offer. Providing additional security measures was a proactive step by the landlord early in the process, demonstrating a solution-focused approach aimed at enhancing the resident’s sense of safety.
The emails referred to by the resident were reviewed by this Service and did not appear to confirm a “serious risk of harm or threat to the tenant or their family that makes it unsafe for them to continue living at the property,” as outlined in the landlord’s policy. While 2 of the emails did indicate that the police were “supportive” of her request to move, they did not provide the necessary written confirmation of a “serious risk of harm”. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the criteria had not been met.
On 11 October 2024, the landlord spoke with the resident. The case notes indicate that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She explained that the police had not asked her to provide a statement regarding the reported issues, but this did not mean she was not at risk. She expressed concern that the landlord did not consider her to be at risk.
Between October and December 2024, the resident and landlord continued discussions regarding the management transfer. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 23 December 2024, stating that it had offered the resident additional security measures on 6 September 2024 related to her ASB case. However, it noted that it had not received a response from the resident concerning this offer. It was appropriate for the landlord to reoffer the resident additional security measures. It could have gone further, by providing details of the process and timeframes, to assist her in making a decision.
Regarding the management transfer, the landlord’s final response stated that it had processed the request but did not have any police evidence to support it. The response clearly outlined that, in accordance with its policy, evidence of a serious risk of harm was required. Furthermore, the appeal was not upheld for the same reason. This was an appropriate response, which was clear and in line with the landlord’s management transfer policy.
In summary, the landlord clearly stated from the outset that the resident did not meet the criteria for a transfer. It clarified that the police disclosure information did not show a “serious risk of harm or threat to the tenant or their family that would make it unsafe for them to remain at the property”, which was a necessary condition according to its policy. The landlord also provided evidence that it had offered the resident additional security measures on multiple occasions and supplied information on how to consider other housing options.
For the reasons outlined above, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Requests for repairs to the back door following an attempted break–in

The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy says that an emergency repair is one that jeopardises the health and safety of the resident. It says that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.
The resident reported an attempted break-in at the property on 2 September 2024. The repair log indicates that the landlord responded on the same day to secure the back door by screwing it shut. The notes confirm that the glass was intact, but both lock mechanisms were damaged and follow–on works were required to assess for a repair or replacement of the door. The landlord responded as an emergency, which was in accordance with its policy and was therefore appropriate.
On 9 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to express concerns that the back door – which had been screwed shut – posed a fire risk. Although the landlord responded 2 days later, it did not address the resident’s concerns regarding the fire hazard. On 11 September 2024, it advised the resident to contact its repair service if there were any repair issues with the back door. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord conducted a risk assessment or responded to her in a manner that would alleviate her worries. Furthermore, it was unfair on the resident to put the onus back on her when she was clearly concerned about a potential fire risk. This approach was not appropriate and indicated that the landlord was not taking her concerns sufficiently seriously.
The repair log for 30 September 2024 shows that the landlord’s contractors attended the property, but no details were provided as to what this visit entailed, just that follow–on works were required. The follow–on works were rescheduled twice by the landlord due to “resource” issues and once at the request of the resident. The lack of contractor notes indicates a record keeping failure. Accurate and complete records enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The landlord detailed a timeline of events regarding the door repair in its final complaint response of 23 December 2024. It acknowledged that 2 appointments had to be rescheduled and apologised for the inconvenience. The landlord stated that after a visit on 5 December 2024, the door was “made safe”, but it was reported that the necessary parts could not be obtained. Therefore, a decision was made to replace the door, which would take approximately 12 weeks to manufacture. Additionally, the landlord offered the resident £30 compensation associated with rescheduling the 2 appointments and £100 as compensation for the delay in completing the repair.
The reason for the door being “made safe” again on 5 December 2024 remains unclear, as the visit on 2 September 2024 recommended that an assessment be conducted to determine whether repairs or a replacement were necessary. Additionally, since no details were provided regarding the visit on 30 September 2024, there is no evidence that this assessment occurred. This lack of clarity was inappropriate and contributed to unnecessary delays in resolving the issue for the resident. The landlord later confirmed that the door was replaced on 5 April 2025, which was 7 months after the initial report. This extended delay was unreasonable, even considering manufacturing times, and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
In conclusion, while the landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the initial emergency repair following the attempted break-in, there were notable failings in its subsequent communication and record-keeping. Regarding the visit on 30 September 2024, the landlord did not show that it addressed the resident’s fire safety concerns by conducting a risk assessment. It would have been appropriate for it to do so to before concluding that a routine repair was sufficient rather than an emergency repair. The failure to adequately address the resident’s fire safety concerns, along with rescheduling delays, incomplete documentation of repair visits and prolonged delays in repairing or replacing the door, was frustrating for the resident and undermined her confidence and trust in the landlord. The landlord acknowledged these issues, and the offer of £130 compensation demonstrated an attempt to put things right. Nevertheless, we find that this was not sufficient to reflect the impact on her.
Therefore, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the back door. As a result, £230 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is broken down into £30 for the missed appointments, £100 for the delay in replacing the door and £100 for its communication regarding the fire safety issues. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide recommended award levels. Instead it says, “when calculating an award of compensation, it will consider the extent, severity, and impact of the failure”. Our award is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there have been failures “which adversely affected the resident”.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. Complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 responses will be provided within 10 working days and stage 2 responses will be provided within 20 working days.
The resident requested to raise a stage 1 complaint on 25 September 2024. The landlord did not appear to have acknowledge the complaint as per its policy. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 October 2024, which was 11 working days later. Although this was 1 day outside of its policy timescale of 10 working days, the length of the delay was minimal and would not have caused the resident any significant detriment.
The resident remained dissatisfied and requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 11 October 2024. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint within the specified 5 working day timescale and responded on 21 November 2024, informing her that it was extending the deadline for its response to 19 December 2024. However, it failed to meet this new deadline and subsequently contacted the resident on 19 December 2024, further extending the response deadline. It was not appropriate for the landlord to be late in providing its response, even after the extension. Additionally, it was unfair to the resident that she was only informed of the second extension on the day the response was due. Improved communication would have served to manage her expectations more effectively.
The landlord provided its final response on 23 December 2024. This was 51 working days after the resident’s escalation request, and significantly outside of its policy timescale of 20 working days. The landlord apologised and offered £125 compensation for the delay and its “failure to follow the correct process”, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
As mentioned previously, the landlord’s compensation policy does not provide recommended award levels. Instead it says, “when calculating an award of compensation, it will consider the extent, severity, and impact of the failure”. Our remedies guidance sets out that compensation of £100 and above is likely to be appropriate to put things right when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. Considering the circumstances of this case, we have determined the landlord’s offer of £125 in compensation for errors in its complaint handling was appropriate to put things right for the resident in this case. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the back door.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

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 failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £230 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to the back door. This can be reduced by any amount already paid in relation to the back door repair delays.
3. Pay the resident the £125 compensation it previously offered to her for its delayed stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this payment is made.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, if it has not already done so.