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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202431177)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431177

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 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

  1. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s request for adaptations.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident lives in the property with her 2 children, both of whom have special needs. On 18 April 2023 an Occupational Therapist (OT), via the Local Authority (LA), recommended the landlord complete a series of works to adapt the resident’s property for her. This included constructing a new bathroom downstairs. On 23 August 2023 the landlord declined to complete the works on the basis that they were structural in nature. Under the proposed scheme the landlord and LA were each to provide 50% of the necessary funding.
  2. On 19 August 2024 the resident complained about this decision. She asked the landlord to reconsider and emphasized how the additional bathroom would transform her and her children’s lives. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 4 September 2024. It explained its decision to decline the works was correct since its policy prohibits adaptations of a structural nature.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 9 September 2024. She complained the landlord had failed to properly consider her circumstances, the OT recommendations, or the relevant policy and legislation. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 7 November 2024. It restated the position set out at stage 1. It also contacted the OT to ask whether there were alternative works it could consider. It acknowledged delays in handling the stage 2 complaint and offered the resident £250 compensation for this.
  4. The resident is not satisfied with this outcome. To resolve her complaint, she would like the landlord to carry out the works detailed by the OT.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s request for adaptations.

  1. The landlord’s policy on aids and adaptations sets out that it will only carry out major adaptations that are reasonable and practical for the property and are supported by a local authority OT assessment. It will not allow any structural changes within the property, i.e. through floor lifts, extensions or loft conversions, except in exceptional circumstances.
  2. Section 20 of the Equality Act (2010) sets out that landlords must consider making adjustments for disabled residents. To do so, they must appropriately consider whether the adjustments are practicable and if they would overcome the disadvantages experienced by disabled residents. In deciding whether an adjustment is practical, landlord’s must be able to demonstrate clear decision making in balancing the relevant considerations like cost, need, and feasibility.
  3. The landlord refused to carry out the works the OT recommended on the basis that they were of a structural nature. There are no records which provide any insight into how the landlord reached this decision. In any case, its decision to refuse the works on this basis alone was not in keeping with its policy. The policy sets out that the landlord will carry out structural works of the type recommended by the OT, in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the landlord should have considered whether any such circumstances applied before making its decision.
  4. However, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it did so. Furthermore, it failed to evidence that it considered the referral as per its duties under the Equality Act. It also failed to justify its decision to the resident with suitable reference to its policy or the Equality Act. Therefore, we consider the landlord failed to suitably address the resident’s request for adaptations, and that this likely caused her distress.
  5. For this reason, we will order it pays her some compensation to put this right. The Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to carry out the recommended works, however, we will order it to reconsider the OT recommendations with due regard for its aids and adaptations policy and obligations under the Equality Act.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay awards of £250 to £700 to put right considerable failure where there is no permanent impact on complainant. Examples could include:
    1. Misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about complainant’s rights
    2. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses
    3. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy
    4. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of the complaint.
  7. In calculating the appropriate sum of compensation we have considered that the landlord repeatedly failed to appropriately address the resident’s request for adaptations in line with its policy. We have considered the resident’s circumstances in caring for 2 disabled children, and her description of the difficulties she faces without the adaptations she seeks.
  8. We have also considered how, given these circumstances, the distress she incurred as a result of the landlord’s omission was likely greater than it would have been in different circumstances. We note, on the other hand, that the landlord acted positively by contacting the LA following the resident’s stage 2 escalation to ask it to provide alternative adaptations for it to consider. With the above in mind, we will order the landlord pays her £500 to put things right. We consider this figure properly balances the landlord’s failings with its positive action.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy obliges it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and address them within 10 working days. It is obliged to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within the same timeframe and address them within 20 working days. When it is not possible to meet these timescales, the landlord is to explain this to the resident and provide updated timescales. Its compensation policy states it will pay discretionary sums of £50 to £250 to put things right when its own service failure has caused distress and inconvenience, but where this impact is not significant or long term.
  2. The landlord addressed the resident’s stage 1 complaint 7 working days past its timescales. While we note this likely had some impact on the resident, this impact was likely very minor given the slight nature of the delay.
  3. The landlord then delayed in addressing the resident’s stage 2 complaint by 23 working days, and also failed to update her during this time. We consider this likely caused some distress given the length of the delay. However, the landlord has already offered £250 in compensation to put this right. This sits at the top of its compensation scale, and we therefore consider it sufficient to put right both this failing and the minor delay at stage 1.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s request for adaptations.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £500 for its failure to appropriately consider her request for adaptations.
  2. The landlord is to reconsider the resident’s request for adaptations as per its policy and with due regard for its duties under the Equality Act. It must set out it reasons for the decision in writing to the resident, and copy its decision to the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  4. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident £250 it offered at stage 2 of the complaints process, if it has not already done so.