Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202419523)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419523

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 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:
    1. Handling of a decant.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports of staff attending without notice.

Background

  1. The resident and her husband have been joint tenants since April 2024. The resident has mobility issues and uses a wheelchair, and both her and her husband have told the landlord they have mental health issues.
  2. On 5 July 2024 the resident had issues with drainage in her home. The landlord also found a possible risk of asbestos. To be able to fix the issue safely it made the decision to move the resident to temporary accommodation while it completed repairs. The landlord instructed its contractor who provides emergency accommodation to contact the resident and arrange emergency accommodation on its behalf.
  3. The contractor attempted to book a hotel for the resident. The resident says that when she arrived at the first hotel there was no booking for her and the second was not suitable for her needs. The contractor was unable to source any suitable accommodation and so the resident made the decision to return to her property. When she returned to the property she found repairs staff inside that she did not know would be there.
  4. On 6 July 2024 the landlord became aware that the contractor was unable to find suitable temporary accommodation and contacted the resident. It then booked a room at a hotel the resident said was suitable for her needs. This included meals and parking.
  5. On 8 July 2024, the landlord confirmed works were complete at the property and the asbestos test had come back clear. It contacted the resident to advise her that she could return home.
  6. The same day, the resident raised a complaint. She said that the landlord knew she needed to move out at 3.30pm on 5 July 2024 but that communication had then been poor. She did not get any accommodation until 6 July 2024 and the landlord failed to contact her on the morning of 8 July 2024 as it said it would. She also complained that she returned to the property and found workers there without notice.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 July 2024. It said;
    1. It was sorry for the number of times the resident had tried to organise accommodation on 5 and 6 July and for the delay in finding her accommodation.
    2. It could see a lack of communication from its emergency accommodation contractor. It accepted that the contractor had not considered the vulnerabilities in the household. It apologised for these issues and said it would address them with the contractor.
    3. The resident had returned home while she was waiting for alternative accommodation and found repair staff inside. The landlord said that the staff were working under emergency conditions to stop raw sewerage in the home and so it did not feel informing the resident was needed.
    4. It offered £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused. The payment considered the household vulnerabilities.
  8. The resident was not happy with the response and requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 19 July 2024. She felt that she had 31 hours of inconvenience and £150 compensation was not enough.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 19 July 2024 and responded at stage 2 on 16 August 2024. It said:
    1. Its stage 1 response had acknowledged a service failing in communication during the decant.
    2. It thought the stage 1 response was fair and in line with its policy.
    3. It awarded an additional discretionary compensation payment of £250 for lack of communication about the decant.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her case to the Ombudsman. She said her health had been affected by the situation due to stress. She felt the landlord should reimburse her for a parking fine she had received on 5 July 2024 and reconsider the amount of compensation it had offered.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a decant

  1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s communication during the decant process and the suitability of the accommodation offered. The landlord has not disputed that there were failings in communication and the suitability of accommodation offered to the resident on 5 July 2024. It apologised for this in its stage 1 response and said it would address this issue with its contractor. It also offered the resident £150 in compensation for the lack of communication, the resident having to chase the issue, inconvenience and in consideration of the household vulnerabilities. It offered a further £250 compensation in its stage 2 response for the lack of communication.
  2. The landlord has discussed the issues with its contractor as it said it would in its complaint response. This shows a reasonable commitment by the landlord to follow up on the case and improve future service.
  3. When a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s redress appropriately addressed the issue and resolved the resident’s complaint. In doing so, we apply our Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  4. When the landlord made the decision to move the resident into temporary accommodation it completed an assessment of the household needs. This was appropriate action by the landlord to ensure that any temporary accommodation offered met the needs of the resident. The assessment said the resident would need a room that could be accessed with a wheelchair and had a level access bathroom.
  5. However, there is no evidence that this assessment was shared with the contractor. The landlord should have reasonably ensured the contractor had all the information available to make a suitable booking. The contractor then went on to book accommodation that was unsuitable for the resident’s needs. This would have caused inconvenience for the resident as she had to travel to the hotel before finding out it was not suitable for her.
  6. The resident said she had to drive around in the evening while she waited for the contractor to call with updates about temporary accommodation.  During this time, she received a parking fine for staying too long in a supermarket car park. She asked the landlord to reimburse the cost. The landlord reviewed the request but did not agree to pay. It said the fine was not directly linked to the decant. The landlord acted fairly by considering the request. It was reasonable to refuse to pay the parking fine as its policy says it will only repay costs that are a direct consequence of being required to move home. Although it would have been frustrating for the resident to wait so long for a call, it is reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to find somewhere to park where she would not have been subject to parking penalties.
  7. The landlord’s policy says if a suitable hotel room cannot be found, the out of hours call handler should contact the council to make a referral for emergency accommodation. There is no evidence that the landlord or its contractor made this referral and this resulted in the resident making the decision to return to her property which could have been unsafe for her to stay in. The contractor should have been aware of the landlord’s policy since the landlord relies on it to arrange temporary hotel stays on its behalf. It is a failing that neither the landlord, nor its contractor, made a referral as the policy says it will. A recommendation is therefore made to the landlord about this.
  8. On 6 July 2024, the landlord became aware that the contractor had not sourced temporary accommodation for the resident the previous evening. It contacted the resident directly and booked a hotel room for the weekend. The landlord then contacted the resident on 7 July 2024 and confirmed the room had been suitable. This shows it took immediate action to resolve the situation when it became aware of it, and took reasonable follow up action, particularly given it was a weekend and it was operating an out of hours service.
  9. The resident said the landlord would update her on the morning of 8 July 2024. It began work in the morning to extend the resident’s accommodation and she called at lunchtime for an update. Later in the day, the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed works were complete at the property and she could return home. If the landlord committed to update the resident in the morning it should have done so. However, in the circumstances the delay was not significant, and there is no evidence to show it would have had a significant impact on the resident.
  10. Overall, the landlord’s contractor did not communicate effectively with the resident and provide suitable, temporary accommodation on 5 July 2024. The landlord and its contractor also does not show they considered referring the resident to the council for emergency accommodation as its policy says. However, the landlord took immediate steps to resolve this issue when it became aware the next day. The landlord stepped in and provided suitable accommodation for the remainder of the weekend and had daily contact with the resident. It has awarded £400 in compensation through the complaints procedure. It has apologised for its failings and taken steps to improve the service offered by its contractor. In the Ombudsman’s view, the steps the landlord has taken and the compensation it offered are overall proportionate to the identified failings, and we find they amount to reasonable redress. This would have been a finding of service failure had the landlord not identified its failings and taken appropriate action to try to put things right.
  11. The finding reflects that there were failings, which the landlord has appropriately acknowledged and remedied in line with our approach.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff attending without notice

  1. While waiting for temporary accommodation, the resident returned home and found repairs staff inside without prior notice. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained staff were responding to an emergency involving raw sewage. They believed the resident had moved out and entered without notifying her, based on that assumption.
  2. This was a reasonable response. The tenancy agreement allows immediate access during emergencies, which this situation reasonably qualified as. The landlord therefore took reasonable steps to resolve an emergency repair issue. The resident was understandably distressed by the unexpected presence of staff, but there is no evidence she suffered any further significant detriment. Therefore, we find no maladministration, as the landlord acted in line with its obligations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlords handling of the decant.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff attending without notice.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £400 compensation it awarded through the complaints procedure if it has not done so already. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord, and its contractor, give sufficient consideration to referring residents for emergency accommodation where the contractor is unable to locate suitable housing.