From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202422421)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422421

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 June 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 adaptions to the property, including concerns that the landlord did not properly consider her health needs.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. She has both physical and mental health conditions, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 15 January 2024, the local authority asked the landlord to arrange an occupational therapy (OT) assessment of the resident’s property to determine whether any aids or adaptions were required.
  3. In February 2024, the landlord told the resident that OT assessments were on hold and were not currently being progressed. It said it was discussing the delivery of the aids and adaptions service with the local authority.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 6 May 2024. She said she was still waiting for an OT assessment of her property and was struggling to manage in her home. She explained that an ex-partner had physically attacked her several years earlier, resulting in long-term physical injuries and complex trauma. She said the landlord’s poor communication was adding to her stress and that it was not adhering to its vulnerable persons policy.
  5. On 21 June 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that she had been chasing updates on when the OT assessment would take place, but said the company appointed to carry out the assessment had already told her that her referral was on hold. It said the resident’s property would now be referred for assessment by the end of June 2024. The landlord also explained that any adaptions recommended following the OT assessment, would be considered in line with its aids and adaptions policy.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord also said it had found no service failure in how it handled the resident’s concerns. It said it had been actively liaising with the local authority and OT assessment company to progress the referral, but high demand on the service and the need to coordinate between all parties had caused delays. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
  7. Later that day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said the stage 1 complaint response was inaccurate because the OT assessment company had told her it had no record of a referral. She also said it was the landlord who initially told her that OT assessments were on hold. The resident said she had repeatedly chased for updates but had only received automated responses. She said the process had been stressful and had worsened her daily struggles. She felt the landlord had not considered the impact this was having on her vulnerabilities.
  8. On 26 June 2024, the landlord submitted an OT referral to the appointed company for the resident’s property to be assessed.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 12 July 2024. It repeated the points made in its earlier response and said it had kept the resident informed at intervals. However, it acknowledged there had been some miscommunication about when the referral was passed to the assessment company. It confirmed that it had now submitted the referral. The landlord said there was a high demand on the aids and adaptions service and a long waiting list for assessments, but it had tried to prioritise the resident’s case. It offered £50 compensation for the miscommunication about the referral.

Events after the conclusion of the complaint’s process

  1. The resident had an OT assessment of her property on 27 July 2024. During the assessment she said she needed a bath installed for her mental health wellbeing, as standing in the shower made her feel dizzy and claustrophobic. She also said she often hit herself on the handrails in the shower area. The assessment confirmed that the property was allocated to the resident due to her medical needs and that a shower was generally considered safer than a bath. However, it recommended removing the handrails if the resident found them unhelpful. The resident also reported that the shower was leaking.
  2. In the kitchen, the assessment identified limited walking space between the worktops and noted that the resident struggled to bend and reach cupboards. The report said the kitchen would benefit from a redesign to enable easier movement and use.
  3. The resident further reported that her garden wall was crumbling and that she was afraid it might fall on her. The assessment concluded that this issue did not fall under the aids and adaptions process but should be reported to the landlord for action.
  4. In August 2024, the landlord told the resident it could not proceed with kitchen or garden works due to the extent of the adaptions required. It said it would work with the local authority to support a move to alternative accommodation if the resident wished to pursue this. In September 2024, the landlord confirmed it would not be installing a bath, based on the recommendations in the OT report.
  5. In November 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to our service. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns and its decision to refuse the requested adaptions.
  6. In April 2025, the landlord carried out a review of the resident’s complaint and identified further service failings. It accepted that it should have followed up on the issues raised during the OT assessment, including the leaking shower and the crumbling garden wall. It asked the resident to confirm whether she wanted the handrails in the shower removed and acknowledged that the kitchen needed to be redesigned, although the OT assessment had not made specific recommendations. The landlord said it would arrange a new OT assessment of the kitchen and send a surveyor to attend.
  7. The landlord also accepted that it should have clarified sooner that the resident had exhausted the complaints process and could escalate her case to this service. It appointed a single point of contact to manage the outstanding issues and offered £200 compensation for its failure to act on the OT assessment and related reports. It also offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction.
  8. In June 2025, a second OT assessment of the resident’s kitchen took place, with the landlord’s surveyor in attendance.

Assessment and findings

Legal policy and framework

  1. The resident’s occupancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property. The resident is responsible for maintaining fencing and garden walls.
  2. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy defines adaptions as changes made to a resident’s home to improve safe, comfortable, and practical access and use. These adaptions are intended to improve the resident’s standard of living.
  3. The landlord considers adaptions requests on a case-by-case basis and requires support from an OT assessment. The landlord will assess the complexity and practicality of any proposed works and may refer them to its surveying team for review. Where adaptions are not appropriate, the landlord works with the local authority to explore alternative accommodation options.
  4. The Equality Act 2010 requires landlords to make reasonable adjustments where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone who is not disabled. The Act also requires public bodies to have ‘due regard’ to how they can eliminate discrimination and advance equality. While only the courts can decide whether a specific adjustment is legally reasonable, we consider whether the landlord properly assessed the request and took steps to reduce any disadvantage.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptions to the property, including concerns that the landlord did not properly consider her health needs

  1. In January 2024, the local authority asked the landlord to arrange an OT assessment of the resident’s home. The landlord told the resident the following month that assessments were on hold but gave no explanation or estimated timeframe for when they would resume. The evidence shows that when the resident asked the landlord for updates on the situation in April 2024, it repeated the same message without offering any further clarity or reassurance. This approach was unreasonable.
  2. Delays due to external pressures may sometimes be unavoidable, but landlords must still take reasonable steps to manage the impact on residents. In this case, the landlord was aware the referral related to a resident with known vulnerabilities and should have communicated more proactively, explained the reasons for the delay, and set out what actions it was taking to resolve the issue. Although its later stage 1 complaint response in June 2024 referred to high demand on the service, this does not excuse the lack of timely, personalised updates.
  3. The landlord’s lack of meaningful updates over a 6-month period likely added to the resident’s anxiety and left her feeling unsupported, particularly as she said she was already struggling to manage in her home.
  4. The OT assessment of the resident’s property took place at the end of July 2024. The landlord told the resident in August and September 2024 that it would not proceed with adaptions to the property. While it said these decisions were based on the OT recommendations, it did not clearly explain its reasoning. For example, it said kitchen adaptions were too extensive but gave no detail on what they would involve or why they were considered difficult to deliver. This lack of explanation was especially concerning given that the decision related to adaptions for a resident with a disability, and it was important the landlord showed how it had carefully considered her needs before reaching a conclusion.
  5. Additionally, we have seen no evidence that the landlord explored alternative solutions or referred the request for further technical input, despite its aids and adaptions policy outlining this. This gave the impression that decisions were made without further assessment or meaningful consideration of the impact on the resident’s day-to-day life. As the request came from a resident with a disability, we would have expected the landlord to demonstrate how it had considered its duties under the Equality Act and assessed whether any disadvantage could be reduced. Its limited communication and lack of follow-up likely left the resident feeling dismissed and unsupported, particularly after engaging in the OT process in good faith.
  6. That said, as part of its April 2025 review, the landlord acknowledged that it should have asked the OT for more specific recommendations regarding the kitchen adaptions. It also said it would arrange a second OT assessment and confirmed a surveyor would attend to support further consideration. These actions aligned with its adaptions policy and showed a more considered approach to assessing adaption requests for residents with additional needs.
  7. The landlord declined the resident’s request to install a bath. The OT found that a shower was generally safer and better suited to the resident’s needs. In line with its adaptions policy, the landlord decided not to carry out the works, based on that professional advice, and we are satisfied this was a reasonable approach. While we recognise the resident’s reasons for requesting a bath, it would not have been appropriate for the landlord to go against clinical advice. If it had it done so and the resident was harmed, this could have raised further concerns and undermined the purpose of the assessment.
  8. During the OT assessment, the resident reported that the shower was leaking and that the garden wall was crumbling. These were not adaption-related issues, and the landlord should have followed up these matters separately as part of its general repairs service. The landlord’s records show it did not pick up these concerns until its April 2025 review of the case, meaning they went unaddressed for 9 months. This oversight was unreasonable and likely caused further frustration for the resident.
  9. It was positive, however, that the landlord confirmed during its review it should have acted on these matters sooner. This showed constructive reflection on its earlier handling. We also note from the evidence that the landlord arranged an inspection of the garden wall in April 2025. Although the garden wall would be the resident’s responsibility under the occupancy agreement, the landlord’s decision to inspect demonstrated a supportive and preventative approach in light of the concerns raised. The landlord must also arrange an inspection of the reported shower leak if this has not already taken place.
  10. Finally, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation to acknowledge its failure to follow up on matters highlighted in the OT assessment. While we welcome the landlord’s attempt to put things right, this offer came significantly outside of the complaints process and does not adequately redress the failings identified in this case.
  11. The landlord did not follow its adaptions policy by seeking technical input or clearly justifying its decision not to carry out kitchen adaptions. This prolonged the period in which no clear decision was made, and the resident remained in a home she said she was struggling to manage. The impact of this, combined with the landlord’s poor communication, would likely have caused considerable distress. In this context, the compensation offered did not go far enough to reflect the cumulative effect of the service failures identified.
  12. Considering these factors, along with the landlord’s lack of proactive and meaningful updates over a 6-month period when arranging the OT assessment, we find maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for adaptions to the property.
  13. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we have determined maladministration by a landlord which has adversely affected the resident, landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. In this case, the landlord must pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her adaptions request. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid.
  14. The landlord must also share the outcome of the June 2025 OT assessment with the resident. It must clearly explain what adaptions it will (or will not) carry out and give a timescale for completion. It must also set out the reasons for its decision, including whether it had sought any technical input or explored alternative options where full adaptions are not possible.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints with 5 workings days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 May 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 33 working days later, exceeding its complaints policy timescales. This delay likely added to the resident’s frustration at a time when she was already seeking clarity and support. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay in its response and offered £50 compensation. This demonstrated an appropriate recognition of the service failure and a willingness to put things right.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response contained inaccurate information about who told the resident that her OT assessment was on hold and when the referral was sent to the appointed company. This may have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of her case. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the inaccuracy, apologised, and awarded £50 compensation. This demonstrated that the landlord had reflected on its earlier response and took reasonable steps to offer redress for the additional inconvenience caused.
  4. The landlord’s final complaint response correctly set out that the resident had exhausted its complaints process and could refer her concerns to our service if she remained dissatisfied. However, it said in its April 2025 review that when she made contact again a month after the process had concluded, raising the same issue, it did not signpost her back to our service.
  5. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, available on our website, says landlords should support residents in accessing redress and ensure they are not disadvantaged by delays, unclear communication, or repeated signposting failures. It is therefore positive that the landlord acknowledged where it had gone wrong and in its April 2025 review and offered £50 compensation to address this.
  6. Overall, we find that the landlord provided reasonable and proportionate redress in response to the failings identified in the handling of the resident’s associated complaint. It acknowledged service issues at both stages of the complaint’s process and provided compensation that reflected the distress and inconvenience caused by a limited number of failings. These actions demonstrated a fair response in line with Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for adaptions to the property, including concerns that the landlord did not properly consider her health needs
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Arrange an inspection of the reported shower leak if this has not already taken place
    2. Pay the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of her adaptions request. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200, which can be deducted from the overall compensation if it has already been paid
    3. Share the outcome of the June 2025 OT assessment with the resident in  writing. It must clearly explain what adaptions it will or will not carry out and give a timescale for completion. It must also set out the reasons for its decision, including whether it had sought any technical input or explored alternative options where full adaptions are not possible.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation it already offered in relation to the service failures identified in its complaint handling.