Clarion Housing Association Limited (202418132)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418132

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 September 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. Requests for rehousing due to her disabilities.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in December 2016. The property is a 3-bedroom house, which the resident occupies with her daughter. The resident advised us that both she and her daughter have mobility issues.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 February 2025. During the call she expressed that she was experiencing distress and difficulty coping with the property. She also said that she was struggling with various health issues which she was finding hard to manage. The landlord suggested exploring options such as an occupational therapy assessment for aids and adaptations, but the resident declined this assistance. The landlord noted concerns about her welfare and believed the resident needed further guidance, advice, and a welfare check.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 5 February 2025, highlighting her struggles with the property’s unsuitable conditions and her belief that the landlord had failed to provide appropriate support. The complaint also detailed her ongoing attempts to seek rehousing due to her disabilities, mental health challenges, and family bereavement.
5. Between February and May 2025 the landlord made 2 welfare visits to the resident’s property, attempted to contact her by phone, and submitted a referral to its advice and support team.
6. On 12 May 2025, we contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident as she said she had not received a stage 1 complaint response. The following day, the landlord tried to call the resident to offer rehousing advice. On 15 May 2025, the advice and support team contacted the resident, but she declined to speak with them.
7. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 May 2025. It said that:
   1. The resident had contacted its call centre on 3 February 2025. It had been concerned regarding her situation and had raised an advice and support referral.
   2. The resident’s complaint was linked to this process, and as this was the first request for a service, it would always try to resolve the issue before raising a formal complaint.
   3. It had tried to make contact with the resident throughout February and noted that she had raised concerns about being unable to use the stairs and shower. As a result, it had suggested an occupational therapist assessment, but the resident declined. Additionally, it had offered to assist the resident with a housing application, which she also declined.
   4. Its advice and support team had tried to assist the resident, but she said it was “too late” and did not want to speak to the landlord about the situation.
   5. It had found service failure regarding its advice and support process communication, accepting that since its initial effort to visit and contact the resident there had been very little action taken. It had reviewed this and had requested the team review their processes. It reiterated that it was not able to rehouse the resident, as it did not have its own housing register and would not be able to move the resident directly.
   6. It reiterated that the first step would be to request an occupational therapist assessment. The occupational therapist would then be able to advise if adaptations could be made or if the property was unsuitable.
   7. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the service failure it identified in its lack of follow-up after the unsuccessful advice and support process was raised.
8. On 20 May 2025, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She reiterated that the landlord had refused to provide suitable accommodation related to her disabilities and had not followed the recommendations outlined by her GP. She also explained once more that she struggled with using the stairs and bathroom in the property and was unable to manage household tasks due to her limited mobility. The resident said she felt that the landlord had been “unsympathetic” to her situation and had not applied its policies appropriately.
9. On 4 June 2025, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said that it had previously advised the resident to request an occupational therapist assessment if she felt the property was unsuitable for her needs. This assessment would provide a detailed report on potential adaptations or the property’s suitability. The landlord also noted it had not received any correspondence from a medical professional regarding the tenancy and had been unable to locate the recommendations mentioned. It offered to review the information if the resident provided these details or copies of the relevant correspondence.
10. On 4 July 2025, the landlord contacted the resident offering her an additional £100 for the delay in raising the stage 1 complaint.
11. During recent contact with the resident, she provided us with copies of doctor’s letters dated between October 2018 and October 2022 which indicated mental health concerns. Additionally, she said that:
    1. Due to her disabilities, she could not use the stairs or the bath/shower in the property.
    2. The landlord had stated it had not received any correspondence from her doctor regarding her need to move, despite her sending these over many years.
    3. She had declined the occupational therapist assessment as a stair lift was not practical in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions have had on her health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. 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.
13. The resident also provided us with copies of medical correspondence dated between 2018 and 2022. While this information provides contextual background, in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Scheme, this assessment will focus on events leading up to the resident’s formal complaint of February 2025.

Requests for rehousing due to disabilities

14. The landlord’s vulnerable residents and reasonable adjustment policy says it has a range of services to provide advice and assistance to its vulnerable residents and a robust safeguarding referral process. Its housing management teams will work with tenants where they are struggling to cope with their tenancy and offer assistance, and if appropriate can refer the resident to it specialist services. For example, this may include tenancy sustainment advice and aids and adaptations services.
15. In relation to aids and adaptations, the landlord’s website says that residents having difficulty in their home – for example, “struggling with stairs” and mobility issues such as getting in and out of the shower – should contact the local council to get an occupational therapist referral. The occupational therapist will then send their assessment to the landlord so it can plan any adaptation works.
16. The landlord’s allocation policy states that, for vulnerable residents, its housing team may consider approaches such as facilitating transfers or applying for suitable alternative accommodation, including through mutual exchange or working with local authorities. The policy emphasises that where residents are identified as vulnerable, the landlord can work collaboratively with relevant agencies to explore options to meet their specific needs, including the possibility of assessing emergency or priority housing.
17. Additionally, the allocation policy states that the landlord does not have its own direct housing list. Instead, it relies on the local authority’s housing register to allocate properties. The landlord works in partnership with local authorities, which manage the main waiting lists and determine eligibility and priority for housing. The landlord’s role is to offer properties through the local authority’s allocation system, and applicants must be registered with the local authority to be considered for the landlord’s housing stock. The policy goes on to say this approach ensures that allocations are managed in accordance with local policies and priorities, and that the landlord collaborates closely with local councils to facilitate suitable housing for applicants.
18. The evidence indicates that the resident contacted the landlord on 3 February 2025. Case notes show that during the call, the resident was very distressed, expressing difficulty coping with the property. The landlord explained the council and mutual exchange processes for moving, but the resident stated she did not fully understand these. The landlord noted that the resident needed assistance in navigating the process and required someone to listen to her in more detail. It also explained the occupational therapist route for aid adaptations, which the resident declined. The advice given by the landlord was appropriate regarding aids, adaptations, and mutual exchanges, as it was consistent with both its vulnerable residents and reasonable adjustment policy and its allocation policy.
19. In her subsequent complaint, the resident stated that she had been requesting rehousing “over the years” due to her disabilities. She reported suffering from mobility issues and anxiety, pointing out that individuals with mental health and disability issues were entitled to proper housing. She expressed that she had difficulty using the stairs and washing facilities, which was affecting her mental and physical health. The landlord spoke with the resident on 13 February 2025, during which she reiterated her view that the property was unsuitable. The call handler noted that a welfare visit was scheduled, and this was evidenced as carried out on 18 and 19 February 2025. Additionally, the case notes showed that the landlord attempted to contact the resident by phone but received no answer, so it left a voicemail. This was appropriate, as it demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to assess her situation and determine what support could be provided.
20. On 11 March 2025, the case notes show that an advice and support referral was made; however, no further details are available, so no additional comments can be made. Nonetheless, making this referral was a positive step by the landlord and aligned with its vulnerable residents and reasonable adjustment policy, which emphasises identifying support options for residents.
21. The resident contacted us on 12 May 2025 due to a lack of recent contact from the landlord. Following our intervention, the landlord contacted the resident the following day (13 May 2025). The case notes indicate that it offered further advice on rehousing. The resident explained that her preferred area had been declined by the council as she had no local connections. The landlord advised her to apply via a specified rehousing website, which was consistent with its allocations policy.
22. On 15 May 2025, the landlord contacted the resident again to offer further advice and support. The case notes show that the resident declined to speak, stating that the matter was with this Service. The landlord documented that it explained its role was to support her, but it was clear she was not interested in further engagement, so the case was closed. It would have been good practice by the landlord to provide the resident with written confirmation of the support available, and its intention to close the advice and support referral. This would have allowed the resident to refer back to the information at a later date if she changed her mind.
23. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 May 2025. It summarised its understanding of the complaint, which was that the resident found it difficult to climb the stairs and access the bathing facilities. The landlord stated it had offered to refer the resident for an occupational therapist assessment, but she declined. The response explained that such an assessment could potentially assist with her request to move. It also noted that the resident had refused assistance with a housing application. The landlord clarified that she would need to register with the local authority to be considered for a move, which was consistent with its allocation policy, as it did not have its own housing stock.
24. Additionally, the response acknowledged the landlord’s service failure regarding its advice and support process. It explained that while initial contact and visits were appropriate, there had been very little further action after February 2025 until the resident contacted the Ombudsman. The landlord apologised, offered £50 compensation, and stated it had highlighted this issue with its customer support team, requesting a review of their procedures. This was a positive acknowledgment of its failings and a step towards preventing future issues. The landlord reiterated that it did not have a housing register and could not directly move the resident, but could assist with mutual exchanges and registering with the local authority, which listed properties online for direct move applications. This approach by the landlord was resolution focused and offered the resident a clear course of action.
25. The landlord’s response also emphasised that if the resident believed the property was unsuitable due to her disabilities, the first step would be to request an occupational therapist assessment. The resulting report would advise whether adaptations were possible or if the property was unsuitable. It was reasonable for the landlord to delay any decision regarding both the adaptations and a move until it had the necessary information provided from a qualified professional in the relevant field. This was particularly important given that the resident had emphasised how her disabilities impacted her ability to live comfortably in the property, and the landlord lacked the expertise to make such determinations.
26. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 20 May 2025. She stated that the landlord had refused to provide suitable accommodation for her as a disabled resident and had failed to act on the recommendations sent by her GP. She also stated that her healthcare worker had discussed her disabilities with the housing officer. While we do not dispute this, our reliance is on documented evidence, and there was no record to confirm that such a conversation took place.
27. The resident felt the landlord was unsympathetic to her situation. She pointed out that its transfer policy clearly stated that, for vulnerable individuals, the landlord could approach the council to explore suitable emergency housing options. She also explained that her current house could not be adapted because a stairlift was not feasible due to the narrow stairwell, and the bathroom was too small for walk-in shower facilities. While the landlord’s allocation policy says it can consider emergency housing, it is required to work with relevant agencies to ensure residents’ specific needs are met. For example, this would include an occupational therapist assessment, which was offered to the resident but declined.
28. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 June 2025, which reiterated the need for an occupational therapist assessment to determine whether the property could be adapted or was unsuitable for the resident’s needs. It also confirmed that support would be offered to assist her through this process, but she had declined this. The landlord requested that the resident provide details or copies of the relevant medical correspondence and stated it would review the information if provided. Its advice was appropriate and consistent throughout the complaint process. The stage 2 response reiterated the support available to help the resident live comfortably within her current property and the need for an assessment to determine it was unsuitable.
29. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its policies. Its vulnerable residents and reasonable adjustment policies emphasise providing advice, assistance, and safeguarding support to vulnerable residents, which the landlord demonstrated by making an advice and support referral, carrying out welfare checks, and offering rehousing advice.
30. The landlord’s approach to offering alternatives to rehousing, such as aids and adaptations, was reasonable. Its advice to the resident to seek an occupational therapist referral via the local authority aligned with its policy, ensuring that any adaptations are based on professional assessments.
31. Throughout the complaint process, the landlord demonstrated a proactive and supportive stance, attempting to engage with the resident and offer appropriate assistance, including welfare visits, advice on applications, and referrals for assessments. Its decision to delay making any definitive moves until obtaining professional assessments was reasonable, particularly given the resident’s emphasis on her disabilities and the landlord’s lack of specialist expertise. The landlord’s acknowledgment of its service failure regarding advice and support, along with its apology and steps to review procedures, reflect a commitment to continuous improvement.
32. Taking account of the £50 offered by the landlord for an accepted failure, we find there was reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s requests for rehousing due to her disabilities.

Complaint handling

33. The landlord’s complaint policy states that responses to stage 1 complaints will be provided within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and stage 2 responses will be provided within 20 working days from acknowledgement. At each stage it says complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days.
34. The case notes show that the resident initially requested to raise a complaint on 5 February 2025. However, a formal complaint was not raised until 12 May 2025 following intervention from this Service. The landlord provided its response on 16 May 2025, which was 70 working days later. This was not appropriate as it was significantly outside of its policy timescale. In mitigation, it responded promptly (within 4 days) once we asked it to do so.
35. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that since this was the resident’s “first request for service”, it did not initially raise the matter as a formal complaint, opting instead to resolve the issue informally. This aligns with its complaint policy, which says if attempts to resolve a service request are unsuccessful, a formal complaint will then be recorded and investigated. However, the policy also defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction” and specifies that when residents express dissatisfaction they should be given the choice to make a complaint.
36. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord confirmed with the resident whether she was still unhappy after its intervention or that she was offered the opportunity to escalate her concerns to a formal complaint. This omission was unfair to the resident and denied her the opportunity to have her concerns fully addressed.
37. On 20 May 2025, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. This was acknowledged within 5 working days and aligned with the landlord’s policy timescale. The stage 2 response was then provided on 4 June 2025, which was 5 working days after acknowledgement. This was consistent with the 20-working-day policy timescale, and appropriate.
38. On 4 July 2025, the landlord contacted the resident, explaining that it had further reviewed the stage 1 and 2 complaints. The landlord said it found that the resident’s stage 2 complaint did not take into consideration when she initially requested to raise a formal complaint on 5 February 2025. Therefore, it offered the resident an additional £100 compensation. Additionally, it apologised for any inconvenience or impact caused to her due to the delay in raising the complaint.
39. While it was positive that the landlord took the above action, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because they took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The revised financial offer of £100 was, however, reasonable, and we have not made a further order of compensation.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for rehousing due to her disabilities.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

42. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident the £100 it previously offered to her in relation to its complaint handling. This can be reduced by any amount already paid.

Recommendations

43. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £50 compensation it previously offered to her at stage 1 in relation to the advice and support process, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this is paid.