Clarion Housing Association Limited (202424563)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a 3-bedroom semi-detached house with her husband. The resident’s husband has medical needs and a terminal illness. As a result, the resident requested major adaptations to the property for it to better suit her husband’s needs. For clarity, this report refers to contact from the resident and her husband as “the resident”.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations at the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for adaptations at the property.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s decision to refuse the resident’s adaptation request was consistent with its policy. However, it took 2 months to provide the resident with information about rehousing following its refusal of the request. A further 2-month delay occurred after it committed to reassessing the feasibility of the proposed works, during which no updates were given.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the timeframes outlined in its policy and in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. Following a referral for adaptations involving a side extension to provide ground floor bathroom facilities, the landlord informed the OT on 31 July 2024 that the matter would be referred to the landlord’s head of repairs for review. This was appropriate, as the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says that complex adaptation requests should be approved in principle by its head of repairs.
8. The evidence indicates that on 20 August 2024, the head of repairs advised that, due to the structural nature of the proposed works, the request could not be agreed to in principle. According to the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy, major adaptations are only undertaken where they are deemed reasonable and practical for the property and are supported by an assessment from a local authority OT. Although the OT had supported the proposed adaptation, the policy also states that structural alterations—such as through-floor lifts, extensions, or loft conversions—are not usually permitted. Additionally, the first choice must be to consider rehousing alternatives. Therefore, as the proposed adaptation involved a side extension, the landlord’s decision to refuse it was consistent with its policy.
9. Nevertheless, we would have expected the landlord to document the outcome of the referral review—such as through case notes or meeting records—after it was presented to the head of repairs. This would have demonstrated that the referral was properly considered in line with the landlord’s policy. Notably, the policy states that in “the exceptional case that adaptations are permitted that create additional bedrooms and/or bathrooms”, the decision should be recorded on the designated system. This suggests that the landlord retains discretion to depart from its standard policy, making it all the more important to clearly document its decision-making process.
10. On 9 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her husband had experienced another fall. She explained that, since the proposed adaptations were not progressing, she wished to be considered for rehousing. The landlord responded on 15 October 2024, confirming that her details had been passed to the available homes team for assistance. While this referral was in line with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy—which states that rehousing should be considered when adaptations are refused—the original decision to decline the adaptations had been made in August 2024, 2 months earlier. There is no evidence that the landlord offered rehousing assistance at that time, which was unfair to the resident and may have caused an unnecessary delay in addressing her household’s needs.
11. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that the adaptations had been refused as the works were structural and fell outside of its aids and adaptions policy. It also explained that alternative solutions had been investigated but found not to be feasible. This was appropriate and clearly communicated.
12. The landlord went on to explain in its stage 1 response that management moves were only offered in exceptional circumstances, such as a risk to life, where the police had recommended the move. As this was not the case, it was unable to offer the resident a management move as she did not meet the criteria. This was appropriate as it aligned with the landlord’s management transfer policy. Housing advice was also offered the resident, which was resolution-focused.
13. On 27 February 2025, the resident escalated her complaint. She expressed that she was “so upset” and felt the landlord did not care about her husband, who had experienced another fall. She raised further concerns on 3 March 2025, questioning why a neighbour had received adaptations while her husband had not. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it was not responsible for rehousing residents on medical grounds, as this responsibility lay with the local authority. This response was appropriate and aligned with the landlord’s role and responsibilities.
14. The landlord’s response was sympathetic in that it “recognised the challenges” were distressing for the resident and apologised that it was unable to offer her an immediate solution. Additionally, it said that it “sincerely regretted” that it was unable to provide the resolution she was seeking.
15. In April and May 2025, the resident informed the landlord that her husband had suffered another fall and had been hospitalised. She also advised that she would be submitting medical evidence to show that his condition was deteriorating. The records show that the landlord supported the resident by assisting her with a housing application for a one-bedroom property she had expressed interest in. This response was appropriate, as it demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to consider alternative housing options in light of the resident’s changing circumstances and the medical needs of her husband. Its actions were in line with its responsibilities under its aids and adaptations policy.
16. On 7 August 2025, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that it had reviewed her adaptation request in consultation with the OT. It explained that, as her third bedroom was no longer in use, a visit would be arranged with a specialist lift engineer to reassess the feasibility of installing a through-floor lift, along with potential works to the bathroom and toilet. The landlord also confirmed that a management transfer to a ground floor property had been approved, in recognition of the challenges the resident and her husband were facing. This was a positive and appropriate step, as it demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to explore alternative solutions to meet the household’s needs. However, on 24 October 2025, the resident informed us that she had not received any further updates regarding this matter.
17. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to keep the resident informed about the progress of the adaptation works it had agreed to pursue. She was left waiting for 2 months without any updates. Even if there was no new information to share, it would have been good practice for the landlord to maintain regular communication to reassure the resident that steps were being taken to resolve the matter. The lack of updates caused unnecessary uncertainty and distress for the resident, which was unfair.
18. Overall, the landlord acted in accordance with its policies. However, there were delays in 2 key areas: it took 2 months to provide the resident with information about rehousing following the refusal of adaptations, and a further 2-month delay occurred after the landlord committed to reassessing the feasibility of the adaptation works, during which no updates were provided. Therefore there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations at the property.

19. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror those in our statutory Complaint Handling Code. The Code says stage 1 responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The landlord’s responses were sent within these timeframes. Its complaint handling was appropriate in the circumstances, and there was no maladministration.

Learning

20. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:
    1. It should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, particularly to reflect its decision-making processes.
    2. It is good practice to keep residents updated regularly, even when there is no new information.