Clarion Housing Association Limited (202347689)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347689

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A gas safety check and its contractor’s conduct.
2. The resident’s requests for a replacement fence, designated car parking space, and a bin store at the front of his property.
3. Staff conduct.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2 bedroom property. He lives with mobility restrictions as well as mental health vulnerabilities. He lives in the property with his partner.
The resident wrote to the landlord several times between 2022 and 2024. He also complained to the landlord on many occasions. The resident explained to us that the landlord made several assurances to him between 2022 and 2023 which led to him accepting its stage 1 outcome. These included:
1. Moving the bin store.
2. Allocating a parking space as a reasonable adjustment related to his mobility.
3. Replacing a boundary fence and gates.
The parties tried to arrange a gas safety check, and on 24 January 2024, the resident raised his complaint. He raised his concerns around the assurances made to him around the bin store, parking space, fencing, staff conduct and the gas safety check.
The landlord provided is stage 1 response on 15 February 2024. It told the resident that it did intend to replace a section of the fence and provide a new space for his bins. It accepted there were failings in its approach and explained its reasoning for not completing the works to the bin store, fencing, and carparking. It concluded that there was a lack of communication about the bins, fencing, and car parking decisions. There was also an error in sending a legal action letter about the gas safety check. It awarded the resident compensation of £250 which it broke down as:
1. £200 for the failure to follow policy and procedure, inconvenience, “household vulnerabilities”, resident having to repeatedly chase, time taken to resolve the issue, passing the resident to different teams and failure to consider the resident’s preferred method of contact around the gas safety check.
2. £50 for its lack of communication about the works to the fencing, movement of bins and car parking spaces. This also included the need to continuously chase and for the household vulnerabilities.
The resident responded on the same day and asked to escalate his complaint. He said he did not believe the response sufficiently explained, justified, or compensated all the issues he complained about. The fact the landlord had now said it changed its mind about the neighbourhood officer’s previous assurances created further anxiety, stress and upset. He expected it to reinstate the assured works and adjustments. He said a compensation offer of less than £1,500 did not acknowledge the extent of which its failures affected him and continued to do so. It also showed no care or understanding for how it affected him. He also raised a further complaint on 29 February 2024 which the landlord said it would add to his current complaint on 7 March 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 March 2024. It apologised for the delay in its response. It:
1. Reiterated its position around the fence works. As the fence was in good order, it did not believe it needed replacement or heightening. It had also inspected photographs of the houses that faced his home and noted that an alley separated them. They had installed additional trellises, taking their fences up to six feet tall.
2. Said it had reviewed his request for the bin store, but it was unclear from the photographs provided if there was enough space to place the bins next to the existing car parking spaces on the estate. It made him aware he still needed to move his bins from the space to empty and return them. it noted that this required moving them less far. Therefore, the solution was likely to be a hard standing, for bins to be located, rather than a storage area.
3. Told him it understood his concerns about his neighbour, but it was important to note that they also held a blue badge, so it was not unreasonable for them to park in the new disabled space outside his home.
4. Said it had not received any new ASB reports from him since 2021 about his neighbour. He said in his communications that although he did not own a car himself, he wished to make use of the space outside his home to allow any vehicles that collect or drop him off to do so safely and with enough space. However, it was not clear from reviewing the situation that this would not be possible even if cars occupied all available parking spaces.
5. Clarified that should he acquire his own vehicle, it would be willing to consider allocating further spaces. However, while he remained without his own transportation, it could not agree to allocating a space for his unique use.
6. Said it had not found any further service failure, but felt the amount awarded at stage 1 was not appropriate for the communication failings. It increased this to £250 for the inadequate or incorrect information provided about the works, and £50 for responding outside of its published timeframes.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and raised his concerns with us on 26 March 2024. He also continued to provide us updates into March 2025. He told us to put things right the landlord should:
1. Revert to the provision of the elements previously assured in the previous stage 1 response.
2. Apologise and accept that their actions were wrong, it made errors, and contradictory statements that had on many occasions, actively caused him and his partner severe stress, anxiety, and dissatisfaction. This left them feeling bullied and victimised.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us on 12 March 2025 that he believed the landlord’s actions amounted to a breach of contractual obligations, promissory estoppel principles, and amount to misrepresentation. He asked us to consider whether the landlord’s initial assurances about the parking spaces and boundary fences are contractually binding given their role in the resolution at stage 1. Any such determination would require a legally binding decision, and only the courts can decide on such matters in relation to contract law. Therefore these issues will not be considered in this report. As such the resident may wish to seek independent advice.
The resident has also raised concerns about the impact of the landlord’s actions on his and his partner’s health. This is another matter which requires a legally binding determination, as causation and liability must be established. The courts can make sure decisions, and as such the resident may wish to seek independent advice.

Gas safety check

In anticipation of the gas safety checks, the resident tried to arrange an appointment with the landlord’s contractor. They confirmed an appointment for 30 January 2024. He then received an email from the landlord stating its contractor told it that the inspection was due, and he did not allow access, and it may take legal action if it could not conduct the appointment. The contractor said they had tried to contact the resident by phone calls, despite his reasonable adjustment that all communication should be in writing.
The landlord found that there were failings in its approach around this. It found that its contractor did not consider the resident’s reasonable adjustment. They should not have tried to contact him by telephone. It also found that there was a further failing as its letter incorrectly suggested it may pursue legal action, against the resident. This was because its contractor had failed to complete two earlier appointments due to their own fault. To put things right, the landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation of £200.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will award resident’s compensation of £50 to £250 where there is a service failure which has some impact on the resident. It includes instances where it does not have regard to a resident’s preferred method of contact or contact requirements. It also includes failure to meet service standards for actions and response but where there was no significant impact. We believe that the landlord’s offer was appropriate based on the level of failing. Its offer also exceeds our remedies guidance for service failures and falls within those of maladministration. In such an instance, we would likely have found a service failure, and as such based on this consider that the offer has appropriately redressed the landlord’s identified failings.

Requests for a replacement fence, designated car parking space, and a bin store at the front of his property.

From the evidence provided, the landlord did make an assurance to the resident around the provision of the car parking space and bin store. It also told him that it would replace the fencing. It discussed the works to the bin store and fencing in an internal email on 24 October 2022. It also discussed the car parking issue in an email on 18 May 2023, in which it explained it had asked him how he wished to show the space was his. As such it raised the resident’s expectations around the issues. This led to him believing that it would honour its promise and provide him with what he believed were appropriate remedies and adjustments.
The resident said he needed the bin store, and car parking spaces due to his restricted mobility, and vulnerabilities around socialising. He had to walk down a gated alley with 2 gates when taking the bins out and returning them. He also could not guarantee that he would not bump into anybody. This was especially a worry for him given the history between him and his neighbour. However, the landlord then changed its position. It explained across its complaint responses that it decided it would not replace the fence as it was in a reasonable condition. It would not build a bin store as the bins were in an adequate location.
The landlord also told the resident that it was still looking at labelling the car parking spaces in its stage 1 response. Following the stage 1 complaint it labelled the space outside of his home a disabled space. This led to his neighbour who he had previous concerns with, parking in the space which was directly outside his kitchen. The landlord also told him in the stage 2 response that it could not allocate him a space as he did not own his own vehicle.
Based on the evidence provided, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s change of position to be reasonable. This is because if the fences were in a reasonable condition, it had no obligation to replace them. The resident’s main concern was around his privacy, and the evidence shows that it considered this. It explained in its findings in the stage 2 response, that his neighbours had 6 foot fences, and an alley separated the properties. It also told him he could install a trellis if he was concerned about his privacy like his neighbours had done. This was a reasonable approach to take. Replacing the fence would have been an improvement, rather than a repair and it was not required to complete any such improvement.
In relation to the bin store, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s mobility and social phobia concerns. It suggested that he sought assistance from the local authority with moving his bins and it also explored the possibility of potentially installing a hard standing, subject to the findings of its surveyor. We however do not have any information around the surveyor’s findings. Despite this however, the landlord suggested reasonable solutions to resolve the resident’s concerns.
The landlord explained to us on 5 September 2025 that it had installed a bin store as requested by the resident however there have been further issues for the resident accessing the new store. This was due to difficulties manoeuvring the bins due to a small step. The landlord has addressed the resident’s concerns around the new bin store in a separate complaint and as such we shall not discuss this matter in this report.
In relation to the car parking space, we note that the resident raised his concerns about providing the disabled space outside his window. However, the landlord is unable to dictate who uses public parking spaces. As the resident’s neighbour also had a blue badge, they were able to use the parking space, and no evidence has been provided of any further issues between the parties reported to the landlord at the time.
We acknowledge that the landlord did make assurances to the resident. It is however important to note that a landlord can change its position. In this instance, it did so, and explained that as a social landlord, it had to try to manage and prioritise its spending, and this was the reason it no longer approved the works. None of the spaces on the road were allocated to any residents. The evidence also indicates that the local authority is responsible for the road, and as such the landlord could not allocate specific spaces to individuals or households. As such its actions were reasonable.
The resident also raised further concerns about the car parking space, and the landlord provided a further response on 15 February 2025 in which it maintained its position.
The landlord had apologised to the resident as it had made the assurances to him and changed its position. It is also important to note that taking some of the actions would amount to the landlord improving the property which it does not have to do (for example, replacing the fences when they were in a reasonable condition).
The landlord also could not take some of the actions without necessary permissions from the local authority. It also acknowledged the resident’s concerns around his neighbour’s use of the newly allocated disabled parking. While appropriate that it recognised its failings, and looked to compensate the resident, it did not recognise that it did not manage his expectations around completing the works. It should have explained much sooner that some of these may require the local authority’s permission (for example, the parking space). The failure to do so was unreasonable and adds to the communication failings it found.
The landlord awarded the resident a further £250 around its failings. This was in addition to the £50 awarded at stage 1 of its complaints process. Its offer of £300 falls within the second tier of discretionary awards within its compensation policy. The policy suggests it makes such awards where it finds considerable failings but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. It includes:
1. Misdirection, such as providing contradictory, inadequate, or incorrect information about a resident’s rights.
2. A resident having to repeatedly chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, causing unreasonable level of involvement by the resident.
3. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, for example to make adequate adjustments.
These were all features in this instance, as it misdirected the resident around the provision of the fence, car parking space, and bin store. He then repeatedly chased before it communicated its change in decision, and in some instances, it did not follow its policy around reasonable adjustments by suggesting it contacted him by phone. This also falls within the maladministration finding within our own remedies’ guidance, which would have been the finding had the landlord not recognised its failings. While we did find further failings within the landlord’s handling of the situation, we believe its offer appropriately redresses the identified failings. As such we find that there was reasonable redress.
It appears that the resident raised a further complaint in in June 2024, the landlord explained to him that if he wanted a brick bin store, he needed to apply to the local authority for planning permission, and also for its permission to alter the property. It also explained to him that if he wanted an allocated disabled parking space, he needed to apply to the local authority.

Staff conduct

The resident raised concerns that the neighbourhood officer had lied to him about his requests. The landlord explained in its response that it had spoken to them and their manager and reiterated that they had not lied to him. It confirmed that it did intend to complete the works, to the fence and bins, but it later decided to cancel the order. It explained its reasons (the fence was in a reasonable state, it believed the bin store was adequately located, and managing costs as a social housing provider). Based on this we believe the landlord adequately addressed the resident’s concerns around its member of staff and find that there was no maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided us with its interim complaints policy which it operated following a cyber-attack. The policy says that the landlord will respond to new complaints received since 17 June 2022 at stage 1 within 20 working days of logging the complaint. It will log and acknowledge complaints at both stages within 10 working days and respond at stage 2 within 40 working days. This is instead of the usual 5 working days to acknowledge complaints, 10 working days to respond at stage 1 and 20 working days to respond at stage 2 contained in its standard complaints policy.
The stage 1 response was issued within the timeframe provided in the interim policy. The landlord however delayed its stage 1 response by 1 day when considered against the standard complaints policy. The stage 2 response was issued within appropriate timeframes for both policies. This means that its responses were on time if considered against the policy it provided us. When considered against the standard complaints policy, there is no evidence that the delay of 1 day caused significant detriment to the resident. As such its offer of redress was appropriate considering the level of failing. Based on this we find there was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of:
1. A gas safety check and its contractors conduct.
2. A request for a replacement fence, designated parking space, and a bin store at the front of the property.
3. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of staff conduct.

Recommendations

If it remains outstanding, pay the resident its total compensation offer of £500.