Clarion Housing Association Limited (202412747)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 3-bedroom house and was an assured tenant with the landlord at the time of the complaint. She lived in the house with her husband who was receiving palliative care and required a bathroom and bedroom on the ground floor. The resident has since moved to a different property with a new landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s:
   1. application for a management transfer
   2. complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the management transfer application.
4. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have not made any orders.

Summary of reasons

Application for a management transfer

5. The landlord recognised there was an error in the handling of the application and its communication was not effective and offered a suitable remedy to put things right.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint within its policy timescales. It thoroughly investigated the issues raised and offered suitable resolutions in line with its compensation policy.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident made a new complaint in April 2025. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 11 July 2025. The complaint was about delays in finding a suitable property after the management transfer was approved, and concerns about the suitability of a property offered. We have not looked into these issues because the complaint has not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord did not provide full records of its communication with the resident between August 2023 and January 2024. However, both sides agreed the timeline and actions in the landlord’s complaint response were accurate.
9. The resident contacted the landlord in August 2023 because her home was no longer suitable for her husband. The landlord applied to its ECP as it felt the case warranted an exception to its usual management transfer policy. Normally, transfers are only approved where there’s an immediate risk, such as domestic abuse. By considering the resident’s situation and applying for an exception, the landlord acted fairly.
10. An administration error delayed the transfer application being sent to the correct team. The landlord only spotted the mistake after the resident complained in January 2024. It then approved the transfer. The 3-month delay caused the resident significant distress during an already difficult time.
11. Between August 2023 and May 2024 the landlord’s communication was below a reasonable standard. It accepted updates should have been more frequent and better case management would have helped support the resident. Its recognition of these issues was positive, and the communication plan introduced at stage 2 was fair.
12. To acknowledge both the administration error and poor communication, the landlord offered £500 compensation. Its policy recommends £250–£700 where there’s a serious failure but no lasting impact. This aligns with our own guidance. In this case, the issues were resolved once the transfer was approved and the communication plan was in place. We consider the landlord’s response to be reasonable redress.

13. At the time of the complaint, the landlord was using an interim policy. This said it would reply to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 within 40 working days. The landlord has since updated its policy to match the Complaint Handling Code.
14. The landlord followed its policy and responded at both stages of its complaint process within the relevant timescales. It addressed all the resident’s concerns and offered a suitable resolution in line with its compensation policy.

Learning

15. The landlord’s complaint responses were well detailed and offered specific resolutions to deal with the resident’s concerns. The start of a communication plan to ensure regular updates was a tailored resolution to the resident’s case. The landlord should look at ways to implement communication plans before a resident needs to complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The lack of clear records showcasing the communication between the landlord and resident highlights the need for a simple and accessible way to log all records. Good record keeping can ensure a landlord easily sees early warning signs of issues. It can also help in complaint investigation to identify whether failings are due to system issues, the way people use systems, the approach, or a combination of these factors.