Clarion Housing Association Limited (202508522)

Background

1. The resident is elderly and has dementia. His son has full power of attorney over his affairs, including his tenancy. During 2024 the resident moved in with a friend while the landlord carried out work in his property. It paid him a £40 allowance for each day he stayed there. It then moved him into one of its empty flats and stopped paying the allowance. The resident’s son complained about the landlord’s decision to stop the payments and asked it to reconsider its position.  He was unhappy with its final response to the complaint and asked us to investigate. Throughout this report we have referred to “the resident” interchangeably to mean the resident and his son, given the son was acting on his father’s behalf when dealing with the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation payments.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation payments.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation payments

6. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s circumstances and the suitability of the temporary accommodation it provided when deciding if it should continue paying a daily allowance.

Handling of the complaint

7. The landlord failed to issue a stage 1 response to the complaint and delayed in issuing a stage 2 response in line with its complaints 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.

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.

8. When the resident first moved out of his property, the landlord said it would pay him a £40 daily allowance if he moved in with friends or family. This was in line with its decant policy which stated this payment was to “cover food, drink and the accommodation”. The policy also permitted it to make discretionary payments to residents staying in temporary accommodation for “reasonable costs” incurred.
9. In line with its policy, the landlord paid the resident the £40 daily allowance for the 74 days he stayed with a friend. It did not make these payments during the remaining 61 days when it provided him with a temporary flat. It considered this decision to stop the payments was in line with its policy. However, in our view it should reasonably have exercised its discretion and agreed some form of further daily allowance.
10. The resident told the landlord prior to moving in to the temporary flat, and during his stay, that it was not fully suited to his medical needs. We have seen evidence that he told it in January 2025, mid-way through his stay, that he was unable to use the bath and relied on having daily showers at his friend’s property. He remained in the temporary flat for almost a month after this. We have seen no evidence the landlord made any attempts during this time to secure an alternative property or provide an alternative solution that would enable him to wash in the temporary flat provided. It therefore relied on his friend’s goodwill to enable him to have access to this basic necessity.
11. When submitting his complaint, the resident also explained that he had been unable to cook in the flat as all his belongings were in storage. He was also understandably distressed by the “total change to his routine and surroundings”, particularly given he had dementia. He explained that these factors, combined with the need to use the shower, meant he spent most of his time in his friend’s property and only slept in the temporary flat.
12. Taking these circumstances into account, it was unreasonable in our view that the landlord adopted a rigid interpretation of its policy. We have seen no evidence in its pre-complaint communications with the resident that it gave any consideration to the fact he was still using his friend’s facilities. Had it done so, it may have considered it fair to reinstate at least some of the friends and family allowance given the purpose of it was to mitigate against costs to their household. Alternatively, it could reasonably have agreed to reimburse any costs incurred in line with its policy, either by asking the resident to provide evidence or by paying a daily flat rate. Instead, it simply dismissed the request on the basis it had provided a temporary flat. This was unreasonable.
13. The landlord also failed to consider the resident’s circumstances and suitability of the accommodation it provided in its complaint response. It said it could find no records to show the resident had raised any concerns about the facilities in the temporary flat while he stayed there. As we have outlined, this was not correct and he had raised concerns prior to and during his stay.
14. Given this, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation payments. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we have ordered it to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by this service failure.
15. As the resident had no option but to use the shower facilities in his friend’s property, we consider it fair that the landlord should pay half of the £40 daily allowance for each day he stayed in the temporary flat. This equates to £1,220 (£20 multiplied by 61 days).

16. When the resident complained in March 2025 about the temporary accommodation payments, the landlord should have processed this as a new stage 1 complaint. This would have been in keeping with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which require it to operate a two-stage complaints process.
17. Although it had issued a stage 1 response to the resident in December 2024, this related to his first complaint about the damp and mould in his property. The resident’s complaint in March 2025 related to its handling of compensation payments after he moved into the temporary flat. He only moved into the temporary flat after the landlord had already issued the stage 1 response. Therefore, while one issue flowed from the other – the resident would not have been in temporary accommodation but for the damp and mould in his property – they were separate complaints each meriting a stage 1 response.
18. The resident pointed this out to the landlord. Within his complaint email he specifically stated he wanted to “raise a new complaint”. When the landlord asked if he wished to escalate the previous complaint to stage 2, he said he believed his complaint was about a separate matter which occurred after the stage 1 response was issued.
19. Despite this clear request from the resident and the requirements of its complaints policy, the landlord failed to raise a new stage 1 complaint about the temporary accommodation payments. It instead responded to this new complaint through its stage 2 response to the original complaint, even though the resident had not asked to escalate this.
20. A two-stage complaints process gives the landlord a second opportunity to try and resolve a complaint. When the resident received the stage 2 response, he pointed out to the landlord that its response was inaccurate. He provided it with evidence that he had raised concerns about the suitability of the temporary flat, contrary to its suggestion in the stage 2 response that he had not. Had the landlord issued a stage 1 response, it would have had the opportunity to review this at stage 2. This potentially may have led to it agreeing a resolution with the resident, which would have saved him the time and trouble of referring the complaint to us.
21. There was a further complaint handling failure as the landlord took 36 working days from receiving the complaint to issuing its response. We have seen no evidence it acknowledged receipt of the complaint. This was not in keeping with its policy or the Code which required it to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and reply at stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
22. The landlord apologised for this delay in the stage 2 response but did not offer any compensation for it, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. We have ordered it to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this delay and its failure to issue a stage 1 response to the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord should ensure its complaint handling staff have access to, or are provided with, all relevant emails and other records in a timely manner when investigating complaints.