Clarion Housing Association Limited (202506259)

Background

1. The landlord delayed completing adaptations to the resident’s bathroom and to a footpath at her property. The delay lasted more than a year and affected the resident’s ability to wash at home.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of adaptations.
   2. There was a reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord offered compensation at stage 2, but the amount did not reflect the inconvenience and impact on the resident.
6. The landlord apologised for the delays in its complaint handling and offered compensation in line with its 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.

7. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated she had requested adaptations since 2021. She raised a formal complaint in 2024. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint before this. For that reason, we will not investigate events prior to 2024.
8. The OT completed an assessment on 12 October 2024 and the landlord received this report in November 2024. This recommended:
   1. Removal of the bath to provide accessible bathing facilities.
   2. Levelling of the footpath for improved access.
   3. Installation of an upstairs toilet.
9. The landlord declined the OT recommendation for an upstairs toilet due to the extensive works required. The landlord acted in line with its policy which states that consideration will be given to the complexity and practicality of the alterations required. However there are some situations where it may be unable to approve adaptations, such as where the structure of the property does not allow for it.
10. The landlord did not communicate its decision regarding the OT’s toilet recommendation until 21 May 2025, despite receiving the report in November 2024. This represents a delay of six months in providing clarity to the resident. During this period, the resident was left uncertain about whether the works would proceed, which contributed to frustration and prolonged disruption. The landlord has not provided a clear explanation why it took over six months to communicate its position, and this lack of timely communication falls short of expected standards of service.
11. The resident asked for the landlord to review its policies regarding OT reports and recommended works. In particular, that it speaks with its resident to better understand their needs. She stated had the landlord spoken with her about the toilet at the time, she could have advised this was not needed which would have reduced the delays in having the other works completed.
12. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord took reasonable steps to engage with the resident regarding the OT assessment, or that it maintained regular contact. It would have been appropriate to do so in order to ensure the resident’s needs were properly understood, to avoid unnecessary delays, and to provide updates during the process. The landlord’s lack of engagement was not reasonable.
13. The OT made recommendations to level the footpath and make the bathroom accessible for the resident. The landlord confirmed these works did not constitute structural changes and should have been approved at the time. The evidence shows that this work was approved in August 2025 and completed in October 2025.
14. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy does not specify a timescale for completing adaptations. However we would expect that it is taking reasonable steps to address concerns, progress identified works and that it is in regular contact with the resident to update them.
15. In this case the delays in approving and completing the necessary works were unreasonable and impacted the resident. On several occasions the resident had to chase and she told the landlord that she had to go to her local gym to shower instead of using her bathroom.
16. The resident was left without essential adaptations for an extended period, despite repeatedly informing the landlord of the difficulties she faced. Having to rely on external facilities to meet basic needs such as bathing is not acceptable and demonstrates a failure to provide a reasonable standard of service.
17. When the resident informed the landlord of the difficulties she faced, it would have been appropriate to explore alternative options for the resident. For example by discussing her housing options to find a home that met her needs, considering a temporary move or exploring any temporary measures it could take to help her whilst she was waiting for the works. However there is no evidence this was done.
18. Although the landlord acknowledged its service failures and offered £100 compensation at stage 1, this amount did not reasonably reflect the level of disruption and distress experienced.
19. Following contact from this Service, the landlord apologised to the resident and offered £3430 compensation. We accept that this compensation offer represented an attempt to put things right and we note that it was a significant amount. However the landlord offered this 4 months after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it appears to have been prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. This should have been an outcome and offer of redress identified at the time of the complaints process.
20. As the landlord did not offer appropriate compensation at the end of its complaints procedure, we have made a finding of service failure. This is because the landlord did not do enough to put matters right during its formal consideration of the complaint. As it later made a further offer of compensation which we consider to be proportionate and fair, we have not ordered further compensation. However we have ordered the landlord to consider its learning from this case and to share the outcome of this review with us and the resident.

21. The resident raised a complaint on 13 March 2025, which the landlord acknowledged. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 21 May 2025. This was outside of the landlord’s complaints policy, which says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days. The landlord acknowledged its service failure and offered the resident £50 for the delays.
22. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 May 2025. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond within 20 working days. However it was unable to respond within the set timescales and wrote to the resident on 25 June 2025, stating that it aimed to provide her with a response by 22 July 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 July 2025. It acknowledged the delays and offered the resident a further £50 compensation.
23. Overall, we consider the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for the delays in its complaint replies, in line with its compensation policy. This adequately reflected the impact of the service failures identified and was fair and proportionate.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. There were no concerns about record keeping.

Communication

25. The landlord’s lack of communication in this case highlights the need for it to learn from the experience and ensure in future that it directly engages with residents to avoid unnecessary delays, inconvenience and distress