Clarion Housing Association Limited (202430845)

Background

1. The resident occupies a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house with her 6 children (one of whom is an adult). She has 2 children with additional needs, although only the 5-year-old child had been diagnosed at the time of the complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations to her home.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for aids and adaptations to her home.
   2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord refused the recommended aids and adaptations without considering its obligations to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. This resulted in significant delays for the resident. Matters were compounded by its poor communications.
6. The landlord failed to use its complaints procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns as it failed to address the crux of her complaint.

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.

Recommendations

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

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. It is not our role to say whether or not the landlord should have agreed the aids and adaptations recommended by the occupational therapist. That is a matter for the landlord as it is responsible for managing its own resources and housing stock. Our role is to consider whether its approachwas fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, having regard to its policies and legal obligations.
8. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states it “will not allow any structural changes within the property, i.e. through floor lifts, extensions or loft conversions. The first choice must to be to consider re-housing alternatives.” It has not furnished us with process maps for minor and major adaptations referenced in the policy. This represents a failure on its part to provide us with information for our investigation.
9. The landlord’s refusal of the recommendation for the creation of an additional bedroom by way of a loft conversion was consistent with its policy. However, taking such a blanket approach to aids and adaptations requests fails to demonstrate appropriate consideration of its obligations under the Equality Act 2010, specifically in respect of making reasonable adjustments.
10. With regard to the other recommendations, the reason for the landlord’s refusal to secure the hardstanding was not clear from the available evidence. Similarly, there is no evidence within the available records of any further consideration given to the recommendation for a code lock to the front door. These shortcomings further highlight a failure to consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
11. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps us to understand its actions and decision-making at the time. If there are disputed facts and no supporting evidence, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
12. In this case, there are gaps in the evidence provided to us by the landlord. For example, we have not received evidence of various communications between the landlord and the resident on 3 and 11 July, 7 August, and 21 and 26 November 2024, which are referenced in its records and complaint responses. The evidential gaps point to a record keeping issue and/or failure to provide us with relevant information for our investigation.
13. The landlord’s letter to the resident dated 11 July 2024 appears to have been its first communication with her regarding her request for aids and adaptations. It simply stated that “due to the extensive works required, [we] will not be proceeding with these on this occasion”. It failed to provide a clear explanation of the reasons for its decision, which lacked transparency and came across as abrupt and unsympathetic. Also, the letter did not explain that a code lock could not be fitted to the front door due to fire safety implications, or the steps the landlord was taking to find an alternative solution.
14. There was a one-month delay – from 8 July to 7 August 2024 – in the landlord referring the resident to its Available Homes team to discuss re-housing options. This was unsatisfactory, especially given the resident’s notification of the omission in her emails to the landlord of 17 and 23 July 2024. The available evidence does not include the discussions between the landlord and the resident regarding her re-housing options. However, the resident’s email of 6 September 2024 indicated she had been advised by the Available Homes team that re-housing was an unrealistic option. This is consistent with the landlord’s further stage 2 response dated 19 December 2024.
15. In the absence of a clear process or timescales for dealing with aids and adaptations requests, we cannot assess if the landlord acted in line with its procedure. For instance, the policy does not explain the approach where re-housing is not possible, as was the case here.
16. There is no evidence to substantiate the landlord’s assertion, in its further stage 2 response, that the resident had advised it she was prepared to undertake the work on a self-funded basis. This was also inconsistent with the available evidence, which shows she repeatedly noted her intention to proceed with the works with DFG funding. Therefore, it was inappropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to seek consent for the recommended works through its permissions process. This resulted in a further delay – from 7 August to 12 November 2024 – during which time the resident was advised on and followed the permissions process.
17. The landlord’s correspondence with the local authority in November 2024 reflects the disparity in the information each of them was providing to the resident regarding what was required to proceed with the works with DFG funding. We appreciate the resident’s feelings of frustration in constantly having to chase matters.
18. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not contact the local authority until 24 April 2025 to query the cost of the recommended works and the amount it would be required to contribute. This was 10 months after receiving the request to proceed with aids and adaptations with DFG funding, which was excessive and unreasonable. That said, it is positive to note the landlord subsequently approved the recommended aids and adaptations.
19. As noted above, the lack of clear and timely communications from the landlord to the resident was a key failure in this case. It also accepted, in its complaint responses, various failures to respond to the resident’s communications throughout its handling of the matter.
20. Across its multiple complaint responses, the landlord awarded compensation totalling £500 for its various failings in respect of its handling of the resident’s aids and adaptations request. While this is a sizeable financial remedy and has prevented a more severe finding, we take the view it does not adequately reflect the impact to the resident and her household of its failings. Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance, we have awarded compensation for the significant amount of distress and inconvenience caused.

21. The landlord’s complaints policy reflects our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). In line with the definition of a complaint provided in the Code and adopted in the policy, the landlord ought reasonably to have treated the resident’s email of 17 July 2024 as a complaint, as it clearly expressed dissatisfaction with its service in respect of her request for aids and adaptations. While we recognise its focus on resolving the substantive issue, it could have logged the complaint alongside referring the request to review its decision back to the Aids and Adaptations team.
22. As it happened, the impact of its failure was minimal because the resident insisted that a complaint be logged. This was duly acknowledged and the stage 1 response provided on 7 August 2024, which was within 15 working days of the original expression of dissatisfaction on 17 July 2024. Given the timescales of 5 working days permitted for acknowledgement of a complaint and 10 working days for a stage 1 response, this was reasonable.
23. The stage 1 response appropriately identified the landlord’s poor communication with the resident regarding the outcome of her request for aids and adaptations and the consequent delay in making a referral to its Available Homes team. The compensation offer represented an attempt to put things right for the resident, and the response demonstrated learning by providing feedback to the relevant team. This was consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
24. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the stage 2 complaint, which it did 15 working days after receipt. This was excessive against the 5 working days stated in its policy. Matters were compounded by the subsequent delay in providing its stage 2 response. It explained, in a letter to the resident on 1 October 2024, that its response was delayed due to the time taken by its senior management team to respond as part of its investigation. It told her it would update her on 4 October 2024, but there is no evidence it did so. It provided its stage 2 response 27 working days after its acknowledgement, which was unreasonable against the 20 working days prescribed.
25. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the delay in providing its response in the stage 2 letter. It provided a thorough and fair response to the resident’s complaint, recognising further failings, apologising, and awarding compensation. However, it failed to address a key point raised in the resident’s stage 2 escalation request – that its refusal was unreasonable given the works would be wholly covered by the DFG funding of £30,000 and would not require any contribution from the landlord. Its oversight in this regard meant it erroneously advised her she could seek consent for the works through its permissions process.
26. Following the resident’s emails of 12 November 2024 referring to the Ombudsman and court action, the landlord logged a further stage 1 complaint. While it did not formally acknowledge the complaint, it provided a stage 1 response within the expected timescale of 10 working days. Confusingly, it apologised and offered compensation for the delay in responding, and thanked the resident for accepting its request for an extension.
27. With regard to the substantive issue of aids and adaptations, the response failed to address the crux of the resident’s continuing concerns about proceeding with the works with DFG funding.
28. We have not been provided with the resident’s request for a further stage 2 escalation, so it is unclear what issues were raised. However, aspects of the final response were confusing and contradictory. For instance, on one hand, it stated the resident was under the impression the landlord would be part-funding the works under its permissions process so she could still get the local authority funding. Conversely, it went on to state it suggested the permissions route as she had advised she was happy to undertake the works herself via funding she would source elsewhere.
29. Overall, the landlord did not use its complaint handling procedure as an effective tool for resolving the resident’s concerns. In the circumstances, the compensation totalling £100 offered for its delayed responses does not fairly reflect the complaint handling failures we have identified. We have, therefore, awarded additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance, reflecting the shortcomings within both complaint processes.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

30. There were gaps in the evidence provided to us by the landlord, which points to a potential record keeping failure.

Communication

31. There was a lack of clear and timely communication by the landlord in this case, for example, in relation to the permissions process and DFG funding.