Clarion Housing Association Limited (202447751)

Decision
Case ID	202447751
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	7 January 2026

Background

1. The resident has physical disabilities and is a wheelchair user. The resident asked the landlord to install a pathway across the communal lawn, linking his existing disabled access ramp to the communal footpath, to prevent his wheelchair and mobility scooter sinking into mud during inclement weather. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of this request.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a pathway over the communal lawn.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a pathway over the communal lawn.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a pathway over the communal lawn.

6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a pathway over the communal lawn was marked by avoidable delays, poor communication, and a lack of oversight, resulting in significant detriment to the resident over an extended period. The landlord did not fully recognise or remedy its failings until after the landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

7. The landlord failed to fully comply with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own complaints policy, with repeated delays and poor communication at both stages of the complaint process. While some compensation was offered, it did not fully recognise the cumulative impact to the resident arising from its failings.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 04 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,200 made up as follows: £1,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a pathway across the communal lawn. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident by failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 04 February 2026
3	General Order The landlord must complete a learning review of this case. The landlord must present the findings from this review to its senior leadership team. And then send the resident and us, a summary of the review and explain any subsequent action it intends to take.	No later than 04 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Early 2023	The landlord gave approval to the local authority to install a temporary disabled access ramp, to enable the resident to access and exit the property using his wheelchair and mobility scooter.
September 2023	The resident asked the landlord to install a pathway over the communal lawn, linking the ramp to the communal footpath, preventing his mobility scooter and wheelchair sinking into the mud in inclement weather.
23 July 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his request for a pathway, citing poor communication.
24 July 2024	The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint.
2 September 2024	The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord: Apologised for confusion and delays regarding the resident’s request for a pathway installation. Noted that a removable ramp had been previously agreed. But said it had not received an Occupational Therapist (OT) referral for an extended pathway. Explained that a permanent hardstand would not be permitted on communal land, that communal areas must remain clear for health and safety reasons, and maintained that its policy on this was not discriminatory. The landlord said the resident could apply for a disabled facilities grant (DFG) through the local authority for a retractable pathway, which would require an OT assessment. Or he could seek permission from the landlord if he wanted to self-fund the works himself. Offered £50 compensation for complaint handling day.
10 July 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2, citing inadequate communication and failure to act on the recommendations of an OT referral.
29 August 2025	The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord: Apologised for misinformation given in the stage 1 complaint response, that it had not received an OT referral for an extended pathway. Said it had explained in March 2023 that a permanent hardstand or ramp could not be installed across the communal lawn, which remained the case. Said it could not authorise a concrete or paved pathway. But it had reassessed the situation and was committed to finding a practical solution for mobility scooter access during inclement weather. And would involve the OT again to determine the most suitable option. Offered £50 compensation for misinformation and assigned a single point of contact.
31 August 2025	The resident provided us with a copy of the landlord’s final stage 2 complaint response on 31 August 2025 and asked us to investigate. The resident cited a lack of confidence in the landlord’s decision making.
4 November 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident offering an apology for the time it had taken to resolve the matter for the resident. It: Recognised the resident had been asking it to install a pathway since September 2023. Agreed that installing paving slabs was the most appropriate solution, which it hoped to install on 3 November 2025 weather permitting. Said it was truly sorry for the significant delay, inconvenience and distress caused. And said it fully recognised the impact the situation upon his daily life. Offered £1,000 compensation for the 2-year delay in commencing aids and adaptations, taking into consideration the vulnerabilities within the household, inconvenience, disruption, failure to follow its processes / policy, and an assessment of whether the inconvenience could have been reconciled in any other manner.
6 November 2025	The landlord provided evidence to us, that it had installed a flagstone pathway on 3 November 2025, linking the resident’s access ramp to the communal footpath.
22 December 2025	The resident told us the pathway had been installed. But said the landlord should pay more compensation.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a pathway over the communal lawn.
Finding	Maladministration

8. The resident requested a pathway across the communal lawn in September 2023 to connect his ramp to the communal footpath, due to his mobility needs. The landlord initially refused, stating that permanent pathways were not permitted in communal areas
9. The resident asked the landlord to review its decision a year later, explaining that without a pathway he could not access the property with his mobility scooter, which he felt could amount to disability discrimination. Although the landlord agreed to review the case, it failed to inform the resident or prioritise the review, causing unnecessary delay and uncertainty.
10. In his stage 1 complaint on 23 July 2024, the resident said he had repeatedly chased the landlord for an outcome concerning the pathway without success. This could not be verified from the available evidence, but the landlord does not dispute this.
11. Its Scheme Manager gave approval for a temporary pathway in August 2024. In later internal communications we have seen, its Scheme Manager confirmed that implementation of this was left to its surveyor and the resident. However, no action was taken, leaving the matter unresolved. This suggests there was an inadequate level of ownership and oversight over the case.
12. The landlord later apologised in its stage 1 response on 2 September 2024 for the confusion and delays in its handling of the matter, which was positive. It reiterated that a permanent pathway could not be installed across a communal lawn, stated that its communal areas must be kept clear for health and safety reasons, and maintained that its policy was not discriminatory.
13. While the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy allows refusal where communal areas would be obstructed, it also states it will meet its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 by making reasonable adjustments tailored to individual needs. It was positive therefore, that the landlord suggested the resident might apply for a disabled facilities grant for a retractable pathway or seek permission to self-fund this. Although it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered this at the outset.
14. The resident told us that OT recommendations had already been sent to the landlord in July 2025 recommending a pathway extension. But we could not verify this from the available evidence. However, the landlord did receive an OT report on 17 October 2024 (dated 16 October 2024), recommending the landlord extend the existing temporary ramp so it joined the communal footpath. The OT explained this would improve the resident’s safety, wellbeing, and reduce social isolation. The landlord sought internal advice on feasibility but again there was a lack of timely follow up.

15. The landlord maintained its earlier position in the stage 2 complaint response on 29 August 2025, that it could not agree to a permanent pathway. But said it would find a practical solution for mobility scooter access during inclement weather, would liaise with the OT, and had assigned him a single point of contact. The landlord’s offer of action was positive. But it did not manage the resident’s expectations as to the expected timeframe for providing an alternative solution, which was unreasonable. The landlord also failed to recognise any failings in its handling of the matter or the detriment to the resident.
16. The resident faced further inconvenience in September 2025 when trying to obtain contact details for the named contact, which the landlord had not proactively provided.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted

17. The landlord agreed to install a temporary flagstone path linking the ramp to the communal footpath on 16 September 2025. It approved a quotation of works on 28 October 2025 and the pathway was installed shortly afterwards, on 3 November 2025.
18. It was positive that the landlord wrote to the resident again on 4 November 2025, taking responsibility for the significant delay in addressing the matter, and acknowledging the impact on the resident’s daily life. The landlord tried to put things right for the resident by apologising. It also offered £1,000 compensation for its delay to commence the adaptations over the previous 2 years, when taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities, inconvenience and disruption caused, and its failure to follow its own processes.
19. The landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable and aligned with our published remedies guidance, in cases where there have been failures that have caused significant physical and / or emotional impact to a resident. However, we cannot find reasonable redress because the landlord did not acknowledge all its failings or provide full redress during its internal complaints process. It also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. As a result, we have issued a failure finding and orders.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

20. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. The landlord had a published complaints policy, which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of response timescales for stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
21. This means the landlord had to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue the stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It had to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue the stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of logging the complaint. The landlord was permitted to extend these response timescales by a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2, provided it explained to the resident why this was necessary.
22. The landlord did not fully comply with the Code and its own policy in managing the resident’s complaint. While it acknowledged the resident’s complaints and issued responses at both stages, there were repeated failures to manage expectations and adhere to timescales:
    1. At stage 1, the landlord failed to provide clear timescales for contact and responses, did not seek an extension when delays occurred, and issued the stage 1 complaint response 18 days late. This caused avoidable uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord offered £50 compensation for delays in its handling of the stage 1 complaint, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
    2. At stage 2, the landlord issued the stage 2 complaint acknowledgement 3 working days late and again failed to clarify its expected response timescale. It correctly sought an extension and met the revised deadline. It offered £50 compensation for misinformation given in the stage 1 complaint response, which was fair. But failed to acknowledge delays in its handling of the stage 2 complaint.
23. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling demonstrated poor communication and inadequate expectation management, resulting in unnecessary effort by the resident having to chase for updates. While compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable for some failings, the landlord missed opportunities to fully recognise and address the cumulative impact of its delays and inadequate communication upon the resident. As a result, we have issued a failure finding and orders.

Learning

24. The landlord did not specify that it had identified any learning from this case. We have identified the following areas of learning, for the landlord’s consideration:
    1. The landlord may wish to introduce a process for screening requests for reasonable adjustments (for example mobility access) at the outset, before relying on blanket communal area policies.
    2. The landlord should reflect upon the adequacy of its existing processes for overseeing and tracking requests made for aids and adaptations / reasonable adjustments, through to completion. And for keeping resident’s adequately informed.
    3. The landlord should encourage its staff to provide residents with direct contact details when appointing a single point of contact.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. We were able to determine the case based on the evidence provided by the parties. But there were some gaps in the evidence provided by the landlord, as referenced earlier in this report. Landlords should keep a robust record of their actions relating to each casefile, which can be provided to us upon request. Landlords who fail to record information accurately, risk missing opportunities to identify that their actions were inadequate or wrong and contribute to inadequate communication and redress.

Communication

26. The landlord did not keep the resident adequately informed. The resident experienced avoidable time and effort, having to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates.