Clarion Housing Association Limited (202415919)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s refusal to allow a cat flap to be fitted in her front door on fire safety grounds. The resident felt the decision failed to consider her emotional support animal.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A request to install a cat flap.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a request to install a cat flap.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord identified its communication errors relating to the resident’s request, prior to the complaint being made. It’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings it identified.
6. The landlord recognised delays at both complaint stages. Its offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings it identified.

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.

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 have not considered

7. Part of the resident’s complaint dates back to 2020. The scope of our investigation will consider the events leading up to the resident’s complaint. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
8. The resident said the landlord’s handling of the request to install a cat flap caused her considerable stress and anxiety. She reports the situation caused her to have high blood pressure and attend counselling. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury or damage to health caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.
9. The landlord committed to help the resident find a home more suited to her individual needs. Although the landlord has told us that the resident refused this offer, it has provided no evidence. The resident has said she was placed onto a rehoming list and offered one property. She said this was only after she complained to it and is now subject to a new complaint. It would be more appropriate to allow the landlord to complete its internal complaints process and as such we will not consider this as part of our investigation.

The handling of a request to install a cat flap

10. The evidence shows that in 2022 the landlord had meetings with staff and the freeholder of the property about resident’s with cat flaps. The meeting covered how best to deal with these when new doors were being installed. There was an agreement that each household would be required to submit a “resident’s improvement application”. The landlord has not provided evidence that this was communicated to the resident in a timely manner. This may have helped her understand the process and reach an agreed resolution sooner.
11. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 January 2023 about her cat flap and got no response. She chased a response in February 2023 and was told that it would forward the email onto its repairs team. The landlord failed to do so, which caused the resident to complain. The landlord’s failure to process the resident’s request at this time meant it likely caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
12. The landlord apologised for not responding sooner in its complaint responses and explained that staff had sent the email to the wrong department twice. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged the error, there is no evidence it identified any learning or put measures in place to prevent a recurrence.
13. The landlord advised the resident of the need to complete its improvement application form, something which it should have done much sooner. It explained that it had contacted the fire door suppliers who did not recommend a cat flap to be fitted as the door would lose its fire certification and invalidate the warranty. The landlord would have been reasonable to base any decision to approve or reject the resident’s request based on this specialist advice. The landlord said that if the application failed it could look at alternatives due to the requirement for her emotional support cat. This showed it was considering the resident’s vulnerabilities and demonstrated a willingness to find a solution.
14. We have not seen the resident’s application, reply or evidence of any of the landlord’s decision-making. However, it is clear the resident’s application was rejected prior to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response being issued.
15. The landlord did not directly reply to the resident’s submission of supporting evidence from the local fire service safety manager and her independent fire safety company. Although an acknowledgement of this evidence would have been appropriate, the landlord was reasonable to rely on its own building safety teams expertise. The building safety team had advised the door would lose its fire safety certification and warranty with the installation of a cat flap. Landlord’s must ensure value for money and use the warranty period to resolve any issues. Losing the applicable warranty would have meant this was not an option.
16. The resident complained that named staff members were not held accountable. She said the landlord had not evidenced it had taken any action against its employees. It is outside our remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff should lead to disciplinary procedures. Actions of its staff are better suited for the landlord’s HR and disciplinary process. However, the landlord failed to explain its position about this issue. This could have helped the resident to understand it was taking their concerns about staff seriously.
17. The landlord explained the reasons why no fire risk assessment had been carried out since 2019. This was an appropriate response as it had consulted with its internal experts. It would also have helped the resident understand its position. It said that it would monitor the situation in light of the new fire safety act, which would have helped reassure her it was taking its responsibilities seriously.
18. In its response to us it said it had no record of any vulnerabilities within the resident’s household. However, it was attempting to rehouse her due to vulnerabilities and as such we would have expected it to have held a record of these.
19. The landlord reduced the property’s fire risk rating in 2025 and said it may now allow a cat flap, if applied for. The resident complained that this meant a cat flap could have been installed when the new door was fitted and prevented her having to rehome her cat. However, this investigation only considers the landlord’s actions up to the stage 2 complaint response, and any subsequent landlord decisions fall outside its scope. We don’t use the benefit of hindsight, and the landlord’s position at the time of the complaint was clearly guided by internal expertise and the property’s then risk rating rather than its current one.
20. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience it had caused, which included consideration of the household vulnerabilities. This offer was reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance where there was maladministration.

21. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint policy. This requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages. The policy requires the landlord to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales and the landlord’s definition of a complaint were compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable at the time.
22. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 April 2023, 13 days late. The escalation on 15 June 2023 was 12 days late. These delays were not reasonable and are likely to have left the resident uncertain about the progress of her complaint.
23. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 19 working days late and the stage 2 complaint response 16 working days late. Although the landlord contacted the resident on 13 July 2023 to request an extension, this was 12 days beyond what was allowed in its complaint’s policy. The landlord provided responses to all issues raised other than the staff issues, which was covered previously. It also apologised in both complaint responses and offered the resident a total of £100 compensation for her time and trouble.
24. The landlord’s apologies and compensation offer were reasonable and consistent with our compensation guidance for cases where complaint responses are delayed by more than several days. Our suggested learning should help the landlord improve its complaint handling and record keeping going forward.

Learning

25. There were issues around the landlord’s handling of the resident’s email that eventually escalated into a complaint not being sent to the right department. A failsafe system or procedure to ensure this was prevented from happening again would help improve the service the landlord is providing.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. This investigation identified issues which were based on examples of poor record keeping. Our Spotlight report on knowledge information management could help the landlord improve its record keeping. It explains the importance of landlords keeping accurate, accessible, and well‑managed records. This helps it to support effective decision making. It highlights that poor record keeping can lead to service failures. This creates unclear accountability, and poor outcomes for residents, particularly those who are vulnerable.

Communication

27. If a system was in place that ensures updates are given at set times for complaints, it may help the landlord improve its overall communication.
28. Staff should be reminded of the importance of acknowledging complaints promptly. Also, of maintaining regular updates throughout the complaint process, as required by both the Code and good practice. This will help the landlord improve its service.