Clarion Housing Association Limited (202439414)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439414

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 July 2025

Amended 4 December 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a temporary move following a rat infestation at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s related concerns about costs and damages.
3. Response to her concerns about replacement blinds.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. It began in 2008. The property is a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house. The resident lives at the property with her family, which also includes 3 children and 2 dogs. She has vulnerabilities relating to her physical and mental health. One of her children has Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The complaint stems from recurring rat infestations.
In response to a renewed infestation at the property, the landlord arranged a temporary move for the resident in May 2023. This was so it could complete repairs to her home. It expected the move to last for a few weeks. It initially housed the resident through a travel services company. It subsequently moved her to one of its own empty properties. It took the landlord more than a year to complete the repairs. The family returned to the property in July 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord in September 2024. She referenced various problems with the temporary move. She also mentioned associated costs, damage, stress, and injuries. She said the landlord should pay her around £170,000 in compensation. The landlord issued a stage 1 response the following month. It accepted that several service failures had occurred. It awarded the resident a total of £1,000 in compensation to address these.
The resident replied soon afterwards. She said there were errors in the landlord’s response, it had overlooked some of her complaint points, and its compensation was inadequate. The landlord issued a stage 2 response in late December 2024. It identified some additional failures at this point. It awarded the resident another £250 in compensation. The resident remained unhappy subsequently. In May 2025 she told us that rats had returned to the property.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in July 2025. She reiterated that there were ongoing infestation issues at the property. She felt it needed more repairs. She said she was liaising with the local authority’s environmental health team. She told us the landlord had previously discussed a permanent move with her. She said it offered her £10,000 to move to the empty property where she had stayed. She told us she did not want to move elsewhere. She felt legal action may be necessary to achieve the amount of compensation that she wanted.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is recognised that the situation is distressing for the resident and her family. Over the years, the landlord has moved them several times due to rat infestations. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine whether a landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal items. Similarly, we cannot determine whether a landlord’s actions were negligent.
In her complaint to the landlord, the resident referenced distress and inconvenience linked to previous temporary moves in 2021 and 2022. These moves were the subject of a previous investigation by the Ombudsman (our reference 202120227). That report determined that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a rat infestation. We issued our final decision in February 2024. In line with our remit, any matters that we have previously determined are out of scope for this investigation.
When the resident brought her current complaint to the Ombudsman in December 2024, she included some new issues. She referenced bannisters, a bathroom radiator, and scratches on a wall. These were not mentioned in her complaint to the landlord or its responses. In general, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. We also need sufficient evidence to complete a fair investigation. In line with our remit, our investigation reflects the resident’s relevant complaint to the landlord. Any new issues are also out of scope. The resident can bring these matters to the Ombudsman after they have completed the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of a temporary move following a rat infestation

The landlord has supplied some undated internal notes. They show a surveyor had reported that the property was uninhabitable due to a severe rat infestation. The notes said the resident needed an emergency decant (a temporary move). They also said her family should be housed in an apartment, their items should be moved into storage, and her dogs needed to be placed into kennels. The surveyor expected the decant to last for around 4 weeks. The notes confirm that it would involve a significant amount of disruption for the resident’s family.
On 17 May 2023 the landlord discussed the temporary move with the resident. A brief initial record shows it carried out a “decant assessment”. It also shows this was incomplete because the resident had to leave part way through. The landlord spoke to her again later that day. Its corresponding notes were more detailed. They said a floor in the property needed to be removed along with some radiators. They referenced the children’s bedroom requirements. They show the resident had advised that her CCTV cameras needed to be left on while the family were away from the property. Overall, the notes show the parties discussed the required repairs and the family’s needs during the move.
The landlord’s relevant decant policy was effective from February 2023. It says the landlord will keep residents informed at all stages of the decant process. It also says the landlord will:
1. Inform residents when a firm decision has been made about the required works.
2. Consult residents at the earliest opportunity about their housing options.
3. Provide regular updates to residents and agree the frequency of these updates with them.
Based on its decant assessment, there is evidence that the landlord was following its relevant policy at this point. However, from the information provided, there is a lack of evidence to show that it agreed a regular contact arrangement with the resident. This is concerning. Subsequent events show the resident later raised concerns about the landlord’s communication.
Further contact records show the landlord had difficulty arranging the move. They said there was a shortage of kennels and 1 of the resident’s dogs was not insured. They show the resident had told the landlord that the dogs were destructive, so a boarding kennel was required. By 22 May 2023 the parties had found an available kennel. Records from this date show that the resident paid £2,800 in boarding fees upfront. They said she had borrowed the funds from an unspecified party. This was a significant amount of money. It may have been distressing for the resident to borrow the funds. It is noted that the kennel told the landlord it would need 2 weeks’ notice to extend the booking.
In her complaint, the resident said that she had to borrow the funds due to a lack of adequate planning by the landlord. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had to reimburse the resident as the kennel would not take a payment from the landlord over the phone. However, it also accepted the resident’s experience was not consistent with its desired customer service standards. This was a reasonable conclusion on the landlord’s part. The parties agree that the landlord has refunded the resident’s payment. The evidence indicates that it did this promptly. It was appropriate to return the funds as soon as possible.
Contact records show the resident declined some temporary accommodation that the landlord had suggested. They also show that she found a suitable apartment herself, and the landlord subsequently booked it for her. The move took place on 26 May 2023. On this date, the resident reported that the landlord had not given her some key information about the booking. Records confirm that one of its managers had not added the relevant information to its systems. The landlord’s record keeping was inappropriate. The parties agree that the resident was unable to access her temporary accommodation for around 4 hours as a result. It is likely that this delay added to her overall distress.
Contact notes from 8 June 2023 show the landlord had extended the resident’s stay in the apartment. However, they said the resident was distressed because it had not “secured the kennels”. The evidence suggests that the landlord did not give the kennel 2 weeks’ notice as requested. The evidence points to a lack of coordination on its part, which caused avoidable distress for the resident. It is noted that the landlord did not mention this issue in its complaint responses.
In July 2023 the landlord moved the resident again. It is reasonable to conclude that this move also involved a significant amount of upheaval for the family. The Ombudsman has seen little evidence from this period. The lack of information points to further problems with the landlord’s record keeping. Its decant policy says that, where a programme of decants (more than 1) is planned, the landlord will assign a member of its staff to be a single point of contact for the resident. It also says its appointed officer will conduct “individual household needs assessments”, discuss rehousing options, and “agree the package of support” with the resident. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord told us that its local representative had acted as the resident’s point of contact. It said they had completed welfare checks in person and by phone “throughout the decant”. It is noted that there is a limited amount of evidence to support this assertion.
At this stage, the family moved to one of the landlord’s empty properties. The evidence suggests that their dogs stayed with them during this period. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said that it had “knowingly” moved her family next door to a drug dealer. We have not seen any other evidence to support this assertion. Later, in July 2025, the resident told us that she and her children often smelled cannabis during their stay. She said that she had spoken to the landlord’s officers and they had promised to take action. She also said that repair operatives had noticed the smell and made comments about it. She said she knew the neighbour and (for safety reasons) she was reluctant to make any direct reports about them. There is no indication that the landlord logged a formal antisocial behaviour (ASB) case for the resident at any stage. This is concerning.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will log all reports of ASB. It also says that the landlord expects residents to report criminal behaviour to the police. However, the landlord can report issues on a resident’s behalf if they feel intimidated. The policy confirms that the landlord needs the reporting resident’s permission to make a third-party report. In this case, we kept the resident’s comments in mind when we reviewed the case evidence. However, there were no records of any related discussions between the parties. Similarly, there was no other evidence to show that the landlord failed to keep a promise to the resident. Ultimately, we have not seen sufficient evidence to support an ASB-related failure by the landlord at this point.
The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 6 October 2023 and 19 July 2024:
1. The resident called the landlord about council tax. She asked if she should pay tax on the empty property (where she was staying). The landlord said she should only pay one council tax bill. It also said, if she was still paying tax for the property, then she should contact the local authority and ask it to bill the landlord instead. Subsequent events show there were problems with its advice.
2. The landlord left the resident a voicemail 12 days later. Its notes said she should only pay tax on the property (her main home). They also said that she needed to speak to the council again and ask it to reverse its previous amendments to her bill. They said the council should not have been told that she had moved to the empty property. The evidence shows the landlord’s previous advice caused the resident avoidable inconvenience.
3. In February 2024 the resident reported that she was being charged 2 lots of rent (for the property and the empty property). She said the landlord was refunding some charges but she felt that her account balance was incorrect. The landlord said it would investigate the matter and update her.
4. Later that month, the landlord met the resident at her temporary home. Its related notes show the parties discussed various issues. These included the landlord’s progress with repairs to the property, and the resident’s rent account. It is noted the visit was consistent with the landlord’s comments about providing support through a single point of contact. It is also noted that we have not seen any evidence of any similar visits prior to this point.
5. Subsequent records show the landlord completed another welfare visit in April 2024. Its notes said the resident was keen to return to the property. They also said that she was aware of the ongoing rent issue and a manual fix was in place. Overall, the landlord’s notes said there were no concerns following the visit and no actions to raise as a result.
6. In June 2024 the landlord’s surveyor completed a post-works inspection of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete an inspection before the resident returned. The landlord has not supplied a copy of its findings and these were not captured in the property’s repair history. This points to further record keeping problems on the landlord’s part.
7. The resident and her family moved back to the property. The landlord’s previous decant policy (effective February 2023) says it will contact residents within 4 weeks after they have returned to their home. This is to complete a welfare check and follow up any outstanding issues. The parties agree that the landlord did not complete a corresponding welfare check in this case. However, the landlord had updated its policy in September 2023 and removed the relevant term. The term did not apply at this point.
The landlord has supplied the resident’s rent statements from July 2023 to September 2024. These show it made a series of adjustments to her account during this period. Some of the adjustments were considerable. For example, an adjustment in April 2024 was around £470. The landlord was still making adjustments in September 2024. However, there is no indication that it allowed significant arrears to accumulate on the resident’s rent account. The statements show it was monitoring the situation and made adjustments accordingly. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
On 12 September 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. In relation to the temporary move, she said that she had found the apartment and kennel herself. She also said she had borrowed funds from her boss. In addition, she said the landlord had told her that the move would only last for a few weeks. However, she said it had lasted for 14 months, the landlord did not tell her what was happening, and the situation was stressful. She felt the second move in July 2023 was only necessary because it had not progressed the required repairs to the property. In summary, the resident’s other key points were:
1. It was “degrading” to borrow the kennel fees. The landlord had placed her in a difficult position.
2. Despite an agreement to the contrary, the landlord had allowed the power at the property to run out. This affected the resident’s CCTV and appliances. The incident had happened while the family were staying in the apartment.
3. During the second phase of the temporary move, the resident had received 2 different council tax bills. Later, the landlord had charged her 2 sets of rent. This caused her rent account to be in arrears. The duplicated rent payments were ongoing and the situation was stressful.
4. There were issues with a removal and storage contractor that the landlord had appointed. It showed a lack of care for the family’s belongings and a lack of accountability. When there was a problem, it did not answer the resident’s phone calls.
5. During the resident’s move back to the property, the removal contractor told her that it was not aware that the family’s belongings needed to be packed beforehand. This oversight had delayed the move by several hours. The contractor “made a mess” during the (presumably rushed) packing process.
6. The move happened on a Friday. The family’s belongings arrived at the property around 4pm. The contractor’s operatives had left before the move was complete. Before the operatives left, they assured the resident that the family’s bedding and kitchenware had been unloaded. This was not the case. The family lacked essential household items over the weekend (the operatives returned on the next working day to resume the move).
7. The landlord had capped the property’s gas supply when the family moved out of the property. The resident had recently uncapped it herself. The landlord should have done this before her family returned to their home.
8. Overall, the temporary move was distressing for the family. The resident had been prescribed “further medication” to help her with “mental breakdowns”. Her vulnerable child’s routine had also been “upset”. Due to their condition, this was detrimental to their wellbeing.
9. The landlord should pay the resident around £170,000 in compensation to address the various issues that had occurred.
On 4 November 2024 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It accepted that it was responsible for various failures. In particular, it referenced delayed repairs, a failure to follow policy, consideration of household vulnerabilities, “misdirection”, and communication issues. From the response wording, the reasons for some of these findings were not entirely clear. The landlord awarded the resident £700 in related compensation. Its other key points were:
1. A decant was necessary due to a further rat infestation at the property. Its pest control contractor had completed some treatments. After the treatment, it completed some works that the contractor recommended. It did not complete these in a timely manner.
2. The property was “very damp” and it “took months” to identify the source of the problem. A water supplier was involved in the investigation. It had repaired a broken drain and completed “multiple sewage surveys”. This had prevented the landlord from progressing its own repairs.
3. For various reasons, it had been difficult to find a kennel for the resident’s dogs. There was a public holiday at the time and some kennels were unable to house the dogs due to their breed. The lack of insurance was also an issue. It was sorry that the resident had incurred a financial burden in relation to the kennel fees. It had reimbursed the funds to the resident.
4. The decant was complex but the landlord had not handled the situation well. Its communication in relation to the initial move was poor. This caused “frustration on all sides”. It had been difficult to contact the resident at times. This was due to her work commitments and inability to answer calls from a withheld number.
5. It accepted there had been a delay in gaining access to a decant property. This occurred because the owner had not supplied the relevant details to the landlord promptly. This caused problems on the day of the move. Its officers had helped to resolve the issue. However, it was sorry for the delay.
6. The neighbour’s alleged drug activities were an ASB issue. The resident should report any criminal incidents to the police. If she supplied a crime reference number, the landlord could log an ASB case on its systems. This would allow it to investigate further. The resident had advised that she was unwilling to report the neighbour to the police.
7. The resident had confirmed that the problems with her council tax and rent account were recently resolved. For clarity, she was responsible for the property’s council tax during the decant. The landlord was responsible for the tax relating to the empty property. It was sorry if it had not previously told the resident what to expect.
8. Rent arrears had accumulated on the resident’s account due to a system error. Its accounts team was aware of the situation from January 2024. They had made weekly adjustments to her account. It had recently completed a full account reconciliation to resolve the issue. It was sorry for the error.
9. Its removal contractor’s operatives were expected to help the resident. They were also expected to move large items for her. It was not the contractor’s responsibility to pack the family’s belongings.
10. It was the landlord’s process to cap the gas supply in an empty property. To uncap a supply, residents were expected to contact the energy provider directly. This allowed the parties to schedule an engineer’s visit (to reinstate the supply).
11. It understood the resident was disappointed that it had not completed a welfare check after she had returned to the property (the landlord’s reference to a vulnerability related failure indicates that it also believed it should have done this).
The landlord’s response shows it recognised some of its key failures at this point. Given the related adverse impact to the resident, it rightly awarded her a significant amount of compensation to address these. The landlord’s relevant compensation policy shows it can pay a discretionary amount of compensation to address service failures. It says the landlord will consider payments on a case-by-case basis. It does not include any guidance about proportionate award levels. Overall, it was reasonable for the landlord to award compensation in line with its policy. However, there were problems with its response. The evidence suggests these stemmed from procedural issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. We have considered these in the relevant section below.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 November 2024. She was unhappy with the amount of compensation that the landlord had awarded. She also said there were inaccuracies in its response. For example, she said the landlord was responsible for the access issue which had occurred during the initial move. Overall, she said its response had reduced her confidence in its complaints process. Her correspondence included a list of points that she wanted the landlord to address further. Many of these points reiterated concerns from her original complaint. Some of the resident’s comments were understandable.
On 31 December 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It addressed each of the points the resident had listed in her escalation request. The response contained some conflicting information. The landlord said it believed that its previous response was fair and consistent with its policies and procedures. However, it also said it had upheld the resident’s complaint. It awarded her another £200 in related compensation. This was to address the record keeping error that had caused a delay. The landlord’s other key points at stage 2 were:
1. In relation to the resident’s efforts to progress the temporary move, she had declined several decant properties it had found for her. These included pet friendly accommodation. Since residents often had local knowledge, it sometimes asked them to help source their own temporary accommodation. Ultimately, the landlord had not identified any related service failures.
2. It had confirmed the resident’s council tax responsibilities in writing when it issued her a temporary decant license. It subsequently emailed her about the same issue. The email confirmed that she was only liable for the tax on her main home. It also said she should tell the local authority about the decant. This was so the council could bill the landlord for the tax relating to the decant property. Again, it had not found any related service failures.
3. In relation to the property’s power supply, the landlord had been unable to access its electricity meter because the resident’s dogs were locked in the same room.
The landlord recognised that it had previously misunderstood its role in the access issue. It rightly awarded the resident some additional compensation to reflect the adverse impact of its record keeping failure. Its corresponding award was reasonable and proportionate given what happened. By this time, its overall compensation amounted to £900 in respect of the temporary move. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance shows this level of award is consistent with cases where we find ‘maladministration’ or ‘severe maladministration’ on a landlord’s part. Given the landlord’s accumulated failures and the prolonged adverse impact on the resident, these categories are relevant in this case. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, its calculation was broadly sufficient to address the resulting adverse impact to her. As mentioned, we cannot award damages.
However, the above paragraphs show the landlord overlooked some adverse impacts in its calculation. It has not acknowledged that it did not comply with the boarding kennel’s request to provide 2 weeks’ notice when it extended the resident’s booking in June 2023. Its corresponding notes suggest that its related lack of planning caused considerable distress to the resident. Similarly, it has not acknowledged it gave the resident inaccurate advice about council tax in October 2023 and this caused avoidable inconvenience for her. Given their severity, it would have been proportionate to compensate the resident for these issues. This would have been a reasonable approach.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call in July 2025. She said there were ongoing issues with rats at the property. She felt these may relate to a neighbour. She stressed there had been a long-term adverse impact on her family. She held the landlord responsible for this. She said that she had stopped working due to related health problems and was experiencing financial hardship as a result. She told us the landlord had offered to pay her £10,000 (presumably a disturbance payment) if she moved to another one of its homes. She stressed that she did not want to move. She wanted the landlord to complete repairs and pay her a significant amount of compensation. The landlord’s offer of an incentivised permanent move shows it was suitably mindful of the wider context behind her complaints.
In summary, the landlord rightly awarded the resident a significant amount of compensation during its internal complaints process. The evidence shows its calculation was broadly sufficient to address the related adverse impact to her. However, we have identified some additional failures on its part. Given their severity, and the corresponding impacts on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her a proportionate amount of additional compensation to put things right. Since there is not a large disparity between the landlord’s calculation and our own, we find there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, service failure is a proportionate finding given the complexity of the complaint, and the landlord’s efforts to redress the resident. Our approach and compensation calculation reflect the individual circumstances of the case, the landlord’s relevant compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s related concerns around costs and damages

The resident called the landlord on 14 August 2023. She said that she had developed a health condition due to its actions. Her comments were significant and warranted a response. From its records, it is unclear how the landlord responded at this point. This is concerning in the circumstances. The evidence indicates that it missed an opportunity to handle the matter. Similarly, it may have missed an opportunity to signpost her to relevant support services.
The landlord’s complaints policy excludes liability claims (such as personal injury). However, it does not say how the landlord handles these. Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for damage to health or personal belongings, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to refer them to its insurance team or process. It is noted that insurers specialise in liability matters. Since claims can be time sensitive, it is good practice for a landlord to refer the resident to its correct process as soon as possible. In this case, there is no indication the landlord did this. Subsequent events also point to a related delay.
In her complaint to the landlord, the resident mentioned various concerns around costs and damages. She said that she had incurred expenses during her moves from the property and back again (due to the access issue and a lack of household items over a weekend). She also mentioned additional fuel costs due to the location of the temporary accommodation. She included an estimate of these costs in her complaint. She said that she had bought Christmas decorations because the family were not allowed to return to the property while it was being repaired. She also referenced a bracket and key cutting costs but her related concerns were unclear. In relation to damages, the resident said:
1. Rats had destroyed valuable personal items that were stored in the property’s attic.
2. Because the landlord allowed the property’s electricity to run out, she had lost numerous food items that were stored in her fridge and freezer.
3. The landlord’s removal contractor had lost sentimental items and damaged the family’s belongings. The landlord should compensate her for this.
4. She had lost her hearing in one ear. A blood vessel had also burst in one of her eyes. These were stress-related injuries linked to the landlord’s actions.
The landlord’s decant policy says it will “consider meeting all reasonable costs that a tenant incurs as a direct consequence of being required to move home”. It does not include any information about requirements for supporting evidence. Its compensation policy shows the landlord can compensate a resident if its contractor damages their personal belongings. However, the policy details various circumstances where the landlord may not offer compensation if there is a relevant insurance policy in place (for example, it references public liability claims). Overall, the evidence shows the landlord should have engaged with the resident’s concerns about costs, given them due consideration, and responded to these. In relation to damages, it indicates the landlord should have considered if her claim was covered by a relevant insurance policy in the first instance.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was unable to resolve health concerns through its complaints process. However, it confirmed that the resident could pursue a liability claim against the landlord through its insurer. The response included contact details for the landlord’s insurance team. It also explained what details the landlord needed to log a claim. The landlord did not clearly say this, but the explanation it provided confirmed that its insurance process could also be used to pursue claims for damaged items. Ultimately, it did not identify any failures in respect of the resident’s related complaint. Nevertheless, it offered her a discretionary payment of £250 for “costs incurred”. The landlord’s other key points at stage 1 were:
1. It could reimburse the resident for additional travel expenses in line with its decant process. It had requested receipts but the resident did not supply these. If she had receipts, the resident could forward these to the landlord’s relevant team for processing (using contact details that were provided).
2. In relation to items that were lost or damaged by the removal contractor, it had previously told the resident to raise these with the contractor. It noted that the contractor had offered to pay her £300 in relation to her concerns. The resident had confirmed that she refused the removal contractor’s offer.
3. In the first instance, the resident “must pursue a legal claim” with the removal contractor as a separate matter.
The landlord explained how the resident could address her concerns in its response. It also signposted her to relevant teams and parties. Its approach was broadly consistent with its policies and the Ombudsman’s expectations. In addition, it offered the resident a discretionary goodwill payment of £250 for costs incurred. This suggests that the landlord believed it was likely she had incurred some costs due to its actions. Given its various failures, this was a reasonable conclusion on its part. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord displayed a sympathetic and helpful approach at this point.
However, there were some problems with the clarity of its response. For example, it said the resident “must” pursue a legal claim against the removal contractor. It is noted that legal claims may involve fees for a resident. On that basis, the landlord’s comment was inaccurate and unreasonable. It could have explained that the contractor held the most relevant insurance policy for the resident to claim against. If it was unsure how to proceed, the landlord could have proactively obtained advice from its own insurance team. These would have been reasonable measures in the circumstances.
The evidence suggests the resident submitted an insurance claim to the landlord on 11 November 2024. We have not seen a copy of her claim. This was around 1 week after it had issued its stage 1 response. It was also around 15 months after she had previously mentioned health impacts to the landlord. It is noted that she has referenced damages that occurred from around May 2023 onwards. It is reasonable to conclude that she may have submitted a claim previously if she had known about the landlord’s claims process. The timing is further evidence that its initial handling in August 2023 was inadequate. The evidence points to an unreasonable delay of about 15 months. The passage of time may have made it more difficult for the resident to evidence her claim.
The resident escalated her complaint around the same time. She said the landlord had not addressed her concerns about damaged items in the attic, or food items that were lost from her fridge and freezer. She also said that it had appointed the removal contractor, so it should be responsible for handling any related compensation claims. In relation to her excess mileage, the resident said she no longer had any receipts to evidence her additional fuel costs. She questioned why the landlord had not used the estimated costs that she had previously supplied. She said it had relied on similar estimates before. Some of her comments are understandable in the circumstances.
The parties had discussed various arrangements prior to the resident’s initial move in May 2023. From the landlord’s records, there is no indication that they discussed a requirement for fuel receipts. Similarly, there is no evidence to show the landlord told the resident about a similar requirement subsequently. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is likely that she would have kept receipts if she had been advised to do this in good time. Overall, the evidence suggests that the landlord made a late request for supporting receipts and its approach was unfair to the resident.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord advised the resident to raise an insurance claim in relation to her damaged property and possessions. It said she could do this through her own contents insurance. Alternatively, it said she could raise a claim with the landlord’s insurer if she did not have a contents insurance policy. In relation to fuel costs, the landlord said it could not accept her estimates or process a refund without supporting evidence. In relation to the removal contractor, it said it was unable to intervene and the resident should contact the contractor directly. It signposted her to the contractor’s complaints process. It did not identify any failures in respect of the resident’s related complaint.
There were problems with the landlord’s response. It did not acknowledge the delay from August 2023 onwards or attempt to put things right for the resident. Similarly, it did not identify the inaccurate information in its previous response about the requirement for a legal claim. In relation to fuel costs, there is no indication that the landlord tried to establish whether it had given the resident consistent information about receipts during the decant timeline. The resident’s escalation request confirmed that she felt it had changed its requirements. The landlord should have engaged with this aspect of her complaint. It did not do this. Its approach was unreasonable at this point. Arguably, it can also be perceived as dismissive. It may have added to the resident’s overall distress.
In summary, the landlord signposted the resident to its insurance process in its responses. The information it gave her was broadly consistent with its policies and the Ombudsman’s expectations. It also displayed a sympathetic and helpful approach at stage 1. At this point, it offered the resident a £250 goodwill payment in respect of unspecified costs. However, there were problems with its handling at various stages in the relevant complaint journey. The landlord overlooked a significant delay, inaccurate advice, and understandable concerns about a change to its evidence requirements. This was unreasonable and its approach may have added to the resident’s distress. Given its failures, we find there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about replacement blinds

In her complaint, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of some replacement blinds for the property. She said that she had requested a specific type of blind, but the landlord had supplied an inferior product. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had agreed to provide new blinds for the whole property as a gift for the resident. It said the gift was agreed by one of its senior managers, who was monitoring a “long-running complaint” that the landlord was already responding to. In addition, it said the resident’s existing blinds had been “ruined” by mildew while the property was empty for a prolonged period. The landlord’s other key points at stage 1 were:
1. The resident had chosen blinds that cost “several thousand pounds”. The landlord had declined her preferred option because it was “too expensive”.
2. The resident had told the landlord that she did not know how to measure for blinds or purchase these. The landlord had offered to help with this process.
3. Subsequently, the landlord offered the resident several types of blind that were readily available (the landlord’s wording suggests it believed that she had some choice in the final selection).
4. While it was installing the blinds on 18 July 2024, the landlord found they were not suitable. It subsequently ordered made-to-measure blinds for the resident instead.
5. On 31 July 2024 the resident confirmed the blinds had been fitted but some of them were faulty. The landlord’s contractor had returned to rectify the situation. The landlord was sorry for the inconvenience caused.
It is noted that one of the landlord’s senior managers was monitoring the resident’s situation. This was a positive step by the landlord. Its complaints and compensation policies do not include any guidance around gifts. The evidence shows the manager agreed a bespoke solution with the resident following her previous complaint (the subject of our report 202120227). This was also a positive step. There is no indication that the landlord was obliged to do this. It is reasonable to conclude the gift involved additional costs for the landlord.
In her escalation request, the resident said that she had been unable to progress the replacement blinds herself. She said she had repeatedly requested the property’s window measurements, but the landlord did not provide these. She also said she had agreed a certain type of blind based on a picture, but the landlord did not install this type. In addition, she said that the landlord had installed the blinds after she had returned to the property (on 19 July 2023) and this showed a lack of efficiency on its part. From the information provided, we have not seen any other evidence to show that the resident made unanswered requests to the landlord. Similarly, we have not seen other evidence to show how the parties selected the blinds that were ultimately fitted in the property. The evidence points to a dispute between the parties about this.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had not found evidence that the resident had repeatedly requested the window measurements. It reiterated that her preferred blinds were too expensive and the parties had agreed an alternative option. It said the alternative blinds had been fitted in the property. Ultimately, the landlord said it was sorry that the resident was unhappy with the fitted blinds. However, it said it had gone beyond its usual responsibilities to install these and it was unable to identify any related service failures on its part.
As mentioned, the evidence supports the landlord’s assertion that it went beyond its usual obligations by installing the blinds. There is no indication that it failed to comply with any relevant policies or procedures in relation to these. However, there is evidence that the resident was inconvenienced during the installation process. Her escalation request shows that she expected the blinds to be installed before her family returned to the property. Given the overall duration of the decant, this was an understandable expectation. It is noted that the landlord had assumed the responsibility for measuring the windows.
The evidence shows the resident facilitated at least 2 blind-related appointments after she returned to the property. The bespoke blinds were fitted around 8 days after she had returned. It is unclear when the follow-up visit to address the faulty blinds took place. The landlord acknowledged some of the related inconvenience in its stage 1 response. It apologised to the resident for this. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it could have avoided the initial suitability issue given it had measured the windows. Similarly, that it was distressing for the resident to facilitate further works on her return home. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s apology was not sufficient to put things right for her. Given her related distress and inconvenience, it could have reasonably awarded the resident some compensation as well.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident while it installed the gifted blinds at the property. Although it apologised, an apology alone was insufficient given the related adverse impact to the resident. It could have reasonably awarded her some compensation given what went wrong. Since it did not do this, we find there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

Complaint handling

The resident complained on 12 September 2024. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 14 November 2024. This was 45 working days later. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy shows it should respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage 1. It did not adhere to its published timescale and there was a related delay of around 6 weeks. There is no indication the landlord kept the resident updated in the interim period. This was inadequate.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in its response. It awarded the resident £50 in compensation to address it. Given its duration and the adverse impact to the resident, this was a reasonable approach. It shows the landlord considered its own complaint handling and took steps to address any procedural issues accordingly. However, there were problems with the contents of the response. It contained a number of errors and inaccuracies. For example, it said the resident had stayed in the apartment for 2 weeks and her subsequent accommodation was privately owned. Ultimately, the landlord misunderstood some key aspects of the resident’s complaint. This is concerning.
In addition, parts of the response lacked clarity and it overlooked some issues entirely. As mentioned, the landlord did not clearly say that the resident could use its insurance process to raise a claim for damaged items. This was another key aspect of her complaint. Similarly, it did not mention her related concerns about a loss of food items from her fridge and freezer. Likewise, it did not address the resident’s concerns around key cutting costs. If these were unclear, the landlord could have clarified these with the resident. This would have been a proactive and reasonable approach in the circumstances.
As mentioned, the landlord identified some failures that it did not clearly explain in its response. For example, it referenced “misdirection” and a failure to comply with the government’s “right to repair” scheme. Presumably, the landlord’s comment about misdirection referred to the information that it initially gave the resident about the (expected) duration of the decant. However, its comments about the right to repair scheme were not clear. It is also unclear that the scheme applied to her case. The landlord’s findings may have caused some confusion for the resident.
Given the various quality issues, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was unlikely to resolve the resident’s complaint satisfactorily at stage 1. Overall the evidence points to an unreasonable lack of thoroughness on its part. The resident was impacted by this. She referenced omissions and inaccuracies in her escalation request. She also said that the landlord’s response had undermined her confidence in its complaints process. Subsequent events show there were similar quality problems with the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 November 2024. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 31 December 2024. This was around 34 working days later. Its complaints policy shows it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. There was a related delay of around 2 weeks, however the landlord did write to the resident to update her.
The landlord recognised the delay in its response and awarded her £50 in compensation. This was a reasonable and proportionate approach.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about a loss of power to her fridge and freezer. It said it had been unable to take a meter reading due to her dogs. The evidence suggests it was referring to a meter reading that it attempted to obtain while the family were moving back to the property in July 2024. In contrast, the resident’s concerns related to events that occurred during an earlier phase in the temporary move. Again, the landlord misunderstood an important aspect of her complaint. This is further evidence of an unreasonable lack of thoroughness. To date, there is no indication that the landlord has investigated her related concerns adequately. Since it arguably blamed the resident, the landlord may have compounded her distress.
The landlord’s decision at stage 2 was also unclear. On a number of occasions, it said it had not identified any failures in respect of specific complaint issues. It also said that its previous response was fair. Subsequently, the response said that the landlord had upheld the resident’s complaint. This wording implied it had upheld the complaint in full. This was not the case. A partial uphold (or partly upheld) decision would have been accurate. The landlord’s wording may have caused some confusion for the resident.
In summary, there were various quality issues at both stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure. These included errors, overlooked issues, and a lack of clarity. The evidence suggests the problems stemmed from an unreasonable lack of thoroughness on the landlord’s part. It also suggests that some of the resident’s complaint points have not been adequately addressed to date. The resident noticed some quality issues. She said the landlord’s approach had undermined her confidence in its complaints process. Her comments suggest its complaint handling caused further damage to the landlord and tenant relationship. In the circumstances, we find there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of additional compensation to put things right. Again, our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of a temporary move following a rat infestation at the property.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s related concerns about costs and damages.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about replacement blinds.
4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures that are highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,900 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s handling of the temporary move.
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by the landlord’s response to her related concerns about costs and damages.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to her concerns about replacement blinds for the property.
4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. £1,250 which the landlord previously awarded the resident during its internal complaints process. If it has already paid the resident, the landlord should deduct this figure (or any part of it that has already been paid to her).
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to reconsider the resident’s request for a fuel refund based on estimated costs. It should check its records to establish whether it told the resident about a requirement to provide receipts in good time. If it did not do this, the landlord should rely on estimated costs instead. It can use maps and fuel calculators to help with any estimates. It must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
If the resident requests this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to log a new complaint. This will respond to any concerns which the landlord has not addressed thoroughly or at all (such as the circumstances around the loss of power to the property, key cutting costs, or a bracket). If it does log a new complaint, the landlord should share the complaint reference number with us. It must evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It could arrange for a relevant manager to analyse these and create a high level summary. In any case, it must share a copy of its relevant internal correspondence with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord’s relevant senior manager to update the resident in writing about the landlord’s approach to any ongoing infestation issues at the property. The update should outline the landlord’s position on the requirement for any additional repairs. We encourage the manager to confirm that they will remain the resident’s key point of contact in relation to infestation and related issues. The landlord should share a copy of the update with the Ombudsman.
The landlord to arrange for a financial hardship specialist to contact the resident as soon as possible. This is to establish whether the landlord can offer her any additional support to help with her situation. The landlord should update the Ombudsman about the outcome of the parties’ related discussions.