Clarion Housing Association Limited (202535807)

Decision
Case ID	202535807
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 June 2026

Background

1. The resident was allocated a flat in the landlord’s building via the Local Authority on medical grounds. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his personal data and information provided at the tenancy sign-up appointment in September 2024. He was also unhappy with how it handled a safeguarding referral and his associated complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Its processing of his personal data, including accuracy and consent.
   2. Reasonable adjustments at the tenancy sign-up.
   3. Appropriateness of a safeguarding referral.
   4. Communication about a cooker hood installation.
   5. The accuracy of information in a home guide about fire alarms.
   6. The handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s processing of his personal data are outside our jurisdiction.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to his concerns about reasonable adjustments at the tenancy sign-up.
   3. Reasonable redress was given for its failings with the safeguarding referral.
   4. Service failure in the communication about the cooker hood installation.
   5. Reasonable redress for its failure to provide accurate information about fire alarms.
   6. Reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Processing of personal data

4. We may not investigate matters that fall within the remit of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The ICO regulates information rights and investigates data protection concerns, including alleged breaches of data protection law. It can investigate and audit an organisations’ systems and data practices. It can recommend or enforce organisations to correct incorrect data and make improvements to data policies and practices. The ICO is better suited to investigate the resident’s concerns about his personal data. We have therefore not investigated this matter.

Reasonable adjustments

5. The landlord had no prior knowledge of the resident’s need for a chair and was not asked to provide one at the appointment. It acted reasonably and in line with its obligations and policy.

Safeguarding referral

6. The landlord acted reasonably in making a safeguarding referral given the resident’s stated risk, but it failed to record its decision-making and shared information with the wrong Local Authority. It acknowledged failings and offered proportionate redress, including appropriate compensation for the impact on the resident.

Cooker hood installation

7. The landlord’s communication about the cooker hood installation was unclear and inconsistent, which caused the resident some distress. While it acknowledged internal failings, it did not fully address the delay and impact this caused.

Fire safety

8. The landlord provided incomplete fire safety guidance by not advising residents to notify security before testing alarms, which was a service failure. However, there was no evidence this caused evacuations, and the landlord’s apology, £100 compensation, and commitment to improve communication were reasonable redress.

 

 

Complaint handling

9. The landlord did not fully comply with its complaints policy timescales and standards. However, it acknowledged these failings, improved its response at stage 2, and its offer of £250 compensation was reasonable and proportionate.

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 10 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its communication over the cooker hood installation. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence by the due date.	No later than 10 July 2026

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the compensation it awarded through the complaints process of £1,300 because, in part, it was the reason we made findings that it had reasonably redressed aspects of the resident’s complaint.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 May 2025	The resident complained that: The officer completing the tenancy sign-up forms either altered, deleted, or inaccurately recorded personal information, including incorrectly recording that he was deaf. Information on a government CORE form to collect data on social housing lettings was missing or wrong, including about his protected characteristics which he believed was discriminatory. He was not offered a seat as a reasonable adjustment at the face-to-face tenancy sign up appointment. A safeguarding referral was made to the Local Authority on assumptions about his mental health, without his consent, and to the wrong borough. He received contradictory information about when a cooker hood would be and had been installed. A new home user guide contained inaccurate information, including about how to test the home fire alarm leading to unnecessary fire evacuations. The resident said he had been discriminated against, his human and data rights had been breached, and he had been caused distress and inconvenience. He said he was seeking several outcomes, including his personal data to be corrected and up to £10,000 in compensation.
20 June 2025	The landlord sent a stage 1 response. It said: It believed the resident’s responses at the tenancy sign-up were captured on its computer but the Wi-Fi connection may have been unstable leading to missing or inaccurate data. It identified no malicious intent from the officer not completing all questions on the CORE form which it said could be completed without obtaining consent. It had no knowledge of his medical needs prior to the sign-up appointment other than he should not be offered a property above the twentieth floor. The safeguarding alert was made in line with its obligations when a member of staff has concerns for a tenant’s wellbeing. It agreed confusion was caused by needing to check information from the third-party contractor who installed cooker hoods on its behalf. Fire alarms could be tested but residents should inform security staff first and the issue should not cause false evacuations because of the building’s “stay-put” strategy. The landlord apologised, reassured there was no impact on the resident from the errors in data, and awarded £300 compensation, made up of: £250 for it having incomplete information at the tenancy sign–up. £50 for its failure to meet its complaint timescale.
18 July 2025	The resident escalated his complaint because he said: He disagreed with the possible reason for the errors with his personal data. The CORE form was completed without his consent leading to inaccurate data, which was a breach of his data rights. The stage 1 response did not address his concerns about the accuracy of his disabilities and that it made the safeguarding referral to the wrong Local Authority. It should have made a reasonable adjustment at the tenancy sign-up based on his medical allocation and his visible disability. His evidence about the communication over the cooker hood installation showed the standard of the landlord’s records were poor. No updated guidance had been provided to residents about testing fire alarms. Recent evidence obtained showed the landlord was aware of a problem with the fire alarms leading to the whole building being evacuated on 12 November 2025. The stage 1 response did not consider recommendations made by the landlord’s solicitor to complete an independent review of his concerns about discrimination and data protection.
8 September 2025	In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it: Apologised for not accurately recording his disability and that this was not addressed in its initial response. Agreed there were failings both in its original handling of the government form and its explanations in its stage 1 response regarding consent. Said it was unaware of the resident’s physical disability prior to the sign-up and unable to offer a seat because the flat was empty and it was likely impractical for officers to carry chairs to appointments. Acknowledged it failed to make the safeguarding referral to the appropriate Local Authority. Accepted there had been a miscommunication internally about the cooker hood installation that led to it making a further enquiry to the resident. Said it was sorry its legal advice was not shared with the investigating officer. Said to resolve his complaint it had: Corrected his disability record. Given staff training on handling data. Arranged for an officer to correct the data on the government form. Was working with the managing agent to communicate correct information about the fire alarms. Referred its error with the safeguarding referral to its Data Protection Team. Awarded a further £1000 (£1,300 in total) made up of: £300 for the failure to follow process and accurately record the resident’s personal data at the tenancy sign-up. £400 for the distress and inconvenience from its failure with the safeguarding referral. £200 for its failure to address aspects in the stage 1 response. £100 for providing incorrect or incomplete information about the fire alarms.
After the complaints process ended	The resident made a new complaint in November 2025 about the time it was taking to update the CORE form and the home user guide.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he said he does not accept the explanation given for the errors in his personal data, the CORE form had not been updated, there was still incorrect information in the user guide, and he believed the compensation was insufficient. He advised the circumstances of his complaint have caused distrust of the landlord and impacted his mental health. The resident seeks a range of outcomes, including an audit of the landlord’s records, assurances it has corrected his personal data, updated guidance, service improvements, and 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	Processing of his personal data, including accuracy and consent
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

10. The resident said the landlord breached data protection obligations because he did not consent to the CORE form being completed and some information recorded about him was inaccurate or incomplete. He disputes the reason the landlord gave for these errors and omissions and remains concerned about the accuracy of the landlord’s records and the integrity of its data handling. He seeks an audit and correction of his personal data and improvements to the landlord’s data practices.
11. We may not investigate matters that fall within the remit of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The ICO regulates information rights and investigates data protection concerns, including alleged breaches of data protection law. It can investigate and audit an organisations’ systems and data practices. It can recommend or enforce organisations to correct incorrect data and make improvements to data policies and practices. The ICO is better suited to investigate the resident’s concerns about his personal data. We have therefore not investigated this matter.

Complaint	Reasonable adjustments at the tenancy sign-up
Finding	No maladministration

12. The resident said the landlord should have recognised that he needed a chair at the tenancy sign-up appointment and that its failure to provide one was discriminatory. We do not determine whether there has been a breach of the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), as that is a matter for the courts. However, we can consider whether the landlord acted reasonably and had proper regard to its legal obligations and its own reasonable adjustment policy.
13. Under the Act, a landlord must make reasonable adjustments for a disabled person where it knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that the person is disabled and is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage. The landlord’s reasonable adjustments policy reflects this duty. It says it will discuss and agree adjustments with residents, rather than make assumptions about their needs.
14. In this case, the evidence shows the resident asked the landlord to contact him by email because he has social anxiety. However, there is no evidence that, before or during the appointment, the landlord had been told by the resident or the Local Authority that he had mobility difficulties or needed a chair as an adjustment. There is also no evidence that the resident asked for a chair at the appointment.
15. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord not to provide this adjustment in advance because it had not been put on notice of the need. Its approach was also consistent with its policy, which states adjustments should be discussed and agreed rather than assumed.

Complaint	Appropriateness of a safeguarding referral
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The landlord’s safeguarding policy recognises its legal duty to investigate or act where a tenant is, or may be, at risk of harm to themselves or others. The policy allows staff to make referrals to the Local Authority or police, as those bodies are responsible for following up on safeguarding concerns. It says the landlord should seek consent before making a referral where possible. It also allows referrals without consent where there may be a risk of harm. The policy requires staff to record the reasons for decisions about whether to share safeguarding concerns.
17. In this case, the evidence shows the resident told the landlord in late 2024 that his physical and mental health were deteriorating and that he may become a risk to himself. We have not seen the safeguarding referral. However, it is not disputed that the landlord made a referral. On the evidence available, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider whether a safeguarding referral was needed. This was consistent with its policy, which allows staff to share concerns where a resident may be at risk.
18. However, the landlord has not shown that it followed its policy in recording the reasons for its decision to make the referral, or its decision on consent, which is a failing. The landlord also sent the referral to the wrong Local Authority. That was not in line with its policy, which says personal information should only be shared with those who need it.
19. The landlord took accountability for making the referral to the wrong Local Authority. It apologised, awarded £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, and referred the matter to its data protection team. These were appropriate steps to put things right. The compensation amount was proportionate to the impact identified and falls within the range (£100-£600) our compensation guidance recommends for maladministration which has caused no permanent impact.

Complaint	Communication about a cooker hood installation
Finding	Service failure

20. Records show that the landlord gifted a cooker hood to the resident and others in his building to help reduce smoke, in turn, decreasing the number of fire alarms triggering. As such, the installation fell outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales. However, it would be reasonable to expect communication about when the cooker hood would be installed to be clear. The resident complained that this was not the case because he received incorrect and contradictory responses, causing him distress.
21. In its complaint responses, the landlord did not dispute the resident’s account that it told him the cooker hood would be installed on 12 March 2025. And when he asked why this had not happened, it told him the cooker hood had been fitted 2 days earlier. The resident said he chased the matter up again on 26 March 2025 but the landlord was unable to give a revised timescale. It also accepted that, after the installation on 8 April 2025, it contacted him twice to ask whether the cooker hood had been fitted.
22. We expect landlords to take responsibility for the actions of their contractors and act to put things right. In this case, the landlord explained internal communication failings led to it being given incomplete information about when the cooker hoods had been installed. It acknowledged this led to him being contacted twice. While these were reasonable steps, it should also have recognised its failure in the communication about the delay in installing the cooker hood (of almost a month) caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience more so because of his vulnerabilities, albeit short-lived. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with our compensation guidance.

 

 

Complaint	The accuracy of information in a home user guide about fire alarms
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

23. The resident told us that the incorrect information in the guide caused him deterioration in his mental health, and physical pain from unnecessary fire evacuations. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. 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 may last. We have not then investigated this further but have considered if the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
24. The resident made a new complaint in November 2025 about the time it was taking to update the guidance. He received a stage 2 response to this in mid-May 2026. However, we have not looked at the circumstances of the new complaint in this investigation because it was not ready for us to investigate. This complaint will be investigated separately, subject to relevant checks being completed.

What we have considered

25. The resident said the home user guide gave incorrect and incomplete information about testing fire alarms inside flats. He said this led to residents activating the main building fire alarm and unnecessary evacuations. He said this caused him difficulty because of his vulnerabilities.
26. The landlord’s fire safety management policy recognises its duty to comply with relevant legislation. It says effective communication with relevant parties is key to managing fire safety. It also says fire safety information will be provided in tenancy sign-up packs. Tenants are responsible for their own safety inside their homes and for maintaining fire safety equipment provided, such as alarms.
27. The home user guide gave residents general information about what to do in the event of a fire. It explained that the building had a stay-put strategy. This meant residents should remain in their flat unless a fire started in their property. The guide advises the building fire alarm will sound if a fire occurs in a communal space (apart from in communal corridors) and residents will be required to evacuate.
28. The guide also told residents to test the fire alarms inside their homes regularly and included a diagram explaining how to do this. However, it did not tell residents that they needed to notify building security before testing their alarm. This meant the guidance was incomplete. That was not in line with the landlord’s stated approach to clear communication about fire safety.
29. However, we have seen no evidence that the incomplete guidance caused unnecessary evacuations. The landlord’s position stated in its initial response, that the stay-put strategy meant residents did not usually need to evacuate, was consistent with the information in the home user guide.
30. The resident also referred to an internal communication from the landlord which said a “malfunctioning” fire alarm led to the whole building being evacuated on 12 November 2024. The landlord accepted in its complaint responses that there had been issues with fire alarms being triggered. However, it did not explain the nature or cause of those issues. The fire alarm logs show that residents cooking was a recurring cause of false alarms. The landlord also told us, in response to our evidence request, that it provided cooker hoods to residents for this reason. It was reasonable for the landlord to act once it had identified a likely cause of recurring false alarms.
31. However, the evidence does not show that a defect with the fire alarm system, or the incomplete guidance, caused evacuations other than the incident referred to in the resident’s escalation. It was reasonable for the landlord not to award compensation for the evacuation because it was a safety response and was consistent with guidance for when there may be a fire in a communal space.
32. We find the landlord’s apology, £100 compensation offer, and agreement to communicate its position on fire alarm testing to resident’s were reasonable steps to put failings with the fire alarm guidance right. The compensation amount was proportionate to the impact identified and was in line with our guidance for service failure.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

33. The landlord’s complaints policy adheres to the timescales and standards of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It must acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. It may extend timescales by up to 20 working days if it notifies the resident in advance and gives reasons. Responses must address all complaint issues and provide clear reasons for decisions.
34. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 3 working days on 13 May 2025. At stage 2, it informed the resident of the need to extend the response timeframe and explained why. It then issued its response within the extended period, taking 35 working days from the escalation on 18 July 2025 to its reply on 8 September 2025.
35. However, there were failings in the landlord’s complaints handling because it did not meet its policy timescale and standards. These included:
    1. A delay at stage 1, taking 30 working days to respond to the complaint of 7 May 2025, with the response issued on 19 June 2025.
    2. Failing to provide a revised response timeframe in its update email of 26 May 2025.
    3. A delay of 2 working days in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint.
    4. Not addressing all aspects of the resident’s complaint at stage 1, including the resident’s concern about inaccurate vulnerability data.
36. The landlord acknowledged its delays and shortfalls in the standard of its initial response. It then sought to put things right at stage 2 in addressing overlooked or incorrect aspects. Its award of £250 was at the top of the range our compensation guidance recommends for complaint handling failures. Given the nature and impact of the delays and omissions, the offer was reasonable.

Learning

Complaint handling

37. The Code requires landlords to set out what will happen and when for any proposed remedies. This is so resident’s expectations are managed and so it can ensure actions are followed through to completion. The landlord did not give any timescales or manage the expectations about how long it would take to complete some of the remedies offered. The landlord should ensure it follows the Code in providing timescales for agreed actions. And that it has a system in place for monitoring commitments made in its complaint responses to ensure they are complied with.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

38. The landlord recognised through the complaints process that there were failings in how it handled the resident’s personal data. This included issues with accuracy, transparency, and consent. It took some steps to put this right, including providing staff training.
39. While we have not investigated the resident’s data protection concerns, we encourage the landlord to be proactive in reassuring the resident about what it has done to correct his personal data, where appropriate. This could include confirming whether it has reported any potential breach to the ICO.