Clarion Housing Association Limited (202302952)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302952

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 January 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 handling of:
1. Reports of unauthorised alterations to the property.
2. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 1-bedroom ground floor flat, since 2007. The resident’s partner, who also resides at the property, has vulnerabilities. The landlord confirmed it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
On 17 April 2023, the landlord issued the resident with a tenancy warning letter. It informed her that it had received reports of unauthorised works being undertaken to her bathroom. It instructed her to request retrospective permission for any alterations by 2 May 2023.
The same day, the landlord’s IT system generated an appointment for 27 April 2023, for it to visit the resident and investigate the reported unauthorised works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 April 2023 to make a complaint. She said that she was unhappy with the “threatening and intimidating” letter the landlord had sent her.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 April 2023 to inform her that the report of unauthorised alterations to her bathroom was raised in error. It apologised to the resident and advised her that it had closed the case.
On 27 April 2023, the landlord visited the resident’s property. The landlord’s internal records stated that its visit concluded there were no unauthorised modifications to the property. They noted that an adaptation to the bathroom had previously been approved and partially funded by the landlord. It took photographs of the property to evidence its findings.
Following the visit, the landlord emailed the resident’s partner to confirm that no further action would be taken in relation to the reports of unauthorised works. It also provided the photographs it had taken during the visit.
The same day (27 April 2023), the resident contacted the landlord again to make a complaint. She said she was unhappy that she had received the tenancy warning letter on 17 April 2023. She also expressed her dissatisfaction with the conduct of the neighbourhood response officer (NRO) during the unannounced visit that had taken place that day. She said her partner felt distressed and humiliated.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 June 2023. It said that:
1. Following a report that unauthorised works were being undertaken at the resident’s home, it had opened a tenancy breach case. It acknowledged that the tenancy warning letter was sent in error, and it had issued an apology letter to her.
2. The NRO had sought permission from her partner to take photographs of the property, and they were taken on a device owned and managed by it.
3. It was sorry if the issue had caused distress. However, it had not found any service failures in its handling of the matter as it was “duty bound” to investigate reported tenancy breaches.
4. In recognition of the complaint handling delays, it offered the resident £50 in compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 and 24 June 2023 to escalate her complaint. She asked it to inform her who had instructed the visit to her property, as she felt that she and her partner were being discriminated against.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023. It said that:
1. When the tenancy breach case was closed on 25 April 2023, the appointment for 27 April 2023 was not cancelled and remained in the NRO’s diary. It could not find a policy or procedure that prohibited unannounced visits to investigate reports of unauthorised alterations.
2. It had found no evidence of unprofessional conduct by the NRO.
3. It was sorry for the distress it had caused.
4. It did not tolerate any behaviour that breached its equality, diversity and inclusion policy. It regularly provided training to staff to ensure they understood their obligations and the behaviours required to create an inclusive environment.

Events after the end of the complaint process

On 4 September 2023, the landlord sent the resident an updated stage 2 response. It said that upon further review of the complaint, it recognised that it had made a mistake during its tenancy breach process. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for the inconvenience it had caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42j of the Scheme sets out that we will not investigate complaints which, in our opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The resident has complained about an alleged data breach and the landlord’s handling of her personal information. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body responsible for considering complaints about data protection, and therefore this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside the scope of our investigation.
The resident has also reported issues of discrimination. If the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against, she may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on her options. This is in line with paragraph 42f of the Scheme. However, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination.
The resident has described how the landlord’s handling of the issues has negatively impacted her own, and her partner’s, mental health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is also in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
Within the resident’s correspondence, she referred to other housing related issues which she was unhappy with the handling of. These included an ongoing antisocial behaviour case, a sewage leak, concerns about the safety of kitchen appliances, and a further tenancy breach letter received in relation to CCTV. However, we have seen no evidence that the resident raised these issues within her initial formal complaint on 21 April 2023. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, we will not assess the landlord’s handling of these issues in this report. The resident may refer these matters to this Service for separate investigation once they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Reports of unauthorised alterations to the property

The landlord’s permissions policy states that residents may be entitled to make improvements to their homes, but they must seek its approval before the commencement of any works. The replacement of a bathroom and removal or alteration of internal walls are included in those works that require permission.
We have not seen the original report of the alleged unauthorised works. However, within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that the report stated the resident was upgrading the bathroom and knocking down a wall between the bathroom and toilet. Therefore, in circumstances such as this, it would be reasonable and in line with the landlord’s permissions policy for it to instruct the resident to seek retrospective permission for the works.
However, had the landlord reviewed its records before issuing the tenancy warning letter on 17 April 2023, it would have established that it had already approved the adaptation, and partially funded the works with the local council. Therefore, we consider that the landlord acted inappropriately when it issued the tenancy warning letter and caused the resident unnecessary distress.
The landlord apologised to the resident for issuing the tenancy warning letter 6 working days later. The landlord also apologised to the resident again in both its complaint responses. This showed that it aimed to put things right for her.
The landlord’s permissions policy does not say whether it will visit the property (planned or unannounced) when an alleged unauthorised alteration is raised. The landlord mentioned this within its stage 2 response and explained that it therefore could not make an assessment on the appropriateness of the visit. In our opinion, it is good practice for landlords to provide residents with reasonable notice of a visit where possible, especially when taking into account potential vulnerabilities of the household. Though it is accepted that unannounced visits may be justified in some investigative contexts, the nature of the allegation – a structural alteration – did not suggest that this was necessary. Within the tenancy warning letter issued on 17 April 2023, it therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident of the appointment on 27 April 2023 and explain the purpose of the visit.
When the landlord closed the tenancy breach case it failed to cancel the appointment on 27 April 2023. This was inappropriate as it meant that it visited the resident unannounced, and without just cause. In addition, it was also confusing for the resident that the landlord visited her earlier than the deadline of 2 May 2023 it had originally given her to request retrospective permission.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it was an oversight that the appointment was not cancelled as the case had been closed. Its apology to the resident was appropriate, given the inconvenience it had caused her.
For context, the resident told us that this was not the only time that the landlord had issued her with (in her opinion) an unjustified tenancy warning letter. We do not dispute the resident’s claims; however, this has not been considered as part of this investigation. She told us that it was for this reason that she asked the landlord to explain who had instructed the visit to her home, as she felt it was “personal”, and that she was being discriminated against.
This was a serious allegation that warranted a proper response from the landlord. However, it is our opinion that it failed to answer or adequately respond to the resident’s claims of discrimination. As explained earlier in the report, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination in relation to whether discrimination occurred. However, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss the resident’s relevant protected characteristic(s) directly with her and ask her to explain how she had been affected by its actions. It should have demonstrated that it conducted a thorough investigation into her concerns about discrimination (for example, by speaking to relevant members of staff and reviewing records), and clearly explained its decision making with reference to the level of available evidence. Its failure to fully do so could have been perceived by the resident to minimise or undermine what she no doubt felt were legitimate and serious concerns.
Additionally, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for it to confirm who had instructed the visit to her home. In mitigation, we accept that the landlord may have been limited in the level of update it could share for reasons of data protection and/or health and safety. Nevertheless, it should have provided an update and explained why it was unable to share further details if this was the case.
It was positive that the landlord emailed the resident following the visit on 27 April 2023, to confirm it would not be taking any further action in relation to unauthorised works to the property. However, it is our opinion that within the email, the landlord should have apologised to the resident for the issue being raised in error in the first instance, and the subsequent unannounced visit. This is highlighted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights where landlords are frequently seen to have a dismissive approach and lack of empathy with residents. It was also unreasonable that the evidence of this email trail was provided to this Service by the resident and not the landlord. This is a service failing within its record keeping.
Given that the landlord had identified some failings in its handling of the case, it was inappropriate that it then did not offer the resident any compensation at either stage of the complaint process (not including the £50 for complaint handling). It did, however, offer the resident £50 on 4 September 2023 in its updated stage 2 response. An assessment will be made of the delayed offer of compensation within the complaint handling section of this report.
We consider that the amount of compensation offered was low and failed to account for all the failings identified within this report. It is for this reason that we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of unauthorised alterations to the property. An additional order of compensation has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s own compensation guidance, as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Staff conduct concerns

We understand that the events that occurred on 27 April 2023 were upsetting for the resident. It is not, however, within our remit to determine if the conduct of a landlord’s staff member did or did not happen as described in a complaint. Instead, it is our role to determine how the landlord responded to the allegations.
Within the resident’s complaint, she said that she was unhappy that during the appointment, the NRO:
1. Had entered and taken photographs of her bedroom without consent. She said her partner felt humiliated by this, as they had personal care items on display and the photographs had subsequently been distributed to other members of staff.
2. Had “insisted” on seeing evidence that showed the works had been authorised by the council. She said that the NRO had stood over her partner to take photographs of the emails that corroborated their claims.
3. Had mentioned that they would not “report her for hoarding”, when it was evident that items were in the living room because of the ongoing adaptation to the bathroom.
4. Had opened and photographed a kitchen cupboard without consent.
5. Had asked her partner to confirm what was behind a curtain in the lounge area.
The evidence indicates that as part of the landlord’s investigation, it reviewed the notes and photographs from the visit. It also said that it consulted with the NRO and housing team. This shows that it gave the resident’s concerns appropriate consideration.
Within its complaint responses, the landlord said that:
1. The NRO had sought permission to take photographs of the property, but it acknowledged that the resident disagreed. It confirmed that the photographs were taken on a staff device and only shared with relevant teams.
2. It was unable to comment on the allegation of the DRO entering the bedroom without permission. This was because it had a lack of evidence to support or refute the allegation. It had reviewed the photographs which contained no personal items on show, but it apologised that the resident’s partner felt humiliated by this interaction.
3. The NRO asked to take a photograph of her partner’s email to evidence that the alterations to the bathroom were being undertaken by the local council. It said it was clear that the phone was being “held up” so that the NRO could take the photograph.
4. Its records did not suggest there was an issue with hoarding, but it apologised for the conversation causing distress.
5. The NRO took a photograph of the kitchen cupboard as the resident’s partner had reported an issue with it.
6. It was appropriate for the NRO to ask what was behind the curtain in the living room because the curtain was hanging against an internal wall. It said that it was reasonable for the NRO to check that there was not a hole in the wall which may have affected the structural integrity of the building. As part of its learning, the landlord acknowledged that the NRO should have explained the reason for asking what was behind the curtain.
Responding to complaints about staff conduct allows landlords to provide their version of events, apologise if deemed appropriate, and clarify any misunderstandings. Overall, it is our opinion that the landlord’s response was reasonable, transparent, and based on the evidence available to it at the time. Its explanation in response to the allegations was clear, and nothing seen in this investigation suggests the landlord reached unreasonable conclusions.
We therefore find that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) at the time of the complaint said landlords should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It also stated that landlords should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the escalation request. The Code did not become statutory until April 2024.
Following a cyber security incident, the landlord introduced an interim complaints policy on 17 June 2022. It stated that stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Peer reviews (stage 2 complaints) would be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 40 working days. The Ombudsman appreciates the effect a cyber incident can have on an organisation. It is reasonable that an organisation may need to pause its normal processes while it puts plans in place to deal with the effects of a cyber incident.
The resident initially made a complaint on 21 April 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response after 30 working days. This was in line with its interim complaints policy, but contrary to the Code timeframes. Between these dates, the resident requested an update from the landlord on several occasions. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to her as she would have felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. While some allowance can be made for the cyber incident as outlined above, the landlord should have provided regular updates and prioritised responding to correspondence from complainants wherever possible.
The landlord made some minor errors within its stage 1 response. It said that it had sent the resident the tenancy warning letter on 25 April 2023. This was incorrect, as it had sent it on 17 April 2023. It also thanked her for her complaint “received on 2 May 2023”. This was also inaccurate, as she had first made a complaint on 21 April 2023, and again on 27 April 2023. Although these errors are likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, the landlord should ensure that it reviews its investigation findings before it issues a formal complaint response.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 23 June 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023, which was 19 working days later. This was appropriate and within the timescales outlined in both the Code and the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
Within the resident’s request to make a complaint on 27 April 2023, she requested a meeting with the landlord to discuss her concerns. She also asked for a disability advocate to be present during the meeting to support her. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this request. This was unreasonable, as landlords should assist vulnerable residents in accessing services that they may need. The Code states that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position. While it is not always necessary to visit the resident to discuss a complaint, it is good practice to do so.
As mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the household. It provided us with evidence that it asked the resident to confirm her household’s vulnerabilities on 16 July 2024 but said it did not receive a response. However, had it visited the resident during the complaint process in 2023, it could have captured this information, and then made an assessment on how the issue had impacted the household when considering compensation.
The landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation at stage 1. It said this was in recognition of the complaint handling delays the resident had experienced. Based on the delays alone, this was fair and in line with its compensation procedure.
A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, the landlord missed opportunities that may have led it to identify some of the additional failures highlighted by this investigation, and therefore did not offer any further compensation for its complaint handling. This meant that its offer did not reflect all of the failures referred to in this report.
As mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord issued an additional stage 2 response to the resident on 4 September 2023. It addressed some additional issues the resident had raised and offered a further amount of compensation for its handling of the substantive issue. While it is positive that the landlord reflected on its actions and offered compensation, we expect landlords to undertake sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2 of their complaints process. Its late compensation award is evidence of further complaint handling delays.
As the landlord failed to identify and apologise in its final response for all its complaint handling failings, or to offer at stage 2 the level of redress it ultimately considered was due, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. It is for this reason that we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord has been ordered to pay additional compensation to the resident to reflect the failures not accounted for by the landlord’s offer at stage 1.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of unauthorised alterations to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £225 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
  1. £100 for its handling of the reports of unauthorised alterations. This includes £50 offered by the landlord post stage 2, plus an additional £50 in recognition of the failures identified within this report.
  2. £125 for its handling of the associated complaint. This includes £50 previously offered by the landlord at stage 1, plus an additional £75 in recognition of the failures identified within this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to obtain accurate and up-to-date details of her household’s vulnerabilities, including any health conditions she wishes to disclose, and ensures its records are updated accordingly.