Clarion Housing Association Limited (202308049)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308049

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 July 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. planned works in the resident’s property and the conduct of the contractor’s staff.
   2. the reports about the handling and suitability of the temporary accommodation.
   3. the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident was an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord and she shared the property with her young child. The resident was disabled and had a serious illness. She passed away in July 2024. The resident’s mother (the executor) brings the complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of the resident’s estate.
3. The resident’s property was included in a major works programme which included renovations of the kitchen, bathroom and downstairs WC. The landlord moved the resident and her child to temporary accommodation while the works were carried out.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 2 March 2023, in which she said:
   1. she was unhappy with the attitude of the contractor’s staff and that their communication was poor.
   2. she was dissatisfied with the way the landlord handled the temporary move, which was not a smooth process.
   3. the landlord did not give due consideration to her vulnerabilities before it booked her into a hotel, which was at odds with her needs.
   4. she was dissatisfied with the length of time it took to complete the kitchen, bathroom and WC renovations.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 April 2023, in which it said:
   1. renovations of the resident’s kitchen, bathroom and downstairs WC were near completion.
   2. it had passed the complaint about the conduct of a member of the contractor’s staff to the contractor to investigate and it was unable to advise the resident of any outcome due to Data Protection Regulation.
   3. the hotel was assessed as meeting the immediate needs of the resident and her child. 
   4. it sourced alternative accommodation after an incident in which the resident reported verbal abuse by the hotel manager.
   5. it was unable to confirm why the resident had issues with the hotel booking contractor, as it had established the correct meal allowance and an increased laundry allowance with them on 14 March 2023.
   6. it apologised for the resident’s experience and offered £150 compensation, made up as:
      1. £50 for the delayed complaint response.
      2. £100 for the time taken to resolve the temporary accommodation, inconvenience caused, lack of communication and failure to follow process.
6. In June 2023, the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response. She also raised a new complaint. The resident said:
   1. it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure a response from the contractor about her complaint.
   2. the landlord stating it had sorted her meal and laundry allowance on 14 March 2023 was unacceptable as she had already been in the hotel for 2 weeks.
   3. the alternative accommodation was far away and as a result, she lost her statutory care package from adult social services.
   4. the landlord did not address most of her complaint.
   5. she wanted to raise a new complaint that operatives had made sexist comments towards her.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in relation to her new complaint on 13 July 2023. It said that the operative had been spoken to and denied making the alleged comments. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. However, it offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the delay in responding to the complaint.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 October 2023, which dealt with both of the resident’s complaints. The landlord said:
   1. the contractor confirmed that it discussed the resident’s complaint with its staff, but no further action was taken as it was not perceived there was an issue with the team. The contractor said its staff remained polite and professional throughout.
   2. it had taken over communicating with the resident in relation to the works as she was unhappy communicating with the contractor’s staff.
   3. some snagging and defects arose after the resident had used the new installs for a few weeks however, the overall works were complete and had been checked for quality twice.
   4. the contractor confirmed it did not block the resident’s driveway.
   5. its stance regarding the alleged sexist comments by an operative remained the same as at stage 1.
   6. it reviewed the resident’s reports of stains on her carpets, but there was no evidence to show there were any stains.
   7. it incorrectly actioned the resident’s email about carpet and flooring issues and it did not log a complaint, which was a service failure.
   8. it did not contact the resident after she called the landlord in June 2023 about the works.
   9. it did not escalate the complaint when the resident requested this, and she had to chase this up.
   10. it told the resident to contact the contractor directly regarding the conduct of their staff, which led to the resident being passed between the landlord and the contractor to investigate. The landlord said this was a failing and apologised that this was not investigated or clarified until August 2023.
   11. when booking temporary accommodation, it confirmed the resident’s needs and considered if the hotel would be suitable for her.
   12. the resident said she needed to attend hospital for follow-up appointments, but location of the temporary accommodation was not important as she could drive.
   13. the dates of the initial booking for the hotel were not relayed correctly, which was a service failure.
   14. it acted quickly to provide the resident with alternative accommodation after the incident occurred in the hotel.
   15. before the resident’s property was let, it was inspected and met its void standard.
   16. Its planned investment maintenance programmes are subject to change and it is unable to advise prospective residents when planned works are likely to take place unless its local staff have been advised on imminent works. At the time the resident’s viewing took place, the Neighbourhood Response Officer was unaware that the property was going to be included in the planned works programme.
   17. It offered the resident an additional £500, made up as:
       1. £150 for the failure to action complaints.
       2. £150 for contractor and landlord miscommunication.
       3. £100 for its management of the temporary accommodation.
       4. £100 for the delayed stage 2 response.
9. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 28 November 2023. She said:
   1. the constant work to her property and having to move out had caused significant stress affecting her mental and physical health, financial loss and loss of her local authority care provision.
   2. The landlord should take accountability, offer appropriate compensation, investigate properly and provide appropriate support to her.
10. On 28 August 2024, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that, since receiving our information request, it offered the resident a further £500 compensation in recognition of the miscommunication regarding the temporary accommodation booking and the distress this had caused. As such, the overall amount of compensation the landlord offered was £1,200

Assessment and findings

Scope

11. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was contractor misconduct. Instead, the Ombudsman’s investigation has focused on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about contractor’s conduct, rather than the actual conduct of the staff. Staff or contractor conduct is an issue for the landlord to address internally and it is not for the Ombudsman to investigate.

The landlord’s handling of the planned works in the resident’s property and the conduct of the contractor’s staff.

12. The landlord’s complaint’s policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.’
13. The planned works on the resident’s estate began in 2022. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the contractor initially tried to schedule the works in the resident’s property to begin in November 2022. However, the resident did not confirm the start date and the works were then scheduled to begin on 28 February 2023. The landlord is responsible for maintaining a clear audit trail of events and providing evidence of this to the Ombudsman. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of events prior to 2023 and its initial communication with the resident about the planned works is therefore unclear. 
14. The resident raised dissatisfaction about the conduct of the contractor’s staff to the contractor on 19 January 2023. She said that since the start of the works in early 2022, there had been issues with excessive vehicles parked on the road, that vehicles had blocked her driveway and that the contractor did not communicate with her after she reported that her car had been damaged in a hit and run. The resident also reported that the contractor’s liaison officer had been unprofessional and knocked on her door unannounced several times. In June 2023, the resident raised a further complaint that a planned investment operative made sexist comments towards her.
15. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it had passed the resident’s reports about the conduct of the contractor’s liaison officer to the contractor to investigate in line with its own policy and procedure.
16. When the landlord receives a report about staff conduct, it would be expected to carry out an investigation of the matter and provide its findings to the resident in a timely manner. Where the staff member is a contractor, it is still the landlord’s responsibility to investigate as the contractor is the landlord’s representative and the contractor is required to comply with the landlord’s code of conduct. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights recommends that landlords should consider ways to improve their management of contractors so they have better oversight of their appointments with residents, which would assist in clarifying any disputes.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord identified a failing in how it had dealt with the resident’s concerns about the contractor. It said it had told the resident to contact the contractor regarding the conduct of its staff which led to her being passed between the landlord and the contractor to investigate the issues. At stage 2, the landlord took some steps to investigate the resident’s concerns by asking the contractor to respond to her complaint that it had blocked her driveway. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that the contractor confirmed it had discussed the resident’s complaint with the site team, but no further action was taken as it was not perceived there was an issue with the team. It said that the contractor stated the team remained polite and professional, even after reported challenging behaviour from the resident.
18. While the landlord took some reasonable steps to investigate the complaint at this stage, there is no indication that it spoke directly to the liaison officer about the resident’s allegations, which would have been an appropriate action. Further, it did not provide any records of its discussions with the operative regarding the alleged sexist comments. As such, the landlord’s investigations did not address all of the resident’s concerns.
19. It is likely that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s poor handling of her complaint about the contractor. The landlord offered the resident a total of £300 in recognition of the impact of the failing. This amount was reasonable to redress the failing identified, and is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident. However, given the concerns identified in this report about the extent of the landlord’s investigations, we have made a recommendation below for the landlord to undertake staff training regarding how it should handle complaints about contractor’s staff.
20. After the resident moved back into her property, she reported that there were problems with the works, including a stain on the carpet, unlevel bathroom floor and issues with internal doors. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes of these repairs are limited. However, the evidence indicates that the works to the doors were completed in June 2023. The landlord also noted that photographs did not show any stains on the carpet. The landlord confirmed that the works had been checked for quality on 2 occasions. Although this was a reasonable step to resolve the outstanding issues, the landlord has not provided notes of these checks, which it should have done. We have made a further recommendation below for the landlord to ensure it maintains comprehensive records of inspections and follow-up works.

The landlord’s handling and suitability of the temporary accommodation.

21. The landlord’s temporary accommodation policy states it will seek to minimise the disruption to residents wherever it is able to. In deciding whether a move to temporary accommodation is necessary it will consider the household composition, any vulnerabilities, needs and preferences, the likely time periods involved, the suitability of alternative accommodation and the level of disruption. The policy states that the most appropriate temporary accommodation will depend on a number of factors such as the availability and suitability of accommodation, the relative costs, the personal circumstances of the household and the length of time the tenant needs to be moved for. The temporary accommodation policy states the landlord will consider meeting all reasonable costs that a tenant incurs as a direct consequence of being required to move home.
22. The landlord carried out a temporary needs assessment on 24 January 2023. The document states that the resident needed to have access to a hospital and that her medication may need to be kept in a fridge. The assessment also stated the following: “In contact with Social services to come in twice a day to help twice a day. But not set up yet”. The notes are unclear as to whether it was the landlord or the resident that was in contact with social services. The assessment noted that there would be a meal allowance for the resident and her child.
23. The landlord’s notes, dated 26 January 2023, stated that it had spoken to the resident “a few times” to clarify her hotel needs. The landlord noted that the resident needed to attend hospital for appointments but the location was not important as she could drive. The notes reflect that the landlord spoke to the resident on 20 and 21 February 2023 regarding the temporary move. The landlord emailed the resident on 21 February 2023 and confirmed the details of the hotel, which it said was booked from 28 February 2023.
24. When the resident arrived at the hotel, staff informed her that the booking was cancelled due to a ‘no show’. The landlord identified that the contractor it used to book accommodation had wrongly booked the hotel from 26 February 2023. The resident returned home and the landlord arranged a different hotel which it booked for the following day. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to this error and offered compensation in recognition of this.
25. The resident raised concerns about doing laundry in the hotel and the landlord said it would reimburse her £10 per week for costs incurred. The resident stated that the amount was insufficient and that carers would usually do her laundry. The temporary accommodation policy does not state specific amounts that the landlord will reimburse for costs such as laundry. The evidence indicates that the landlord stated it would make further internal enquiries regarding the amount offered, but there is no evidence to indicate that it provided an update to the resident. It is therefore unclear whether it considered the resident’s concerns, which was a shortcoming by the landlord.
26. On 10 March 2023, the resident reported that the hotel manager had verbally abused her. On 13 and 14 March 2023, the resident further contacted the landlord and said that the hotel was unsuitable for her needs, and she required an apartment due to her disabilities and medical condition. The landlord documented that it had approved for an apartment to be booked for the resident for the remainder of the period that the works were ongoing.
27. On 5 April 2023, the resident’s social worker contacted the landlord and said she wanted to raise a formal concern that it had moved the resident, who had care and support needs, to temporary accommodation without co-ordinating with her care provision.
28. In June 2023, the resident told the landlord and the Ombudsman that she was unable to receive her statutory care package while staying in temporary accommodation. From the evidence provided, it is unclear whether the resident received any caring support during the time she stayed in temporary accommodation. On 21 March 2023, she told the landlord that she was trying to contact the adult social work team regarding carers attending the temporary accommodation. However, there is no evidence that she raised the loss of the care provision until after she had moved back into her property.
29. The evidence supports that the landlord took steps to assess the resident’s needs prior to the temporary move by discussing this directly with her and conducting a temporary move needs assessment. However, while the landlord documented the requirement for social services to attend twice a day, it is unclear whether this arrangement was put in place prior to the temporary move. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord communicated with social services directly. The landlord has a duty of care to its residents and it therefore ought to have liaised with social services to ensure that the accommodation provided was suitable to ensure she could receive the required care. This was a failing by the landlord.
30. The resident said that staying in the temporary accommodation had made her health worse, and she experienced distress and inconvenience during this period. At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its management of the temporary move. This was insufficient to remedy the failing identified. The landlord offered a further £500 compensation for its handling of the temporary move on 28 August 2024.
31. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, it is not clear why the landlord did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure, rather than some 10 months after its stage two reply. The resident passed away before the landlord made the increased offer of compensation.
32. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the landlord’s offer as reasonable redress because it made the offer after the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation. The Ombudsman has therefore found that there was service failure in terms of its handling of the temporary move due to its lack of engagement with social services. However, we have not ordered additional compensation as the £600 already offered by the landlord was proportionate to put things right in relation to the failings identified. To ensure that the landlord takes learning as a result of this complaint, we have made a recommendation for it to make sure it liaises with social services in such circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

33. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue stage 1 responses within a further 10 working days. The policy states it will respond to escalation requests in 5 working days and issue stage 2 responses in 10 working days of its acknowledgment.
34. The resident raised her complaint on 2 March 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on 3 March 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 April 2023, which was 30 days in excess of the 10-working day timeframe stipulated in its policy.
35. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 June 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on 11 August 2023. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 13 October 2023, which was 46 working days more than the required timeframe.
36. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered the resident a total of £200 compensation. The amount offered was reasonable to remedy the impact of the failing and a finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made regarding complaint handling.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonably resolved its handling of the planned works in the resident’s property and the conduct of the contractor’s staff.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling and suitability of the temporary accommodation.
39. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonably resolved its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must pay the £600 already offered for its handling of the temporary move to the resident’s estate, if it has not done so already. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with this order to the Ombudsman in the timeframe stipulated.

Recommendations

41. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. pays the resident’s estate the remaining £600 it offered in relation to its handling of the staff conduct and complaint handling, if it has not already done so. The findings of reasonable redress are dependent on this amount being paid.
    2. should undertake staff training regarding how to handle conduct complaints about contractor’s staff members.
    3. should conduct staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible records of property inspections following major works.
    4. liaises with social services where appropriate to ensure continuity of care packages in similar circumstances.