From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202323439)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323439

Clarion Housing Association Limited

4 June 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of damage to personal belongings during a temporary decant.
    2. request for a home loss payment.
  2. This report has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. Prior to raising her complaint, the resident lived with her children in a 2 bedroom property as an assured tenant. The records suggest that, in order to carry out damp and mould repairs, the landlord had to move her into temporary accommodation.
  2. On 30 September 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone regarding its offer of temporary hotel accommodation. She told the landlord that this would not be suitable. She added that:
    1. she was pregnant.
    2. the lack of cooking facilities would be an issue.
    3. as she worked from home she needed reliable internet.
    4. “ideally” she would like to move into a “self-contained apartment”.
    5. she had been told the contents of her property needed to go into storage but was given no information on who would arrange this.
  3. On 13 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it was exploring a permanent move for her and would contact her when a property became available. On 10 November 2022 it told her that, given she was expecting her third child, it would offer her the next available 3 bedroom property in one of her chosen areas. In the interim, the landlord arranged for the resident to move into temporary private rented accommodation on, or around 13 January 2023.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2023 to say she wanted to make a formal complaint. She stated that:
    1. despite telling her in January 2023 it would place her belongings into storage, it had not done so.
    2. as a result, everything had become mouldy and could no longer be used.
    3. she did not have contents insurance but, as this was “not her fault” she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the damage.
    4. she was unable to move into her new property with her children because she no longer had any furniture.
  5. On 9 June 2023 the landlord agreed to offer her:
    1. a £750 voucher towards the cost of new beds and a cot.
    2. £300 per room for carpets.
    3. £74 per window for curtains.
    4. a paint pack.
    5. £1000 towards the cost of new furniture.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 June 2023 and said:
    1. her belongings had not been put into storage and it had not given her any reason why.
    2. it told her she would have to claim on its insurance, which was a lengthy process and there was no guarantee she would be awarded anything.
    3. she was entitled “by law” to a home loss payment as she was being permanently decanted.
    4. she had asked for a copy of its compensation and decant policies but these were not forthcoming.
    5. she had become “stressed” by having to chase the landlord because of its “lack of correspondence”.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 12 June 2023 and the resident moved into permanent alternative accommodation on 1 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 August 2023 and gave her details on how she could claim for the damaged items through its insurer. It added that:
    1. when her temporary decant started it had not been made aware of any items needing to be placed into storage.
    2. it had spoken to the member of staff concerned, who “denied” stating they would put her belongings into storage.
    3. it had offered her £750 towards the cost of buying new beds, and would cover the cost of new carpets and curtains.
    4. it was unable to offer her a home loss payment as this was not in line with its decant policy. These were only offered when the property was “being disposed of”.
    5. It was unable to provide copies of its compensation and decant policies as these were “internal documents”.
    6. It wanted to offer her £1,250 compensation broken down as:
      1. £150 for its lack of communication regarding her decant.
      2. £100 for its lack of communication from its available homes team.
      3. £750 for its delay in addressing the damp and mould in her previous property.
      4. £150 for its delay in providing temporary accommodation.
      5. £50 for delays in completing damp and mould repairs.
      6. £50 for the delay in providing a complaint response.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 August 2023 to escalate her complaint because:
    1. she had been told storage would be arranged on her behalf and that someone would in touch with her about it. This “never happened”. She was unclear as to why her housing officer was denying they had said this.
    2. according to the Land and Compensation Act 1973 she was entitled to receive a home loss payment. This was because the purpose of her decant was for repairs to take place, which amounted to carrying out an “improvement to the dwelling”.
  9. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 10 October 2023. It issued its stage 2 response on 8 December 2023. It stated that:
    1. it had not received a request to arrange for her belongings to be put into storage.
    2. its compensation policy did not reimburse residents for damaged items. She would need to contact its insurance team, as advised in its stage 1 response.
    3. it was sorry it had not given her copies of its compensation and decant policies when she asked for them. These should have been provided to her and it had enclosed copies of them with its response.
    4. she had been offered a permanent decant to an alternative property on a discretionary basis due to her circumstances at the time. Once works were finished she could have returned to her previous property. She was therefore not entitled to a home loss payment.
    5. it was satisfied with the compensation it had offered at stage 1. This was in addition to the decant and furnishing payments it had already made.
    6. it wanted to apologise for the time taken to respond to her stage 2 complaint and to award an additional £100 compensation in recognition of this.
  10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 10 December 2023. She stated that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response because:
    1. she had lost all her belongings in her previous property due to damp and mould, and the landlord’s failure to place them into storage.
    2. the landlord told her it had no record stating it had agreed to store her belongings. However, she had kept a note from a conversation with a member of staff on 29 September 2022. It stated that her items would be moved into storage for the duration of the temporary decant.
    3. it had informed her she was not eligible for a home loss payment, which she did not believe to be correct. She said that the landlord’s decision to agree a permanent move was made because her home was uninhabitable, and unsuitable for her to return to.

Assessment and findings

Damage to furniture and other belongings during a temporary decant

  1. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the losses she has incurred. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on damage to personal belongings. These matters, their investigation and compensation are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a claim for loss and/or damage. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman’s learning from severe maladministration publication of September 2024 states that landlords must take an empathetic and human-centric approach on every move needed. They must keep residents well informed about their temporary accommodation before it takes place, including timescales and storage of belongings.
  3. Our decant expectations for landlords available on our website states that landlords’ decant policies should clearly explain who is responsible for belongings left in properties while they are unoccupied. It should also state whether the landlord or their insurance will cover any damage to these belongings.
  4. We have not seen evidence to support the resident’s claim that the landlord’s surveyor told her in January 2023 her belongings would be placed into storage. The resident told us, on 12 December 2023, that she had kept a note from a conversation with the surveyor on 29 September 2022. This stated that he had called to confirm the resident would be moved into temporary accommodation and her “items will be moved into storage for [the] duration”.
  5. The landlord’s own record of the telephone discussion on 29 September 2022 makes no mention that storage had been discussed. Instead, the call was in regard to completing an assessment for an emergency decant. The landlord’s internal records show that it had discussed the matter with its surveyor as part of its complaint investigation. There is evidence showing the staff member denied making any commitments to the resident with regard to storing her belongings while she was in temporary accommodation. The landlord then conveyed this to her in its complaint responses.
  6. We do not dispute what the resident has said, or that those discussions took place. However, we have not seen any evidence to corroborate her version of events. We are therefore unable to establish that the landlord had made any undertakings to the resident with regard to storing her items.
  7. The landlord’s decant policy is silent with regard to the storage of personal belongings during temporary decants. The landlord’s general approach when dealing with this issue is therefore unclear, and there is no specific guidance for staff on this matter.
  8. However, the landlord provided a telephone record from a discussion with the resident on 30 September 2022. This was around 3 and a half months prior to when the temporary decant started. It states that the resident was told that “all items needed to go into storage” but she was given no information on who would arrange this. According to this record the resident told the landlord that she had raised this concern and was advised by the call handler that they would have to discuss this with a manager. However, nobody had got back to her. The evidence therefore suggests that there was some discussion between the resident and landlord around storage of her belongings in advance of the temporary decant.
  9. There is no indication that, following the telephone conversation on 30 September 2022, the landlord had followed this matter up. There is no further mention of the issue in the records until the resident reported in May 2023 that her furniture had been damaged. It is unclear why the landlord did not make further internal enquiries to establish whether it would take responsibility for putting her belongings into storage during the works. That it did not take steps to provide any clarification or address her concern about storage arrangements demonstrates poor coordination and communication. It also shows a lack of customer focus.
  10. If it felt the contents of the property needed to be stored, the landlord should have discussed this with the resident before the work to her property began. It should have explained whether it would place her possessions into storage or if this was something it expected residents to arrange. Furthermore, it could have confirmed whether it would provide her with assistance if she was physically unable to pack, which would likely have been the case considering the resident was pregnant at the time.
  11. We note that the landlord acted appropriately by giving the resident prompt and detailed information on how she could claim for damaged belongings through its insurer. The landlord also exercised its discretion and offered the resident a £750 voucher to purchase new beds, along with a payment of £1000 towards the cost of other items. It therefore took steps to ensure the resident was able to buy replacement furniture.
  12. The landlord is not obliged to place residents’ items into storage during temporary decants. However, its poor communication, and lack of advice and support on this matter was a service failure. It caused the resident avoidable uncertainty, and distress and inconvenience over what would happen to her belongings while she was not in the property.
  13. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. We apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
  14. It is acknowledged that the landlord offered the resident £1,250 compensation at stage 1, with an additional £150 at stage 2. However, this was for unrelated matters. Its response did not acknowledge its failure to follow up on the resident’s concerns around storage of her items prior to the decant. It did not offer an apology or any redress for this failing.
  15. The Ombudsman will therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £100. This is in recognition of its poor communication around whether her items should be stored and who would take responsibility for doing so. It will also order the landlord to review its decant policy and consider amending it to include a section on the removal and storage of personal possessions during temporary decants. This will help provide clarification around the landlord’s approach on this matter, along with appropriate guidance to its staff.

Home loss payment

  1. The landlord’s decant policy contains sections on home loss and disturbance payments. It states that, where the landlord requires residents to move permanently due to demolition, improvement (which includes alteration or enlargement) or redevelopment, they are entitled to claim a statutory home loss and disturbance payment. The home loss payment is to compensate residents for personal upset and the distress of losing their home.
  2. The same policy states that, where there is no statutory entitlement to disturbance payments, the landlord may provide discretionary financial assistance to a resident up to any limits of its policy. It states that the overall cost of providing replacement floor coverings must not exceed £300 per room. It will also cover reasonable costs of replacement curtains up to a maximum of £75 per window.
  3. The resident feels she should be able to claim for a statutory home loss payment because she had to move permanently due to the condition of her property. She stated that she met the criteria due to “improvements” the landlord was making to her property.
  4. We should clarify that the reference to improvements in the landlord’s decant policy, and supporting legislation, is with regard to alterations or enlargements of properties. For example, if the landlord is building an extension or loft conversion, this would be considered an improvement. There is no evidence to show the landlord was carrying out such work to her property. Home loss payments do not apply when residents are decanted for the purpose of carrying out remedial works.
  5. The internal records indicate that, from November 2022, the landlord was exploring a permanent decant for the resident on a discretionary basis. This was because it felt she had been impacted by issues in her property for “at least 7 years”. The landlord therefore decided to add her to its “urgent move list”. Furthermore, as she was pregnant with her third child, it agreed to source a 3 bedroom rather than a like-for-like 2 bedroom property for her. There is no evidence to show that the resident would not have been able to move back to her original property following completion of the repairs. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by considering her circumstances, and went over and above what would have normally been expected by offering her larger, alternative permanent accommodation.
  6. We note that the landlord incorrectly advised the resident in its stage 1 response that it could not provide copies of its compensation and decant policies as they were “internal documents”. However, it acknowledged its error in its stage 2 response and offered an apology. Furthermore, it enclosed a copy of both policies with its response and offered the resident £50 compensation at stage 2 for not providing them sooner. This was appropriate and, taken together, the landlord’s offer resolves this aspect of the complaint.
  7. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its decant policy when it advised the resident she was not eligible for a home loss payment. In addition, it offered the resident discretionary disturbance payments for new carpets and curtains. We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a home loss payment.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord was operating what it referred to as its “interim” complaints policy. This was a 2-stage process and was operational following a cyber incident. The procedure states that both stage 1 and 2 complaints must be acknowledged and logged within 10 working days of receipt. It aimed to respond to new complaints received since 17 June 2022 within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. It referred to the stage 2 as a “peer review”, which it will aimed to conclude within 40 working days.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 25 May 2023 that she wanted to raise a formal complaint. However, it was only after she wrote to it again on 10 June 2023, reiterating her concerns regarding her belongings, that the landlord registered and then acknowledged her complaint on 12 June 2023. The evidence therefore shows it took 11 working days to acknowledge her stage 1 complaint. Furthermore, it then took the landlord a further 39 working days to issue its stage 1 response.
  3. With regard to the resident’s escalation request, the landlord did not acknowledge this until 39 days after the resident had made it on 16 August 2023. It then took the landlord a further 42 working days to issue its stage 2 response. There is no evidence the landlord had sent the resident any updates informing her that its responses would be delayed. Neither did it offer any explanation for those delays or provide her with any revised timescales within which it would issue a response.
  4. We acknowledge there can sometimes be challenges in responding within timescales, particularly during busy periods. It is also important that landlords carry out thorough investigations and we acknowledge these can sometimes take longer than expected to complete. However, landlords should always ensure they adequately communicate any potential delays to their residents. This will help maintain transparency, along with a positive working relationship between the landlord and resident throughout the process. It will also help reassure residents they have not been forgotten about. That the landlord failed to adequately inform the resident of delays or agree new timescales was a departure both from the Code and its policy. This would have caused the resident additional and avoidable frustration.
  5. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in issuing its complaint responses. Furthermore, it offered the resident £50 at stage 1 and an additional £100 at stage 2 for its poor complaint handling. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord made efforts to put things right. However, although we will not order it to pay any additional redress, we have made a finding of service failure. This is because it did not give details in its response of any learning from the outcome of the complaint, or any steps it planned to take to improve its service. We will make an order that the landlord reviews its complaint handling in this case. It should consider whether there is any training it could arrange for complaint handling staff to help improve its communication when responses are delayed.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to furniture and other belongings during a temporary decant.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a home loss payment.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident in line with our guidance on making apologies. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
    2. pay the resident £250 compensation calculated as:
      1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of communication about the storage of her belongings.
      2. £150 it had offered in recognition of its poor complaint handling and the distress and inconvenience caused as a result. If it has already paid this to the resident, this can be deducted from the overall total.
  2. Within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord must:
    1. carry out a review of its decant policy. This should take into consideration the findings of this report and the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s decant expectations for landlords. It should consider whether to include details of its position on the storage of residents’ personal belongings during temporary decants. This would clarify the level of support it can provide in those circumstances. It would also give its staff relevant guidance on dealing with this matter in future.
    2. carry out a review of its complaint handling in this case. It should consider any training for complaint handling staff in order to help improve its communication when there are delays issuing complaint responses.
  3. The landlord must provide us with the outcome of both reviews within the timescale mentioned above.

 Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of receiving this determination and if it has not done so already, it should pay the resident the £1,200 it offered in its stage 1 response for other failings it had identified as part of its investigation. It should also pay the resident the £50 it had offered at stage 2 for its delay in providing the resident with copies of its decant and compensation policies.