Clarion Housing Association Limited (202325978)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 2‑bedroom property with her daughter until the property was repossessed by her mortgage company in August 2023. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the level of support provided by the landlord before and after the repossession. She said the landlord did not discuss with her what additional options may have been available.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the residents:
   1. concerns about the level of support provided during the repossession
   2. associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the level of support provided during the repossession.
4. There was reasonable redress in the handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about the level of support

5. While the landlord said it was not aware of the resident’s circumstances before repossession, its records indicate earlier awareness of possession proceedings. There is no evidence it took proactive steps to engage with the resident or consider potential support options at that stage. This was a missed opportunity to provide earlier support.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not recognise or respond to the resident’s complaint made on 24 October 2023, which was not in line with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code. It later acknowledged this failing and apologised. It then responded appropriately once the complaint was progressed.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. We considered what the landlord knew about the resident’s circumstances before the repossession and whether it acted reasonably on that information. The landlord’s records show it was aware from December 2022 that the lender had applied for possession. However, there is no evidence it acted on this information or took steps to engage with the resident to understand her circumstances or consider support options. This was a missed opportunity to offer earlier support.
8. The resident said she contacted the landlord on 16 June 2023 to request support. The landlord has no record of this contact. We are guided by the available evidence and, as neither party has provided evidence to confirm this contact, we are unable to make a finding on this point.
9. The landlord’s records show it attempted contact about arrears in February 2023 and 31 May 2023. There is no evidence these attempts resulted in engagement. While its ability to provide support depends on engagement, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take further steps to follow up, given the known risk of repossession.
10. The landlord said options such as downward staircasing are discretionary. They depend on the resident showing financial hardship and engaging with the landlord. This is in line with the lease. There is no evidence of engagement before repossession. It was therefore reasonable that these options were not progressed.
11. Under the lease, the resident remained responsible for rent and charges until completion after repossession. This reflects the landlord’s limited role once the lender takes possession. When the landlord became aware of the repossession, its ability to assist the resident was restricted. It said it could have signposted the resident to external support. However, this would not have changed the repossession outcome.
12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord noted that the resident reported several contacts that were not on its system. It asked the resident to provide further evidence. This was a reasonable step where there was a dispute about contact.
13. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns through its complaints process. At stage 1 and stage 2, it considered the resident’s account and explained its position. It set out why it had no record of contact before repossession and why it had not progressed staircasing. It also explained its position on rent liability and its limited role. This shows it took reasonable steps to respond to the complaint.
14. We have carefully considered the impact on the resident. The repossession resulted in the loss of her home and required her and her child to move into temporary accommodation. This would have had a significant impact. However, the repossession arose from mortgage arrears and was a matter between the resident and the lender. There is no evidence that the landlord’s actions contributed to the repossession or that further action would have changed the outcome.
15. Overall, the evidence does not demonstrate that earlier action by the landlord would have prevented the repossession. However, the landlord did not act on the information available to it this was a missed opportunity to identify the resident’s circumstances and offer appropriate support. We have taken this into account when considering redress, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. We have therefore determined that compensation of £100 is appropriate. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the missed opportunity for earlier support.

16. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy requires a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It may extend these timescales for complex cases. If it does, it should explain the reason and give a revised response date. This is in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The resident made a complaint on 24 October 2023. The landlord accepted it did not respond at that time. This was not in line with its policy or the Code. Both require landlords to log and respond to complaints within set timescales. The landlord apologised. This was appropriate where a service failure occurred.
18. After a referral from the Ombudsman, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2024. It issued its stage 2 response on 15 April 2024. These were within the expected timescales once the complaint was taken forward.
19. In its responses, the landlord addressed the main issues and explained its position. This was in line with the Code, which requires clear explanations and a response to the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The case highlights the importance of clear and reliable records. There was a difference between the landlord’s records and the resident’s account of contact, the landlord gave the resident an opportunity to share records to resolve the dispute.

Communication

21. If the landlord improved how, it identifies and logs complaints at an early stage, this would ensure staff recognise expressions of dissatisfaction. This includes logging complaints promptly, responding within timescales, and maintaining clear communication throughout.