Clarion Housing Association Limited (202340660)
Back to Top
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202340660 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Clarion Housing Association Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
26 February 2026 |
Background
- In August 2023, the landlord was made aware that the resident’s mother (the tenant) had died and that the resident wanted to succeed (take over) the tenancy. The landlord declined the request. The resident complained about the landlord’s decision to refuse the succession. During this period, the resident and their representative were in contact with the landlord. For ease of readability, we have referred to them collectively as “the resident” in this report.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Succession application.
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Succession application.
- Associated complaint.
We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Succession application
- While the landlord’s decision making aligned with its succession policy, there were delays and multiple communication failures which caused the resident distress. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the failures and awarded a proportionate remedy during its complaints procedure, which was sufficient to put things right.
Complaint handling
- There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. This fell short of the expectations of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out landlord complaint handling practices. The landlord also did not address all elements of the resident’s complaint in its initial response. However, it acknowledged these failures and took steps to put things right.
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.
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
We recommend that the landlord review the staff training it provides and the processes it has in place for communicating through representatives rather than directly with residents. This will help ensure that these communication arrangements are understood and correctly implemented. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
13 November 2023 |
The resident complained about the landlord’s decision to refuse their succession request. They said:
|
|
13 December 2023 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and apologised for the time taken to decide the succession appeal. It awarded £200 for these delays. It said it had followed its succession policy when refusing the application because the resident had not provided the required evidence. The landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority about rehousing options and also apologised that letters had not been sent to the representative. |
|
17 December 2023 |
The resident complained about the delays in the landlord responding to their succession appeal and in issuing a complaint response. They reiterated that the landlord gave incorrect advice during a telephone call in November 2023. |
|
28 December 2023 |
The resident asked the landlord to also address its further failure to send a subsequent letter to their representative. |
|
6 February 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and apologised for not addressing the delay in its stage 1 reply. It acknowledged the distress caused by the succession refusal but said:
The landlord awarded £200 for complaint handling delays. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate because they did not agree with the landlord’s handling of the succession application which they said caused distress. |
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 |
The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s succession application |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord contacted the resident on 15 August 2023 to discuss the succession process after being notified that their mother had died and that they wished to succeed the tenancy. While the landlord recorded that it discussed the “next steps” with the resident, it failed to record what this specifically entailed. Therefore, we cannot confirm whether it gave appropriate guidance or reasonably managed the resident’s expectations at the time. This lack of detail falls short of our expectation that landlords keep clear and accurate records to support transparency and accountability.
- In line with its succession policy, the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence that they had lived at the property for at least 12 months leading up to their mother’s death. On 22 August 2023, the resident told the landlord that they could not provide this evidence. Subsequently, the landlord issued a letter the same day refusing the succession, which it was entitled to do. The letter also correctly explained that it would serve notice to end the tenancy and that if the resident chose to challenge the decision and remain in the property, it would set up a “use and occupancy” account to charge weekly rent until an appeal outcome was decided.
- The landlord was entitled to take steps to regain possession of the property once it had decided that no succession rights applied. It served notice on 23 August 2023 to end the tenancy. Although the resident has disputed receiving this notice, we must rely on the available records, which reasonably indicate that the notice was served. However, we note that the landlord did not rely on this notice at the time to gain possession of the property.
- By around 31 August 2023, the resident had provided evidence to appeal the landlord’s decision. Having reviewed the evidence, and as the decision remained discretionary, the landlord was entitled to refuse succession as it was not satisfied that its criteria had been met. While we acknowledge that the outcome was disappointing for the resident, the landlord’s decision making was in line with its succession policy.
- Our role is to assess whether the landlord acted appropriately and reasonably when handling the succession application, including how it considered its legal obligations and its policies and procedures. If the resident wishes to challenge the landlord’s decision about the succession further, the courts are best placed to consider this given their expertise and powers. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if they have not already done so.
- Clear and timely communication is important for landlords to maintain transparency, which can help reduce residents’ distress and manage their expectations. The landlord’s succession policy reflects this, stating that it will ensure to minimise periods of uncertainty for residents. However, the landlord’s communication with the resident failed to align with these expectations. Despite receiving the appeal evidence in August 2023, it did not notify the resident of the appeal outcome until around 6 November 2023. This was an unreasonable delay which unfairly left the resident in a prolonged position of uncertainty about their housing. We welcome that the landlord accepted this failure during its complaints procedure.
- As part of their complaint, the resident said that the landlord had promised during a telephone call that they would not be made homeless and would be rehoused. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had found no evidence that this promise had been made. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we have also seen no evidence confirming that such commitments were made. As an independent evidence‑based service, where there is a disagreement about what happened and no supporting evidence to confirm the facts, it is not possible for us to determine what did or did not happen. It was reasonable for the landlord to have said in its stage 2 complaint response that if the resident could provide any evidence, it would investigate the matter further.
- The landlord also did not always ensure that it communicated directly with the resident’s representative as it should have. We understand this arrangement was partly made due to the distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced. The landlord showed a lack of regard for the agreed arrangements, which likely contributed to the resident’s distress. While the landlord apologised for this failure in its stage 1 complaint response, the issue recurred by the time it issued its stage 2 response. This indicates a lack of learning and may have caused the resident further avoidable distress.
- It is positive that the landlord shared details of housing advice and assistance services, including the local authority, with the resident. This ensured the resident was reasonably made aware of additional support resources available to them. However, the tone of the landlord’s decision outcome letters caused the resident unnecessary distress. We expect landlords to tailor their communication and consider the resident’s individual circumstances. The landlord demonstrated learning in its stage 2 complaint response as it committed to reviewing the content of its letters going forward.
- The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the succession application affected their mental health. We understand that this was likely a difficult time for them. However, it would be more appropriate for the resident to pursue a personal injury claim for any impact on their health, as the courts are best placed to consider such matters due to their expertise and access to independent medical advice. Therefore, we have not investigated this. However, we can consider whether a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
- Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation and is published on our website. The landlord’s total award of £200 for the failures in its handling of the succession application aligns with what our remedies guidance suggests may be appropriate where a landlord’s failures have adversely affected a resident but resulted in no permanent impact. We are satisfied that the award was proportionate in the circumstances at the time of the complaint. The resident has confirmed that they have already received the landlord’s award.
- The resident has made us aware of events which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the interest of fairness, we have made the decision not to assess these concerns at this stage because the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond. The resident may wish to raise these matters as a new complaint with the landlord if they have not already done so. If they remain dissatisfied after the landlord issues its response, they may wish to bring the matter to us as a new complaint for consideration.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the associated complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had a complaints policy that aligned with the Code. The policy required it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord does not dispute that there were failures to meet these timescales.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint around 8 working days after the complaint was made, slightly outside of the required timeframe. It issued its stage 1 complaint response around 16 working days later. The landlord did not appropriately acknowledge this failure in its stage 1 response, which was a missed opportunity to fully put things right. It is therefore welcomed that it did so in its stage 2 complaint response by apologising and awarding £150 for the failure.
- Under the Code, landlords must address all elements of a resident’s complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord failed to address the resident’s comments about the incorrect advice they said they received over the phone in November 2023. This likely inconvenienced the resident, as they then specifically requested that this be addressed in their stage 2 complaint. This inconvenience could reasonably have been avoided.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint around 18 working days after it was made. This was significantly beyond the landlord’s expected timeframe, which likely caused the resident some frustration. Once acknowledged, the landlord appropriately issued its stage 2 complaint response around 17 working days later. The landlord apologised for the overall delay at this stage and awarded £50 in its stage 2 response.
- In line with our remedies guidance (referenced above), we find the landlord’s total award of £200 appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. We are satisfied that the award was proportionate in the circumstances at the time of the complaint. The resident has confirmed that they have already received the landlord’s award.
Learning
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping. It did not always maintain accessible, detailed records relating to what was discussed during telephone calls. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the findings set out in our spotlight report.
Communication
- It is positive that the landlord recognised that its communication with the resident fell short of expectations around effective communication. There were periods where there was a lack of communication, and it also did not give sufficient due regard for the fact that a representative was appointed when sending correspondence or the tone of the communication. Our spotlight report on attitudes, rights and respect explains that sensitive and tailored communication can reduce distress experienced by residents. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the findings set out in our spotlight report.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the requirements of the Code. While the landlord accepted these failures at the time, it may wish to review the training provided to staff and its procedures to ensure that its complaint handling is in line with these requirements.