Clarion Housing Association Limited (202342275)

Decision
Case ID	202342275
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident and his wife have mobility difficulties for which they use walking aides and a wheelchair and have adaptations to their home, including an adapted shower in their bedroom. In late 2022 the landlord received a referral from the Local Authority’s (LA) occupational health therapist (OT) recommending adaptations, including an electric vehicle charging point. After initially agreeing to the charging point, the landlord declined it because it would not be funded by the LA’s disability facilities grant (DFG).
2. In January 2024, the OT recommended further adaptations, including a walk-in shower in the bedroom, but the landlord declined these. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the OT recommendations and its decision. He also reported several repairs and maintenance issues. The resident made a complaint with the help of his adult daughter, who lives in the property, but for ease we refer to both as “the resident” and “he”.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The aids and adaptation (A&A) recommendations.
   2. Reports of various repairs and maintenance issues, including with:
      1. Fences and hedges.
      2. The adapted shower.
      3. Damp on external wall.
      4. The bathroom.
      5. Internal doors.
   3. The associated complaint.

 

 

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The A&A recommendations.
   2. Reports of various repairs and maintenance issues.
5. We also find that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

A&A’s

6. The landlord did not clearly explain its refusals of all adaptations or explore alternative solutions, other than rehousing, itself or in conjunction with the LA. There were delays in reaching decisions on major adaptations and in installing minor ones. There were evident communication failings between the landlord’s internal departments, the LA, and the resident. These issues caused the residents considerable distress and inconvenience.

Repairs and maintenance

7. The landlord missed opportunities to raise repairs and maintenance issues reported in the resident’s complaint. This contributed to some of these still being outstanding at this time. There was also a theme of the landlord exceeding its non-urgent routine repair timescale. Not effectively responding to the resident’s reports had a cumulative impact on him and his family.

Complaints handling

8. The landlord took accountability for some failings, including its delayed responses, and awarded compensation for the impact that took into consideration the household’s vulnerabilities. However, it did not address all aspects of the complaint which left matters unaddressed and was one of the reasons the resident referred his complaint to us.

 

 

 

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by someone senior. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 09 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1950, made up as follows: £1000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the A&A failings. £700 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the repairs. £250 for the time and trouble caused by the complaint handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident and documentary evidence provided by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made from its original award for the issues we investigated.	No later than 09 January 2026
	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person, such as a surveyor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the qualified person/surveyor:  Inspects for repairs, interim repairs, or maintenance issues and damp and mould in the following areas: The adapted shower and bedroom. The main bathroom. Damp through the external wall. It must then provide an action plan to the resident and us with timescales for completing repairs.	No later than 09 January 2026
	Case Review The landlord must review its handling of the A&A recommendations in this case. As part of this it should consider whether it has appropriate processes in place to document the rationale for its decisions and to ensure that these are communicated to residents and the LA. It must complete a lessons learnt review report and provide a copy to the resident and this service.	No later than 16 January 2026
	Directional order The landlord must write to the resident confirming its position on whether it will: replace the internal doors. repair other areas of the fence. It should give reasons for its decisions.	No later than 09 January 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We ask the landlord to give consideration to whether there are grounds to reimburse the resident for costs incurred from the damp problem from February 2024.
The landlord should consider providing the resident its personal liability insurers details should he wish to make claim for the impact to his family’s health.
It may be reasonable for the landlord to reoffer the £300 it awarded for its handling of the SAR.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21   February 2024	The resident complained about the landlord’s decision to decline the OT recommendations and that there were repair and maintenance issues, some that spanned several years. He also asked for a subject access request (SAR) including for the repairs data.
17 May 2024	In the stage 1 response, the landlord said: It had declined the A&A recommendations for the charger, level access shower, stair lift, and garden access because of the extent of the works, support from the LA, and its need to consider the longer-term use of the property. It though recognised there had been delays and poor communication. There were delays in completing some repairs to the bath and a recently reported issue with the adapted shower. It recognised the resident needed to chase its complaint response on 19 March 2024. The landlord awarded £450 compensation, made up of: £100 for delays and poor communication for the shower repairs. £100 for delays to the bath repair. £100 for delays and poor communication over the A&A. £100 for the inconvenience of having to chase for updates. £50 for it exceeding the complaints timescale.
3 September 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint because he said the LA told him the A&A’s would be funded by a DFG. He also complained the landlord had not addressed all repair issues and added new ones, including that some internal doors had not been replaced following a 2017 break-in and were not fire safety compliant. He was also unhappy with the handling of the SAR. The resident advised the situation had caused injuries and health and safety concerns. He asked the landlord to agree to the A&As, arrange the repairs based on their reports, and award more compensation.
29 November 2024	In the stage 2 review response the landlord said: It had not changed its position on the A&A recommendations but explained the LA had told it in January 2024 that the charging point would not be covered under a DFG and would advise the residents they may be able to claim under a government scheme. It had: Replaced the shower unit within its published timescales. Accepted it was liable for the rear fence and would repair it, but signposted to the LA’s environmental health about the hedges. Not responded to the reports of damp and mould made in the initial complaint but had tried to inspect on 10 October 2024 and declined access because the resident said they wanted to await the stage 2 decision. There was no record of earlier reports of damage to the internal doors and they did not need to be compliant with current fire regulations. Believed any old repairs the residents had reported had been dealt with in the past. It was sorry not all SAR data was provided, would send it, and signposted him to complain to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). It had awarded an additional £900 (£1350 in total), made up of: £300 for delay in responding to the SAR. £500 for delay, time and trouble caused by its failure to respond to the damp and mould report. £100 for the stage 2 being delayed.
After the complaints process ended	The resident sent a further complaint to the landlord in late May 2025 about the same issues and in this reported that there was now a “severe damp and mould” problem in the bedroom with the adapted shower. The landlord responded to signposting to our service. At some point, the resident complained to the ICO about the handling of the SAR.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because he was unhappy with the A&A decision and there are outstanding repairs. However, in October 2025 the landlord approved the A&A recommendations and awarded £600 for its delay in doing so. The resident remains dissatisfied with how it handled this. He advised he and his family have been caused physical and mental injury, distress, and costs from repainting a damp wall. He wants any outstanding repairs to be completed and substantial compensation.

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 A&A recommendations
Finding	Maladministration

9. The resident said that the A&A issues went back as far as 2021 but he did not explain what recommendations specifically. There were no records in those available of any OT referrals from around that time or of the resident chasing any up subsequently. So, we have looked at the landlord’s handling of the OT’s November 2022 and January 2024 recommendations.
10. According to the landlord’s A&A policy and process at the time it aimed to:
    1. Complete minor adaptations (costing less than £1000) within 28 days.
    2. Carry out major adaptations (costing above £1000 and less than £30000) that were “reasonable and practicable”, in line with its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
    3. Consider re-housing a tenant in the first instance where the adaptations would lead to structural changes and/or they were not eligible for DFG funding.
11. The landlord’s handling of both referrals was poor because it did not, to varying degrees, demonstrate it followed its policy and process to a reasonable extent. Our reasons for our finding include that it:
    1. Took double its minor adaptations timescale for installing grab rails inside and outside of the home.
    2. Contributed to a delay in reaching a final decision that the charging point fell outside the requirements of its A&A policy because of costs and that it could not be covered under a DFG. Records show this was a combination of communication failings between it and the LA, and between its internal departments.
    3. Did not demonstrate in its records if and how it had considered the reasonableness and practicability of the recommendations. It could have used the OT’s specifications for the adaptations or carried out its own feasibility study.
    4. Failed to provide full and adequate explanations for its decision. If, for example, the landlord found the works would involve a structural change it should have explained this.
    5. Failed to communicate sooner with the resident about the decision and its suggestion that they be moved.
    6. Did not show the flexibility it said it would take to explore itself or with the LA different solutions to meet the residents’ needs.
12. Through the complaints process the landlord took some appropriate actions.  It acknowledged the delays and poor communication regarding the first referral and awarded £100 compensation for the impact. The landlord also signposted the resident to how they may be able to obtain a grant for the charging point. Its explanation that it had to consider the long-term use of the property was in keeping with its approach outlined in the policy.
13. The above actions were insufficient to remedy the evident failings and impact during the complaints process. We also find that the level of compensation the landlord has awarded, at £700 in total, is not proportionate for the distress and inconvenience caused. Our reason is that the complaints process was the opportunity to review its handling and decision on the A&A’s. Given it has since reviewed its handling and changed the decision, with no new information, it is more likely than not that it would have approved the recommendations during the complaints process. This missed opportunity will have resulted in the delays to the A&A’s being implemented, although we cannot speculate how long exactly.
14. The resident told us that they have been caused falls, worry about falling, and a deterioration in his daughter’s mental health from the landlord’s delay in accepting the A&A recommendations. He sent letters from consultants that show he and his wife have mobility problems which would make them more vulnerable to falls. The OT recommendations also show they were made to support the residents from safely and independently using their home. He also sent evidence his daughter is being treated for her mental health.
15.  We accept that the resident and family would have been caused significant distress and inconvenience and have considered compensation on that basis. The resident may wish to consider making a legal or personal injury claim where he could benefit from medical expertise in considering whether their health has been adversely affected as a result of the landlord’s handling of matters. This is both in keeping with the landlord’s and our approach to complaints where someone states they have been caused harm, as outlined in its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
16. We have ordered it to pay £1000 in place of the original award to reflect the significant impact the landlord’s maladministration has caused the resident and his family, and in view of the vulnerabilities in the household. This is in line with the range (£600-£1000) our remedies guidance recommends is paid for cases where a landlord’s maladministration has had a significant impact.

Complaint	The handling of repairs
Finding	Maladministration

17. The resident advised that some of the issues date back many years. For the most part, however, there were no records of any longstanding problems that the resident was reporting regularly over a number of years. We have then largely focused our investigation on the landlord’s handling of the issues the residents reported in February 2024. Where we have made exceptions to this we have explained below.

Fences and hedges

18. According to the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing boundary fences and the resident for dividing fences in his garden. In his complaint the resident reported that his fence around the property had degraded. Prior to this we have seen he was regularly enquiring in late 2023 about a past report from July 2020 about fire damage to the fence at the side of his house and his belief that this should be repaired by the landlord. It is apparent from the resident’s complaint and the records he had been told the landlord was not responsible for this and that he disputed it.
19. The landlord’s response to this aspect was insufficient. While it did inspect the fence and agreed it was responsible for repairing the back fence, it did not comment on why it would not repair the rest of the fence which was unreasonable. That it took 8 months to confirm a position and complete the repair (in December 2024) was also a failing. It was a significant departure from its non-urgent repair timescale of 28 days. The landlord apologised for the delay and provided information about how the resident could report concerns to the LA about overgrowth from land behind his house, which was reasonable. It did not though award compensation for its delays and poor handling of this issue. So we have factored this into our award for the cumulative impacts of its repair handling failings, as we have with all other unresolved matters.

Adapted shower

20. While the landlord was considering the recommendations to install a new level access shower, it still had an obligation to repair the existing shower. The landlord did not act on the OT’s January 2024 report referring to the shower doors coming away. Or the resident’s reports in his complaint a month later about the doors and other issues that it could reasonably have investigated for repairs, including the extractor fan being insufficient. It is a failing that the landlord cannot demonstrate it met its repair obligations. The complaints process was a missed opportunity to address this and attempt to put things right in offering to inspect for repairs in the first instance.
21.  We find the landlord’s stage 1 response to the residents’ complaint about the time it took to repair the shower unit was appropriate. It recognised it had failed to raise a repair on 25 April 2024 and that, after the shower stopped working entirely on 5 May 2024, it acknowledged its communication failing caused a delay. This accounted for 7 days, which was clearly unacceptable given its purpose. It then took 19 days from the shower failing to fix it. We recognise the resident would have been caused a degree of inconvenience. But, apart from the stated delays above, we have not seen that all the time was unreasonable given that a part was needed. We find the landlord’s award of £100 compensation was appropriate to put right the impact of the avoidable delay.
22. In the resident’s second complaint from May 2025, he reported that there was both a damp and mould problem in the bedroom, which he described as “severe”. We have not seen how the landlord responded to this directly, only an internal email stating it had signposted to our service. This approach was inappropriate because the resident had again reported a damp and mould problem, and the landlord is responsible for inspecting and resolving it promptly. The resident told us that the problem still is unresolved and that the condition of the shower has deteriorated, including that there is mould around the shower sealant. We have therefore ordered the landlord to complete a damp and mould inspection.

Damp

23. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection based on the resident’s complaint that there was a damp problem from external brickwork. They also reported problems with ineffective extractor fans in the bedroom with the adapted shower and bathroom which it should have acted on. However, it failed to do so until the resident escalated his complaint in September 2024, by which time it had already surpassed its timescales by about 6 months.
24. The landlord’s final response to this issue was fair because it recognised its failure and took some appropriate actions to attempt to put things right. It apologised and awarded compensation of £500. This was at the top end of our range that our guidance recommends for impacts that are serious but not expected to be long-lasting. It was above the amount we would order for this single failing, and we have factored this into the overall compensation we have ordered.
25. While the landlord appropriately arranged a damp and mould inspection, it did this without agreeing the appointment first with the resident. It then failed to act on or respond to the resident’s email of 2 October 2024 stating the appointment was not convenient and that he, in any event, wanted to await the final response. The landlord’s explanation for why the 10 October 2024 appointment did not go ahead- because the resident declined it as they wanted an outcome to his complaint- was not entirely correct.
26. While the above is true, the landlord did explain the purpose of the inspection and invited the resident to reschedule the appointment with its repairs team. This was a reasonable approach given he wanted to await the final response.
27. The resident advised that the damp problem is unresolved and that he has incurred costs from treating the paintwork. However, there is no record that he asked to reschedule the inspection. We cannot then say that the landlord is entirely responsible for the damp not being inspected. But we also think it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed up with the resident because it is required to ensure its properties are free from damp. And there are no records that it has made any attempts to progress this itself. As such, we have ordered it to inspect the problem.

The main bathroom

28. In his complaint, the resident reported issues with the bathroom sink and bath taps. He also said the recently installed bath was creaking. In his escalation request in September 2024, he advised he had reported problems with water pressure and temperature to an officer he spoke with about the complaint on 25 April 2024. While we have not seen written notes of this conversation, it is undisputed that it took place.
29. As above, the landlord should have inspected the reports as potential repair or maintenance issues. That it did not offer to do this or even acknowledge the reports in its responses is a failing. We have ordered it to take actions to put things right alongside the other repair issues.
30. We have seen that the landlord did though appropriately acknowledge its delay in replacing the bath because it was rusty and could cause an injury. This took from 6 December 2023 until 10 January 2024, which was 7 days over its non-urgent timescale. Its compensation for this was fair at £100, in view of the fact the repair fell over the Christmas period and resources are more limited or stretched.

Internal doors

31. For context, the resident reported 6 internal doors had been cosmetically damaged during a break-in in 2017. Records show the landlord agreed to replace the doors. However, the resident was unhappy with the specification of replacements, complained, and the landlord maintained its position. We have not considered the historic events surrounding this, because of the time that has elapsed and the lack of any other reports from the residents that the doors had not been replaced in the intervening period. However, the landlord’s response that there were no records of earlier reports of damage to the doors was not factually correct.
32. While the landlord would not be expected to revisit complaints and matters after such a long time, it would have been reasonable for it to provide a position on whether it was prepared to still replace the doors. That it did not is a failing, for which we have ordered the landlord to provide a response.
33. The resident also complained that the current doors were not self-closing and did not comply with the current fire safety regulations. We found the landlord’s explanation that these are not applied retroactively appropriate. It is also true that the requirements the resident apply only to multi-occupant properties with communal areas, such as blocks of flats or HMOs. As such, there is no requirement for the landlord to install self-closing doors.

Repairs- conclusion

34.  Many of the repair and maintenance issues the resident described in his complaint were not significant in isolation. However, the number of potential repairs and the landlord’s repeated failure to inspect for them have caused the resident considerable distress. We though recognise it attempted to inspect for damp and mould, and it left it with the resident to schedule an appointment. There are no records that we have seen that he did this, so we cannot say it is entirely responsible.
35. The landlord’s compensation for the delays, distress, inconvenience, and time taken to chase repairs issues totalled £700. We find this a proportionate amount for the cumulative impacts of its failings as it is within the range our guidance recommends. So, we have not awarded more compensation. We have though ordered it to inspect the property and to confirm a position on the internal door and fence repairs.

 

Complaint	Complaints handling
Finding	Service failure

36. When the resident submitted his complaint, the landlord was following its interim complaints policy, in place after a cyber-attack in 2022. This required it to log and acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to then respond within 20 working days. This was double the timescale the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) stated acknowledgements and initial responses must be given within.
37. The landlord exceeded its timescale because it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint of 21 February 2024. This was clearly a failing which contributed to the delayed response and inconvenience to the resident chasing the matter up. There were then further delays during which time we have seen nothing by way of updates, even when he asked for one. It was only in late April 2024, 2 months after the complaint was raised, that an officer spoke to the resident about the complaint. While it was appropriate to speak with him, there were repair issues the resident raised, such as the shower, that were not then acted on. In total, it took 59 working days for the landlord to respond to the complaint, which was inappropriate.
38. By the time they escalated their complaint on 3 September 2024, the landlord had implemented a new policy that was in keeping with the timescales of the Code. This meant the stage 2 response must be sent within 20 working days of an acknowledgement or it required more time (up to a maximum of 20 working days).
39. The landlord’s handling of this was improved because its communication was better. It sent its acknowledgement on the day he sent the escalation. It informed him of its need for an extension on 30 October 2024. We recognise the resident’s complaint was complex and it was reasonable for it to need more time to investigate. However, it still fell short of the required standards because it did not inform the residents about the extension until after the response due date. It then took 23 working days to respond on 29 November 2024, which was over the extended timescale. That it took 63 working days to respond was a failing.
40. As explained above, the landlord missed an opportunity at stage 1 to arrange an inspection of the property to investigate the resident’s reports of repair and maintenance issues. It also failed to address everything the resident had raised, such as the fence and shower issues. This was not in keeping with its standards, which aligned with the Code, to address all aspects of a complaint.
41. The quality of the stage 2 response was better. As explained above, it acknowledged some failings and offered some appropriate resolutions for the A&A, fence, and damp issues. It was clear that the landlord considered the household vulnerabilities in reaching the compensation awards. However, its response still overlooked parts of the resident’s reports about the condition of the shower/bedroom and bathroom. The response to the historic reports was not specific enough and it would have been clearer had it listed which issues it was referring to. As such, the quality of the response was also not to its required standard.
42. Appropriately the landlord awarded compensation for the delays, £50 at stage 1 and £100 at stage 2. These amounts are in keeping with our guidance for where service failure has caused a minor impact. Both responses, however, missed aspects of the complaint which left these unaddressed and opportunities were missed to provide a position or offer a resolution. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to apologise and pay additional compensation for the distress and inconvenient arising from this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

43. Generally, the record keeping was a reasonable standard because they were sufficient for us to investigate and reach a decision. However, the standard of the A&A records was poor because they did not demonstrate how the landlord had considered the recommendations. And why they had declined them. This contributed to the residents being given a vague explanation.
44. The records show it also that delays were caused by poor communication between the repair and A&A departments. It also failed to keep the resident updated which led to him chasing matters up several times.
45. We have therefore ordered it to complete a review of its handling of the A&A and to take learning.