Clarion Housing Association Limited (202401899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401899

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. request for an adaptation to a communal pathway.
2. reports that the condition of her neighbour’s garden was affecting her property.
3. reports about the standard of repairs to her kitchen window and bath.
4. request for upgrades to her heating system.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives alone in the 2-bedroom house concerned in this report. The resident has known vulnerabilities, including a condition that affects her hearing and balance. She also has learning differences.
Following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord on 4 September 2024 to respond to a complaint from her. It was unclear if she had already complained to the landlord. We advised that she was unhappy that there were repairs outstanding to a shared pathway, boundary fence, bath, kitchen window, thermostatic radiator valves, and a cover for the boiler. We advised that the resident was seeking for the repairs to be completed and to be compensated.
The landlord gave the stage 1 response outcome initially by telephone on 17 September 2024. It then wrote to the resident on the same day, it said:
1. it received a referral from an occupational therapist in 2021 for grab rails to be installed on the communal pathway but did not receive recommendations to adapt the communal path.
2. the path was inspected by its surveyor in July 2024 and it had decided not to make the changes she was requesting because it was not the main entrance to the resident’s property.
3. following a report from the resident on 19 July 2024 an inspection had been carried out of the neighbour’s garden and no tenancy breach was found.
4. the operative who attended on 7 June 2024 did not have the right size beading for the resident’s kitchen window and had since been unable to arrange a follow up appointment with her.
5. it had needed to return to address some issues with the standard of works to the bathroom in July 2024.
6. it dealt with her request for updates to her heating systems as a service request because it was the first time she had contacted it about the matter.

The landlord apologised because there was a delay in it confirming the outcome of the report of the potential breach of tenancy. It also apologised for the inconvenience, time, and trouble the resident had been caused by the standard of the bath installation. To remedy this, the landlord awarded £150 compensation, which included £50 for the garden issue, and £100 for the bath repair. It signposted her to resources explaining how to make an aids and adaptation request. It also said it had arranged for its heating contractor to install thermostatic radiator valves and, if required, a cover on the water tank.

The resident asked to escalate her complaint verbally on the same day. She said she was unhappy with the decision on her adaptation request. She later added that she disagreed with the landlord’s position on her neighbour’s garden and sent photographs of the effect it was having on her own garden.
On 7 November 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. This said its decision that the resident needed a referral from an occupational therapist was correct. It said it was still investigating her further report about her neighbour’s garden and would follow up with her about it separately. The kitchen window repair had, it said, been completed on 21 October 2024 and around the resident’s availability. Also, the inspection of the bath found a need for further work and this was completed on 14 October 2024. The landlord apologised and awarded a further £150 (£300 in total), including £100 for the further appointment for the bath repair and £50 because its final response was delayed. There was no reference to the improvements to the heating system because there is no evidence, that we have seen, the resident complained about the response to this.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because:
1. she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decisions on the adaptation to the path and her neighbour’s garden.
2. she wanted to be compensated more for the landlord not meeting its repair timescale for the kitchen window and bath repair.
3. the landlord had not installed the thermostatic valves and she was unhappy it decided not to cover the water tank.

In May 2025, the landlord agreed to adapt the communal pathway because of a health and safety incident. The resident advised she remained unhappy because it did not base its decision on her request. The resident said she has been caused distress by the landlord’s actions and lack of communication. She is seeking the landlord to pay more compensation and improve its service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident advised that some of the issues she raised are longstanding. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, preferably while the issues are live or as near to. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation, therefore, is on relevant events occurring between November 2023 and the final response in November 2024.
After referring her complaint to us, the resident raised new issues including her property not having an energy performance rating, the decision not to cover the water tank, and the conduct of contractors adapting the path. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues she raised during the formal complaint escalated via this Service. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its service first. The resident also needs to complete the landlord’s 2-stage process before referring her complaint to us, should she wish to.
While we do not investigate issues that have not completed a landlord’s complaints process, we may do so if we are satisfied that the landlord had reasonable opportunity to respond to a complaint but failed to do so. The resident’s concerns about the addition of radiator valves have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. This is because she did not raise any challenges to its position in her escalation request. We have though seen that she said in subsequent emails, including one from 10 December 2024, that they had not been installed. The landlord responded to this the following day advising her that she had exhausted its complaints process and would not then be responding again. As such, the landlord had an opportunity to consider this further but failed to do so. We have therefore investigated its handling of this.

Path adaptation

It is undisputed that the resident asked the landlord to adapt the communal path prior to escalating a complaint through us in September 2024, although we have not seen the records of these discussions. She did so, according to both her and the landlord’s account, because she found the path too steep and has a health condition that affects her balance. She said this caused her difficulties when moving her bin to a collection point. It was appropriate, in the circumstances, for the landlord to consider this as an aids and adaptation request.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that any requests require a referral from an occupational therapist. As such, the landlord’s response that this was needed to consider adapting the communal path was reasonable because it was in line with the approach outlined in its policy.
While the above is true, we would expect a landlord to consider ways it may be able to assist the resident, particularly given her vulnerabilities. It has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to consider making reasonable adjustments. We have seen it did that in carrying out a survey of the path in late June 2024. It was also a requirement of its aids and adaptations policy to consider the feasibility where adjustments to a communal area were requested.
When a landlord considers the feasibility of an adjustment, it will usually also consider the cost and proportionality of any proposed works. The evidence shows that the landlord did consider the resident’s concerns about her safety. It though decided not to complete the work because:
1. the path was not the main access to her home.
2. there was another place the resident could leave her bins that did not require using the path in question.

The explanations the landlord gave for its decision were reasonable. Ultimately it did not find the works were proportionate.

After the complaints process ended, the landlord decided to reduce the gradient of the path. The resident advised us this was because one of its operatives almost fell on it. She believes this shows the landlord’s original decision was wrong. We can understand the resident’s view. However, the evidence shows the landlord followed the right process outlined in its aids and adaptations policy. The landlord’s decision was also reasonable based on the information available to it at the time. As such, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to this aspect.

Neighbour’s garden

The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy, in place at the time of the events concerned, encouraged engagement of its tenants to help maintain good environmental standards on its estates and properties. It states it “expect[s] residents to keep their gardens and communal areas tidy”. In cases where a breach of tenancy is identified, such as a poorly kept garden, the landlord may take action against the relevant party.
In July 2024, the resident contacted the landlord about her neighbour’s garden. She said it was overgrown, bamboo was encroaching on her garden and was damaging the boundary fence. Given the resident’s reports, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate her concerns under its neighbourhood management policy.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the garden had been inspected and it did not find that the neighbour was in breach of the tenancy agreement. We have not seen any records of its inspections so we were unable to establish if and when they took place. It was, however, appropriate for the landlord to take accountability for the delay of almost 3 months in it confirming its decision. The landlord’s compensation policy does not specify the amounts it may award for the impact of its service failure. However, the compensation it awarded of £50 was in line with the level our guidance on remedies recommends for cases where service failure causes an inconvenience. It was proportionate for the impact on the resident having to chase the matter up.
Although initially the resident simply expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision, she later sent photographs of her fence and garden which she said showed how the neighbour’s garden was affecting hers. The landlord confirmed in its final response that it was still investigating her report. While it was reasonable for it to say it would follow up on this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to comment on the robustness of its previous investigation. That it did not was a failing.
The landlord advised us that it inspected the neighbour’s garden in January 2025 and that it again found no tenancy breach. This would have been around 3 months after it received the resident’s photographs. We have not seen any records showing how and when it communicated its position to the resident, but she did confirm it had. The landlord also advised us that it had identified that the bamboo was coming from a different property and that it would advise her to contact the Local Authority. It was unclear if the information about the source of the bamboo was based on recent reports. However, there is no reason, that we have seen, that the landlord could not have given the resident information about reporting the bamboo problem when it was first made aware.
We have identified service failure in the landlord’s response because it missed an opportunity to:
1. review its investigation of the resident’s reports about the condition of her neighbour’s garden.
2. signpost her to report the bamboo problem to the local council.

While these failings would not likely have altered the landlord’s decision on the resident’s report, it would have shown to us and her that it had fully considered her concerns. This has reasonably caused the resident a level of distress.

Repairs

According to the repair logs, the resident reported on 24 November 2023 that part of the plastic beading around the newly fitted kitchen window was protruding. The landlord noted that the contractor who fitted the windows needed to reattend to resolve the issue. It allocated its non-urgent repair timescale of 28 calendar days. There are no records, that we have seen, that this was attended to. However, the resident has not disputed the landlord’s account that the window contractor attended on 7 June 2023. This was 168 calendar days over its routine timescale. Nothing in the records or the landlord’s complaint responses explains this. As such, it is unable to demonstrate it met its obligations to complete the repair within a reasonable time. This is a failing that the landlord has not acknowledged or taken steps to put right.
The landlord confirmed in the stage 2 response that the beading was replaced on 21 October 2024. It explained in both responses that it did not find service failure because it said the delays in completing the work after the June appointment were caused by having to schedule around the resident’s availability. While we have seen no evidence of the discussions regarding appointments, the resident has not disputed the landlord’s account. We also see no reason to dispute this. In the circumstances, we agree that the landlord cannot be held accountable for delays outside of its control.
As acknowledged in the landlord’s responses, operatives had to reattend to correct mistakes made when renewing the resident’s bathroom fittings. This included putting the cold and hot taps in the right position. Because of this, the resident had to accommodate 3 further appointments than would otherwise have been necessary. It was appropriate, therefore, for the landlord to apologise for this and to arrange for the issues to be resolved, which it did. It also awarded compensation of £200 in total for the inconvenience, disruption, and trouble caused in having to chase the matter up. The amount it awarded was within the range our guidance on remedies recommends for impacts where a resident has been adversely impacted but not permanently. It was more than adequate to reflect the disruption and inconvenience the resident was caused.
The landlord also appropriately acknowledged that the stage 2 response was delayed. The amount of compensation it awarded of £50 was proportionate for the impact of the 16 working day delay. The landlord had also followed its complaints policy and the Code by informing the resident that it needed to extend the timescale.
We are satisfied that the landlord took appropriate steps to put right the failings in its handling of the bath repair. However, it missed an opportunity to acknowledge, explain, and remedy the delay in the kitchen window repair. There is no evidence this issue put the resident or the property at any risk, but she was caused a degree of inconvenience, time, and trouble. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and have ordered the landlord to pay compensation, in line with our guidance.

Heating system

The landlord said it dealt with the resident’s request for radiator valves and a cover for her water tank as a service request rather than a complaint. It explained this was because it was the first time she had made the request. There was no evidence, that we have seen, that the resident had requested updates to her heating system prior to her making a complaint via this service. The resident did not challenge the landlord’s position when she had the opportunity to. As such, we find the landlord’s decision to handle the matter as a service request was appropriate. It was in line with the approach set out in its complaints policy and the Code.
As the resident was not reporting a fault, her request for updates to the heating system would be considered an improvement. Generally, landlords are not obliged to offer improvements or upgrades. An exception is where an improvement or upgrade is the only reasonable means of making a full and effective repair. This is standard across the housing sector. As such the landlord’s decision to agree to install the radiator valves was discretionary.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord advised that its heating contractor would carry out an initial inspection and would then complete works in a follow up appointment. The evidence shows the inspection took place on 18 September 2024. However, there is no record that it raised or completed any follow up works. The evidence the landlord sent us also shows that its heating contractor did not install the valves because it believed it needed permission to do so.
While the landlord’s decision to install the radiator valves was discretionary, it was a failing that it did not complete the work after agreeing that it would. The resident’s email in December 2024, referenced earlier, was also a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify and put right its failing. This will have understandably contributed to the resident’s distress over how the landlord communicated with her. We have therefore made a finding of service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an adaptation to a communal pathway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. reports that the condition of her neighbour’s garden was affecting her property.
2. reports about the standard of repairs to her kitchen window and bath.
3. request for upgrades to her heating system.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must provide evidence showing it has complied with the following:
1. apologised in writing for the delays in the kitchen window repair, neighbour’s garden, and radiator valves.
2. pay compensation of £150, made up of:
  1. £50 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the delays with the kitchen repair.
  2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the delays and poor communication about the garden issue.
  3. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the failure to install the radiator valves.

The landlord must also pay the £300 it awarded if it has not already done so.

confirmed its position on the installation of the radiator valves. If it still intends to complete this work, the landlord should confirm when this will be completed.

Recommendations

It was apparent that the landlord made reasonable efforts during the complaints process to communicate with the resident in a meaningful way. It spoke with her and followed up with an email summarising what was discussed. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord has recorded the resident’s communication preferences or any reasonable adjustments. We recommend that the landlord considers following its vulnerabilities policy in agreeing and recording any adjustments it will make for the resident’s needs or communication preferences.