Clarion Housing Association Limited (202417696)

Decision
Case ID	202417696
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

The resident has a tenancy with the landlord. At the time of her complaint, she was living in a 2-bedroom house. She lived there with her 5 children and 2 dogs. The resident has vulnerabilities. These include dyslexia and mental health issues. Some of her children have special educational needs. The complaint relates to an infestation (mice and rats).

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about a rodent infestation.
2. Response to her related concerns about damaged belongings.
3. Response to her requests for alternative accommodation.
4. Decision to make a safeguarding referral about the resident.
5. Response to her concerns about an overall lack of support.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about pests.
2. Response to her related concerns about damaged belongings.
3. Response to her requests for alternative accommodation.
4. Response to her concerns about an overall lack of support.
We have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to make a safeguarding referral.
We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports and concerns about a rodent infestation

The landlord’s pest contractor gave the resident incorrect information. This caused her distress and inconvenience. The landlord did not acknowledge this during its complaints process.

Concerns about damaged belongings

The landlord delayed referring the resident to its insurance team/process. It overlooked the delay in its complaint responses. The delay had a limited impact on the resident.

Requests for alternative accommodation

The landlord was responsible for a short delay which adversely impacted the resident. There is no indication that it apologised to her at the time. It also overlooked the delay during its complaints process.

Safeguarding referral

The landlord made an appropriate decision in line with its policy and duties. Its related communications to the resident were adequate.

Concerns about a lack of support

The landlord delayed referring the resident to its tenancy sustainment team. Given the duration of the delay and related adverse impact, it should have apologised to her. There is no indication that it did this at any stage.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s initial approach was unreasonable. Later, it departed from its policy and the Code. The resident was adversely impacted. The landlord did not acknowledge this or attempt 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.

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 a relevant manager. 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 29 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £25 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her reports and concerns about a rodent infestation. £125 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its complaint handling. £300 which it awarded the resident during its internal complaints process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 29 May 2026
3	Further support order The landlord must consider helping the resident to make a claim with its insurance team. This is because her belongings in the property appear to be a sticking point in the dispute. Presumably, the landlord will not be able to let the property until the matter is resolved. It must provide us with evidence of its decision.	No later than 29 May 2026
4	Update order The landlord must update the resident in writing about her belongings at the property. The update must confirm the landlord’s position on these and any required actions. It must also confirm the landlord’s approach to the resident’s current accommodation.	No later than 29 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Around 31 July 2024	The resident contacted us for help. In summary, she told us about a severe infestation in her overcrowded home. She said this was ongoing and she was living in temporary accommodation. She cited uncertainty and a lack of communication by the landlord. Her other key points were. The landlord did not respond to the infestation promptly. It had moved her family several times (on a temporary basis). Their belongings had been damaged. Her temporary accommodation provider was trying to evict her. The landlord had unfairly referred her to social services. It had not provided her with an adequate level of support. The situation had severely impacted her mental health.
Between 18 October and 7 November 2024	We relayed the resident’s complaint to the landlord. It subsequently issued a stage 1 response. It identified a short delay in relation to the infestation. It awarded the resident £150 in related compensation. It also apologised for a complaint handling delay. Its other key points were: The resident’s home was habitable, safe, and free of pests. Her actions had prolonged the infestation. She could contact its insurance team about her damaged items. It had taken her vulnerabilities into account. It had offered her a permanent move. She had declined 2 suitable properties. It was obliged to raise any safeguarding concerns.
26 November 2024	The resident told the landlord that she wanted to escalate her complaint. She asked how she could do this. Her brief email did not include a rationale. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s reply.
2 January 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It largely reiterated information from its previous response. However, the landlord acknowledged that it did not provide timely access to some temporary accommodation that it sourced for the resident. It awarded her £150 to address a related delay.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In March 2025, the resident told us the infestation was ongoing and she did not want to return home. She wanted the landlord to move her to a 5 bedroom property and pay compensation. In April 2026, she referred to personal belongings left in the property. She told us that she was living in temporary accommodation and wanted to move. She reiterated that she wanted the landlord to compensate her for various issues.

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	Reports and concerns about pests
Finding	Service failure

The resident told us that she reported an infestation to the landlord in October 2023. The landlord has supplied various records that relate to her case. From the records provided, there is no indication that the resident reported any pest issues before 5 January 2024.
On that date, the resident called the landlord. She said that there were mice in the property’s walls and ceilings. She also said there were droppings on her children’s beds. Her comments point to a severe and distressing infestation. The landlord should have responded swiftly. This would have been a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
Records suggest the landlord raised an order for pest control works on 12 January 2024. This was 5 working days later. Its pest contractor visited the property on 17 January 2024 (another 3 working days later). Ultimately, it took the landlord around 12 days to start investigating the infestation. This timescale was not consistent with a swift response.
The above shows there was an unreasonable delay which adversely impacted the resident. While this was relatively short, she was already in a distressing situation.
During its initial visit, the contractor found droppings in the property. It placed bait to address mice. Its inspection report said that the property was filled with a large amount of personal belongings. The contractor recommended that these were removed (by the resident). This was to allow further investigation of the areas behind the belongings.
The landlord’s standard tenancy terms say that residents are responsible for preventing and eradicating pests such as mice and rats. This includes maintaining good standards of cleanliness and hygiene. The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy says the landlord will identify and block any potential access points for pests. It does not include timescales.
In this case, the landlord took responsibility for treating the pests. This was a reasonable approach given the resident’s vulnerabilities. From 24 January 2024 onwards, the pest contractor visited the property numerous times for the landlord. From early February 2024, the resident lived in alternative accommodation. She did not return to her home.
The records and correspondence that we have seen point to a recurring infestation. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord had difficulty managing the pests and fulfilling its repair obligations. For example, we note that:
1. On 24 January 2024 the pest contractor was unable to access the property.
2. There was another ‘no access’ incident on 7 February 2024.
3. On 15 April 2024 the contractor said the property should be deep cleaned.
4. Subsequently, the resident’s solicitor declined a deep cleaning appointment.
5. In July 2024, the contractor asked the resident for help to remove personal items.
6. In August 2024 it found food waste among her family’s personal belongings.
7. In October 2024 it found no evidence of pest activity at the property.
8. In January 2025, the landlord offered to provide boxes and help the resident pack.
9. In March 2025 a heating contractor told it that the property was infested.
10. In April 2025 the pest contractor said it had not found any recent pest activity.
11. In May 2025, the landlord told the police that it needed the resident’s help to clean and clear the property. It said that she had not engaged with this process.
During its complaints process, the landlord accepted that it did not respond to the resident’s initial report promptly. It awarded her £150 in related compensation. The landlord’s relevant compensation policy shows it can make discretionary payments to address service failures. The policy does not include guidance about proportionate award levels.
Ultimately, the landlord awarded the resident compensation in line with its policy. We are satisfied that its calculation was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. However, there is evidence that the landlord overlooked a subsequent failure during its complaints process. This is based on some meeting notes from 24 October 2024.
The notes show the landlord’s pest contractor gave the resident incorrect information about her belongings. Specifically, it said that her items at the property had been ‘condemned’. The resident disputed this with the landlord and supplied video footage of the incident. This suggests that it caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The contractor was acting on the landlord’s behalf. The landlord was ultimately responsible for its actions. It should have attempted to put things right for the resident. There is no indication that it did this. Given what happened, it could have awarded the resident compensation in line with its policy. Ultimately, its approach was unreasonable.
The resident updated us in 2026. By this point, she had been moved to a different area (due to an unrelated matter). She told us she was unwilling to handle items which had been contaminated by rodents. We understood that she was referring to personal items that were still at the property. We have made an order to address this ongoing issue.
In summary, the landlord’s pest contractor gave the resident incorrect information during the period in question. This caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge this during its complaints process. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen and our guidance on compensation.

Complaint	Related concerns about damaged belongings
Finding	Service failure

The resident holds the landlord responsible for damage to her family’s personal items. This is based on its handling of the infestation. The resident has also referenced some health/welfare impacts. She wants the landlord to compensate her for the above issues. The landlord’s complaints policy excludes liability claims (such as personal injury).
During an interaction on 31 January 2024, the resident told the landlord that lots of her family’s belongings needed to be thrown away. In an email on 21 February 2024, she specifically asked it for compensation (to cover the cost of damaged items). We have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord responded to her request at this point.
Records show the resident reiterated her request on 13 March 2024. At this point, the landlord told her it would not provide any compensation. It also said that she could contact her own contents insurer about any damaged items. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests it should refer liability claims to a relevant insurer.
From the resident’s requests, it is reasonable to conclude that the most relevant insurer was the landlord’s. The landlord should have promptly signposted the resident to its insurance team/process. This would have allowed her to pursue a liability claim against the landlord if she wanted to. Later, it did signpost her during its complaints process.
Based on the period between 21 February and 7 November 2024, there was an unreasonable delay of about 10 months. The landlord did not acknowledge this during its complaints process. As a result, it did not attempt to put things right for the resident. This was unreasonable.
In mitigation, records show the landlord signposted the resident a number of times from November 2024 onwards. To date, there is no indication that she has attempted to raise a liability claim with the landlord. The lack of progress/further delay indicates that the landlord’s approach had a limited adverse impact on the resident.
In summary, the landlord delayed referring the resident to its insurance team/process. It also overlooked the delay in its complaint responses. This this was unreasonable, but there is no indication that the delay had a significant adverse impact on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to apologise. This is a proportionate remedy in the circumstances.

Complaint	Requests for alternative accommodation
Finding	Service failure

From about 23 January 2024 onwards, the resident asked the landlord to move her. Her requests were prompted by the infestation. In early February 2024, the landlord moved her family into temporary accommodation. Over the next few months, it moved them 2 more times. Ultimately, the landlord expected the resident to return to the property.
In her complaint, the resident said the landlord mishandled the temporary moves and she was adversely impacted by this. She referenced her family’s vulnerabilities, uncertainty, and a lack of communication. During its complaints process, the landlord said it had considered her family’s vulnerabilities and followed its relevant policy.
The resident moved several times over a short period. It is reasonable to conclude that this involved disruption and/or inconvenience. Its temporary moves policy says the landlord will:
1. Involve and consult the resident from the outset.
2. Consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, needs, and preferences.
3. Consider other factors including the expected duration of any repairs, potential disruption for the resident, costs, and the availability of suitable accommodation.
4. Keep the suitability of any temporary accommodation under review.
5. Consider meeting all reasonable costs that a resident incurs due to a move.
In this case, we are satisfied that the landlord followed its policy. For example, records show it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and circumstances when it first agreed to move her. Subsequently, it arranged further moves after she raised suitability concerns about her temporary accommodation. This shows that the landlord kept suitability issues under review and took action to address any problems. This was appropriate.
Records suggest that the landlord had difficulty finding accommodation for 6 people and 2 dogs. Similarly, it did not have full control over the pest treatment/repair timeline. Overall, there is no evidence to show that it missed clear opportunities to significantly reduce the resident’s uncertainty or minimise disruption for the family.
The landlord identified a communication issue during its complaints process. It accepted that the resident’s family was unable to access a temporary apartment for several hours. It acknowledged that this was distressing for the resident. It awarded her £150 in related compensation. This was a reasonable approach in line with its compensation policy.
However, the landlord overlooked a subsequent communication issue during its complaints process. This is based on a call note. The note said that the resident had raised a suitability concern about her temporary accommodation on 23 February 2024. It also said that the landlord had not “picked this up”. The note was from 27 February 2024.
The note shows the landlord was responsible for a short delay (2 working days). It also shows the resident had chased it because it did not call her back as expected. Given the duration of the delay and its related adverse impact, the landlord should have apologised to the resident. There is no indication that it did this. Its approach was unreasonable.
In relation to temporary moves, we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord was responsible for other delays or failures which adversely impacted the resident. We note that it considered her related expenses in line with its policy. For example, records show that it supplied a £250 gift card and covered taxi fares for the resident.
In her complaint, the resident also said that she wanted the landlord to move her to a larger property (permanently). Overcrowding may have been a factor in her request. During its complaints process, the landlord said that the resident was not eligible for an urgent move to a larger home. It has a separate procedure for this type of move.
The procedure says the landlord can rehouse a resident outside of its allocation process in “exceptional circumstances”. It also says that to consider an urgent move, the landlord needs confirmation that the resident is at serious risk of harm or facing a threat to life. This confirmation must be supplied in writing by a specialist agency such as the police.
In this case, the resident’s circumstances did not meet the above criteria during the period in question. The landlord explained this in its complaint responses. Its explanation was adequate. We note that prior to its responses, the landlord had offered the resident an urgent move through its solicitor.
Records show the resident declined 2 properties that the landlord offered her. The landlord was not obliged to offer these. Similarly, it was not obliged to make further offers subsequently (unless the resident’s situation changed and its criteria were met).
In summary, the landlord was responsible for a short delay which adversely impacted the resident. There is no evidence to show that it apologised to her at the time. It also overlooked the delay during its complaints process. The evidence suggests the delay had a limited impact on the resident. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to apologise.

Complaint	Decision to make a safeguarding referral
Finding	No maladministration

In May 2024 the resident received an eviction notice from her temporary accommodation provider. About 1 month later, the landlord raised a safeguarding concern with a local authority. It said the resident would not return to the property. It also said she had declined a larger property it had offered her. The landlord’s paperwork shows it believed that the family could be made homeless. The landlord’s concern was understandable.
By raising a concern, the landlord took appropriate action in line with its safeguarding policy. The policy shows it will act to prevent serious harm. It will also seek to prevent risks from escalating. If the welfare of children is involved, the landlord does not need their guardian’s consent to raise a concern. We are satisfied that its policy is consistent with legal safeguarding duties.
The local authority responded to the landlord promptly. It said it had no concerns about the family’s situation at that time. Ultimately, the landlord’s referral did not lead to any further action. The landlord explained its decision to the resident during its complaints process. We are satisfied that the explanation it provided was adequate.
Overall, the landlord made an appropriate decision to raise a safeguarding concern. It did this in line with its policy and duties. Its related communications were adequate. It if had not acted, the landlord may have risked a breach of its statutory safeguarding obligations.

Complaint	Concerns about a lack of support
Finding	Service failure

In her complaint, the resident cited a lack of emotional and financial support from the landlord. The landlord disputed this during its complaints process. It said it had helped the resident in various ways. Overall, the evidence supports the landlord’s claim.
The landlord has a vulnerable resident’s policy. It says the landlord will be sensitive towards its vulnerable residents. This includes considering their needs, circumstances, and the impact a situation is having on them. The landlord can adjust its services to provide additional support for vulnerable residents. For example, it can:
1. Refer residents to its own internal support services.
2. Convene a ‘case action group’ to coordinate between its teams.
3. Refer residents to relevant external support agencies.
In this case, there are records that show the landlord made each of the adjustments listed above. For example, by 27 February 2024 it had assigned a liaison officer to support the resident. On the same date, the officer referred her to money/debt advice and mental health support services. These were appropriate and sensitive measures.
The landlord also made some bespoke adjustments to help with the resident’s financial situation. For example, by 1 October 2024 it had offered to supply her with furniture including mattresses and bedframes. It did this because the resident said she lacked these items. This was a sensitive approach in line with the landlord’s policy aims.
The landlord’s overall approach was positive. However, there is evidence of a specific delay. This is based on emails from 31 January and 12 March 2024. In the initial email, the landlord told the resident that it would refer her to its tenancy sustainment team. The email shows it wanted this team to help her obtain a more suitable property.
In the second email, the landlord asked a member of its staff to make the referral. It said this had not taken place. The evidence points to an unreasonable delay of about 6 weeks. It also suggests that the resident was adversely impacted. In mitigation, there was no guarantee that she would have obtained a different property with a timely referral. As indicated, the landlord did support her in other ways during the delay period.
In summary, the landlord delayed referring the resident to its tenancy sustainment team. Given the duration of the delay and the related adverse impact, the landlord should have apologised to her. There is no indication that it did this at any stage. Its approach was unreasonable. We have ordered it to apologise. This is a proportionate remedy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The Code became statutory on 1 April 2024. The landlord has supplied a complaints policy that says it aligns with the statutory version of the Code.
On 7 February 2024 the resident told the landlord that she was “really upset” about the way it had treated her. Subsequently, she made similar comments at least 2 times. For example, on 21 February 2024 she said that (she felt) the landlord had treated her like an animal. Ultimately, she expressed clear dissatisfaction to the landlord in this period.
At that time, there is no indication that the landlord logged a formal complaint for the resident. It should have at least offered to do this. Its approach was unreasonable. By April 2024, the resident had appointed a solicitor to help her. Several months later, she contacted us because she was unable to progress her concerns through the solicitor.
Our involvement prompted the landlord to engage its complaints process on 21 October 2024. This was about 8 months after it should have reasonably logged a complaint. Our intervention (and the solicitor’s) should not have been necessary. The landlord’s initial approach contributed to a delay. It also had a significant adverse impact on the resident.
For example, the resident was prompted to repeat her concerns several times. She was also prompted to contact third parties for help. This involved avoidable inconvenience. She was trying to resolve a distressing situation with the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s initial complaint handling added to her overall distress.
After it logged a complaint, the landlord issued responses within the timescales allowed under the Code. However, its responses did not include a clear decision on the complaint (upheld, not upheld). The Code confirms that a compliant response must include this information. It may have helped the resident to understand the landlord’s decisions.
The landlord did not acknowledge the above identified issues during its complaints process. As a result, it did not attempt to put things right for the resident. This was unreasonable. If it had attempted to put things right, the landlord may have avoided an adverse finding from our Service.
In summary, the landlord’s initial approach was unreasonable. Later, its responses departed from its policy and the Code. The resident was adversely impacted by these issues. The landlord did not acknowledge this or attempt to put things right. We have ordered it to pay her a proportionate amount of compensation in line with our guidance.

Learning

General learning

When we alert it to a complaint, the landlord should carefully consider the relevant complaint journey. This is because an early intervention by our Service can point to a complaint handling failure. The landlord could provide related feedback to its staff.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

Our investigation did not highlight any significant record keeping issues.

Communication

The landlord missed opportunities to signpost the resident to the most relevant insurer. It could provide related feedback to its staff.