Clarion Housing Association Limited (202444359)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444359

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 August 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. concerns that he had been treated less favourably than other users of the car park with regards to the landlord’s refusal to issue him a parking permit.
2. transfer requests.
3. associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a joint assured tenant of a 2-bedroomfourth floor flat with the landlord. He lives with his partner and children, and the tenancy commenced on 9 September 2014. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mental and physical health conditions. His physical symptoms include congenital fusion of the cervical vertebrae, nystagmus (“involuntary vibrating movements of the eyeballs”), deafness, weakness of the left hand and arm. Medical evidence states he has a balance problem because of fused neck bones, and he has to hold onto stair rail climbing up and downstairs due to “unsteadiness, dizziness and clumsiness.”
The landlord is the leaseholder of the property under a superior lease with the freeholder of the building. The freeholder maintains responsibility for the external communal areas. The freeholder has discharged its duties to a managing agent to provide the management services on its behalf.
On 12 January 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. In this he said he felt he had been directly discriminated against, under the Equality Act 2010, by both the landlord and the managing agent, in their refusal to issue him with a parking permit to allow him to park on site. As a resolution to his complaint, he suggested the landlord issued him a parking permit until it could transfer him to a more suitable property due to his disability.
On 15 January 2024 he sought the assistance of his local MP to address the issue with the landlord. The MP raised the issues of parking and rehousing.
On 29 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord to also consider his transfer requests, on medical grounds, in its complaint response.
On 8 February 2024 the landlord responded at stage 1 and in summary it:

Parking

explained its legal position with the freeholder of the building and because of this it was unable to provide a parking permit.
said it had communicated with the resident in May 2023 about the parking and had explained the building was in a car free zone.
said that one of the planning conditions of the building was that it was in a car free zone and at sign up and viewing all residents were advised there were no parking facilities.
said the managing agent was responsible for issuing fines in relation to unauthorised parking.

Housing

said it had provided him with rehousing options in the past as he did not meet its criteria for a management transfer.
said its management transfer policy had recently changed, and it could consider a move on medical grounds if the property was unsuitable, providing he could supply evidence to support this.
said if he still did not meet its criteria for a management transfer and his property became unsuitable; he would have to apply to his local authority.

On 11 February 2024 the resident requested the complaint was escalated to stage 2. In this he:

Parking

corrected the landlord’s understanding of what he sought as a resolution and confirmed he wanted it to provide a parking permit until it rehoused him in a suitable property.
said the landlord had not addressed his point that a business on the site had allocated parking and questioned if it was a car free zone how it had parking.
said that the property advert had not said there was no parking, and he was unaware even when he signed his tenancy agreement.

Housing

said his mental health was suffering and he had suppled medical evidence for this on 30 January 2024.
the property was unsuitable because of his physical disabilities, and he felt the landlord should do more for its residents, rather than give its properties to the local authority.

On 15 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, in this it:

Parking

reiterated its explanation of its legal position with the freeholder of the building and explained why it was unable to provide a parking permit.
said it had reviewed the parking arrangements with the managing agent who confirmed:
1. the unnumbered parking spaces were for staff carrying out routine maintenance or repairs and were for short stays and were not available to residents.
2. the numbered parking spaces were assigned as part of lease agreements to owners for their sole and exclusive use and were also unavailable to residents.
said it had checked this information with the local authority to confirm it was accurate.
said it had checked with the business on site what its position with parking was and it had confirmed it had a permit for visiting contractors.
said it had reviewed the planning agreement which confirms the development is a “low car housing scheme” and that no occupier of the development (apart from Blue Badge Holders) shall be entitled to any permit or permits as may be issued by the Council and explained the definition of a local car housing scheme.
Advised the resident to apply for a local authority issued blue badge to park in the surrounding restricted streets.

Housing

reiterated its stage 1 response that it had provided him with rehousing options in the past as he did not meet its criteria for a management transfer.

said it had reviewed the medical evidence supplied on 30 January 2024 and the resident did not meet its criteria for a management transfer on medical grounds.

When the resident referred his complaint to us, he said, as a resolution, he would like to be moved to a ground floor property and be provided a parking permit until he was moved.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint process

Since coming to us the landlord has reviewed the resident’s transfer request again and has authorised a management transfer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The main aspect of the resident’s complaint is, that by not providing a parking permit as a reasonable adjustment to his disability under The Equality Act 2010, (the Act) the landlord has directly discriminated him.
The Act provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. The landlord has a duty under the Act not to unlawfully discriminate against a person based on their protected characteristics. The Act prohibits direct discrimination, which occurs where a person treats another person less favourably because of a protected characteristic.
It is outside our remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord’s staff amounted to discrimination. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication and response to the resident was appropriate, fair, and reasonable.
The evidence provided shows that resident has been questioning the parking arrangements with the landlord since 2014. However, we have not been provided any evidence that the resident raised a formal complaint about this issue until 12 January 2024. For context, this investigation will include events from 15 May 2023, when the resident said he felt the landlord had treated him less favourably than others regarding parking, until the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024. Any mention of matters prior to this is only for context within this report.
The evidence provided shows that the resident has discussed rehousing options with the landlord for several years. However, the only evidence we have that the resident raised this as a complaint was within an escalation request on 29 October 2022 in a complaint about lift outages, which the landlord answered in a stage 2 response on 17 January 2023.
The resident asked us to consider the landlord’s handling of his transfer requests in July 2023 and again when he had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process in March 2024. As we have not previously assessed the landlord’s handling of this matter, in the interests of fairness to both parties this investigation will focus on events from 17 November 2021 when the resident discussed rehousing options with the landlord, until it issued its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024.
The evidence provided shows that since 2019 the resident has submitted several local authority applications to be rehoused on different grounds. Any mention of those applications in this report is for context only. This is because any concerns relating to the decision or banding award of those applications would fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (the LGSCO) to investigate.
In his complaint on 12 January 2024 the resident included that his complaint of direct discrimination in relation to the parking permit, was also against the managing agent of his building. This has not been assessed as complaints against managing agents fall within the jurisdiction of the Property Ombudsman Service to investigate. The resident may wish to contact that Service if he wishes to enquire about his eligibility to pursue any complaint against the managing agent.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that he had been treated less favourably than other users of the car park with regards to the landlord’s refusal to issue him a parking permit

The resident reported a number of issues in his block on 15 May 2023 and included in that report that he felt the landlord had treated him less favourably than other people who had been parking on site without penalty. He asked for the landlord to stop people parking on site or to issue him with a parking permit.
It was positive that the Neighbourhood Response Officer (NRO) for the landlord provided a prompt response and spoke to and emailed the resident about this on 18 May 2023. In this the NRO told the resident that the site was a car free zone and that it had told all residents during viewing and sign up that this had been a condition of the planning approval. It also told him that he could park on the nearby streets with a blue badge, and that it was the managing agent who was responsible for this aspect of the site.
However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show it addressed the residents concern that he had been treated less favourably than others. It has also not provided evidence that it established if the resident wanted to raise this issue as a formal complaint. This was particularly significant given the language used by the resident to explain how he felt and his vulnerabilities.
Our complaint handling code, in place at the time, defines a complaint as “‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” And expects that landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint.
The resident raised this issue as a complaint on 12 January 2024 and said he felt he had been directly discriminated against, under the Equality Act 2010, by the landlord in its refusal to issue him a parking permit to park on site. He sought a parking permit as a reasonable adjustment for his disability under the Equality Act 2010.
It was positive that the landlord appropriately used its stage 1 response to clarify its contractual relationship with the freeholder and explain who was responsible for the parking on site.
The landlord holds a lease with the freeholder of the building. The landlord’s lease with the freeholder does not include any designated parking spaces. The freeholder is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the internal and external communal areas, and it has discharged its duties to a managing agent who provides the management services on its behalf. When a managing agent is responsible for some areas of an estate it can become difficult for a resident to understand who is responsible for their complaint issue.
This clarification meant the landlord was able to explain to the resident that since it did not have any parking bays it was not able to provide a parking permit to any resident.
After the resident escalated his complaint, the landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to explain it had reviewed its lease with the managing agent and contacted a business on site to establish the legal position of the parking bays, and also reviewed the original planning approval of the site.
This was positive and in line with our spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with managing agents, published in March 2022, in which it states that landlords should own the relationship with their residents and be proactive in pursuing resolutions on their behalf. By doing this the landlord was able to give a more detailed explanation of why it could not provide the resident with a parking permit.
As previously mentioned, this investigation will not assess if discrimination occurred. It will assess the landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint.
Our complaint handling code, in place at that time, expects a landlord to acknowledge and provide an explanation or reason when things have gone wrong. In its complaint responses the landlord failed to explicitly answer the resident’s concerns that it had discriminated against him under The Equality Act 2010. It should have set out its position on this point clearly and not doing this was a failure. However, its complaint responses showed a detailed investigation and explanation of why it was not in its power to issue a parking permit, and it offered suitable advice to assist the resident in finding an alternative solution.
Therefore we find that because its explanation was so clear that this failure caused no detriment to the resident and we have found, overall, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents concerns that he had been treated less favourably than other users of the car park with regards to the landlords refusal to issue him a parking permit.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer requests

The landlord holds an allocation policy and a management transfer policy. In some locations its allocations policy is applicable however this is not the case in the resident’s location. In this location the landlord’s properties are given to the local authority for direct nomination from their waiting list. A small number of properties are kept back by the landlord to be used under its management transfer policy.
The key conditions for a management transfer in the landlord’s policy are for when a tenant is experiencing:
1. anti-social behaviour (ASB) or harassment that puts them at risk of serious harm.
2. domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put, the tenant or a member of their household at serious risk of harm.
3. in very exceptional circumstances the landlord can use a management transfer where the resident has had a significant change in their circumstances and is no longer able to access their home, e.g. discharge from hospital after a life changing injury or disability.

Transfer request November 2021

The resident raised a complaint about his management transfer request in his escalation request of a lift complaint on 29 October 2022.
In this complaint the resident said:
1. he had asked to be transferred due to his disability, overcrowding and unsuitability of the property but this was refused “without good reason.”
2. the Neighbourhood Response Officer (NRO) advised him to submit an application to the local authority, which he had already done, so he was asked to email a copy of his application so the NRO could discuss it with the local authority on his behalf but the NRO had not replied to him.
3. the NRO called him in October 2022 and told him the landlord did not hold a transfer register, but he thought this information was not in line with its allocations policy.
The evidence shows that on 17 November 2021 the resident had emailed the NRO a copy of the application he had submitted to his local authority and his medical evidence in support of a management transfer.
In line with its management transfer policy the landlord should have considered the resident’s request for a management transfer 17 November 2021, following his call with the NRO and subsequent email submission of his medical evidence.
The resident also told the landlord he did not get a reply from the NRO following this request and the landlord has not provided any evidence to show otherwise. The landlord has provided evidence that the resident was informed of its refusal of his management transfer request in a call on 5 October 2022. This suggests the resident had waited 11 months for an answer, and this was not appropriate.
The resident said in its call in October 2022 that the NRO told him it did not hold a transfer list. This does not appear to be disputed by the landlord as in its response on 17 January 2023 it confirmed it was satisfied that the advice the resident had been given was correct and the outcome was appropriate.
The management transfer policy states “Where a tenant requests a management transfer but it has been refused we will inform the tenant of the reasons why a management transfer cannot be granted” and “that they have 10 working days to appeal in writing if they believe the decision is incorrect”.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that in its call with the resident on 5 October 2022 that it informed the resident he had a right to appeal its decision.
The landlord’s response on 17 January 2023 gave a detailed explanation of its allocation and management transfer policies in the resident’s location and this was a positive step to help the resident understand the location differences applicable to these policies.
However, in its conclusion that the resident circumstances did not meet its criteria for a management transfer it only mentioned his concerns about the lift outages and did not clarify if it had included his medical conditions in its assessment and this should have been clearer. It also did not inform the resident he had a right to appeal this decision in line with its policy, and this was a failure.

Transfer request January 2024

As previously mentioned, the resident requested that his issues with his transfer requests were added to this complaint. Since the landlord had not issued its stage 1 response it responded to this in its complaint responses.
In its stage 1 response on 8 February 2024 the landlord advised that it had provided the resident with rehousing options in the past as he did not meet its criteria for a management transfer. It then added that “our policy has recently changed, and we can consider a management transfer on medical grounds if the property is deemed unsuitable, but you would have to provide written and signed evidence from medical professionals explaining why your property is unsuitable to you”.
From the evidence provided we can see that the landlord’s management transfer policy had been updated in June 2023. However, this change did not relate to management transfers on medical grounds, therefore this information was inaccurate and would likely have raised the resident’s expectation that the landlord’s previous position may now differ with this change in policy.
In his escalation request the resident advised that he had submitted additional medical evidence, related to his mental health on 30 January 2024 and said that the property was also unsuitable for his disability.
The landlord used its stage 2 response to tell the resident that it had assessed his recently submitted medical evidence and whilst it sympathised with his circumstances, that a management transfer was not appropriate. This would have been a clear and appropriate response had the resident only ever supplied medical evidence relating to his mental health.
However, since the resident had previously submitted medical evidence related to his physical disability it was reasonable for him to believe that the landlord would have considered all his medical issues and not just his mental health as a stand-alone condition in its assessment of his transfer request.
There is no evidence to suggest the landlord considered all the evidence provided and this was a failure. The landlord also did not inform the resident of his right to appeal this decision in accordance with its management transfer policy.
Its failure to follow its policy and inform the resident of his right to appeal meant he missed the opportunities to have his transfer requests reviewed. We acknowledge that the outcome of any such reviews may have still determined that the resident’s circumstances did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. However, had the landlord followed its policies and given the resident this opportunity it may have assured him that his circumstances had been carefully considered. This may have prevented this complaint.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s transfer requests. This is because the landlord has never acknowledged its failings in its handling of these requests and has subsequently made no attempt to put things right.
The impact of this has been significant on the resident both emotionally and physically over a lengthy period of time and requires significant redress to put things right.
Orders have been made below including compensation, in line with our guidance, for the impact this has had on the resident. We are aware that since this complaint the landlord has considered the residents circumstances again and have agreed to place him on its management transfer list, therefore no orders will be made in this respect.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident raised his complaint on 12 January 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this 6 working days later, on 22 January 2024. It issued its stage 1 response 13 working days after its acknowledgment, on 8 February 2024.
This was not in line with its complaints policy in which it commits to acknowledging stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issuing stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. However, this is not considered an excessive delay likely to cause significant additional detriment to the resident.
The resident escalated his complaint on 11 February 2024 and the landlord acknowledged this 14 working days later, on 1 March 2024. This was not in line with its complaints policy in which it commits to acknowledging stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. The landlord did, however, apologise and offer £50 compensation as redress for this failure.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 10 working days on 15 March 2024. This was earlier than its commitment to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 days of its acknowledgment.
Whilst there was a failure in service, the landlord’s level of compensation is in line with our remedies guidance and proportionate to the failures identified in this investigation.
We have, therefore, found that overall, there was an offer of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that he had been treated less favourably than other users of the car park with regards to the landlord’s refusal to issue him a parking permit.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s transfer requests.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £600 compensation for the impact of the failings in the landlords handling of his transfer requests.
3. provide us evidence that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendation

Contact the resident and provide advice on how he can request a move under its management transfer process.