Clarion Housing Association Limited (202419302)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419302

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 July 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Refusal of the resident’s request for permission to install solar panels.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 16 October 2020. The landlord’s records note the resident has ‘mobility issues/frail’ vulnerabilities.
3. On 19 March 2024, the resident completed the landlord’s (TA1) application form asking for permission to install solar panels at his home. The resident said:
   1. All the workmanship would be ‘of the highest standard’ and would be accompanied by all relevant documentation and accreditations.
   2. Should he vacate the property, all the equipment would be removed and the property returned to ‘how (the installer) found it.’
   3. He had provided the contact details of the proposed installer together with the proposed installers accreditation, qualifications and insurance documents to support his application
4. On 21 May 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise it had refused his request. The landlord explained this was because approvals for the installation of solar panels were not permitted due to access issues and costs if it needed to repair the roof. The landlord provided the resident with information about how he could appeal its decision, which he did on 3 June 2024.
5. In his appeal the resident said if the roof needed to be repaired or replaced he would be responsible for removing the panels. He also said the proposed installer had assured him the installation was ‘the least evasive’ procedure and they would repair any damage. The landlord declined the resident’s appeal on 22 July 2024. The landlord said the reasons for this were access issues and the potential additional cost should the roof need to be repaired.
6. On 7 August 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about its decision, saying he did not feel the matter had been investigated.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 August 2024. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint stating:
   1. Its surveyor had investigated and checked with its Head of Repairs to see if this was something it could grant permission for. It had advised the resident that permission could not be granted due to the restriction the panels could impose on the roof and future repairs.
   2. Whilst the resident had agreed to cover costs of any repairs, this was not something it could agree to.
   3. As part of his complaint, the resident had asked for someone to contact him to confirm the reasons for the refusal and its team leader had called him that day. The landlord also attached a copy of its policy, as requested.
8. The resident called the landlord the same day to escalate his complaint.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 September 2024. Again, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint, saying it was satisfied its stage 1 response was fair and appropriate. The landlord explained that, based on its Permissions policy, it was reasonable for it to refuse the resident’s request in order to ensure it ‘protected the continuity and fabric of its properties’. As such it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. However, it did acknowledge it had sent the incorrect policy to the resident with its stage 1 response, for which it apologised. The landlord included a copy of its Permissions policy in its response.

Assessment and findings

Refusal of the resident’s request for permission to install solar panels

10. The tenancy agreement says residents may make changes or improvements to their home, as long as they have the landlord’s written permission before they do anything. It also says residents may also need other approvals such as building regulations or planning approval.
11. The landlord’s Permissions policy confirms residents may be entitled to make improvements to their homes, but they must seek its approval before the commencement of any works. The policy also states that it will not unreasonably deny its residents permission but takes its responsibility as a landlord seriously and will therefore consider each request based on the situation.
12. The landlord’s permissions policy does not specifically refer to solar panels. However, the policy states that permission is not limited to the examples listed and one of the categories listed is ‘Other external alterations,’ which it would be reasonable for solar panels to fall within.
13. The decision on whether an alteration is agreed to is ultimately down to the landlord. Whilst we appreciate the reasons for the resident wanting to install solar panels at his property, the landlord was not obliged to agree to his request.
14. When such requests are made, we would expect the landlord to appropriately follow its Permissions policy and act reasonably when investigating the feasibility of the resident’s request. We would also expect it to provide fair and rational reasoning for declining such a request. We are satisfied the landlord has met these expectations in this case.
15. Having received the resident’s application, the landlord took reasonable steps to explore his request. This it did by arranging for his request to be considered by a surveyor and its Head of repairs and providing him with an opportunity to appeal its decision. It then further considered the resident’s application through its complaints process.
16. The landlord decided it was unable to agree to the resident’s request on the basis that the installation of solar panels would cause access issues and impact the continuity and fabric of its building. Whilst it is acknowledged the resident said he would cover the costs of removing the panels should the roof need repairing or replacing, it was still reasonable grounds for the landlord to refuse the request for the reasons it set out.
17. As a result, whilst we appreciate the resident’s disappointment with the landlord’s decision, we are satisfied there was no maladministration in its refusal of his request for permission to install solar panels.

Handling of the associated complaint.

18. The resident logged his formal complaint with the landlord on 7 August 2024.
19. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and then issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement.
20. We have not seen the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint. Nevertheless, it issued its stage 1 response within the above timeframe, doing so on 15 August 2025. The resident escalated his complaint the same day.
21. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and then issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
22. Again, we have not seen the landlord’s acknowledgement. However, its stage 2 response was issued on 5 September 2024, within the timescales set out above.
23. With the exception of the landlord failing to evidence that it acknowledged either the resident’s initial complaint or escalation request, we have found no other failures in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. Given these minor failings a finding of service failure would normally be made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation.
24. However, in this case, the resident advised us on 28 February 2025, that the landlord had offered him £100 compensation for its failures with regards to its complaint handling.
25. Given this additional compensation, we have made a finding of reasonable redress in this case. This is because we are satisfied the £100 offered by the landlord was sufficient to cover both the complaint handling failures identified in this report and the delay in it offering the resident compensation for those failures.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its refusal of the resident’s request for permission to install solar panels.
27. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendation

28. If it has not done so already, the landlord is to pay the resident the £100 it offered him, following the completion of the complaints process. The finding of reasonable redress with regards to its handling of the associated complaint being dependent on the landlord doing so.