Clarion Housing Association Limited (202302863)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302863

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 April 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request for hot water and heating repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident and his wife have been assured tenants of the landlord. The resident’s wife told the landlord on 24 January 2023 that the pair are vulnerable due to age and disability.
3. The resident reported a lack of heating and hot water at the property to the landlord’s contractor on 22 January 2023. The contractor attended the following day and raised a repair for 25 January 2023. This appointment was cancelled because the boiler needed replacement. The resident raised a complaint on 24 January 2023, and sent several further emails asking for an update and explanation on the delays. On 30 January and 1 February 2023 the contractor replaced the immersion heater and the boiler respectively. On 27 March 2023 the resident chased the complaint, stating that he had been left without heating or hot water for 11 days.
4. The resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance and we referred his complaint to the landlord on 2 May 2023.
5. On 15 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged the delay in replacing the boiler and apologised. It offered £100 for the boiler repair issues, £15 for loss of amenities and £50 for its delayed complaint response.
6. On 19 May 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He requested an explanation of the delays. He considered the compensation of £15 for loss of amenities insufficient considering heating and hot water had been lost for 11 days, and the household vulnerabilities.
7. On 28 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord apologised for the stage 2 response being late, for its communication failures during the repair process, and for not restoring hot water on the first day the contractor attended the residence. It explained what it would do to prevent failures like this happening again. The landlord increased its compensation offer from £165 to £465, and explained that this comprised £110 for loss of amenity, £250 for boiler repair issues, and £100 for late complaint responses.
8. The resident escalated his concerns to the Ombudsman. He complained about the honesty and quality of the landlord’s complaints process, that he was treated unfairly throughout the repairs and complaints processes, and that the compensation offer was not fair.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for hot water and heating repairs

9. It is not disputed that the resident was without heating (apart from the temporary heaters provided) or hot water for 11 days because of the landlord’s failure to promptly repair the immersion heater and the hot water boiler.
10. The landlord acknowledged its failures. As such, the Ombudsman’s role is to now consider whether the landlord has followed the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
11. The landlord’s compensation policy includes a commitment to offer temporary heating on the first visit after a loss of heating is reported. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor offered the resident temporary heaters on the first day it attended the residence, and the resident refused. The landlord’s contractor provided temporary heaters on 28 January 2023 after a local councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. This was a fair course of action to take and consistent with the landlord’s policy.
12. The landlord demonstrated it learned from the complaint by explaining in its stage 2 response its plan to avoid future issues of this kind by improving its communication with residents on when a boiler would be repaired or replaced, and by ensuring its contractors carry immersion heater parts as routine stock items on their vans. Furthermore, the landlord apologised and offered compensation.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy identifies the following relevant payment rates for loss of amenity:
    1. Repairs not completed within the target time – £10 for the first day, and £2 for each day onwards (up to a maximum of £50).
    2. No heating due to outstanding repair – £5 per day after the landlord is notified (£0 for the first 7 days if the resident is offered temporary heating).
    3. No hot water due to outstanding repair – £5 per day (£0 for the first 7 days after the landlord is notified, or 14 days if the repair is a boiler replacement).
14. If the landlord had followed this policy, the amount of compensation would have been considerably lower than the £110 it offered. The landlord also made an additional payment of £250 to account for inconvenience, household vulnerabilities, and failures to respond to communications. The landlord has used its discretion to offer higher compensation, which is appropriate considering the impact on vulnerable residents losing hot water and heating during winter months.
15. An award of £360 is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for failures with considerable impact on a vulnerable resident. The compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the length of time and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures.
16. Taking into account all of the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this offer was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

17. The landlord’s complaints policy timeframes for responses to complaints was 20 working days for stage 1, and 40 working days for stage 2. It stated that the landlord would log and acknowledge complaints at both stages within 10 working days of receipt. This policy also included a commitment to ‘taking ownership of issues that you raise to us.’
18. The landlord’s policy was not in line with the requirements in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which at the time of the complaint recommended the following timeframes for complaint handling:
    1. 5 days for complaint acknowledgement.
    2. 10 days for a response at stage 1.
    3. 20 days for a response at stage 2.
19. The resident first raised concerns about the repair process on 24 January 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge this or the resident’s follow up emails as a complaint. On two occasions the landlord told the resident to complain to the contractor instead. After the Ombudsman’s involvement, on 15 May 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident. This is 56 working days outside of the landlord’s complaints policy timeframe, and 66 working days outside the recommended timeframes in the Code.
20. On 19 May 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge this. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 July 2023, which is 31 working days outside of the landlord’s complaints policy timeframe, and 41 working days outside the recommended timeframes in the Code.
21. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s contact as complaints until the Ombudsman became involved. The decision to outright reject these complaints is contrary to the Code’s requirement that residents must be able to raise their complaint in any way. It is also inconsistent with the landlord’s promise to ‘take ownership’ of issues that the resident raises.
22. If the resident was expected to begin the landlord’s complaints process after complaining to the contractor first, this would result in a complaints process longer than two stages, which is contrary to the Code.
23. The landlord apologised to the complainant and provided £100 compensation for not meeting its complaint response timeframes. This is not consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance, considering the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord’s failures forced the resident to repeatedly follow up with the landlord over an extended period, and contact the Ombudsman in order to progress his complaint.
24. Taking into account all of the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this offer was unreasonable.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the heating and hot water repair satisfactorily.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

27. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

28. It is recommended that the landlord train its complaints handling staff to ensure that residents are able to raise a complaint through any channel, and are not required to undertake complaints processes longer than two stages.