From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202207236)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207236

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 January 2024


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the heating and hot water system at the property.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to her kitchen floor covering.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, which is contained within a row of flats, all of which are owned by the landlord. She lives with her child. The tenancy began on 17 November 2008 initially as an introductory tenancy.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that she had no hot water or heating on 1 March 2022. It attended the property on the same day and diagnosed the problem. It provided heaters on 7 and 11 March 2022. It then completed a repair to the boiler on 29 March 2022. It installed a new boiler at the property on 31 March 2022.
  3. On 15 March 2022, the resident complained to the landlord’s contractor about delays to the repair of her boiler and later about remedial work that took place. In its reply on 10 May 2022 the landlord upheld her complaint. It acknowledged it failed to conduct repairs to the boiler within agreed timescales and for the inconvenience this caused. It offered total compensation of £505.
  4. In its stage two complaint response of 1 June 2022 the landlord addressed further points about remedial work associated with the boiler repair and installation. It did not increase its initial compensation award of £505 but advised it could consider reimbursing increased energy costs should the resident supply evidence. It also directed the resident to an insurance claim for reported damage to her flooring.
  5. In referring her complaint to this Service, the resident raised further concerns about remedial action taken during and following the installation of her new boiler. She believed the compensation offered by the landlord was not reflective of the inconvenience and stress she had experienced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the heating and hot water system at the property.

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (1) (c) determines there is an implied covenant to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
  2. The resident reported she had no hot water or heating on 1 March 2022. The landlord despite not being able to access the property earlier in the day, attended on the same day at 23:37 to assess the boiler. This was appropriate as it ensured that it attended the property within 24 hours of the resident’s report, in accordance with its repairs policy. However, the landlord was unable to resolve the issues with the heating and hot water system during this initial visit.
  3. The landlord provided fan heaters on 7 March 2022. It was unreasonable to leave the resident and her child without heating for 6 days when it could have taken steps to ensure that temporary heating was provided as soon as it was aware that it would not be able to fully resolve the issue. The landlord did not apologise specifically for this delay in its stage one or stage two complaint response.
  4. On 11 March 2022, the resident reported the further heater was faulty and the landlord replaced this on the same day. It did not respond to the issues of the further heaters condition in its stage one complaint despite the resident raising this. It apologised in its stage two response and acknowledged the resident had reported the fault.
  5. The landlord assessed the fault with the resident’s boiler on 1 March 2022 and did not complete the repair until 29 March 2022. This was not reasonable for the resident and their child who were inconvenienced by having to wash at a family member’s home and deprived them of a basic need, hot water for 27 days. This did not meet the landlord’s policy of attending within 24 hours and completing a temporary repair until a subsequent repair could be completed.
  6. The resident was scheduled to have her boiler replaced but this should not have impacted on the repair to her current boiler as there is no evidence to suggest the new boiler could be installed sooner. This caused unnecessary delay to the repair as the landlord delayed ordering the parts required to fix the boiler, due to the boiler being due for replacement, as it confirmed in its stage one response. It also caused unclear communication from the landlord on what the remedy would be in returning heating and hot water to the resident’s property.
  7. Chapter 1 of the Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on complaints about heating, hot water and energy in social housing’ determines a warm home and hot water as basic needs. It explains a lack of either can cause risk to health and wellbeing particularly when residents have young children. There is no evidence of a risk assessment having been completed by the landlord or consideration given on the health and wellbeing of the resident and her child.
  8. The installation of the new boiler was delayed by external organisations completing necessary works on the resident’s windows and to remove asbestos. Although the completion of this was a mitigating factor outside of the landlord’s control, it should have worked with the third parties to establish a prompt resolution and kept the resident informed throughout.
  9. A quality check was completed by the landlord on 31 March 2022 following installation of the new boiler. It confirmed the work area had been left tidy and the work completed to specification. The resident signed this document to confirm this.
  10. The resident raised concerns about the quality of the finish in installing the new boiler when she made her complaint escalation request to the landlord. The landlord responded to say that the resident had signed the works off at the time and that it was therefore satisfied with how the works had been completed. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer to its records in reaching a conclusion that the works had been signed off as acceptable on the day. However, given the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken further action, such as agreeing to a further inspection, before concluding that there was no evidence of any failure of service here.
  11. The quality check completed on 31 March 2022 stated a thermostatic radiator valve (TRV) had been fitted on the lounge radiator in the property. The landlord used evidence from the resident to confirm this was not correct and asked their contractor to reattend to rectify this. Although this was correct action to take it highlighted inaccuracy with the quality check as raised in point 16.
  12. In its stage two response the landlord said it would not consider a reduction in rent or consider temporary accommodation and did not explain its reasoning for this. This Service can find no evidence these requests form part of the landlord’s policies, however it was unreasonable not to explain why it had reached this conclusion as this would have provided transparency for its decision making, allowing the resident to understand why her requests could not be granted.
  13. The landlord acknowledged in its stage two complaint response it was not certain why the waste pipe was cut during the boiler repair. It confirmed it had asked the contractor to inspect at its next visit. The landlord’s ownership of this was reasonable, but it should have provided a specific timebound date for completion to offer assurance to the resident.
  14. In its stage two response the landlord informed the resident that it was not normal process to replace all radiators with the installation of a new boiler. It confirmed it would only do this if the resident reported they were faulty, which there is no evidence she had done. This was therefore a reasonable response.
  15. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will award between £250 and £700 for considerable failure but no permanent impact on the complainant. Although the landlord has apologised for inconvenience for failing to follow process, poor communication and repeat visits, it has not apologised or acknowledged the impact and stress caused to the resident and her child whilst they were without heating or hot water and the need to travel to wash.
  16. Furthermore, the landlord offered the resident £150 for the inconvenience caused which does not fully factor the length of time the resident and her child were inconvenienced for appropriately.
  17. The landlord’s award of £255 for no heating and hot water does not fall in line with its compensation policy of £5.00 per day for each respective issue. The resident was without heating and hot water for 27 days. £10 per day for 27 days equates to £270 compensation.
  18. In summary the landlord’s response to the reports of no heating and hot water were not reasonable and contrary to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for the period the boiler was in disrepair. The landlord was delayed in both providing temporary heaters and repairing the boiler in a reasonable timescale. It belatedly rectified the issue and has now installed a new boiler in the property. Whilst its complaint response was reasonable in acknowledging the errors and delays it had caused, the level of compensation it offered for these failures is not considered reasonable or proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.
  19. The amount of compensation the landlord offered fell short in acknowledging the resident’s additional heating costs, the delay in repairing the boiler and providing heaters and the inconvenience and stress the resident and her daughter experienced when they were without hot water or heating. In all the circumstances of the case, increasing the compensation up the maximum available (£700) under the landlord’s policy for cases involving considerable failure but no permanent impact is considered reasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to her kitchen floor covering.

  1. The resident stated in her stage one and two complaints her kitchen floor had been damaged by the contractor during the new boiler installation when it had moved a fridge-freezer. The landlord confirmed in its stage one and two response it had investigated this issue, including raising this directly with the contractor who had carried out the works. It confirmed that the contractor had refuted moving any appliances in the resident’s property and, as such, it stated that it was satisfied that there was no failure of service here that led to any damage to the resident’s flooring.
  2. The landlord also signposted the resident to both its insurance provider as well as her own provider if she remained dissatisfied with this aspect of the complaint. The Ombudsman considers this approach was reasonable in the circumstances as it had investigated the issue, identified no fault in its service delivery and provided prompt and appropriate signposting for where the resident could proceed if she disagreed with the landlord’s position.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint of 15 March 2022 on 10 May 2022. This was outside of its 10-working day timescale as per its complaint’s policy. 38 working days to provide the response was unreasonable delay.
  2. There was evident uncertainty from the contractor who initially received the complaint on who was responsible for responding to it. The contractor initially confirmed on 11 April 2022 it would respond once all remedial work was complete. On 21 April 2022, the contractor informed the resident it would reply by 27 April 2022. It then told the resident on 26 April 2022 the landlord was responsible for providing the complaint response. Landlords are required to ensure they can effectively manage all aspects of their contractual arrangements, including complaints handling and it is of concern here that the contractor was seemingly unaware of the appropriate process to follow having received the complaint.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint of 12 May 2022 on 1 June 2022. This fell within its 15-day response timescale in its complaints policy and was appropriate.
  4. The landlord responded to most points raised by the resident in its stage two response including remedial work it had completed. However, there was one outstanding point; it did not directly reference the report of the poor-quality finish around the new boiler installation which the resident had raised.
  5. In its stage two response the landlord advised the resident it could consider reimbursing her for the increased energy costs whilst using the fan heaters. It asked her to provide evidence of this. This was a reasonable remedy, but this Service has seen no evidence to suggest this has been completed.
  6. The landlord’s stage one and stage two responses contained information on how the resident could correctly escalate her complaint.
  7. In summary the resident’s stage one complaint response was outside of its timescale and there was confusion due to who was responsible for providing the response. The landlord responded to the stage two complaint within its complaint timescales and responded to all but one of the points raised by the resident.
  8. A landlords complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy. A determination of Service Failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £100 compensation has been ordered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the heating and hot water system at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to her kitchen floor covering.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. This Service orders that in the next four weeks the landlord completes the following:
    1. Complete an investigation into the finish around the boiler and take necessary action to make good, if it has not already done so. This includes any outstanding issues such as the waste pipe, flue, and other matters it identifies may need repairs.
    2. Pay compensation of £800 which is comprised of the following:
      1. £700 for delays to boiler repairs and no heating and hot water. Taking into account the impact on the resident, including inconvenience, time taken and failure to follow process. This amount includes the £505 previously offered by the landlord.
      2. £100 for poor complaint handling.
    3. Ensure its contractors are aware of the landlord’s complaints procedure and their responsibilities within this process.
    4. Review the Ombudsman’s report of February 2021 ‘Spotlight on complaints about heating, hot water and energy in social housing’. It should consider risk assessments for reports of no heating and hot water particularly for vulnerable residents or those with children.
    5. Complete the above orders within 28 days of the report, with evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service by the same date.