Clarion Housing Association Limited (202217128)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217128

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 February 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:
1. Handling of repairs to gutters, boiler, and radiators.
2. Response to concerns about the conduct of contractors.
3. Response to a request for a refund.

Background

The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since 1982. It is a 3-bedroom house.
On 7 April 2022, the resident told the landlord about the conduct of a contractor who had taken down scaffolding.
The resident contacted the landlord to complain about outstanding repairs on 14 October 2022. In an email the same day, the landlord told the resident it had no information about outstanding repairs. It asked for more information.
On 3 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord responded on 7 November 2022 and said it did not know what the complaint was about. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint again on 21 December 2022 and 13 January 2023. On 16 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged a complaint about repairs, a refund for a gas safety check, and the attitude of contractors.
In its complaint response on 20 March 2023, the landlord said following a report about gutters in July 2021 it completed repairs on 13 June 2022. It apologised for the delay. On the boiler, it said it did repairs on 26 January 2022 and attended again on 2 February 2022, but there was no access. It then attended on 9 February 2022 and ordered parts. It booked an appointment to fit the parts on 23 February 2022 but cancelled this due to staff sickness. It then booked other appointments in March and April 2022, but these were either missed or no access. It said due to problems with access, it wrote to the resident.
On contractor conduct, it said it could not investigate 1 reported incident as the contractor no longer worked for it, but it had dealt with concerns about the other contractor. It said it would not refund the cost of the gas safety check, as residents could not arrange their own gas repairs. It offered £95 compensation for 3 missed appointments and the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 April 2023. She said on 12 April 2023 another contractor had verbally abused her. She wanted the landlord to deal with this. She also wanted gutters and leaking radiators repaired, and a refund for the gas safety check.
In its final response on 15 August 2023, the landlord said it had completed gutter repairs in June 2022. It said when the resident reported damp on an external wall in April 2023 it tried to inspect in June 2023, but there was no access. It said there had been no further reports of damp. On conduct of the contractor in April 2023, it apologised for the unacceptable behaviour. On radiators, it said it had tried 3 times to attend but could not get access. It said it would not refund the cost of the gas engineer. It offered £150 compensation for the delayed complaint response and contractor conduct.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She wanted the landlord to complete outstanding repairs, refund the cost of the gas safety check, and pay compensation for delays and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident complained about damage caused to her flooring. After considering the evidence, the Ombudsman cannot consider this part of the complaint. This is because the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to gutters, boiler, and radiators

The landlord is responsible under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) for repairing the structure and exterior of the property and installations for space and water heating. This means the landlord has an obligation to repair the resident’s home and central heating. The landlord did not dispute it had responsibility for the repairs.
The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy says it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The landlord said it had limited repair records covering the time of the resident’s complaint because of a cybersecurity incident. Because of this, the Ombudsman has not seen details of when the resident reported repairs and when the landlord completed work.
In her complaint the resident said she wanted the landlord to complete repairs to her boiler. In response, the landlord said a contractor attended on 26 January 2022 to reset the boiler. It said it repaired the boiler on this visit but attended again on 2 February 2022 following a report of the boiler cutting out. It said it could not get access on this visit. It then arranged another appointment and attended on 9 February 2022 when it found a fault and ordered a new thermostat. It booked an appointment for 23 February 2022 to fit the thermostat, but the contractor cancelled the appointment due to staff sickness.
The landlord said it then tried to make other appointments. It said appointments it made for 7, 16, and 25 March 2022 all had no access. It said it missed 3 appointments on 23 February, and 3 and 17 March 2022. It then tried to make further appointments for 14 and 28 April 2022 but these were also no access. The landlord acknowledged the 3 missed appointments in its complaint response and offered the resident a total of £45 compensation.
The Ombudsman is unable to confirm the date of appointments because of the lack of records. Based on the information in the complaint response, the landlord appears to have responded reasonably to the first report of a boiler fault. When the resident reported a further fault, it said it tried to attend again on 3 February 2023 but had no access. It said it rearranged the appointment for 9 February 2023 and found the cause of the fault. In its complaint response the landlord accepted there were 3 missed appointments and paid compensation. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the compensation for the missed appointments was reasonable as it was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord said getting access to the property delayed the repairs. The records provided by the landlord do not show whether it told the resident about these appointments. Because of this, the Ombudsman cannot decide whether the landlord was at fault when there was no access or whether the resident did not allow access.
On 7 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord about leaking gutters and drainpipes. She said she reported leaks over 2 years before and the landlord had not done repairs. She said contractors had come that morning to take down scaffolding and she told them the landlord had not repaired the leaks.
In its complaint response on 20 March 2023, the landlord said it was unable to look at repair records because of the cyber-security incident. It said the resident reported a fault with gutters on 27 July 2021 and it completed repairs on 13 June 2022. It said it could not confirm whether this was the same or a different repair because of the cyber-security incident. It apologised for delays and inconvenience caused. It did not offer compensation for the delay.
In its final response on 15 August 2023, the landlord said its records showed it did minor repairs on 13 June 2022 and as there was no other work needed, it closed the job. It said in April 2023 the resident reported an external wall was damp from the guttering. It said it tried to inspect the wall in June 2023, but it could not get access. It said it emailed the resident on 6 June 2023 to check whether there was still a problem with damp, but it had no response and there had been no reports of damp since then.
The Ombudsman has not seen a record showing when the landlord received the first report of leaks. The landlord said it received a report in July 2021 and did work in June 2022. It said it could not confirm whether the work in June 2022 related to the report in July 2021. Records show that on 7 April 2022, the resident told the landlord that scaffolders had taken down scaffolding put up in 2021. She said this was pointless as the landlord had not repaired the leak. Because of this, on the balance of probabilities, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the leak repaired in June 2022 was the one reported in July 2021.
This means it took the landlord nearly a year to repair the leaking gutters. The Ombudsman has seen records showing the resident chased the landlord about outstanding repairs in April 2022, which was 9 months after the first report. It then took the landlord a further 2 months to complete the repairs.
The Ombudsman has found this was a service failure by the landlord as it did not meet the standards in its repairs policy. The leak was a concern for the resident, and she was inconvenienced by having to chase the landlord and having scaffolding at her property for a long time. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman finds service failure when there has been a minor failure. Because of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the delay.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the leak caused damp and mould in the property. However, in February 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that damp in her property had got worse. It is unclear whether the resident has recently reported this and, if so, what the landlord did in response. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to arrange an inspection.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 17 April 2023, she said the landlord had not repaired leaking radiators. The Ombudsman has not seen a record showing when the resident first reported leaking radiators.
In its final response on 15 August 2023, the landlord said it had tried on 19 May, 2 June, and 15 June 2023 to inspect the radiators, but the resident had not given access. It said it had arranged to attend on 7 August 2023 to check the radiators and do a gas safety check, but it had also recorded this appointment as no access.
The landlord said it had made another appointment for 18 August 2023. It asked the resident to contact it if this appointment was not convenient. It said it needed to make the resident aware that if she did not allow access for the gas safety check, it may need to take legal action to gain entry.
The Ombudsman has seen a communication from the resident to the landlord on 17 August 2023 saying she would not give access to her property. She wanted the landlord to give assurances it would not turn up without appointments, which she said affected vulnerable members of her family.
Because of the lack of records the Ombudsman is unable to decide whether the landlord responded reasonably to the reports of leaking radiators. In its final response it set out the dates when it tried to fix the radiators but said the resident had not given access. The records provided by the landlord do not show whether it told the resident about the appointments. The resident said the landlord turned up without appointments. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman cannot decide whether the landlord was at fault when there was no access or whether the resident did not allow access.

The landlord’s response to concerns about the conduct of contractors

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was contractor misconduct. Instead, the Ombudsman can decide whether the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint in line with its policy, and whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it will investigate complaints, including complaints about conduct. The policy says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days, and when a resident escalates a complaint, it will respond within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
On 7 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord about contractors who were taking down scaffolding. She said when she told them there was still a leak, they responded by saying they “did not care and had been told to remove the scaffolding”. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord replied to the resident at this time.
The landlord acknowledged a complaint on 16 January 2022 that included a complaint about the conduct of contractors. This was 9-months after the resident first raised a concern about staff conduct.
On 2 March 2023, the resident told the landlord the boiler operative had been rude to her. She said he had been aggressive and shouted at her. She said she reported this and asked for a manager to call her but had not had a call back.
In its complaint response on 20 March 2023, the landlord thanked the resident for bringing the behaviour of the scaffolding contractor to its attention. However, it said as the contractor no longer worked for it, it was unable to investigate. It apologised for any upset caused. On the complaint about the boiler operative’s behaviour, the landlord said it could not give details but there would be a thorough investigation. It apologised for the upset caused.
The Ombudsman has found that the landlord responded reasonably to the complaint about the boiler contractor. However, it did not look into the complaint about the scaffolder when the resident first raised it in April 2022. There was then a further 2-month delay in responding after it acknowledged a complaint on 16 January 2023. The was a service failure by the landlord.
On 14 April 2023, the resident made a new complaint about the behaviour of contractors who were blocking her disabled parking space. She said she experienced serious verbal, intimidating, and threatening abuse. She said when she returned home she asked contractors to move their vehicle from her parking space, but they refused. She said the contractors then intimidated her which left her shaking. She said they videoed her and threatened to damage her vehicle. She said they questioned why she had a disabled parking bay and swore at her. She said she had reported the matter to the police.
In its final response on 15 August 2023, the landlord said the behaviour was unacceptable. It apologised and said it was not the expected level of service. It said because of the complaint, the contractors had done training sessions with its teams on behaviour and customer service. It said the contractor tried to contact the resident to apologise but had not been able to contact her. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the contractor’s behaviour. It also offered £100 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The Ombudsman has found the landlord did not respond to the original report about staff conduct made in April 2022 until it sent a complaint response a year later. By then it was too late for the landlord to investigate. This was a failure by the landlord to respond promptly to the resident’s concerns.
When the resident raised new concerns in March and April 2023, it is the Ombudsman’s view the landlord responded in a reasonable way. This is because it contacted the contractors to discuss the allegations. The contractors acknowledged the reported behaviour was unacceptable and acted within their organisation. It was not appropriate for the landlord to share details of any action the contractor took with individuals, but it gave an assurance that training had taken place. It also apologised for the behaviour and upset caused.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that because of the service failure on the original report in April 2022, the landlord must pay further compensation of £50.

The landlord’s response to a request for a refund

The landlord has a statutory responsibility under Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 to do checks on gas installations.
The landlord’s gas safety management policy says it will ensure it keeps gas installations in a safe condition. It will ensure that it does a gas safety check at intervals of no longer than 12 months from installation or the previous check.
The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the landlord’s gas safety records for the property.
On 16 January 2023, the resident complained that she wanted the landlord to refund her for the cost of a gas safety inspection that she had paid for. The landlord’s records say that after the resident refused its contractor access, she paid for her own gas engineer.
In its complaint response on 20 March 2023, the landlord said that only it was authorised to repair the boiler, and it did not allow residents to arrange their own repairs. It said because of this it would not reimburse costs.
After the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord asked her to send it a copy of the certificate she had paid for.
In its final response on 15 August 2023, the landlord said it was unable to reimburse the cost as it had tried to complete the gas safety check, but the resident had not given it access. It also said it did not accept the resident’s gas safety certificate because the landlord’s details were not on it, which made the certificate invalid. It said had asked the resident’s gas engineer to amend the certificate, but they had refused.
The Ombudsman has found that the landlord was under no obligation to refund the resident as it had not agreed to the resident doing her own work on the boiler. The landlord is responsible for ensuring gas safety at the property and it needed to make sure that any work done was in line with regulations. The resident did provide a copy of a certificate, but this did not meet the landlord’s requirements. Because of this the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a request to refund the cost of a gas safety check.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord on its handling of repairs.
2. Service failure by the landlord on its response to concerns about the conduct of contractors.
3. No maladministration by the landlord on its response to a request for a refund.

Orders and recommendations

Order

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay £200 compensation to the resident for the failures found in this report. The landlord must pay compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any arrears. Compensation includes:
1. £150 for failure to do repairs in line with its policy.
2. £50 for failure to investigate a concern about contractor conduct.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to arrange an inspection of damp and mould.