Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202225646)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225646

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about low boiler and water pressure in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy began in May 2021. The property is a 1 flat.
  2. It is understood that the resident is neurodivergent and has a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. It is understood that the resident was sensitive to loud noises, due to his vulnerabilities.
  3. The property was let to the resident with a condensing conventional boiler. It is understood that the property did not have a fitted shower but had a bath mixer tap with a shower hose and head. It is understood that this was a non-standard landlord fitting. It is unclear if this fitting was present at the start of the tenancy or if this was installed by the resident himself. 
  4. The resident reported issues with the heating, hot water, and water pressure in the property, soon after the tenancy began. The landlord attended the property several times between June 2021 and November 2021, to carry out repairs. The landlord installed a new condensing conventional boiler in December 2021, after noting repeated boiler calls outs and due to the age of the boiler. The boiler was replaced on a like for like basis.
  5. The resident installed his own water pump at his own cost, sometime between May 2021 and September 2021, to improve the water flow from the shower hose and head. However, it is understood that the water pump was noisy, which caused significant distress to the resident, due to his vulnerabilities.
  6. The landlord was in regular contact with the resident and the resident’s MP between August 2022 and March 2023:
    1. The resident:
      1. Explained the significant impact upon his mental wellbeing due to the noise of the water pump, which had fitted as a temporary solution.
      2. Claimed that he had only fitted the water pump because a member of the landlord’s staff had told him that he would need to sort the issue out with the water pressure himself.
      3. Asked the landlord to find a long-term solution to improve the water pressure in the property.
      4. Maintained that the issue with the water pressure would be resolved if the landlord replaced his current boiler with a combination boiler.
      5. Suggested that the landlord’s decision not to change the existing boiler for a combination boiler was due to his race.
    2. The landlord:
      1. Said that it had considered changing the boiler to a combination boiler, but could not justify the expense, given that the existing boiler was relatively new and in working order.
      2. Refuted the resident’s suggestion that its decision not to change the boiler was racially motivated.
      3. Clarified that there would not be enough pressure to run a shower in the property, since the water tank and the bathroom were on the same floor.
      4. Explained that while it was not minded to install a shower with a pump at that time, it would review its position when the bathroom was next considered for an upgrade.
      5. Noted that the resident had installed a water pump in the property to improve the flow of water from the shower attachment, without permission, which had been incorrectly fitted.
      6. Initially suggested that the resident relocate the water pump, to address the issue with noise. It later committed to obtaining a quotation for moving the water pump itself. But after further reflection told the resident to arrange for a suitably qualified person to remove the water pump and restore the plumbing to its original state.
  7. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 19 September 2024, asking it to issue a stage 1 complaint response, after the resident asked for support progressing a complaint.
  8. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 24 September 2024. The landlord noted that it had replaced the boiler in 2021. It set out the action that it had taken to resolve faults on the new boiler since April 2024. It explained how it had responded to the resident’s concerns about low water pressure and its observations concerning the water pump over the same timeframe. It referenced a communication with the resident’s MP in early 2023 and said that its position not to carry out repairs to the water pump remained unchanged. It refuted that its decision not to replace the boiler with a combination boiler, represented racial discrimination. The landlord concluded that there had been no failure of service. 
  9. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 8 October 2023. The resident reminded the landlord that he had experienced difficulties with the water pressure since moving into the property. He said that he had repeatedly phoned the landlord about this, until one of its members of staff informed him that he should sort the matter out himself. Believing there was no other option, he arranged for a water pump to be fitted privately. He said the landlord should replace his existing boiler with a combination boiler to resolve the problem, reiterated the detrimental impact to his mental wellbeing from the noise of the pump, and appealed to the landlord to resolve the problem.
  10. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 8 November 2024. The landlord:
    1. Said it was satisfied that its stage 1 response was both reasonable and fair.
    2. Stated that there was no basis for the resident’s allegations concerning racism. It said there was no expectation or obligation to ensure that all properties in a block, road, or area were of the same type.
    3. Noted that the resident had requested that it replace his current boiler with a combination boiler. It commented that while there were some benefits with this type of boiler, these could be outweighed by the lack of hot water storage.
    4. Noted that the current boiler was installed in 2021 and had been repaired in April 2024, when a leak from the resident’s shower pump was noted. It said no issues had been identified with the boiler at its annual gas inspection in July 2024.
    5. Said it was responsible for providing the resident with a source of heating and hot water and for the upkeep of those systems. It said it been unable to find any justification for replacing the current boiler, which was functioning as intended and was capable of reliable continued use.
    6. Clarified that the resident was responsible for the upkeep and repair of the water pump, as this had been fitted by him privately.
    7. Noted from photographs taken of the bathroom, that the bath taps had been changed to a mixer tap with a shower hose and head attachment. It said it was unclear why the bath had been altered in this way and whether this had been organised privately. But highlighted that “this may be a reason for low water pressure in the shower attachment itself, as it was not primarily designed for such use”. It confirmed that it was satisfied that the flow of water from the bath tap itself was satisfactory.
    8. Noted that there was no tiled wall surface surrounding the bath. It expressed concern that if the shower attachment was used for showering, this could lead to surface damage.
  11. The resident escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 November 2024, because he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage 2 complaint. The resident told the Ombudsman on 11 February 2025, that the landlord should replace the current boiler with a combination boiler.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme.
  2. This investigation will consider the issues raised by the resident during the complaint process and that were addressed by the landlord in its final stage 2 response.
  3. It is noted that some of the matters raised by the resident were historical in nature. Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising. 
  4. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions between 19 September 2023 and 8 November 2024. This being 12 months prior to the Ombudsman asking the landlord to issue the stage 1 complaint response, through to when the landlord’s internal complaint procedure was exhausted. For issues that occurred before 19 September 2023, the Ombudsman will consider the general reasonableness of the landlord’s most recent complaint responses.

Obligations

  1. The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation to keep in repair and working order, the installations for the supply of water, sanitation, space heating, and heating water. This included boilers and any installation owned by it or in its control, which directly or indirectly served the property. This is in accordance with the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. Landlords are not obliged to replace an item where a repair is possible. Landlords are entitled to replace installations on a like for like basis. Landlords are not required to replace or improve installations unless they are required to do so by law.
  3. The tenancy agreement clarifies that the resident must seek written permission from the landlord before carrying out any alterations to the property. Furthermore, any installation fitted by the resident must be maintained by the resident, unless the law says otherwise.
  4. According to the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord would attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe or carry out a temporarily repair. An emergency repair is classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public, the property, or would jeopardise the health, safety, or security of the resident. Non-emergency repairs would be carried out within 28 days of the repair being reported.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about low boiler and water pressure in the property

  1. It was evident that that the resident had been concerned about low boiler and water pressure since the start of the tenancy, which must have been frustrating.
  2. Focusing on the timeframe of this complaint investigation, the resident reported intermittent loss of heating in the property on 3 April 2024. The landlord acted appropriately, by arranging an appointment to inspect the boiler at a date that was convenient to the resident. The landlord’s engineer attended on 5 April 2024 as it had committed, identifying that the kitchen radiator required bleeding. Its engineer bled the radiator, repressured and tested the boiler, and left the heating system in working order.
  3. However, the resident contacted the landlord again 2 weeks later, to explain that there was now no heating or hot water. The landlord arranged for its engineer to attend within 24 hours, in line with its policy. The landlord’s engineer identified that the pressure on the boiler had dropped but was unable to identify a leak. It repressurised the boiler and again left it in working order.
  4. However, its engineer did notice, that there was a leak on the water pump installed by the resident. Its engineer advised the resident that a plumber would be required to fix this leak. It is unclear from the evidence seen, if it was made clear at the time, who was responsible for arranging the plumber. But as the leak was on an installation arranged privately by the resident himself, this was likely to have been the resident’s responsibility to resolve, in line with the tenancy agreement.
  5. The landlord carried out an annual gas service on 8 July 2024. According to the gas safety certificate, no issues were identified with the boiler or the pressure on the hot and cold water services. This suggests that whatever had caused the loss of pressure on the boiler had been resolved, which was positive.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 April 2024, asking the landlord to remove the water pump because it was too loud. According to the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord’s operative attended on 16 April 2024, but did not remove the pump after establishing this had not been fitted by the landlord. The landlord’s decision not to remove or carry out any repairs to the water pump would have been in line the landlord’s repairs policy and the tenancy agreement.
  7. The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord carried out an inspection of property on 31 October 2024, prior to issuing the final complaint response, to help inform its stage 2 investigation. This shows that the landlord was treating the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with the attention it deserved.
  8. As a result of this inspection, the landlord was able to further satisfy itself that there was a good flow of water coming from the bath taps. It also allowed the landlord to identify that the bath mixer tap, with shower hose and head attachment, was a non-standard fitting. It advised the resident that this could account for the low water pressure from the shower attachment itself. However, it was unable to verify if this had been fitted by the resident or this was present when the property was let.
  9. Ultimately, the landlord did not change its position in relation to the future repair and upkeep of the water pump, which it maintained was the resident’s responsibility. The landlord said that the resident should refrain from showering using the non-standard shower hose and head attachment, as the wall was not tiled to support this activity and could cause surface damage. While the landlord did not provide the resident with an alternative solution, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the resident had any specific need, which might require him to have use of a shower.
  10. The Ombudsman was encouraged that the landlord reflected on the historical requests made by the resident, for the landlord to replace the existing condensing conventional boiler with a combination boiler, within its final complaint response. The resident’s persistence concerning this was understandable, given that this was likely to have helped boost the water pressure in the shower hose and head, negating the need for a water pump. In turn this would have alleviated the impact to the resident, from the noise of the pump. However, the landlord’s position remained that it could not justify the expense of replacing a relatively new boiler, that was functioning as intended and was capable for reliable continued use. It said that it would only fit a new boiler if the current boiler was reported by its gas contractor, as being beyond economical repair.
  11. The landlord also reflected on the resident’s allegations of racism, as a possible reason for not fitting a combination boiler. The landlord said that it had found no basis for this and explained that there was no expectation or obligation to ensure that all of its properties were fitted with the same system.
  12. Ultimately, the landlord was able to evidence that the boiler was in working in order and there was an adequate flow of hot and cold water from the taps, from its inspection on 31 October 2024 and from the annual gas safety certificate. On this basis it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had met its contractual and statutory obligations to the resident.
  13. It would be usual for landlords to install and manage a whole range of different boilers at any given time, across their housing stock. Therefore, the landlord may well have fitted a combination boiler in other addresses in the locality. However, the landlord had been entitled to replace the boiler on a like for like basis, if it felt this was appropriate. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s continued reluctance to change the boiler to a combination boiler, was motivated by anything other than its obligation to make best use of the finite resources that it had available to it.
  14. However, the Ombudsman can understand that the final complaint response is likely to have left the resident unclear as to whether there was an alternative option or any support available, which might resolve the situation for him, given the landlord’s position. For example, the landlord might have updated the resident in relation to the offer it made in December 2022, to consider installing a shower and pump in the property at the next bathroom upgrade.
  15. On balance, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about low boiler and water pressure in the property. But recommends that the landlord offer the resident a face-to-face meeting, to explore his next steps, given the landlord’s position.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about low boiler and water pressure in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should offer the resident a face-to-face meeting, to explore his next steps, given the landlord’s position. The landlord should act accordingly thereafter.