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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202232251)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232251

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 about:
    1. Draughty windows and doors.
    2. Damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and moved into the property in 2019 by mutual exchange. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow on a sheltered scheme. The landlord records that the resident is disabled.
  2. The resident raised issues with draughty windows and doors in 2020 and 2022. She also raised some issues with condensation and mould in 2022 and 2023.
  3. The landlord’s operatives carried out repairs and adjustments to windows, noted that some condensation was normal, and noted on one occasion that the way a doorframe was fitted was causing a gap. The resident and a councillor subsequently contacted the landlord about windows and doors at the property being poorly fitted.
  4. The landlord’s planned works team inspected in August 2022, and its repairs team inspected in October 2022. The planned works team found no basis to replace the windows and doors. The repairs team made a minor adjustment for a slight gap between the door and the frame. They noted that a door and window unit were fitted correctly and that windows and doors will expand and contract in different weather. They noted that the resident was provided advice to reduce condensation.
  5. In April 2023, the resident does not dispute that the landlord treated a small amount of mould around windows and doors. The same month, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint that door and window gaps caused draughts in the property.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 17 May 2023. It detailed actions that had been taken for the windows, doors, and damp and mould. It said that the windows and doors were acceptable, and their condition did not warrant a replacement. It noted that it had provided advice to the resident about dealing with the cost of living and getting further support. It concluded there were no service failings.
  7. The resident asked to escalate the complaint. She said that operatives would not notice any draughts or cold as they had only attended when it was hot. She said she had to keep wiping mould from curtains.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 28 June 2023. It said that it was satisfied that its previous response was accurate and fair. It asked the resident to contact it in the winter months so it could revisit the draught issues when she was most affected. It said that if the mould issue reoccurred it could install a device to monitor the moisture levels in the property. It detailed how the resident could request this if she agreed to this. It noted that the resident reported a lack of communication in response to her reports and apologised for her experience and any inconvenience this caused her.
  9. The resident says that the landlord has taken some actions such as change glass in a door. However, these have not resolved her front room and kitchen being so cold that she cannot sit in them in the winter months. She restates that the landlord’s operative told her that the door was never properly installed and that the landlord only visits in the warmer months when it was not so bad.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident about draughty windows and doors

  1. The Housing Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to determine when windows and doors should be replaced. Our main consideration is whether the landlord responded appropriately and in line with its legal obligations and good practice in the timeframe of the complaint.
  2. The evidence shows that from 2020, the landlord generally took appropriate action for the resident’s reports about windows and doors in a timely manner. It also took positive action to check the property energy performance certificate and arrange for the heating to be checked. The landlord’s conclusion that the windows and doors are correctly fitted and do not require replacement is reasonable. This is after consideration of the issues and first–hand inspection by its staff, whose professional opinion it is entitled to rely on. The landlord’s offer to revisit the issue if the resident reported it in the winter months was a reasonable resolution to the draught issue.
  3. While the landlord’s position about the windows and doors is reasonable, its response to the resident’s reports from early 2022 was not entirely satisfactory. The landlord’s operative reported in February 2022 that a door was incorrectly fitted. The resident reported in multiple contacts between February and May 2022 that she was elderly and in sheltered housing. She also said that she had health issues and had been in hospital with pneumonia due to cold at the property. The landlord does not show that it acted on these until August and October 2022. This was 6 to 8 months later and after multiple chasing from the resident and contact from a councillor. The landlord experienced a cyber attack in June 2022, but it had the opportunity to investigate the issue in the 3 months before this, and would have been expected to given the resident’s concerns.
  4. The landlord’s delay in investigating the February 2022 report that the door was incorrectly fitted will have led the resident to believe there were issues with it for some time. The resident will therefore have been caused some distress. The landlord’s handling also led the resident to contact the landlord on at least 3 occasions between February and May 2022 and then to contact a councillor. The resident therefore went to some time and trouble progressing matters.
  5. The landlord apologised for some communication issues and inconvenience caused to the resident, but in the Ombudsman’s view this did not go far enough to acknowledge the resident’s experience. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about the windows and doors, and to order it to pay £50 to the resident in recognition of her distress and inconvenience and time and trouble.

The landlord’s response to the resident about damp and mould

  1. The landlord has raised repairs when reported and it is not disputed that it treated a small amount of mould in April 2023. The landlord’s operatives have noted when attending that issues such as condensation and mould have been normal or minor. The landlord’s complaint response said that if mould reoccurred it could install a device to monitor the moisture levels in the property. As noted above, it also checked the property energy performance certificate and arranged for the heating to be checked.
  2. The landlord is obligated to respond to reports it receives about damp and mould, and its response was proportionate on the evidence seen. The landlord has acted when specific reports, which are infrequent, have been made. The landlord has considered the extent of the issue when attending and has not identified the issue to be significant. The landlord’s complaint response gave appropriate commitments to investigate the issue further if the resident reported that it continued. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration in its response about damp and mould.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about draughty windows and doors.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to apologise to the resident and pay her £50 in recognition of the impact of its delayed response to the windows and doors.
  2. The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident to visit her in the near future, to review her report that the window and door issues prevent her from sitting in her front room and kitchen in the winter months, and to consider appropriate action.