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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202233450)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233450

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 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 handling of a replacement front door.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat. He has mobility issues.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 18 April 2023. He advised that he had a damaged front door, and this was allowing water to ingress into his property. This caused damage to his carpets. He asked that the door be replaced with a PVC front door. He also requested compensation for the damage in his property.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 15 May 2023. It said that its contractors had carried out an inspection on 12 May 2023. They found several repairs, including the need for a replacement front door. The replacement should have been made of PVC. The landlord stated the work was raised, but that it could not give a date when it would be completed. It offered £150 for the delay and inconvenience.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint, through the Housing Ombudsman, on 7 August 2023. He said a carpenter had attended on 30 June 2023 but that the work could not be completed. The resident said water was still coming into his home, due to the damaged front door. 
  5. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 22 August 2023. The landlord said it could not establish what stage the works were at as they had a change in contractors. It advised that someone would inspect the property on 22 August 2023. It increased the compensation by £250. It advised any carpet damage would need to be claimed under contents insurance.
  6. The resident has since moved out of the property, however, he is still a tenant of the landlord. He said he has had compensation for the damaged carpets. He would like the Ombudsman to consider how the landlord handled his repair request.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is unclear from the evidence whether the resident raised the repair with the landlord, prior to making a stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-urgent repairs will be attended to within 28 days. The landlord inspected the property within 24 days of receiving the stage 1 complaint. As such the time taken to inspect the repair, may not be unreasonable. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord was aware the resident had mobility issues. The resident had also reported water coming into his home. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to consider any risk and the resident’s vulnerability when arranging the inspection. There is no evidence the landlord made these considerations.
  2. The resident had raised in his stage 1 complaint that he had damaged carpets. He then replaced these with vinyl flooring. An inspection on 12 May 2023 found that there was water ingress which had caused damage to the resident’s vinyl floors. On realising that damage was still being caused by the water ingress, the landlord should have considered the repair to be a priority. Further, given the resident’s mobility issues, the landlord should have considered whether there was any risk to the resident. Wet vinyl may have been a trip hazard. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the urgency or risk in arranging this repair.
  3. The stage 1 response identified several repairs, including the request for the replacement door. It said the works were raised, but that dates for completion could not be provided. The landlord did not say why dates could not be given. Although compensation was offered, the stage 1 response did not give any assurance on when the repairs would be completed. It also did not acknowledge the detriment the water ingress was causing the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman has seen an internal email from the landlord, dated 15 May 2023. This email said that the repairs had been sent to the correct team, but that the team responsible for the repairs often did not respond. It stated that “we just have to trust it’s been booked in and completed”. It also stated that the works could “still take several months to be completed”. The landlord showed a lack of urgency in completing the repair. It also indicated that it had no way of knowing if a repair had been completed. The Ombudsman considers this to be poor repairs management. The resident was left without any assurance of when his repair would be completed, and the landlord has failed to demonstrate ownership of the repair. This is particularly concerning as the repair had been identified as causing damage to the resident’s property. Further, the landlord was aware that the resident had a vulnerability.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that due to a change in contractors, the landlord could not identify what stage the resident’s repairs were at. It advised that someone would attend on 22 August 2023, the same date as the stage 2 response was issued. The Ombudsman recognises that a change in contractors can be complex and may result in the need for new inspections. However, the failure to know what stage the repairs were at shows a lack of ownership from the landlord. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord completed this inspection. Further, the stage 2 response offers no commitment on when the landlord would contact the resident to provide an update of repairs. The landlord did not demonstrate that it was taking all actions to address the resident’s concerns.
  6. The Ombudsman has seen a note on 20 September 2023 saying that a referral was made for a new fire door. It said that the resident had been offered a temporary repair but that the resident refused. It is unclear from the notes why the resident refused. However, we would expect a resident to accept reasonable temporary repairs.
  7. The resident has since moved out of the property. As of 20 April 2024, when the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman, the door had not been fixed. The landlord explained to the Housing Ombudsman that it was later discovered that the door did not need replacing and that it could have been repaired. However, it acknowledged that it had promised the resident a new door during its complaints process, and that this should have been done. Although the landlord has since found that the door did not need replaced, we have not seen evidence that the landlord regularly and proactively, spoke with the resident to arrange a repair. We acknowledge that on one occasion, the resident refused a temporary repair. However, the repair remained outstanding for over a year. Given what has already been noted in the report, around potential risk and damage to the home, we consider that the landlord’s actions were unreasonable.
  8. The resident no longer lives in the home and as such no orders to complete the repair are necessary. However, the landlord should consider whether the door is fit for purpose before moving a new resident into the property.
  9. The landlord’s offer of £400 compensation in total at stage 2 may have been reasonable at that time. However, we find that the landlord should pay a further £150 in acknowledgement that it did not complete the repair. Further we consider that the landlord should review this case and provide an apology to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a replacement front door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £550 compensation for the failures in handling the replacement door. This consists of:
    1. £400 offered during the initial complaints process.
    2. £150 in recognition that the repair was not completed.

If the original compensation offer of £400 has already been paid to the resident, the landlord does not need to pay this again.

  1. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident a written apology. The apology should address concerns highlighted in this report. There should be a specific focus on the landlord’s failure to take the residents vulnerability into account. The resident is still a resident of the landlord. The apology letter should include details about what he can expect when he reports a repair in the future.
  2. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance, within 4 weeks of this report being issued.