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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202304542)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304542

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. Repairs for the roof, stack pipe and patio door.
    2. A lean-to.
    3. Her concerns about a loft conversion to a neighbouring property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord records that the resident has health issues.
  2. The resident reported toilet blockages in January and February 2022, after which the landlord’s operatives resolved the issue and noted that a soil pipe had asbestos and showed signs of deterioration.
  3. The resident reported that a patio door glass had cracked on 17 June 2022. The landlord repaired the door with a glass film the same day and arranged for a contractor to measure up for a replacement. The resident queried what was happening on 16 December 2022, after which the landlord raised a repair and arranged an appointment for 30 December 2022, which it later rescheduled.
  4. On 2 January 2023, the resident complained. She said that she had not heard anything after an operative had attended for a previous report about bits which had fallen from the roof. She said that she had not heard anything since her patio door was taped and measured. She said that no one had come after she was told an external pipe needed replacing when her toilet got blocked. She said she was struggling to afford to heat her home due to heat escaping through the broken glass.
  5. The landlord subsequently took steps to progress the issues. It arranged for an operative to attend on 9 February 2023 for the patio door and it was noted that follow on works were required. It is not disputed that contractors attended on 10 February 2023 for the roof. It inspected the stack pipe and started an internal process for it to be removed and replaced.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 22 February 2023. It detailed some actions it had taken for the roof, patio door and stack pipe and said that the resident would be kept updated about the stack pipe repair. It acknowledged there had been service failings and awarded £450.
  7. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the response in various correspondence. She said it was not factual. She detailed her own account of events and reports that were not followed up. She asked the landlord to consider her increased heating costs because of the delay repairing the patio door. She raised dissatisfaction that staff who inspected for the pipe repair had said she needed to take down her lean-to, when she had obtained permission for this. She also raised concern whether loft conversion works to a neighbouring property had affected her property.
  8. The landlord is not disputed to have visited on 5 April 2023 for the patio doors, and it liaised with parties to schedule the stack pipe works for 20 April 2023.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 17 April 2023. It confirmed that the stack pipe repair was scheduled for 20 April 2023 and the patio door repair was scheduled for 13 July 2023. It said it could not find evidence that it provided verbal permission for the lean-to. It said that a surveyor would contact the resident to discuss access for the pipe repair and it would consider if retrospective permission could be granted. It said that a surveyor would assess the work to the neighbouring property. It acknowledged that there had been service failings that included delayed repairs and cancelled visits. It apologised and awarded £600.
  10. The landlord completed the stack pipe repair on 20 April 2023. The landlord’s surveyor inspected in May 2023 and reported that they were satisfied that no damage had been caused to the property by the neighbouring loft conversion. The landlord completed the patio door repair on 28 July 2023.
  11. The resident raised dissatisfaction to the Ombudsman. She said that an operative who attended on 13 July 2023 for the patio door measured it for the sixth time. She said that the patio door issue affected heat retention and led to increased heating costs. She raised concerns about the impact of the landlord’s handling on her physical and mental health. She is seeking £6,000 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has told the resident that while she refers to other issues in correspondence, our investigation focuses on the issues in her original complaint and the landlord’s responses. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of our Scheme, which sets out how we investigate complaints, that says we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident has the option to ask the landlord to raise a formal complaint about other issues she is dissatisfied with.

The landlord’s response to the resident about repairs for the roof, stack pipe and patio door

  1. The evidence is not clear when works were originally done to the roof, when the resident reported bits falling from it, or if there was a wider impact due to the issue. However, the landlord did not dispute that there were service failings for bits falling from the roof. After the resident’s January 2023 complaint, the landlord was overall reasonable to arrange for contractors to attend in around a month, to acknowledge and compensate for service failings, and to advise her to report further issues with the roof to its contact centre.
  2. The landlord’s operative noted in January 2022 that a soil pipe had asbestos and showed signs of deterioration, during attendances for toilet blockages that were resolved in February 2022. The evidence is not clear that the pipe needed to be replaced at that time or caused any subsequent issues. However, it is not entirely satisfactory that no strategy is evident for the operative’s report about the pipe, and so it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged service failings for the issue. After the resident’s January 2023 complaint, the landlord was overall reasonable to arrange for contractors to replace the pipe in April 2023 and acknowledge and compensate for issues such as delays.
  3. The resident reported in June 2022 that the glass in her patio door had cracked, after which the landlord applied glass film and arranged for it to be measured for replacement in July 2022. The resident later chased the repair in December 2022 and then complained in January 2023. The resident’s account and the evidence shows that the patio door repair was delayed and handled poorly. The landlord did not replace the glass until July 2023, a year after it cracked. The resident says that operatives attended to measure the patio door 6 times, which the repairs logs and supplied information seems to support. After the resident’s January 2023 complaint, it was therefore right that the landlord acknowledged and compensated for issues such as delays and arranged to complete the repair.
  4. The landlord went a long way to resolve the patio door glass complaint, but the resident raised concern in her complaint that the issue had led to increased heating costs, which the landlord does not satisfactorily demonstrate it considered. The resident has been unable to supply information about her historical utility usage to the Ombudsman, which she may have been able to if the landlord had requested this from her at the time of her complaint. The resident’s reports of it being more expensive to heat her home coincide with a period when the cost of living and energy increased. The specification for the glass film applied to the patio door glass also states that this is weatherproof.
  5. The Ombudsman cannot therefore say that the resident incurred excess heating costs because of the landlord’s delay repairing the patio door glass. However, the landlord’s lack of consideration of this aspect leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s response about repairs for the roof, stack pipe and patio door, and to order it to pay the resident £50 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by this.

The landlord’s response to the resident about a lean-to

  1. The landlord noted during inspections for the stack pipe that it would have to work around a lean-to the resident had erected. It subsequently queried if she had permission for this and said it would have to consider retrospective permission. The resident said she called the landlord around December 2022 or January 2023 and was told she could do what she wanted as long as the lean-to was a certain size, did not have footings, and was not permanent. The landlord said that it found no evidence that verbal permission was given and under its normal process it would not provide decisions over the phone. It is understood that the landlord has provided retrospective permission and did not demand removal of the lean-to.
  2. The landlord’s response was overall reasonable. The landlord, under its policy, normally gives written permission for property alterations or improvements that go beyond minor repairs. The resident said that she was given verbal permission and the landlord appropriately considered if there was any evidence for this. The Ombudsman agrees that there is no evidence that the resident was given verbal or written permission for the lean-to. The landlord was therefore within its rights to enforce its policy, such as consider retrospective written permission for the lean-to.
  3. The resident’s account suggests it is possible that she contacted the landlord and was informed that she did not need to seek formal permission for the lean-to, so a recommendation is made for this.

The landlord’s response to the resident about a loft conversion to a neighbouring property

  1. The resident raised concerns in her stage 2 escalation about the impact of works to a neighbouring property on the safety of her home. The landlord responded that a surveyor would visit to assess these concerns. The surveyor visited around a month later and reported that they were satisfied that the works had not affected the property.
  2. The landlord’s response was reasonable, as it considered the resident’s concerns and committed to arrange for a surveyor to investigate them. The landlord’s surveyor then met this commitment in a reasonable timeframe, and carried out what it is evident was a thorough check of the resident’s property.

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 repairs for the roof, stack pipe and patio door.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about a lean-to.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about a loft conversion to a neighbouring property.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to pay the resident £50 compensation for the issues identified with its response about the patio door. This is in addition to previous compensation it has offered.
  2. The landlord is recommended to review the stack pipe repairs history and its operative’s January 2022 report about asbestos, to consider any potential learning in respect to its handling of internal reports about asbestos.
  3. The landlord is recommended to review its processes for when a customer calls its contact centre about permissions, to establish if there are any circumstances where a customer is advised they do not need to seek permission, and to consider if this requires any changes in process.
  4. The landlord is recommended to consider historical utility bills from the resident if she is able to locate and supply these, and consider reimbursement for any excess expenditure.