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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202312929)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312929

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 March 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:
    1. The resident’s reports regarding repairs to her heating.
    2. The resident’s reports of cannabis use in the building.
    3. The associated complaint and level of redress.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. In an email to her local MP dated 18 September 2022, the resident said her landlord’s contractor’s removed the heaters at her property and had left her without them for 5 years. She said an electrician had attended but did not fix the heaters. The resident said the weather was turning cold, with freezing temperatures at night. She said she shared her home with someone who had a disability and said they were suffering as a result of the lack of heating. The resident referred to the landlord’s operating systems being down due to a cyber incident. She said the landlord had not fixed the issue in a timely manner.
  3. On 9 November 2022, the resident’s local MP submitted a formal complaint on behalf of the resident. The complaint was in relation to compensation for the heating failures, council tax, and use of cannabis within the block of flats.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. It said it originally attended an appointment to replace the electric heaters in her living room and bedroom. The landlord said when it attended it discovered the heaters had been removed by “persons unknown.” It said the resident wanted the living room heater to be re-sited because the existing location interfered with her piano. The landlord had refused the request.
  5. The landlord said the job was subsequently closed down due to lack of access to the property and the resident’s refusal to move her possessions to allow operatives to carry out the necessary work. It said following a complaint from the resident, it re-raised the job to repair the heating. It said it attended on 7 September 2022 and 30 September 2022 to assess and complete the installation of 2 panel heaters.
  6. The landlord outlined the action it had taken regarding the cannabis use and what steps the resident should take if she experienced any further issues. It also outlined its position regarding the council tax query and advised who she needed to contact about that. The landlord said it identified a service failure due to the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and awarded £50 in compensation.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She said the landlord’s operatives had removed the heaters. The resident said she moved her furniture every time the landlord requested and she had witnesses as she had to have help to do it. She said the landlord had made a number of appointments but every time the operatives wanted her to move something else. She said the landlord finally reinstated the heaters after 5 years but it could have been sooner if it did not keep requesting her to move different things.
  8. In a conversation with the landlord dated 3 March 2023, the resident confirmed she was seeking compensation for the length of time and difficulty in getting the repairs completed. She also confirmed she had been using temporary heaters for the duration of the time when she was without them. She said the landlord had provided 2 of those heaters.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 March 2023. It provided a timeline of its repair job notes from January 2019. It said from the timeline it was satisfied it had made multiple attempts to gain access to the property. The landlord said on each of its attempts, access was either denied, the resident was not there, or she had not cleared the space required to complete the works. It said it completed the works outside of its service level agreements, but that was not a result of failures made by the landlord. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response and awarded £50 in compensation.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she would like compensation in recognition of the time taken to reinstate the heaters. She felt the temporary heaters were not a workable solution for the 5 years she was without them. The resident said the issue with the smell of cannabis was ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure.
  3. Upon reviewing the information provided, the resident’s complaint regarding cannabis use did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is not considered a complaint handling failure as there is no evidence of the resident escalating it to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, the landlord would not be obligated to address it again in its stage 2 response.
  4. As such, the Ombudsman cannot investigate the complaint related to cannabis use. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction prior to our involvement.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to her household’s health and how the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any likely distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced as a result of the situation.
  2. Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. It is evident the heating issues had been ongoing since at least 2019. However, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. this investigation will only consider events which took place within the 12 months prior to the formal complaint. In this case, this is from November 2021 up to the stage 2 response. Any events referred to outside of this timeline are included for contextual purposes only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding repairs to her heating

  1. This investigation has found that there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the heating. The reasons for this are explained below.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. It states that non-emergency repairs should be completed as soon as possible and within 28 days.
  3. The tenancy agreement states that the resident must allow the landlord or others authorised by the landlord to enter the property on giving reasonable prior notice. It says that tenants should not interfere with or obstruct any employee or agent of the landlord in performing duties imposed on the landlord.
  4. On 1 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to complain about mould in her property. She said the cause of the mould was the removal of the heaters from the bedroom and living room. The landlord responded on 8 June 2022. It apologised for any inconvenience, it said it would refer it to the area business manager to review and advise on the best course of action. It advised that if its initial attempts did not resolve the issue then she could log a formal complaint. Given the time which had passed since the last records in relation to the matter (2019), the landlord’s response was reasonable.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it had made an appointment for 22 June 2022 but there was no access given. It said the resident spoke to the operative at the time and said she would make a new appointment. In an email to her local MP on 17 July 2022 the resident said she had rearranged the appointments to 20 June 2022, 6 July 2022, and 11 July 2022. She said only a plumber attended to fix the kitchen sink tap and the carpenter and electrician did not attend on the other appointments.
  6. The landlord’s records show that it completed a repair for the kitchen tap on 6 July 2022. There was an appointment scheduled for 11 July 2022 which included the repair of the storage heaters. It states that it was cancelled. It is unclear from the records why the appointment was cancelled, it would have been reasonable for the landlord’s records to have included this information. There is no evidence of the resident querying the appointment with the landlord and therefore we cannot determine whether its actions at the time were appropriate.
  7. The next record on the landlord’s repair history is on 2 September 2022 where it raised a repair to assess the heaters and to report back any follow on works. The repair is showing as completed on 30 September 2022. On 18 September 2022 the resident reported to her local MP that the landlord had not yet fixed the issue, but an electrician had attended. She wrote to the local MP again on 28 September 2022 to say that nobody had attended on 26 September 2022. She said she had tried to chase this with the landlord and no-one had contacted her.
  8. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s account, however, we must rely on the evidence provided to us. There is no record of the landlord making an appointment for 26 September 2022 or of the resident contacting the landlord about it. In its repair records and stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it assessed the heaters on 7 September 2022 and installed them on 30 September 2022. While no failing can be identified, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided any contact it had with the resident to arrange those appointments. The landlord’s handling of the heating within the timeframe investigated, however, was reasonable.
  9. The complaint made on 9 November 2022 was in relation to compensation for the time taken to fix the issue. The landlord’s complaint responses said the delays were due to the lack of access to the property and the resident’s refusal to move her possessions to allow operatives to work. The landlord provided a timeline of events to support its position. The timeline showed 9 records from 2019 in which it had raised relevant jobs. The notes on them stated that the resident either wanted the landlord to move the heaters, was not willing to move furniture, cancelled, or there was no access. It said there was no further movement from either party until June 2022.
  10. The reasons for why the heaters were initially removed remain in dispute. The resident stated it was the landlord’s contractors who removed them and the landlord’s notes say it was the resident. However, the landlord has evidenced in its complaint responses that it made multiple attempts in 2019 to try to resolve the issue once it was aware of it. The Ombudsman has not investigated this time period, but in line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord should consider whether it could have done more following the multiple repairs which were raised with no progression.
  11. The resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s requests to move furniture. She felt this caused delays to the reinstatement of the heaters. While moving furniture may be inconvenient for the resident, it appears this was required for health and safety reasons. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether it was necessary for the landlord’s contractors to make those requests. The landlord outlined the reasons why the requests were made and it was appropriate for it to rely on its qualified staff and contractors to make those assessments.
  12. Overall, while it was clearly frustrating and likely inconvenient for the resident to have to live in those circumstances for a lengthy period of time. The Ombudsman cannot find a failing on the part of the landlord which would amount to maladministration. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for not always providing access to the property or difficulties with moving furniture, however, these do not appear to be the fault of the landlord.
  13. It is the view of the Ombudsman that while the landlord may have been able to make better use of its record keeping at times, it was responsive to the resident and made reasonable attempts to progress the works from June 2022 onwards. As such, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of redress

  1. The Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of redress. The reasons for this are outlined below.
  2. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code defines a service request as a request from a resident to the landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. It says a complaint must be raised when the resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to their service request. The Code states landlord’s must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. It states that an exception would be where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 12 months ago.
  3. While there were delays in the landlord’s responses at both stage 1 and 2. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this, apologised, and offered a total of £100 in compensation. This level of redress was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  4. The resident first sent a formal complaint on 1 June 2022. The landlord did not initially treat this as a complaint and said it would refer it to the business area manager first to advise on the best course of action. As previously stated, given the time which had passed since the last records related to the issue, it was reasonable for the landlord to raise a service request first. The landlord appropriately outlined the timeframe for it to respond to the resident and what she could do to raise a formal complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  5. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she felt the landlord should pay more compensation as a result of living without the heaters for 5 years. We may order a landlord to pay compensation where there was a service failure by the landlord. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged its failures regarding delayed responses and offered compensation in line with that. As the Ombudsman has not found any other service failures by the landlord, we would not order any further compensation.
  6. The Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the reports of cannabis use in the building is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding repairs to her heating.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves its handling of the complaint and level of redress satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should ensure it has sufficient procedures in place for repeated instances of no access or cancellations from residents. This is to ensure landlord’s are protecting their assets and issues are not ongoing over a prolonged period.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should re-offer the £100 it offered to the resident for its complaint handling failures.