Clarion Housing Association Limited (202312957)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312957

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of draughts through gaps around her front door.
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and occupies a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has advised there are no known vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident’s reports relating to the front entrance door to her property date back to 2019. Records show the landlord’s contractor attended in January 2020, eased the door and fitted a draught excluder kit. On 3 March 2020, the resident expressed dissatisfaction that remedial works had not yet been completed. There were then no further reports relating to the front door until 6 June 2022. It was noted the resident reported “her front door being extremely [draughty]” and “whatever repairs were attempted have failed and the issue has come back”. Further, she was concerned about the cost of the heat loss through her front door.
On 3 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that:
1. There was a “severe [draught] flowing through large gaps” around her front door due to warping. The glass panels were also “leaking air”.
2. Different contractors had attended and identified the problem but had failed to fix the issue successfully, leaving her to “manage high energy bills and DIY attempts sticking different objects through the gaps”.
3. The last contractor attended on 11 July 2022 but failed to complete the job, and follow–up appointments were not kept.
4. The front door was not fit for purpose and was causing ill health.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 February 2023, stating:
1. It understood that an operative attended on 10 February 2023 and carried out works to the front door, which had resolved the problem.
2. The resident had originally contacted it on 8 June 2022 to report draughts coming through her front door and resulting in a loss of heat. Due to a cyber incident, it could not establish why there was a delay in these works being completed. However, an operative attended on 11 July 2022 to investigate and repair the issue.
3. It apologised for the delay in carrying out remedial works to the front door and the delay in providing its complaint response.
4. To allow it to consider compensation for the extra fuel costs, it asked the resident to provide copies of fuel bills covering the period in question and for the same period the previous year so it could see any additional usage and award appropriate compensation.
5. It offered compensation totalling £250, which comprised:
  1. £200 for the delay in carrying out the repair to the front door and any inconvenience this had caused.
  2. £50 for providing its complaint response outside its published timeframe.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 22 February 2023 because she said:
1. Remedial works to her front door had not been completed on 10 February 2023. She inferred from the landlord’s response that her records had been mixed up with another tenant, or that there had been a breakdown in communication between the landlord and its operatives. She said this was “not only frustrating but … of great inconvenience as this only leads to further delays”.
2. She had been given an afternoon appointment for 10 February 2023, but the operative arrived unannounced in the morning. This was not convenient so she asked them to return as per the appointment arranged, which they did.
3. On 10 February 2023, the operative assessed the door and concluded it was “bowed beyond repair and as a result causing air to leak in and heat to escape”. They recommended a composite door as “a wooden door would still leak air due to a lack of frame, and warping can reoccur”.
4. She had not reported the issue with her front door for the first time on 8 June 2022, and the works carried out on 11 July 2022 did not follow the recommendation by the previous operative who attended on 8 June 2022.
5. As well as copies of her complaint and housing file, she sought:
  1. Compensation for the landlord’s miscommunication and the resulting inconvenience and stress of taking time out of work for the operative to attend, then go back and forth in communications to resolve the issue.
  2. A detailed report of the works the operative allegedly completed on 10 February 2023.
The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 12 April 2023, stated:
1. Following a previous report, on 6 January 2020, it was confirmed the front door had warped. On 20 January 2020, an experienced carpenter determined that a new door was not needed at this time. Remedial works were undertaken to fit a draught excluder kit and ease the door, which eliminated the draught in the property so no further works were raised.
2. The landlord had no record of any further contact about a draught from the front door until June 2022. The door was eased in July 2022 and additional draught excluders fitted. Full door renewal was not deemed necessary at this stage.
3. It apologised that previous repairs had not rectified the issues.
4. It acknowledged it incorrectly said works to the door had been completed on 10 February 2023. Rather, an inspection took place, which found the door’s condition had deteriorated and it now needed replacing. This was not fed back and it failed to chase the operative for this information. It sincerely apologised for the oversight in raising the appropriate follow–on works.
5. It had now ordered a new door, with a lead time for replacement of 4 to 6 weeks. Therefore, it had provisionally booked an appointment for 4 May 2023 for this door to be fitted.
6. Although its stage 1 response was fair, reasonable and offered appropriate compensation in line with its policy, it was sorry for the additional frustration caused by its incorrect assertion that works had been completed on 10 February 2023. There had been further delays due to its failure to raise the necessary follow–on works.
7. It could not consider the resident’s request for reimbursement for loss of earnings under its compensation policy, as her occupancy agreement required her to give access for repairs to be carried out.
8. In recognition of the issues and service failures it had identified with her complaint, and in addition to the £250 awarded at stage 1, it offered a further £150 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for the incorrect information provided in its stage 1 response.
  2. £100 for the further delays and inconvenience caused due to its failure to action follow–on works.
The resident’s complaint was referred to the Ombudsman by her local MP on 27 June 2023. The resident has told us she continues to experience issues with draughts in her property due to the warped front door. She says when it is cold outside, she struggles to get her property warm and she uses towels and other objects to block gaps in the door. She has confirmed that she did not provide the landlord with her energy bills, as requested in its stage 1 response. She has said she is seeking an apology for its failures and poor communication, completion of the agreed works by the landlord – namely, the installation of a composite door – and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman, “We have visited to repair the door where the resident was expecting replacement. It was deemed that replacement was not required and could be repaired but this was not adequately communicated with the resident. On a future visit, where we determined it did require replacement, the job was not completed due to the resident refusing the works as they wanted a composite door as opposed to a hardwood door.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted that there is a history of reports by the resident about issues with her front door, this investigation focuses primarily on the landlord’s handling of her recent reports, from June 2022 onwards, and its recent complaint responses, which are broadly reflected in the above timeline. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Draughts through gaps around front door

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
In this case, the outcomes of appointments and attendances at the resident’s property were not apparent from the landlord’s repairs records provided to the Ombudsman for our investigation. For example, it is unclear if the operative assessed the condition of the front door or what remedial works were carried out on 11 July 2022. Similarly, there is no clear evidence of the attending operative’s assessment or recommendations following an appointment on 10 February 2023.
In line with its responsive repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord treated the resident’s reports of draughts coming through her front door as routine repairs. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The policy states that such repairs “should be completed as soon as possible and… within 28 days”.
Records show the resident’s front door was raised for repair on 8 June 2022. While it is not clear from those records what remedial works were carried out at the time, the job was marked “complete” on 11 July 2022. In the absence of any further reports made by the resident about the front door at the time, the Ombudsman accepts that works carried out on 11 July 2022 resolved the issue. While this was outside the 28-day timeframe provided for routine repairs in the landlord’s policy, the Ombudsman is aware that, at the time, the landlord had experienced a cyber security incident that significantly impacted its day-to-day operations. In the circumstances, there was an exceptional and reasonable explanation for the relatively short delay in completing the works.
It was in relation to the resident’s subsequent report – as part of her formal complaint of 3 January 2023 – where issues arose in the landlord’s handling of matters. There is no evidence of the steps taken by the landlord to address this further report or of any material communications with the resident at the time. However, the Ombudsman understands that an operative attended the resident’s property on 10 February 2023.
The landlord has not disputed the resident’s account, in her email of 22 February 2023, of the operative’s advice on 10 February 2023. In the absence of any clear, independent evidence of the outcome of that appointment, the Ombudsman relies on the stage 2 response, which conceded that, on 10 February 2023, the operative found that the condition of the door had deteriorated and it now needed replacement. This is consistent with a repair raised on 28 March 2023 for renewal of the front door. The job description requested that the works be allocated back to the operative who attended on 10 February 2023, “who will have all measurements”. The notes indicated the job would take 3 hours and asked that it be scheduled “at least 3 weeks from now to allow for materials”.
There was a clear failure on the landlord’s part to monitor the outcome of the operative’s attendance on 10 February 2023, reflected in the incorrect assertion in its stage 1 response that the repair had been completed at that appointment. This resulted in a delay in scheduling follow–on works.
The stage 2 response advised the resident that a new front door had been ordered and the landlord had provisionally booked an appointment for 4 May 2023 to install this. On 28 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, asking if the new front door would be wooden or composite. It was noted that “she does not want another wooden door it is supposed to be composite as agreed with [the operative who attended on 10 February 2023]”. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this query, nor that it updated her ahead of the appointment scheduled for 4 May 2023, which was unsatisfactory.
The landlord’s repair records show that a different operative attended on 4 May 2023, inspected the front door and found no faults, reporting that “everything is square with no bowing of door or frame”. They recommended “a decent draught excluder kit to top and sides and maybe some excluder to base/ threshold”. The operative’s feedback to the landlord went on to state, “Tenant did refuse access to [the operative] on site saying she intends to escalate complaint… Now sending job back as refusal and no access.”
The resident has told the Ombudsman she was expecting a new front door to be fitted on the day, so she did not understand why the operative was inspecting the door again. She had been told a door had been ordered and she believed this was a composite door, as per the previous operative’s recommendation. However, she said the operative who attended on 4 May 2023 told her they could only fit a wooden door and a composite door would require a specialist, external contractor. Based on her conversation with the previous operative, she was concerned the installation of a new wooden door would not resolve matters as there was a risk it would become warped again.
There is no evidence that any updates were provided to the resident ahead of the operative’s attendance on 4 May 2023 to advise of any change to what she had previously been advised as part of the landlord’s complaints procedure. In the circumstances, her concern at having another operative re-inspecting her front door and taking measurements – when she was expecting a new door installation – was understandable. This further compounded the landlord’s earlier delay in arranging follow–on works. It also amounted to a failure to deal with repairs in line with its policy, which said it aimed to carry out repairs “in a timely and efficient manner”.
Records dated 4 May 2023 also noted that “NO door had been ordered”. There is no evidence this was clearly communicated to the resident. Further, the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s enquiry on 28 April 2023 was a missed opportunity to identify the fact that no door had been ordered. This further highlights the landlord’s poor communications with the resident, which was an issue throughout its handling of this matter.
An internal email dated 5 May 2023 set out the operative’s feedback to the landlord. Referring to a telephone call with the resident, it recorded, “Unfortunately she decided against having a hardwood front door (in spite of my advice) and wants a composite door (which would need a matching frame for the door and multipoint lock system).” It also noted that the operative was unable to measure for a door replacement “as could not establish with certainty or confidence where frame finishes within cast metal upright that supports the glass block window wall adjacent to door & frame”. Therefore, if it agreed to a composite door and frame replacement, it would require an external contractor to supply and fit this.
The feedback following the appointment of 4 May 2023 was contradictory, confusing and inaccurate. For instance, it was inaccurate to suggest no access where the operative inspected the front door and assessed its condition. It was confusing and contradictory to state, on one hand, that there were no faults with the door or frame, while on the other hand advising on the installation of a wooden rather than a composite door. The landlord’s apparent failure to scrutinise the feedback demonstrates a lack of oversight on its part.
The resident called the landlord on 10 May 2023 and expressed her frustration that the operative attended on 4 May 2023 to measure and re-inspect the door, whereas she was expecting them to install the new front door. It is noted that, during this call, the landlord updated the resident on the operative’s feedback that a “draught excluder would solve the issue and the door is not bowed”. This prompted a further expression of dissatisfaction from the resident, as she said she had had an issue with the front door for 3 years and finally thought it was being resolved. She said she was now going to the Ombudsman and requested that the landlord look into the issue and contact her to advise what was going on.
An email dated 11 May 2023 shows enquiries being made internally by the landlord to “check on this door delivery”, although there is no evidence of any response or update to the resident. While there may have been no update to share at this time, it would have been good practice for the landlord to address the resident’s request for it to confirm the position in respect of her front door repair.
Thereafter, the resident wrote a letter in reply to the landlord’s stage 2 response. Although this was dated 15 June 2023, the landlord said it was not attached to an email into which it was copied and which was sent to the resident’s local MP.
A further repair was raised on 18 June 2023 in the same terms as 28 March 2023. That repair was cancelled “as tenant decided against having a hardwood door”. There is no evidence that there was any further communication with the resident about any repair to the front door, nor any explanation provided for the change in the landlord’s position. In all the circumstances, its failure to consider the resident’s ongoing concerns about her front door – the repair of which is still outstanding – was unreasonable. This has had a significant and longstanding impact to the resident, who has continued to live with a front door that was found to have deteriorated beyond repair in February 2023, over 2 years ago.
In summary, we find the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughts through gaps in her front door amounts to maladministration because:
1. It failed to keep adequate and appropriate records of the outcomes of appointments and attendances at the resident’s property.
2. It dealt with the resident’s reports relating to her front door ineffectively and inconsistently.
3. It did not address the follow–on works recommended by the operative who attended on 10 February 2023, namely, to renew the front door.
4. It advised the resident it had ordered a new door but it did not do so, and the appointment on 4 May 2023 was ineffective in progressing matters.
5. No explanation was provided to the resident for the change in its approach between its stage 2 response of 12 April 2023 and the appointment on 4 May 2023.
6. It did not answer the resident’s query on 28 April 2023 about the material of the front door, and its communications throughout its handling of the matter were infrequent and inadequate.
7. It failed to recognise that the operative’s feedback ought to be discussed and clarified with the resident. Instead, it relied on the contradictory, confusing and inaccurate feedback as the basis for refusing to consider any further works to address the resident’s ongoing concerns about her front door.
8. The renewal of the front door is still outstanding.
Without a clear recommendation from a suitable specialist for the installation of a composite door, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that this was an effective solution (or the most appropriate one) to address the issues experienced by the resident as a result of the warped front door. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to have the front door assessed by an appropriate and independent specialist.
The landlord offered compensation totalling £300 in recognition of its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports relating to her front door and the resulting inconvenience caused. Under its compensation policy, this represents an award towards the lower end for cases where there was considerable failure but no permanent impact. While the Ombudsman considers this is the correct range in this case, we take the view the level of compensation awarded failed to adequately reflect the compounding effect of the landlord’s multiple failings over a prolonged period. A fair and proportionate remedy would sit towards the higher end of the scale.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord had an interim complaints policy in place, dated June 2022. This provided for acknowledgement of complaints and escalation requests within 10 working days of receipt, the stage 1 response within 20 working days, and the stage 2 response within 40 working days.
In line with its policy, the landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 3 January 2023 the following day, advising that its customer solutions team would contact her in 10 working days. A further acknowledgement, sent on 5 January 2023, thanked the resident for her patience as it continued to restore its systems following the cyber security incident, but provided no further timescale for contact.
The stage 1 response was issued 33 working days after the resident’s complaint and 32 working days from the acknowledgement letter advising a 10-working–day timescale. This was outside the extended timescale of 20 working days provided for in the landlord’s interim complaints policy. The stage 1 response apologised for the delay in providing its response and awarded compensation of £50 to reflect this failing, which was appropriate in line with its compensation policy.
The stage 1 response itself included inaccurate information, specifically that the repair was completed on 10 February 2023. This demonstrates a failure on the landlord’s part to conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns and resulted in a response that did not provide a fair outcome. This was inconsistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, learn from outcomes, and put things right). That said, there were aspects of its initial response that showed a commitment to resolving matters. For instance, the landlord invited the resident to provide copies of her energy bills so it could consider compensation for any increased heating costs. It also apologised and appropriately compensated for its delayed response.
There was a marked improvement in the landlord’s handling of the stage 2 complaint. It acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation promptly on 22 February 2023, advising that a member of the customer solutions team would be in contact within 20 working days. It then contacted the resident on 13 March 2023, advising it would provide its response within 20 working days, by 10 April 2023. It updated her on 11 April 2023, apologising as it had not been possible to respond within 20 working days. It stated that that the matter was still under review and it expected to be in a position to provide a full response within 10 working days.
The stage 2 response was issued the next working day, which was 21 working days from the landlord’s communication of 13 March 2023. Although slightly outside the 20-working-day timeframe given, this was within the 40-working-day response time provided in its complaints policy.
The stage 2 letter provided a fair and thorough response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It acknowledged the incorrect information provided in the stage 1 response and sought to put things right by scheduling follow–on works and awarding compensation. This was a better reflection of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Altogether, the landlord offered compensation totalling £100 for its complaint handling failures. This was reasonable for the failings identified, in line with its compensation policy, and consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for such service failures. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to find reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughts through gaps around her front door.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £600 for the concern, distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of its multiple failings in the handling of her reports relating to her front door. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears. If already paid to the resident, the landlord may deduct from this amount the sum of £300 awarded during its complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must arrange with the resident a mutually convenient appointment to carry out an inspection of her front door. This inspection should be conducted by a suitably qualified, independent specialist.
1. The specialist should be asked to provide a report that includes (but is not limited to):
  1. An assessment of the condition of the front door.
  2. Any recommended works.
  3. Any necessary measurements and specifications.
2. A copy of the report should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, together with confirmation from the landlord as to any works it proposes to undertake in light of the specialist’s report. Alternatively, the landlord should provide a written explanation if it considers no further action is required.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must complete all/any repairs identified and agreed under paragraph 43.b above.

Recommendations

If not already paid, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the compensation of £100 it offered for its complaint handling failures during its internal complaints procedure. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.