Clarion Housing Association Limited (202330464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330464

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 April 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 the resident’s reports of a carbon monoxide leak from the boiler.
2. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident has a joint assured tenancy since October 2021 with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom house. The landlord has noted vulnerabilities for the resident in its records.
4. The resident first reported the smell of gas coming from the boiler on 17 November 2023.
5. On the same day, the landlord sent out an engineer who capped off the gas supply and the landlord arranged for a heating contractor to visit the property.
6. On 20 November 2023 the heating contractor visited the property and carried out some repair works to the flue turret.
7. On 20 November 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. The resident said that he believed the carbon monoxide emissions were due to the flue not being correctly sealed. He had no gas due to the gas being capped off and believed the property was not safe to live in as the smell of gas remained.
8. An engineer attended the property on 22 November 2023 to complete repair works and restore the heating and hot water supply.
9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023. It confirmed the repair works that were completed and said it found no service failure.
10. On 12 December 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. The resident said he believed the flue had been misaligned since before he moved in and reported that he could still smell CO2 emissions.
11. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 January 2024. It reiterated its stage 1 response and noted that auditors had confirmed the boiler was safe at inspection on 12 January 2024 and the CO2 detector would have alerted the resident if there was a leak. It also offered £50 for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response.
12. The resident was unhappy with the outcome and bought his complaint to the Ombudsman. Since the landlord issued its final response the resident had provided us with a gas safety report dated 31 July 2024, which showed a fault with the boiler and that it was deemed unsafe.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. In the interests of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure investigated and responded to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of a carbon monoxide leak. The resident informed us since that following the landlord’s stage 2 response an inspection was carried out which deemed the boiler faulty and unsafe. In line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the recent reports will not form part of this investigation. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a carbon monoxide leak from the boiler.

14. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It should complete works to make safe or temporarily repair at this visit. Further repairs may be completed as a follow-on appointment.
15. When the resident first reported the leak to the landlord, its initial response was appropriate. It logged the relevant emergency repairs and attended within the timescales in its repairs policy.
16. The evidence provided shows that the landlord arranged a number of routine gas safety checks prior the resident’s reports of a leak. We have seen copies of these checks which reported no prior defects. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it had investigated and looked into these reports. These were reasonable steps to take. It is understandable and appropriate that the landlord relied on the specialist reports in providing a response.
17. Records from the landlord show that the initial engineer capped the gas on 17 November 2023 leaving the resident with no heating and hot water. The engineer also noted that parts for a gasket repair were required.
18. On 22 November 2023 an engineer attended to complete the repair works. The engineer noted that the flue was misaligned and straightened it. The contractor noted that the boiler passed the gas safety check, the repair to the gasket were complete and the heating and hot water were restored.
19. During his complaint the resident raised concerns that the heating and hot water was turned off during the period of repairs.
20. Although the landlord took the appropriate steps in arranging inspections, carrying out gas safety checks and completing repair works in a timely manner, the evidence provided shows that the landlord did not take the appropriate steps during the 5 days the resident’s heating was turned off.
21. We would expect the landlord to consider alternative options for resident’s who have had their heating and hot water turned off for a period of time. Additionally, the heating was capped in November when the weather is colder, therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider how it could mitigate or reduce the impact to the resident by for example providing temporary electric heaters or acknowledging the impact of no heating and hot water for the time experienced. The landlord did not do so and as such there was a service failure in its response to the resident’s concerns.
22. We note that the landlord’s compensation policy provides £5 per day when a resident is left without heating due to an outstanding repair. An additional £5 per day is offered separately when the resident is left without hot water.
23. Overall, this would amount to £50, however a more appropriate amount would be £100. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance this would take into consideration, the lack of acknowledgement from the landlord about this issue and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident being left with no heating and hot water for 5 days.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

24. The landlord’s complaints procedure in place at the time of the complaint, said it will acknowledge a complaint within 10 working days, and issue a response within 20 working days of it being logged. It also said that a resident can then request a peer review (stage 2) which would be acknowledged within 10 working days. The policy says it aims to resolve peer reviews within 40 working days.
25. The landlord has also provided details of its service level agreement which said complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. 
26. We note that 40 working days to send out a stage 2 response is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which says stage 2 responses should be issued within 20 working days. Whether the landlord’s policy is compliant with the Code is a matter which the Ombudsman investigates separately and which we closely monitor. As such, this will not form part of our orders or recommendations in this report. 
27. The resident escalated the complaint on 12 December 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 2 of its process on 26 January 2024, which was 29 working days later. While this was in line with its complaints policy, it was beyond the Code’s required timeframes and its service level agreement. 
28. The landlord acknowledged its delay in providing a stage 2 response. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response. We consider this as reasonable redress as the compensation appropriately reflects the length of the delay.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a carbon monoxide leak from the boiler.
30. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £100 for its handling of the resident’s reports of a carbon monoxide leak.
    2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

32. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Contacts the resident following the gas safety report dated 31 July 2024 which deemed the boiler faulty and unsafe, if it has not already done so.
    2. Pays the resident the £50 it offered within its final complaint response, if it has not yet done so. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.