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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202403556)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403556

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 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 the resident’s reports of repairs to her windows.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord recorded the resident as having a disability and having vulnerable household members.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in November 2019 to report a repair to 2 of the windows in her property. The landlord attended on 8 November 2019 and completed a make safe repair. This involved screwing the window closed to prevent it from falling out.
  3. The landlord booked a further repair to the window on 7 August 2021. Its notes reflect it booked the repair because no follow up works were booked in 2019.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 7 June 2022.The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 14 June 2022 and upheld the resident’s complaint. It gave a history of the repairs. It explained the delay in progressing with the repair was due to difficulty in sourcing replacement parts. It said it was going to repair the windows on 16 June 2022. It apologised and offered the resident £250 in compensation for its handling of the window repairs.
  5.  It does not appear the repair went ahead on 16 June 2022. A further repair was booked for 28 June 2022, it does not appear the repair went ahead at that time either.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the window repairs and asked to take her complaint to stage 2 of its procedure on 4 July 2022.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response in October 2022 and apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It upheld the complaint and apologised the window repairs were still outstanding. It said it had now been able to source parts for the window but had “some concerns” about whether it would be able to complete the repair. It said it would attend to try and complete the repair on 11 November 2022. It said if it was unable to complete the repair at this visit it would measure up for 2 new windows. It made an increased compensation offer of £1,200 for its handling of the repairs. It also offered £100 in compensation for the delay in sending its stage 2 complaint response.
  8. It does not appear the window repair/replacement went ahead in November 2022.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord to make another complaint on 17 January 2024. She felt “let down” by the landlord’s handling of the window repair. She said she was left unable to open the windows, and it had not repaired or replaced them as it said it would.
  10. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2024. It set out it had previously offered compensation for its handling of the matter covering the period up to October 2022. It said it had raised the repair on its old system which caused it to “lose sight” of the repair, it apologised. It said it had booked a repairs appointment for 12 March 2024 to inspect the windows. It apologised for its handling of the window repairs and offered the resident £300 in compensation. It also offered £50 for complaint handling delays.
  11. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 28 February 2024. She was unhappy she had been unable to use the windows for 5 years and was concerned about escape in the event of a fire, as the windows did not open.
  12. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response 28 March 2024. It said it planned to replace the windows in April 2024. It said that as the windows were on the first floor it did not consider them as a means of escape in the event of a fire. It explained in the event of the fire the resident should escape through the front door at ground level. It apologised for its poor communication about the window repair. It said the Covid 19 pandemic and lack of appropriate handovers when staff left contributed to the delays. It restated its offer of £350 made at stage 1 and offered a further £200 for its handling of the window repairs.
  13. The landlord attended to complete the window repair on 25 April 2024. The notes reflect it recorded the visit as “no access” due to the behaviour of the resident’s household members. Its notes stated this prevented the repair going ahead. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day and disputed this. She stated the operative was “aggressively banging on her front door”. It does not appear the repair went ahead at that time.
  14. The resident contacted us on 9 September 2024 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had not yet replaced the windows.
  15. The landlord replaced the windows on 13 November 2024.

Assessment and findings

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

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. For the purpose of the Act the windows are considered part of the structure of the property.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will completed emergency repairs within 24 hours and non emergency repairs within 28 days. The policy states “major component” replacements are not considered responsive repairs and are completed through “planned programmes”.
  3. The landlord sent the resident stage 1 and 2 complaint responses in 2022 and 2024 about the substantive issue in this case. Considering what is fair in the circumstances of the case, this investigation has considered the period covering both complaints.
  4. The landlord has accepted that it completed a “make safe” repair to the windows in 2019, and that it has limited records from around that time up until the point the resident made her later complaint in January 2024. The lack of available records mean it is not possible to corroborate, in detail, what actions the landlord took between 2019 and 2024. The landlord has not disputed that it failed to complete repairs to the window following it’s make–safe repair in 2019, up until the further visits 2024. This was an unreasonable delay that caused a negative impact to the resident. It is also reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s poor record keeping may have contributed to the unreasonable delay in resolving the matter. This may have increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  5. The landlord’s June 2022 stage 1 complaint response appropriately apologised for its handling of the repairs. It explained that it was unable to source the parts, and accepted its communication about the issue was poor. It accepted the repair was outstanding since 2019. Given the repair was outstanding for 3 years at that point, its offer of £250 in compensation did not put right errors in its handling of the matter.
  6. The landlord’s October 2022 stage 2 complaint response appropriately made an increased offer of compensation. It also gave a detailed explanation about the repair and the delays which was reasonable in the circumstances. We welcome the transparency it showed by explaining it had sourced parts but was unsure if they could repair the windows. It was appropriate that it said it would replace the windows if it could not repair them at the November 2022 visit. This is evidence the landlord sought to reassure the resident it was taking her concerns seriously and wanted to resolve the issue.
  7. The evidence shows the landlord did not progress with the window repairs after issuing its stage 2 complaint response in October 2022. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter. It is evidence it failed to learn from the outcomes of the case up to that point. We have seen no evidence it sought to progress with the repair until after the resident raised another complaint, in January 2024. The resident was further inconvenienced by the fact she needed to raise another complaint in order for the landlord to take any action.
  8. The landlord’s lack of proactive follow up on the repair from November 2022 onwards may have increased the distress the resident experienced. It is particularly concerning the landlord was not more proactive in progressing with the repair considering its serious nature. The delay of over a year before taking further action was unreasonable and is evidence the landlord repeatedly failed to provide an adequate service. The length of the delay, without proactive action from the landlord, led to significant detriment to the resident.
  9. As part of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation of February 2024, it identified that it had order parts for the windows a “couple of years ago”. An internal email stated it had “no idea” what had happened to the repair. This is further evidence its poor information management contributed to the delays in its handling of the matter. Due to the lack of available records the landlord agreed it needed to “start again”, and it raised a repair visit. This was evidently frustrating for the resident. Having identified its earlier errors, we welcome the fact the landlord sought to progress with the repairs with urgency in early 2024.
  10. The tone of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of February 2024, was inappropriate. It accepted it had very little in the way of records about the repair, but also stated it had no evidence the resident had chased it about the repair. It was unreasonable it put the onus on the resident to chase the repair. The landlord was aware it had completed a make safe repair and needed to follow up. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to progress with the repair without the need for the resident to chase it.
  11. That the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response apologised for the delay in progressing with the repair, and set out when it planned to attend, was appropriate in the circumstances. That it offered redress for the further delay was appropriate and evidence it sought to apply our dispute resolution principle of putting things right.
  12. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its latest position on the repair and address the resident’s concerns about escape in the event of a fire. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and it set out its position with clarity. The landlord made an increased offer of compensation in recognition of the further delay, which was reasonable. However, the fact the matter was outstanding at the time impacts on the degree to which its offer of compensation put right its errors.
  13. The landlord explained in both its complaint responses the fact it had changed systems and personnel had contributed to the lack of available information. While we welcome the transparency shown in its complaint response, it is concerning that it was unable to locate records in this case. It is reasonable to conclude its poor record keeping contributed to the delays in completing the window repairs. We therefore recommend the landlord reviews this case, with a particular focus on its record keeping practices.
  14. The facts around the repair visit of 25 April 2024 are disputed and it is not possible to determine which version of events is correct based on the available evidence. What is clear is that the repair visit did not go ahead in April 2024. We have seen no evidence the landlord was proactive in seeking to reattend to the repair until November 2024. This was a further delay of 7 months, which was unreasonable. This further delay may have increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. We acknowledge the landlord’s ability to complete the repair in April 2024 may have been impacted by the conduct of members of the resident’s household. As above, the resident disputes this and we cannot confirm whose account is correct.  However, it was unreasonable that the landlord was not proactive in following up on the repair.
  15. When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, she said one of the windows was left without glass after a repair visit in April/May 2024. The serious nature of this claim is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute this. We asked the landlord about this matter as part of our investigation. The landlord said it did not have “any evidence” that was the case. The resident has not provided us with any evidence to support her claim a window was left without glass for an extended period. The facts are disputed, and there is a lack of available evidence. It is therefore not possible for us to make a definite decision on this particular aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  16. The landlord replaced the windows on 13 November 2024. This was 5 years after the resident first reported the issue. This was an unacceptable delay. The resident was evidently distressed at the fact she could not open the windows during this time, and the impact of not being able to ventilate her property. The landlord offered a total of £1,700 in compensation, comprising £1,200 in 2022 and a further £500 in 2024. After its final offer of compensation, it took a further 7 months to complete the repair. We have therefore determined its offer of compensation did not fully put things right and have found severe maladministration in its handling of the matter.
  17. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of severe maladministration an order of compensation over £1,000 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. Particularly where failures accumulated over a significant period of time that had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for a further £1,000 in compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident in the circumstances of this case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of June 2022, was sent within 10 working days which was in line with the timeframes set out in its policy and our Code. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, of October 2022, 3 months after the resident made her stage 2 complaint. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and gave an explanation about the cause of the delay. (a cyber incident that affected all of its services). This showed learning and transparency. The landlord offered the resident £100 for the delays in its complaint handling, this was appropriate in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord sent the resident its 2024 stage 1 complaint response 26 working days after the resident made her complaint. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy and the Code. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence the landlord sought to apply our dispute resolution principle of putting things right.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its 2024 stage 2 complaint response 21 working days after it was made. It appropriately apologised for the delay. It is worth noting while any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.
  6. Our remedies guidance sets out that where there have been failings by the landlord an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. We have therefore determined that the landlord’s apologies, the learning shown, and the £150 compensation offer were sufficient to put right the errors in its complaint handling for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her windows.
  2. In accordance with 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the errors in its complaint handling.

 Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Instruct a senior director to apologise, in person or by telephone according to the resident’s preference, for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £2,700 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the window repairs. Its total offer of £1,700 in compensation should be deducted from this total if already paid.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord:
    1. Considering the failings identified in this report complete a review into its handling of the window repairs including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should consider:
      1. Following up on reports of repairs and booking repairs in a timely manner.
      2. How it can prevent further record keeping failures if it changes repairs systems in the future.
      3. The recommendations made in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
    2. Pay the resident the £150 in compensation it offered for errors in its complaint handling (if it has not already done so). The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.