Clarion Housing Association Limited (202421853)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421853

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 June 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 reports of heat loss in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house, with an integrated garage.
4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 21 September 2023. She said that she had requested updates following a heat loss survey completed in May 2023. She was unhappy with the lack of updates provided and the landlord’s poor communication. She asked it to complete the recommended repairs identified in the report to insulate the garage and address the windows which let out heat. She also asked it to provide training to its staff handling calls as they gave differing information about what they could see on its systems.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 25 October 2023. It apologised for its delayed action and poor communication following the heat loss survey in May 2023. It said it would learn from its mistakes by ensuring it actioned any reports from its contractors in a timely manner. It had since completed an inspection of the doors and windows on 26 September 2023. The windows and doors did not require any works. The garage was an outside building and therefore it expected it to be cold, as such it did not need to install any insulation in the garage. It offered the resident £200 compensation. This was made up of £50 for its delayed complaint response. £150 was for its delayed action and poor communication.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 October 2023. She disagreed with its findings. She said the garage was attached to the house through an internal wall, with her main bedroom above it. She felt it was “choosing to ignore” the findings of the heat loss survey. The resident explained it was difficult to keep the property warm in the winter, and asked it to complete a new survey to assess the heat loss. The resident sent her escalation request to the landlord again on 14 November 2023.
7. On 30 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It apologised for incorrectly stating that the garage was an outbuilding. It acknowledged this error led to further delays in resolving the issue. It also apologised for the time taken to inspect the home fully, as it had only inspected the windows and doors in September 2023. It said it surveyed the property on 10 January 2024. Having done so, it had identified and raised repairs required to resolve the heat loss issue. This included works to the external doors, a leak from the balcony door, a mould wash on the garage ceiling, and fitting thermal boards to the garage ceiling. It offered her a further £250 compensation. This included £50 for its delayed complaint response and £200 for the inconvenience caused to her.
8. The resident referred her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the outstanding repairs to resolve the heat loss issue at the property. The complaint became one we could investigate on 27 March 2025.
9. The landlord has told us that it has since reviewed its response to reports of heat loss in the property. After the complaints process ended, it has offered the resident a further £800 compensation for its handling of the issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience issues with the repairs to address the heat loss in the property. The landlord has outlined various obstacles it has encountered in trying to complete the repairs outlined within its final response. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. Instead, we have considered what the landlord said it would do in its complaint responses, and whether it did so. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s response to reports of heat loss in the property

11. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to consider potential hazards. Landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category 1 hazards, which includes excess cold. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out the appropriate temperatures and the health risks that could be caused if temperatures fall below. It also suggests that landlords could complete a heat assessment to determine the cause of any heat loss and determine whether radiators are the correct size for rooms.
12. The resident first reported concerns with heat loss in the property in January 2023. The landlord raised a job to inspect the property, but the repair records lack detail to show whether it attended or not. On 10 February 2023, it ‘ended’ the job. It is unclear what happened. This is a record keeping failure as any details relating to the attendance should reasonably have been recorded. As they were not, we cannot assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to the reports of the property being cold or not at this time.
13. On 2 May 2023, the landlord raised a job to its contractors to complete a heat loss survey at the property. It is unclear what prompted the landlord to raise the job. There is no available evidence to show whether this was follow-on works from the previous job, or if the resident raised further concerns with heat loss. Nevertheless, it completed this on 11 May 2023, in line with its repairs policy which aims to attend to repairs within 28 days. It was appropriate for it to do this in a timely manner, especially given the resident first raised the issue over 3 months earlier. It was also appropriate to complete the heat loss assessment in line with the HHSRS.
14. Following the survey, the landlord’s contractors sent its findings to the landlord on 12 May 2023. It noted the potential causes of the heat loss to be the lack of insulation in the internal garage and that the property had large windows. It also noted some of the radiators were too small to heat the rooms effectively.
15. The landlord asked its contractors to provide a quote to fit larger radiators to address the heat loss. This was appropriate as it showed it took the concerns seriously and wanted to improve the conditions in the property. However, it delayed approving the quote as it took the landlord over a month and a half to do so. This seemingly occurred after its contractors resent the quote on 26 June 2023, which it then approved on the same day. It later replaced the radiators on 5 July 2023. If the landlord had acted on the quote sooner, it could have minimised the delay and impact caused to the resident during this time. It is a failing that it did not do so.
16. There is no evidence to show that the landlord acted on the issues identified with the garage and windows until the resident made her complaint. Landlords are entitled to decide which investigations and repairs to complete based on the recommendations of its professional contractors. If it decided to not complete such work, we would have expected it to have provided the resident with reasons for such a decision. There is no evidence to show that it did so which is a failing.
17. During this time, the landlord and its contractor sent a further copy of the heat loss survey results, but it is unclear why it did so, and if it acted on this. There is no evidence to show that the landlord regularly communicated with the resident regarding the issues and how it would resolve them. The landlord has not provided any communication logs or records of contact attempts made to the resident during this time. However, within its initial response, it acknowledged she had requested updates between June and August 2023. It is a record keeping failure that it cannot provide us with copies of this, but it was appropriate that it acknowledged its poor communication. By not communicating updates to her, it understandably caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
18. Following the resident’s complaint in September 2023, the landlord arranged an inspection of the property. Within the final complaint response, it acknowledged failings in how it responded to the reports of heat loss within the property. For example, it:
    1. Apologised for not arranging an inspection sooner to consider the recommendations from the heat loss survey in May 2023.
    2. Acknowledged it did not complete a comprehensive survey of the property on 26 September 2023. It said this was not thorough enough to inspect the cold issues she experienced.
    3. Apologised for not completing a further comprehensive survey sooner, as it later did this on 10 January 2024. This took over 3 months following the resident escalating her complaint and expressing her concerns with its previous inspection.
    4. Apologised for incorrectly noting that the garage was an outbuilding. It acknowledged this caused further delays in resolving the issues. It did not arrange any insulation works because it believed this was external to the property.
19. It was appropriate for the landlord to reflect on its failings. By doing so, it showed it took accountability for its poor handling of the recommended repairs following the resident’s concerns. However, it is concerning that the landlord made the error of incorrectly stating the garage was an outbuilding not connected to the house. It is unclear how this error occurred and how it would prevent such an issue from occurring again. We would expect it to maintain accurate records of its property stock. We therefore recommend the landlord considers whether it needs to complete a review of its property stock information held on its systems.
20. Despite acknowledging the above, it is difficult to assess the landlord’s actions as its repair records lack detail. It is evident it raised the full survey on 19 December 2023, which it later completed on 10 January 2024. The records show it attempted to complete this a week earlier on 3 January 2024. However, it could not do so because the resident was not able to give access to the property. It is unclear whether the landlord informed the resident of the appointment in advance due to its poor record keeping. This would have understandably caused the resident frustration and also caused delays in addressing the wider issues.
21. On 22 January 2024, the landlord raised 4 repair jobs which it identified following the survey. It is unclear why it took 12 days to raise the repairs. Given previous delayed actions and the ongoing complaint, it should have done this sooner. This would have understandably added to the delays the resident had already experienced.
22. The repair jobs included works to the external doors, investigation of a balcony leak, application of mould treatment to the garage ceiling and installation of insulation within the garage. Of these jobs, the available evidence shows the landlord only completed the works to adjust the external doors. It did so on 7 March 2024. The other 3 jobs show job ‘end’ dates, but it does not include details of what happened, and whether the landlord completed the repairs. This is a record keeping failure.
23. Within the landlord’s final response, it advised the resident to use the radiators to improve the temperature of the property. This was because it had found the radiators were not in use at the time of the survey. It also advised her to contact its heating contractors for guidance on how to make efficient use of the heating. This was appropriate so that the resident knew of the support available to her.
24. While the landlord completed the heat loss survey, there is no available evidence to show that it assessed the temperature in the property. Guidance for the HHSRS sets out that a healthy indoor temperature is approximately 21°C and that temperatures below 16°C may pose serious health risks.
25. It is evident that the resident told the landlord her property ranged between 10°C and 16°C. She expressed concerns that she could not heat the property to a comfortable temperature due to the heat loss issues. It is noted that the radiators were not in use at the time of the survey. However, it is concerning that the landlord had multiple opportunities for it to assess the temperatures in the property during various inspections but did not do so. It therefore failed to satisfy itself that the property was free from a category one hazard. It is a significant failing that it cannot evidence it did so.
26. Additionally, the resident told the landlord that she could not afford to constantly heat the home. Given these concerns and that the landlord identified that the property had heat loss issues, it should reasonably have considered offering support to her. It would have been reasonable for it to have signposted her or referred her to support available for help with the costs experienced during this time. However, there is no evidence that it did so. This is a failing.
27. During the complaints process, the landlord offered the resident a total of £350 compensation for its response to reports of heat loss. This was for the inconvenience caused to her, the delayed repairs and its poor communication. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge its failings which occurred at the time. However, given the above, the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the failings identified.
28. The resident made both her initial report and her complaint in the colder months of the year. Due to the landlord’s failure to complete a comprehensive survey initially, she understandably experienced significant distress and inconvenience by spending the winter period without sufficient heat. The resident then faced a further cold season in 2024 without the required works. Additionally, the landlord has failed to evidence whether the temperature of the property amounted to a hazard and whether it provided support to her regarding her increased costs.
29. In the landlord’s final response, it confirmed it had raised the repairs required to address the windows and garage insulation. However, the landlord failed to put things right for the resident as it has not yet been able to complete this. The landlord has told us that it could not complete some of the repairs due to an ongoing leak from the balcony. It is understandable that the landlord needed to resolve the leak before completing the insulation works. Despite this, the resident still experiences significant distress and inconvenience with the heat loss within the property. This is over 2 years from the resident’s initial reports in January 2023 and over a year and a half since it committed to fitting insulation as part of its final complaint response. It therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations appropriately. This is a failing.
30. In the circumstances, the landlord should pay additional compensation of £682.50 in recognition of the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property. We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy in calculating this amount.
31. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out it will pay £5 per day for a loss of heating. While it is not disputed that the property had heating, it was evident that the heat loss issues identified by the landlord impacted the overall temperature within the home. We therefore consider compensation of £2.50 per day to be appropriate in the circumstances. We have considered the period of reduced enjoyment as the winter months (November to February) during this time. This totals 39 weeks for the winter period from January 2023 to June 2025. These dates reflect the earliest report of heat loss to the present date.
32. We acknowledge this is not a precise calculation. However, we consider this to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. This is an appropriate remedy considering that the landlord has acknowledged heat loss issues within the home. Especially given the resident has experienced these issues for a prolonged period of time.
33. Additionally, the landlord should pay the resident a further £450 compensation. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused to her during this time. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which have had an adverse impact on the resident. We also order the landlord to consider reimbursing the resident for any increased energy bills should she provide evidence of this.
34. Given the landlord is aware of the required repairs, we order it to provide the resident with an action plan of what it will do to resolve the issues. We also order it to confirm its intentions about returning in the winter months to assess the temperature and any heat loss in the property. This is to ensure it has resolved the issues or whether it needs to arrange any further repairs.

Complaint handling

35. At the time of the complaint, the landlord used an interim complaints policy due to an internal issue. This meant it extended the timescales to respond to complaints to manage residents’ expectations. At stage 1, it would respond within 20 working days. At stage 2, it would respond within 40 working days.
36. The resident made her complaint on 21 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged this promptly on the same day. It later provided its stage 1 response on 25 October 2023. It therefore took 24 working days to respond to the complaint. The landlord acknowledged this delay within its complaint response. It apologised for this and offered her £50 compensation in acknowledgement. This was appropriate. It showed it took accountability for its failure to respond in line with its published timescales.
37. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 25 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 6 November 2023, within 8 working days. It said it would aim to provide its response within 20 working days. The timeframe given was in line with the timescale set out in the Code, but not that as set out in the interim complaints policy. As such, this was confusing but nevertheless it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm when it expected to be able to respond to the complaint.
38. On 14 November 2023, the resident sent her escalation request to the landlord again. She said she had not received any contact or acknowledgement of her escalation request. As outlined above, we have seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint. Nevertheless, the landlord contacted her again on 24 November 2023 to confirm it had acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. It told her again that it would respond within 20 working days. It is unclear whether this was an extension from its original timeframe, or if it was already counting down from its original acknowledgement. The landlord should reasonably have provided clarity around this to avoid confusion. That it did not was a shortcoming.
39. The landlord later provided its final complaint response to the resident on 30 January 2024. This was 58 working days after it first acknowledged the resident’s complaint. During this time, the landlord provided regular updates to the resident about when it would be able to respond. This was good practice as it helped manage her expectations with the delays and any impact this may have caused. The landlord also acknowledged and apologised for this within its final response. It offered her a further £50 compensation for its delayed response. This was appropriate to reflect the level of inconvenience caused by its delayed response.
40. Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with the timescales set out in its policy in responding to the complaints. However, the landlord acknowledged this and made an offer of compensation which was proportionate to the failings identified. We therefore have found the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Determination

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of heat loss in the property.
42. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in the complaint handling.

Orders

43. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation.
    2. Pay the £350 compensation previously offered for its response to reports of heat loss in the property if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay a further £1,132.50 compensation to the resident. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account. This consists of:
       1. £682.50 for the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of the property.
       2. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of heat loss in the property.
    4. Provide the resident with an action plan of the required repairs. This should include:
       1. Appointment dates and the works required at each appointment.
       2. A specific point of contact who will take responsibility for offering weekly updates until it completes the required repairs.
       3. Confirm its intentions for a post-inspection of the works completed.
       4. Confirm its intentions about returning in the winter months to assess the temperature and any heat loss in the property.
    5. Consider reimbursing the resident for any increased energy bills should she provide evidence of this.
44. The landlord should provide us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

45. The landlord should pay the resident £100 as previously offered for its complaint handling failures if it has not already done so. This is because our finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that this was paid.
46. The landlord should consider whether it needs to complete a review of its property stock information held on its systems.