Clarion Housing Association Limited (202424212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424212

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 July 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 various repairs at the property including to the windows, doors, extractor fan, an exterior wall, and the garden.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy which started in 2007. The resident has medical conditions including severe asthma. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
The resident started the pre-action protocol for a legal disrepair claim to the landlord through her solicitors on 26 May 2022. The landlord arranged an inspection of the property and proposed works to resolve the issues. Following various delays and access issues, it arranged for the resident to be temporarily moved to her friend’s house. This was to facilitate completion of the works in March 2024.
On 18 March 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She added to the complaint during a call to the landlord on 26 April 2024. She said:
1. It had delayed completing the repairs set out in the pre-action process.
2. It had promised to replace the windows when she first moved in, but it had not done so. She said the windows were draughty, let noise in and she could not open them properly. She asked the landlord to replace the windows.
3. Originally the front door did not fit, was falling apart, and let in a draught. She added that the glass panel on the door could be pushed through, so the door was not secure. When she returned to the property, she noticed the works to the door looked “a mess.” She felt it needed to complete further repairs to the door.
4. It had completed works to the back door, but she said it had “messed this up”. She felt the back door needed further repairs.
5. It had promised to repair the kitchen extractor fan and paint the exterior walls of the property, but it had not done this.
6. The garden needed repairs. This was because it was made of clay, which meant it cracked in summer and became boggy in winter.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 6 June 2024. It said:
1. The disrepair works were delayed because of issues arranging access to the property. It said the works did not include replacing the windows or painting the exterior walls.
2. It would assess the windows and the external doors as part of its future works programme. It would complete this within the 2025/26 financial year.
3. It did not have records of an outstanding repair to the extractor fan. It advised the resident of how to report a repair if needed.
4. It had responded to her concerns about the windows, doors, the garden, and the exterior walls in separate complaints. It therefore said it would not revisit the same issues again within this complaint.
5. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and offered her £50 compensation for this.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 3 July 2024 and 13 August 2024. On 23 August 2024, she added her reasons for escalating the complaint. She said she was concerned that it would not replace the windows and doors as part of its 2025/26 works programme. This was concerning as she struggled to close the windows. She also added new issues with the works completed while she was temporarily moved out of the property. This included issues with an external wall, paving slabs, and the front step.
On 10 October 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It said:
1. It had not yet replaced the window hinges or cladded the window surrounds because of access issues. It would continue to communicate with her and her solicitor to complete these works.
2. It would continue to repair the windows when required until it needed to replace them. It said it installed the windows in 2003, and they were not in need of replacement due to age and/or condition.
3. It had reviewed the works needed and the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) of the property. It said it considered the property a priority in need of retrofitting works to improve the energy performance. It said its sustainable works team would complete a survey within the next 6 months and discuss any works needed. This would potentially include replacing the windows.
4. During a survey in 2023, it had advised her to report her concerns with the garden and a potential trip hazard to the local authority. It had also noted a potential need for external wall insulation, which it would complete during the retrofitting works.
5. It would not respond to the new issues raised during her stage 2 escalation request. Instead, it explained it would respond separately to the additional issues.
6. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and offered her £50 compensation for this.
The resident referred her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not replace the windows immediately. The complaint became one we could investigate on 14 April 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says she has experienced issues with the windows and doors for multiple years. While this is noted, we encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be available. This investigation will therefore focus on events which occurred from March 2023. This is approximately 1 year before the resident made her complaint, in March 2024.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs

Following the pre-action process started in May 2022, the landlord arranged an inspection. The resident was unhappy with the time taken for it to later complete the repairs identified as part of the pre-action process. From the evidence provided, the landlord initially took meaningful steps to try and progress the repairs. This included speaking with the resident’s solicitor and MP, rearranging appointments after difficulty gaining access, and organising a temporary alternative accommodation for the resident. It arranged the alternative accommodation in March 2024 to complete the disrepair works. We have not found any failings on the landlord’s part about the time taken to complete these works up until the date the landlord arranged alternative accommodation.
The resident was concerned that the landlord would not fulfil its commitment to complete the works programme in the 2025/26 financial year. The landlord reiterated that it would fulfil its commitment and confirmed this to her in its final response. It therefore acted appropriately to respond to her concerns and offered reassurance to her.

Windows

The resident has advised that the landlord had promised to replace the windows when she moved into the property in 2007. However, we cannot investigate this because of the length of time that has passed. She said the windows needed “frequent” repairs, did not retain heat, were draughty, and let noise in. The landlord’s repair records show it raised and completed repairs to the windows up until the pre-action process started in May 2022.
The landlord’s disrepair inspection in June 2022 noted that while the windows remained functional, it needed to fit new hinges. It found the current hinges did not have a stop fitted which meant the windows would open “excessively” which made them difficult to close. It also needed to clad the window and door surrounds in UPVC trim. During a stock condition survey in September 2023, the landlord noted the same finding and that the windows were in “fair condition”. There is no evidence to show that the windows required any further repairs or needed to be immediately replaced.
The landlord completed works related to the pre-action process while the resident was temporarily moved between late March and early April 2024. However, it has not provided us with detailed records to show what works it did during this time. On 26 April 2024, the resident told the landlord it had not repaired the windows. The landlord post-inspected the works on 16 May 2024. It noted that it still needed to replace the window hinges and clad over the window and door surrounds.
Due to the lack of detailed records provided, it is unclear whether the landlord did not or could not complete these repairs as planned. Its records show it later arranged to complete the outstanding repairs on 8 July 2024. However, it is again unclear whether it attended and if so, if it completed any repairs due to its poor record keeping. In the final response, the landlord said it had not yet completed the window repairs due to access issues. It said it would continue to try to agree a suitable appointment with the resident and her solicitor to complete the repairs. Its poor record keeping has meant we cannot establish that it acted appropriately to progress the repairs.
The resident wanted the landlord to replace the windows rather than repair them. The landlord explained that it would consider replacing the windows as part of its cyclical planned works. By doing so, it managed her expectations of what it would do and when. This was appropriate.
There is no general obligation on a landlord to upgrade where a repair will suffice. The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) sets out that a home will not be decent where windows are both old and in disrepair. Old means at least 30 or 40 years old based on storeys in the building. As the landlord had installed the windows in 2003, they are not regarded as old. There is no evidence windows were beyond economical repair and needed to be replaced so it did not meet the definition of in disrepair. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the windows were in need of immediate replacement. The landlord’s decision therefore was appropriate.
The landlord also offered her reassurance that it would continue to complete any repairs needed in the interim. This was good practice, in line with its repair obligations under the tenancy agreement.
The landlord said it would arrange a survey of the property within 6 months of its final response. It later did so on 27 March 2025. It has told us that it still intends to replace the windows during the 2025/26 financial year. This therefore shows that the landlord is committed to addressing these concerns as planned.
Overall, it is evident that the landlord had issues accessing the property leading up to the when the resident moved into temporary accommodation in March 2024. The landlord’s poor record keeping has impacted our ability to assess its response to the window repairs after this. As a result, we do not know what happened or why it did not complete the planned repairs while the resident was in temporary alternative accommodation or on 8 July 2024. We therefore cannot assess whether the delays from March 2024 were avoidable or not. The landlord also missed opportunities to investigate and comment on the delays and whether they were avoidable within its complaint responses. By not doing so, and combined with its poor record keeping, it has hampered our ability to fairly assess its repair approach, which is a failing.

Doors

Within the complaint, the resident asked the landlord to replace the front door. She said it was in a poor condition and was not secure because it had a loose glass panel which could be pushed through. She added it also let draughts in. The landlord’s records show that it previously replaced the glass panel in April 2019 after it had smashed. However, the resident continued to report that the door caused draughts.
The landlord’s inspection in June 2022 identified works needed to replace the front door. This was part of the pre-action process, and it outlined it would replace the door while the resident was temporarily moved out of the property. The landlord has not provided us with evidence of the door replacement. However, on 26 April 2024, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the new door it had fitted as it looked a “mess”. The evidence therefore suggests it replaced the front door before this date, and it was likely while she was temporarily living away from the property as agreed. Nonetheless, its records should demonstrate what it had done and when.
The resident felt both the front and back doors looked a “mess.” While we do not know exactly what the resident’s concerns were, the landlord acted appropriately to investigate this during its post-inspection in May 2024. It noted that the works had resolved the issue she had experienced with the draught and the doors did not require any further works. As previously noted, the landlord had outstanding works planned to clad the door surrounds in UPVC trim. This was to resolve the flaking paint around both the front and back door frames. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of this repair above and therefore we have not made further assessments about it within this section.
In summary, we understand the landlord replaced the front door as planned while the resident was temporarily moved out of the property. It then satisfied itself that it did not require any further works during its post-inspection. It also confirmed that it would consider replacing the back door as part of its future works programme. This was appropriate.

Extractor fan

The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported the kitchen extractor fan not working in 2017, which it then repaired. There is no available evidence of further repairs reported after this date. Within the complaint, the resident said the landlord had not repaired the extractor fan while she was temporarily away from the property. The available evidence does not show that the extractor fan was part of the pre-action matter. It was also not identified as needing works during the landlord’s disrepair inspection.
As such, the landlord’s advice within its initial response was appropriate. It advised her to report a repair to the fan if needed. This would have allowed it to raise a repair and attend in line with the relevant priority timescale set out in its repairs policy.
On 14 June 2024, an internal email noted that the landlord would renew the kitchen extractor fan on 8 July 2024. As previously noted, the landlord has not provided us with records to show what works it did on this date. As such, we cannot establish that it did so. This was a further record keeping failure. The landlord also missed an opportunity to comment on how it handled this repair within its stage 2 response. This was a failing.

Painting an exterior wall

There is no evidence of any reports about the external wall needing painting prior to the resident’s complaint. Within her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to paint the outside of the house. Within the landlord’s response, it said that both the pre-action process and its inspection did not identify a need to decorate the external walls. It explained that it would consider the decorations when it completed works during the future works programme. It was appropriate for it to confirm its intentions with the decorations to manage the resident’s expectations about this.
The landlord is entitled to decide how best to complete major works, such as externally decorating a property. By arranging this as part of its future works programme, it could manage its limited resources and budgets responsibly. Given this, we have not found any failings with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to paint the external walls.

Garden

The resident had concerns with the garden, which she included within the pre-action process. She noted that during wetter weather, it became “boggy” because of issues with drainage in the garden. The landlord’s inspection in June 2022 noted that the resident was completing “heavy gardening” at the time of the inspection. It found that the garden was on a light slope with good drainage. However, it agreed that part of the disrepair works would include it using a high-pressure jet to unblock the rear drain given her concerns. This was appropriate to ensure it addressed the resident’s concerns and to try to resolve the issue.
Between September and November 2023, the landlord responded to 3 enquiries from the resident’s MP. It said it would complete the works to the garden at the same time as completing the works related to the pre-action matter. However, as previously explained, there is no available evidence to show that it later did so.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it said it would not comment further on the garden repairs as it had already responded to this within its responses to the resident’s MP. While it is evident that the landlord had responded to the MP previously, it was not reasonable for it to rely on its previous responses. Its stage 2 response was around 1 year after its MP response. Given there is no available evidence of it completing the jet wash works, it would have been appropriate for it to comment on what works it had done or planned to do. It should have commented on her concerns within its complaint responses, even if this reiterated what it had said to the MP. By not doing so, it would have understandably caused her distress and inconvenience.
It remains unclear whether the landlord completed works to address the drainage issues in the garden. As such, we cannot conclude that it did so. This is a failing.

Summary

Overall, it is evident that the delays leading up to the works starting in March 2024 were not solely due to the landlord. However, due to the landlord’s poor record keeping and its failure to assess its handling of the repairs in its final response, we cannot establish that it acted appropriately to complete all the works as planned from March 2024 onwards. We cannot assess whether the landlord could have reasonably avoided any delays after this date. We also cannot assess that it has resolved and/or addressed the concerns raised within the resident’s complaint about the windows, extractor fan, and the garden. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs.
Considering the above, the landlord should pay the resident £400 compensation. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs. This is an appropriate award given that we cannot conclude that it has completed the repairs as planned. It is also in line with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely impacted the resident. We have also made relevant orders below about the repairs included in the resident’s complaint to the landlord.

The complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states how landlords must respond to complaints. At stage 1 it must log the complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
The landlord did not act in line with these timescales when responding to the resident’s complaint. This is because it:
1. Took 28 working days between the resident’s complaint on 18 March 2024 to discuss the complaint with her on 26 April 2024. During this time, she asked it for an update on her complaint on 15 April 2024.
2. Took a total of 55 working days to provide its initial response on 6 June 2024.
3. Took 35 working days to log the resident’s complaint escalation on 21 August 2024. She escalated this on 3 July 2024 and again on 13 August 2024 as it had not responded to her.
4. Took a total of 71 working days to provide its final response on 10 October 2024.
After the landlord logged the stage 2 complaint, it updated the resident about a delay in responding to her complaint. On 13 September 2024, it said it needed more time to respond to her complaint, which it hoped to do by 10 October 2024. It was appropriate, in line with both the Code and its policy, for it to update her and manage her expectations of when it would respond. It then responded within the period it had stated, which was good practice.
The landlord apologised for its delayed response. It offered the resident £50 for its delayed response at each stage, totalling £100 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and try to put things right for the resident. However, it failed to consider the impact caused to the resident by its delay in logging and acknowledging the complaint at both stages. This would have also caused the resident uncertainty and time and trouble in chasing an update, and exacerbated the frustration she was already experiencing. This was not appropriate.
In line with the Code, if a resident raises new issues after the landlord has responded to the initial complaint, the landlord should treat these matters as a separate complaint. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to address the resident’s new concerns. This included her concerns about other works raised as part of the pre-action process, a wall, paving slabs and steps, and a subject access request. It instead acted appropriately by outlining how it would investigate her additional concerns.
Overall, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint appropriately. While it acknowledged its delayed response, it did not acknowledge its poor handling of the initial complaint and the escalation request. It also failed to assess and comment on the delays in completing the repairs. As such, the landlord should pay the resident a further £50 compensation for the impact of its complaint handling. This is in addition to its offer of £100, totalling £150 for its overall complaint handling. This reflects the overall delays and the time and trouble caused to the resident. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord has made an offer of redress, but it is not proportionate to the failings identified. We have also made a relevant recommendation below about its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the windows, doors, extractor fan, an exterior wall, and the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the complaint handling.

Orders

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 £550 compensation. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account. This consists of:
  1. £400 for its handling of various repairs to the windows, doors, extractor fan, an exterior wall, and the garden.
  2. £150 for its complaint handling. This includes the £100 offered by the landlord in its complaint responses.
3. Contact the resident to establish if there are any outstanding repairs needed to the windows, extractor fan, and the drainage within the garden.
4. Complete an inspection of the property focusing on the outstanding repairs, if the resident confirms there are any. It should then write to the resident to confirm its findings and an action plan for any required repairs. This should be in writing and include appointment dates and details of the works required. It should provide a specific point of contact who will take responsibility for providing updates at regular intervals agreed with the resident until it completes the repairs.
The landlord should respond to us with evidence of compliance within the period set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider providing refresher training around complaint handling. This is to ensure its internal complaints procedure is utilised effectively to assess and comment on its handling of the matter complained about.