Clarion Housing Association Limited (202449601)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449601

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 Septemeber 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:
1. The resident’s concerns about the heating and hot water at the property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a 4-bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with her partner and their 4 children. 1 of their children is disabled, which the landlord was aware of.
On 10 February 2024 the resident reported there was a lack of pressure in the heating system at the property. On 27 February 2024 the landlord’s contractor carried out a repair to the radiator in the 4th bedroom. The contractor reported the heating system was working when they left the property.

Between August 2024 and September 2024, the resident made a number of reports about the heating and hot water not working fully in the property. The landlord’s contractor visited the property multiple times during which it carried out different repairs to the heating system, as it tried to resolve the issue.
On 26 September 2024 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the heating and hot water system at the property. She said her boiler had continued to break down since 2019 and the landlord had not resolved the issue.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 October 2024. The landlord apologised it had been unable to locate the underlying cause for the low pressure in the heating system at the property. It awarded the resident £150 for its delay in resolving the repair.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 November 2024. She said this was because the landlord had not fixed the issues with the heating system. The resident also said a contractor had previously recommended the landlord should install a combi boiler to resolve the issues.
On 23 January 2025 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it would re-pipe the heating system and replace the boiler within the property. It increased its award of compensation to £330. The landlord installed a new like for like boiler on 29 January 2025.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman stating the heating and hot water system had not worked properly since she moved into the property in 2019. The resident said she wanted the landlord to appoint a different contractor to resolve the repair to the heating and hot water system. This was because the heating still did not work in all of the rooms within the property. She also wanted the landlord to repair the damage its contractors had caused to walls and flooring during their visits to the property. She asked for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation, including compensation for loss of earnings due to having to take time off to attend appointments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident said:
1. Her electricity bills have been higher because she has been having to use blow heaters to heat the property.
2. The landlord’s contractors have damaged walls, as well as the resident’s carpets on the landing and stairs whilst carrying out repairs to the heating and hot water system at the property.
We have not seen any evidence the resident communicated with the landlord directly about these concerns or raised them as a formal complaint. The resident can submit copies of her energy bills to the landlord for the relevant period from February 2024, as well as the same period the previous year.
The resident may be able to make a liability claim to the landlord’s insurer if she believes the damage to her carpets has happened due to the landlord’s negligence in handling these repairs. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the actions of the landlord, and we would therefore not comment on its insurer or the likely outcome of an insurance claim if one is made.
The resident can also contact the landlord about these matters if she wishes to pursue these separate issues as a new complaint. This is because the landlord needs to have the opportunity to respond to these further complaints through its complaints process before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved.
Once the resident has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, she may be able to refer these further matters to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her further complaints.
The resident said she has had issues with the heating and hot water system in the property since 2019. We have seen evidence the resident raised issues with the heating system alongside a number of other repairs between 2019 and 2023. The resident then referred her complaints to the Ombudsman in August 2023 which we have already investigated.
Therefore, in line with the Scheme, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating and hot water at the property from February 2024 onwards. This is because this was when we have seen evidence of when the resident next raised concerns about the heating and hot water at the property following our previous investigation. We have then considered these matters until the landlord’s final complaint response on 21 January 2025.

The resident’s concerns about the heating and hot water at the property.

On 10 February 2024, the resident reported there was a lack of pressure in her heating system at the property. She said this meant the radiators in the living room, dining room, and the 4th bedroom did not get hot. The landlord responded appropriately because it arranged for its contractor to carry out an inspection of the radiators 4 working days later, on 14 February 2024. This was in line with its published timescales, as we would consider this to have been a non-emergency (routine) repair, which the landlord states it will carry out within 28 days.
The contractor then said it failed to attend a follow up appointment on 23 February 2024, to complete this repair, because of a shortage of staff available to attend. We would expect the landlord and the contractors it uses to have sufficient resources to carry out its pre-arranged appointments.
The landlord’s contractor completed the repair 17 days later, on 27 February 2024. The contractor replaced 1 radiator and said the heating system was working when they left the property. The landlord completed this repair within its published timescales as a non-emergency (routine) repair.
The resident has told us the heating system failed the next day in the same rooms again. She has said she did not contact the landlord at the time because she was frustrated due to the landlord’s failure to fix the issue over a number of years. We acknowledge what the resident has said, and we are not commenting on her reasons for not contacting the landlord.
However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to assume it had repaired the heating system based on the information available to it at that time as it had carried out repairs and the contractor reported that the heating was working when they left. Therefore, the landlord would not be accountable for the delays in the heating system not working between February 2024 until the resident next reported this in August 2024.
On 14 August 2024 the resident reported her heating was stuck in the on position. She said this was after the landlord had carried out a gas safety inspection earlier the same day. The landlord’s contractor responded appropriately by re-visiting the property 2 days later and turned the heating off. The contractor said further works were needed to resolve the underlying issues with the heating system.
Between 22 August 2024 and 3 December 2024, the contractor carried out 8 further visits to the property where it:
1. Replaced various parts to the heating system.
2. Located and fixed a leak within the system.
3. Removed an air lock in the pipework.
4. Installed a new hot water tank.
5. Fitted a larger water pump.
6. Flushed and rebalanced the heating system.
These repairs did not resolve the underlying issues with the heating system and some of the radiators still did not work. We understand the resident was inconvenienced by this.
We also acknowledge this impacted the resident’s daughter who had undergone major surgery and returned to the property without the heating being fully operational. However, the landlord had taken reasonable steps by responding to the resident’s reports in a timely manner, whilst it continued to investigate the issues with the heating system.
In some cases it can take more than one attempt to fix a problem, and this in itself does not mean there was a failing by the landlord, provided it was making reasonable attempts to investigate and provide a lasting repair.
On 8 January 2025 the landlord carried out a survey of the heating system at the property. This survey recommended the boiler should be replaced as well as all the pipework to the radiators. The contractor completed the installation of the new boiler on 29 January 2025, which was in line with its published timescales of 28 days for this type of repair. The landlord’s survey and installation of the new boiler was a proportionate response. This was because the landlord had continued to repair different aspects of the heating system in its attempts to resolve the heating issues within the property.
Whilst the landlord’s contractor carried out the installation of the new boiler, the contractor told the resident it would not be renewing the pipework throughout the property. We understand this caused the resident distress as she was expecting all of thesurveyor’s recommendations to be completed during the 2-day appointment in January 2025.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to show why it decided not to replace all the pipework, against its surveyor’s recommendation. The landlord was entitled to disagree with the surveyor, but we would expect it to show that it disagreed based on evidence from a similarly qualified expert who suggested an alternative method of fixing the problem.
Between February 2025 and May 2025, the resident continued to tell the landlord about the unresolved issues to the heating system. The landlord’s contractor responded appropriately and carried out further works including replacing further parts and flushing the heating system. It carried out these works within its published timescales as a non-emergency repair.
The contractor also cut out bits of the pipework it said was damaged. It was right the contractor carried out this work. However, this is work that should have been completed during the boiler installation as per the surveyor’s original recommendations to replace all the pipework.
We acknowledge the resident has said the radiators in the living room, dining room, and one of the bedrooms still do not get hot, and so the underlying issues remain unresolved. We have also seen evidence the landlord’s contractor said in May 2025, it could not suggest any other solutions to resolve this issue. Therefore, we will make an order that the landlord is to arrange for an alternative contractor to carry out an inspection of the heating system within the property. It should then set out a schedule of works it is responsible for, including estimated timescales that are reasonable and in line with industry best practice.
The resident said the landlord’s contractor had previously agreed to install a combi boiler within the property. The contractor disputed it said this and told the landlord this would not resolve the issue with the heating system. It was right the landlord investigated what the resident had said. Whilst we acknowledge the resident’s reasons for wanting a combi boiler to be installed in the property, the landlord is not obliged to fit this, and it was entitled to fit a like for like replacement instead.
As part of her complaint. the resident has requested compensation for loss of earnings as she had to take time off to attend repair appointments. We acknowledge that the resident had to attend a lot of appointments during the period of this complaint. However, under the tenancy agreement, residents are obliged to attend repair appointments as required and they are not entitled to compensation for this.
Residents can also arrange for someone else to attend appointments on their behalf. The landlord is therefore not required to reimburse the resident for the loss of earnings to attend appointments. Although we have considered the inconvenience from having to attend numerous appointments as part of the landlord’s overall compensation for distress and inconvenience.

For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about heating and hot water at the property. This includes the landlord’s failure to follow its own surveyor’s recommendations and that the repair remains unresolved 20 months later. This is a significant delay in the heating system not being fully operational which we understand caused the resident distress.
The landlord awarded the resident £330 compensation in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. This included £30 for missing 2 appointments, and £300 in recognition that it had been unable to resolve the intermittent heating issues within the resident’s property. It is positive the landlord attempted to put things right, but we do not consider that the landlord went far enough.
Therefore, we will increase this to £600 to reflect the overall delay and that this repair remains unresolved. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord has made errors which had an adverse affect, and it failed to address the detriment caused to the resident.

The resident’s associated complaint.

On 26 September 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the heating system. The landlord responded 4 working days later, on 30 September 2024. It then provided its stage 1 written complaint response to the resident’s complaint on 24 October 2024. This was 18 working days after the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. The landlord should have provided its stage 1 written complaint response within 10 working days, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling).
On 3 December 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. This was 8 working days later. The landlord then provided its stage 2 written complaint response on 23 January 2025. This was 34 working days after it had acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint.
We have seen no evidence the landlord told the resident it needed further time to respond to her complaint. Therefore, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint within 5 working days. It should have then provided its stage 2 written complaint response within 20 working days, in line with the Code.
We accept the delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint were not excessive individually. However, these delays were at each stage of the process. We understand this will have caused the resident some distress and inconvenience as she was trying to seek a resolution to her complaint. Therefore, for these reasons, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have considered our own remedies guidance in respect of compensation. The landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation. The remedies guidance gives examples of an award in this range where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord and its action to put things right did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating and hot water at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration and service failure in its handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about the heating and hot water at the property.
2. The associated complaint.
The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £700 which includes the £330 it awarded in its final response to the resident’s complaint. The £330 can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid. This compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £600 for its errors in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the heating and hot water at the property.
2. £100 for its delays in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
The landlord is to:
1. Arrange for an alternative contractor to carry out an inspection of the heating system within the property.
2. Arrange to carry out an inspection of the damage the resident said had been caused to the property by its contractors.
If follow up works are required, the landlord should set out a schedule of works for which it is responsible for, including estimated timescales, which it should share with the resident in writing.
The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this report.