Clarion Housing Association Limited (202444890)

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202444890

Clarion Housing Association Limited

13 October 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 issues with the immersion heater and hot water temperature at the resident’s property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has some mental health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.
4. The resident reported problems with the hot water temperature and the immersion heater not working on 19 October 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended the property 9 times between October 2023 and March 2024. The landlord’s notes say it left the heater working after each visit.
5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 30 May 2024. We have not seen a copy of the original complaint.
6. On 21 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
   1. The complaint was about dents in the bath and issues with the immersion heater making the water too hot or too cold.
   2. The resident wanted the bath and the immersion tank to be replaced.
   3. Planned investment works were “on hold” due to a necessary “refocus of resources”.
   4. The repairs team had attended to repair the bath, and the resident had refused the repair because he wanted a replacement.
   5. Its contractor had completed repairs on the immersion heater in October 2023 and March 2024.
   6. Rent amounts were not a “reflection of planned investment”.
7. On 23 June 2024 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. He said:
   1. He understood that other works needed to be prioritised, but he did not accept that this meant that his hot water issue could not be resolved.
   2. He did not want an “upgrade project”. He wanted a resolution to the hot water issue at his property.
   3. He had asked for mixer taps because he thought it was a way of solving the extreme water temperatures if the landlord did not replace the immersion heater.
   4. He refused the repairs on the bath because it did not solve the problem. He said the dents were not what “made him complain”.
8. On 26 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
   1. It was a “necessary business decision to tackle the most urgent situations first”.
   2. It had asked its rents and service charge team to provide the resident with details on how rent was determined for his property.
   3. It had arranged for its gas contractor to provide a “specialist opinion” on the suitability of the hot water system in the property.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to us. He stated his desired outcome was for the hot water temperature issues to be resolved so that he could “get on with his daily routine”.

Events since the end of the complaints process

10. On 2 October 2025 the resident told us that the issues with the temperature of the water at the property are ongoing. He said the landlord has installed “mixer” taps on his kitchen and bathroom sinks but not on his bath. He said the immersion heater was over 30 years old and his was the only property in his block that had not had its hot water system replaced.
11. On 7 October 2025 the landlord told us the suitability survey for the hot water system had not gone ahead. It said the contractor had attended on 11 July 2024 and been unable to access the property. The landlord had subsequently closed the case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. During his complaint, the resident asked the landlord why he was paying the same rent as other residents in his block of flats who had upgraded hot water systems. The reasonableness of rent charges can only be determined through a binding decision by a court or tribunal, such as the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), or FTT. The resident may wish to contact the FTT if he wishes to formally challenge his rent charges. It is not our role to assess the amount charged for rent, but rather to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about rent. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.

Issues with the water temperature at the property

13. We have found maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of hot water issues in the property.
14. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states the landlord is responsible for keeping in the hot water system in the property “in good working order”. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, and “routine” repairs within 28 days.
15. Between 19 October 2023 and 4 March 2024, the landlord sent contractors to the property 9 times in response to the resident’s reports that the water was too hot or the immersion was not working. On 6 of these occasions the landlord classified the job as an emergency repair because the resident had no hot water. The landlord’s repairs log showed that it generally attended and resolved the emergency repairs regarding the loss of hot water within the repairs policy timescales. This was positive.
16. The landlord’s repairs log was unclear regarding some of the “routine” repairs. This made it difficult to fully assess what had happened at each repairs visit. There was no evidence to suggest the issue regarding the temperature of the water was fully addressed or resolved during these repair visits. On 18 January 2024, and throughout the case, the resident told the landlord that the hot water was burning him and he had been “scalded” when using the hot water tap. While it was evident the landlord had been proactive in trying to repair the issues regarding the loss of hot water there was no evidence it investigated the concerns regarding the temperature of the water or undertook a risk assessment of the situation. This was a failing which may have left the resident feeling like the landlord was not listening to him.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 21 June 2024, the landlord acknowledged that the resident wanted the immersion tank to be replaced. Given the number of times the resident had encountered issues with the hot water at the property this was a reasonable request which the landlord should have considered. There was no evidence it did this, which was a failing.
18. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 23 June 2024. He clarified that his complaint was not about the dents in the bath or planned investment works. He asked the landlord to either “change the immersion to an electric boiler” so he could “regulate the temperature” or “change the taps to mixers”. He said that mixer taps would help because the water temperature could be controlled more easily. It was reasonable for the resident to be open to different solutions.
19. The landlord called the resident on 8 July 2024 to discuss his complaint. This was positive as it gave the landlord the opportunity to understand the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s call notes said the resident confirmed, during the call, that the hot water was working. The landlord said it told him that it would not replace or upgrade where a repair is possible. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.
20. However, this was another example of the landlord not addressing all of the issues the resident raised. While the resident confirmed the hot water was working, he also repeated, during the same call, that the water temperature remained too hot. The landlord’s notes said it suggested the resident solved the problem by “mixing hot and cold water in the sink to reach the desired temperature. Given the resident had previously told the landlord that the water was so hot it had scalded him, this was not an adequate response. This may have made the resident feel that the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
21. Additionally, the landlord told the resident that the water had to be hot “due to the prevention of legionella”. While it is the case that hot water needs to be of a certain temperature to prevent legionella this was also not an appropriate response. Water does not need to be “scalding” hot as this may pose other health and safety risks.
22. In its stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2024, the landlord explained its position regarding planned investment works. We recognise that the landlord was entitled to organise planned investment works as it chose. However, given the circumstances, this was an unreasonable response. Planned works can include repairs, but only where the repairs are not a health or safety risk. The landlord is responsible for keeping the hot water system in good working order and the resident had reported that the hot water was burning him. This was potentially a health and safety risk and should therefore not have been treated as planned works.
23. Furthermore, the resident had confirmed, in his escalation, he was open to different solutions, and his complaint was not about planned investment works. It was therefore not necessary for the landlord to include this and may have led the resident to feeling that the landlord had not understood his complaint or fully addressed his concerns.
24. The landlord said, in its stage 2 complaint response, that it would arrange for a suitability survey of the hot water system at the property. This was an appropriate course of action given the age of the immersion heater and the resident’s ongoing concerns with the water temperature. However, the landlord told us, on 7 October 2025, that the suitability survey did not go ahead. It said it had made “several attempts” in July 2024 and did not gain access so it closed the case. This was unreasonable. If landlords are unable to gain access to a property they should try alternative methods such as email, letters or phone call. There was no evidence the landlord did this. This was a significant failing as the landlord did not do what it said it would, and it missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident. We order the landlord to arrange a suitability survey of the hot water system, Given the length of time the issues have been ongoing, the number of repair attempts and the age of the immersion heater, we would expect the system to be replaced following the survey.

Complaint Handling

25. We have found service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
26. The landlord’s complaints policy says it has a 2-stage process. It states it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. The landlord will issue a full response within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for complaints at stage 2. These timescales align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
27. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a service request is not considered to be a complaint. It defines a service request as a “request from a resident to the landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right”. It also says “this will usually be the first time you have made us aware of your dissatisfaction with our service”
28. On 18 January 2024 the resident requested to speak to a manager regarding the hot water issues at his property. He said he wanted to make a complaint and he wanted compensation for the lack of hot water at the property. The landlord’s repairs notes said it told him “he needs to go through areas of the business first”. This was reasonable as it was in line with its policy regarding complaints and service requests.
29. However, on 4 March 2024 the resident requested to speak to manager again. The landlords call notes said a manger attempted to call the resident on 19 April 2024 and was “cut off”. There was no evidence it attempted to call again. This was a failing. The resident had reported his dissatisfaction in January and March 2024 and there was no evidence the landlord had responded appropriately to this through its complaints process. This would have caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience.
30. On 30 May 2024, the landlord’s complaint handling department contacted the landlord’s repairs department. It said the resident thought he had started the complaints process about his hot water. It said it had “tried to tell him” it was a “repairs issue”. This was an error as this was over 6 months after the resident had reported the initial repair in October 2023 and he was entitled to make a complaint. We recommend the landlord considers offering refresher training to relevant staff, so they are confident to recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint.
31. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint as 30 May 2024. This was 2 months after his expression of dissatisfaction. This was a failing which caused the resident an avoidable delay.
32. There were also some delays within the complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2024. This was 7 working days outside of its complaints policy timescales. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 23 June 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2024. This was 5 working days outside of its complaints policy timescales. We appreciate these were minor delays which likely would have had a minimal impact on the complaint. However, the landlord did not recognise or acknowledge these delays in its communication with the resident and this was an error.
33. The landlord provided a copy of its senior management review of the complaint. This was dated 16 July 2024. It said the stage 2 complaint response should include information for the resident regarding how the rent was calculated. This was positive as the landlord had reflected on the resident’s additional concerns he had raised during a phone call on 8 July 2024.
34. The landlord said, in its stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2024, that the rent and service charge team would provide details regarding rent calculation. However, there was no evidence this was provided. This was another example of the landlord not doing something it said it would do and missing an opportunity to put things right. We have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with this information if it hasn’t done so already.
35. There was a lack of evidence regarding the complaint handling for this case. For example, there was no evidence of the resident’s original complaint. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If the information the landlord provides is not clear, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its policy. We recommend that the landlord review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its responsibilities regarding complaint handling, and it can provide dates and evidence relating to the complaint process, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.
36. We order the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the complaint handling failings identified within the report. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance which which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation (available on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there have been failings by the landlord which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, but there may be no permanent impact from the failure.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of hot water issues at the property.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. We order the landlord to complete the following actions within 28 days from the date of this report, providing the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance by the same date:
40. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available to view on our website.
41. Pay the resident a £150 compensation in recognition of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling delays identified within the report
42. Arrange for a full survey of the suitability of the hot water system at the resident’s property with a view to replacing it. The landlord should share the findings of the survey with the resident. The landlord must provide a schedule of works which includes timescales of when the work will be completed. The landlord should also provide copies of the survey report and schedule of works to this Service.
43. Provide the resident with information in writing regarding how the rent is determined for his property, if it hasn’t done so already.

Recommendations

44. We recommend the landlord:
    1. Offers refresher training for relevant complaint handling staff if it has not done so already. The training should include a focus on its complaints policy and the difference between a service request and a complaint.
    2. Reviews its record-keeping systems so it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its complaint handling responsibilities, and can provide updated evidence relating to a complaint, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.