Clarion Housing Association Limited (202331357)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331357

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 May 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. A service charge refund.
2. Report of lack of service provision.
3. Repairs and replacement to windows and front door.
4. Damp and mould.
5. Lack of gas within the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a 1 bedroom third floor property. Her lease started in July 2007, and she sub-lets the property.
The resident previously replaced the double glazing in the windows of her property. She explained that the landlord then replaced them with poor quality double glazing which caused draughts and compromised the insulation of her property. She also previously raised concerns in relation to service charges, which lead to court in 2021. For the year 2021/2022 the landlord has said it refunded £476.88 to her service charge account. There was also an issue with the gas supply in the building in March 2023.
On 5 July 2023, the resident raised concerns during calls with the landlord in relation to the refund to her account and with the double glazing and a new door. She clarified her complaint later that day during another phone call with the landlord and said:
1. She did not believe the landlord was providing services appropriately. It charged her £10,000 the previous year and then told her it overcharged her. It refunded £400 which it said it would credit to April’s bill. This did not happen, and she had been chasing this.
2. She received a County Court Judgment (CCJ) previously, but she did not receive any letters as they went to her tenant’s address. She had to pay to have this removed.
3. She had an invoice and certificate for the windows she had fitted. It removed these when it fitted windows to the block. The windows it fitted were of poor quality. Draughts came in through the bedroom window which caused damp and mould.
4. She spent £45 every 6 to 8 months on products to remove the mould and could provide receipts. The draughts caused an increase in energy bills, and she had reduced her tenant’s rent to compensate for this.
5. It did not replace her flat door, and the rest of the block had theirs changed. She chose the door colour, but nothing had happened since, and she had chased it. The door in place was very old and flimsy.
6. There was also an issue with the gas supply to the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response and explained it was not upholding the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It changed the windows to the property in 2016 as part of a major upgrade to the entire block. It explained upon installation of the windows there was a 12 month defect liability period in which she should have raised any issues for it to rectify as a defect, if appropriate. Due to the length of time that had passed the windows were outside the defect period. It had also previously responded to the issue in 2019.
2. Any draughts coming in through the windows would not cause damp and mould but would instead help to reduce any damp and mould problems in the property. It told her it was replacing the entire ventilation system in all blocks within the estate.
3. It was due to replace the front door in 2022/2023, but it removed her door from the programme. This was because it did not receive her door choice sheet. Its contractors also could not contact her after multiple attempts including phone calls and letters. They also advised that the landlord would replace the door in its next available programme in 2023/2024 financial year.
4. It offered her tenants and other residents in the building a hot plate as a temporary measure at the beginning of April 2023 due to the gas supply issues. Her tenant refused the installation of a temporary water heater. Residents received regular payments totalling £450 in cash vouchers towards the increase of energy payments. It said it repaired the issue, and gas was available from 5 May 2023. Affected residents would shortly receive a compensation payment of £350 for the 5 week period when there was the loss of amenities.
5. Her tenant reported in July 2023 that it did not connect their cooker. Its contractor confirmed this was correct because it was too close to the worktop and burned it. This led to it classing the matter as immediately dangerous, and they had used Google translate to explain this to them.
The landlord then provided a further stage 1 response on 23 August 2023. This was in relation to the service charge dispute raised by the resident. It apologised for the delay in providing its response and awarded £50 compensation for its complaint handling. It also said:
1. She said in March 2023 that she was told that she would not have to pay for any service charged until April 2024. She then received a new service charge statement asking for £500.
2. Communication continued between them, and it tried to contact her in May 2023 to discuss her enquiry but could not reach her. Its notes said it would send her copies of her service charge estimates and then could not see any further communication until she raised her complaint in July 2023.
3. In early February 2023 it sent a notice to her to advise that there was an underspend of £476.88 from 2021/2022 financial year. It informed her that it would apply a credit to her account on 1 April 2023, and confirmed it actioned this.
4. Based on this it could find no service failures with the actions it took. It provided a statement to evidence the credits it made.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response and escalated her complaint on 8 September 2023. She said the £400 credit was missing from her account. She said that she did not feel that it completed the services it charged for, adequately. She mentioned that it replaced her double glazing with an inferior construction. It did not replace her front door and cut her gas off. She also did not feel it addressed the repair issues within the stage 1 response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 November 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response. It reiterated its stage 1 responses across the issues the resident raised. It did not uphold her complaint. The landlord:
1. Provided a breakdown of the 2021/2022 expenditure which resulted in a credit of £476.88 which it said it applied to her account on 1 April 2023. It further provided a statement of account highlighting the transaction lines which totalled the credit. It explained it had communicated with her and kept her informed.
2. Said it would ensure that it apportioned service charges fairly and accurately to those that benefited from them. In terms of a review of the standard and quality of works, it would do this when it carried out estate inspections. She was aware that there would be an adjustment to the service charge account following the audit of actual costs of 2021/2022. This resulted in an adjustment of £476.88 and a payment for the lack of heating and hot water for £350 due to the gas incident which it paid in line with its policy.
3. Explained the actions it took to support residents during the gas supply issue, such as food vouchers, arrangement with restaurants for residents to eat, provision of temporary cooking facilities, and hot water boilers.
4. Said it may be possible that the letters it sent regarding her doors and windows did not reach the intended destination. Based on its internal system it would usually write to the property and leaseholder directly. It agreed to arrange the door replacement with her directly and asked for the best contact method. It explained it could not review historic information about the window replacement. It was outside of the timeframe in which it would keep such records.
5. Told her it understood she was unhappy as it replaced her double glazing, but during the replacement process it would have likely taken consultation, and it was constantly working on its communication around this.
6. Awarded £50 compensation for the delays in its stage 2 response.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She explained that the landlord left her inconvenienced and distressed due to its lack of proper service. She said she endured significant hardships due to the landlord. She said its replacement of the double glazing compromised the insulation of her property. She said the outcomes she sought were:
1. A refund of the full service charge she paid since the start of the lease, as she did not receive any of the services.
2. Compensation for the additional energy consumption as well as the cost of repainting the wall every 3 months due to mould caused by its poor workmanship.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s information management in relation to the court claim it issued against her. Our scheme says we may not consider issues which a resident did not bring to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint usually within a reasonable period (12 months) of the matter occurring. As the court claim took place and concluded in 2021, and the resident raised this as a complaint in 2023, we will not consider this issue within this investigation.
The resident also raised concerns about the landlord replacing her windows. The evidence provided suggests the landlord dealt with this issue in a previous complaint in 2019. The matter also appears historic in nature as it stems back to at least 2016. Our scheme says that we may not consider issues which a resident did not bring to our attention normally within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, we will not consider the historic issues raised by the resident which exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in 2019.
The resident has raised concerns about the level of service charges imposed by the landlord. She has also raised concerns about the appropriateness of the service charges. Our scheme says we may not consider the level of service charge applied by a landlord. As such we will not consider this within this investigation, as the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) deal with such issues. The resident may wish to seek independent advice about this.

A service charge refund

The resident said she was told the landlord had overcharged her and it would credit this amount to her account on 1 April 2023 but did not do so. In its complaint response in August 2023, the landlord provided a copy of an email it sent to the resident in March 2023 explaining the charges to her.
The email explained that it would subtract the overcharge of £476.88 from the 2021/2022 financial year, from the arrears on her account. This in turn left her with a reduced amount of arrears which she needed to pay by 31 March 2023. It then explained the balance of the charges she needed to pay from April 2023, the breakdown of this, the ground rent payable, and any arrears outstanding.
In the landlord’s complaint response in August 2023 and the stage 2 response, it explained the steps it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns. It told her it tried to contact her and showed that it did apply the credit of £476.88 to her account by providing a statement. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s actions were reasonable in its handling of this issue. As such we find that there was no maladministration.

Provision of services

The resident also said that the landlord did not provide services. We would have expected to see the landlord clarify with the resident what works she believed it had not completed properly, and what services it had not provided. This would have allowed it to better understand her complaint, respond to this directly and aid in focusing and showing that it investigated her concerns.
The landlord has not shown that it did this and this was inappropriate as it missed an opportunity to address her concerns and resolve the dispute. This also forms part of its complaint handling failings discussed later within the report. Based on this we find that there was service failure.
The landlord’s compensation policy provided by the landlord is silent on if it will compensate resident’s where it has not investigated their concerns. As such we have based our compensation amount on our remedies guidance. We order that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £50 for its communication and investigation failings around this concern.

Repairs to windows and front door

The lease says that the landlord will maintain and keep in repair and working condition, as is adequate for the reasonable enjoyment of the dwellings in the building by residents, the main structure of the building. This includes things such as window frames but does not include parts of the building for the repair of which the resident or any individual dwelling is liable.
The lease also says that the resident must not make any structural alterations or additions to the demised premises. The resident must also not remove, alter, or add to any of the landlord’s fixtures without the previous consent in writing of the landlord. It says she must repair and keep in good order at all times the whole of the demised premises (the property) including all additions, and fixtures, except those the landlord is bound to repair under the lease.
It is unclear when the resident first noticed the issue of draughts, and if this stemmed back to the time of the landlord’s window installation and her previous complaint, or a completely new issue. However, from the information provided, the records do not show that the resident raised any repairs with the windows with the landlord within the specified timeframe of this investigation. Nor does it show that she reported any issues with draughts in the property during this period. As such based on the evidence, it appears the landlord was unaware of the issue until the resident’s report in her July 2023 complaint.
Once it became aware, the landlord informed her that she needed to raise any repairs with its repairs team. It also provided her with the details to enable her to do so. Its response to the situation was proportionate as it would need to see what repairs (if any) it needed to carry out to rectify the situation.
In relation to the door, the landlord confirmed that although it received her colour choice, it did not receive other required information such as her door choice. Its contractors tried to contact her using various methods such as telephone calls and letters but could not reach her. The landlord acknowledged at stage 2 that it may be possible that the letters did not reach her. However, we find that its contractors attempt to contact the resident through alternative methods such as telephone calls was reasonable.
The landlord however explained that it moved the works to its next available programme, and it was due to complete the work in the 2023/2024 financial year. It told us in August 2024 that it was due to arrange an installation date with the resident that month. As such the landlord’s actions were proportionate in its handling of these issues and we find that there was no maladministration.

Damp and mould

The resident explained that she believed the landlord’s window replacement led to damp and mould in the bedroom of her property. It explained to her that it believed a draught would not cause damp and mould but would instead actually help in reducing the issue in the property. It also explained to her that it was changing the ventilation system in the building, and this should solve the damp and mould issues she faced.
The landlord told us that the resident had not reported any damp and mould to it previously. As such her reports in her complaint appear to be the first time she brought the issue to the landlord’s attention. We would usually expect a landlord to conduct inspections and surveys to find the root cause of damp and mould. This is because this is often the best way in finding the best solution to the problem.
However, in this instance, the landlord was already employing a potential resolution by changing the ventilation systems in the building. It was proportionate for it see if this resolved the issue before taking any further action. There is also no evidence provided that the resident raised the issue again following the stage 1 complaint. We would usually expect it to show that it followed up with the resident to ensure its action resolved the issue, and that it did not need to take further action.
From the evidence however, it is unclear when the works to replace the ventilation system concluded or that the landlord followed up on the damp and mould issue. However, if the damp and mould remained after the works to replace the ventilation system concluded, this would be a matter subject to a new complaint. It is important to note the responsibility for remedying the damp and mould would only be the landlord’s responsibility if it arose from an issue linked to its responsibility under the lease.
In summary the evidence suggests the landlord became aware of the resident’s damp and mould concerns when she raised it in her complaint. It explained that it believed the draughts from the window would help in reducing the damp and mould rather than causing or worsening it. It also explained that it was changing the ventilation system, and it hoped this would resolve the situation. There is also no evidence that the resident raised the issue again following the landlord’s stage 1 response. Based on this we find that there was no maladministration.

Lack of gas to the property

The landlord’s compensation policy says it will compensate resident where there is a loss of amenities such as hot water and heating. It will pay resident’s £5 per day after 7 days of the initial report. It offers 3 levels of compensation to address its failings. It makes awards of £250 to £700 where there has been a significant failing, but no permanent impact on the resident. It awards £700 and above for failings that have had a severe long term impact on the resident.
The resident explained that her tenant told her that the property remained without gas for a period of 2 months. The landlord said that the issue began at the end of March 2023, and it resolved it in May 2023. This was also a block wide issue. While we would consider 2 months to resolve such concerns as excessive, the landlord has provided us with no details around the issue. As such we are unclear on the severity of the problem. However, during this time, it made temporary arrangements to reduce the impact on residents.
These included the provision of temporary water heating, cooking facilities, vouchers for food, and paying for residents to eat at local restaurants. It offered the resident and her tenant temporary facilities, such as a temporary water heater which they refused.
The landlord said it also compensated the resident for any added electrical costs and the period where there was a loss of amenity. It provided cash vouchers between 30 March 2023 and 27 April 2023 totalling £450. It also paid compensation of £350 around the issue which it added to the resident’s service charge account. It also offered a further £100 in food vouchers and adjusted the resident’s service charges or the lack of heating and hot water by reducing it by £47.37 for the period of 42 days the issue occurred.
The landlord’s actions were in line with its policy as its offer and actions suggests it considered the extent, severity, and impact of the issue. We believe the landlord’s total offer of £847.47 was appropriate. It acknowledged the length of the delay and the additional costs to the household. Its offer also exceeds the amount suggested in our remedies guidance for issues where there is an adverse effect of a resident, but no permanent impact.
The resident raised further issue with the gas installation as her tenant told her the landlord’s contractor did not reconnect their cooker. The landlord’ explained in its response that the contractor explained to them that as the cooker was too close to the worktop, it caused a safety issue. As the lease places responsibility for rectifying such issues on the resident, we find that the landlord’s actions were reasonable. This is because, it looked to avoid a fire risk to both the tenant and other resident’s by not reconnecting the cooker. As such we find that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the lack of gas in the resident’s property.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated an interim complaints policy in which it says it uses a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint at both stages within 10 working days. It will then provide a stage 1 response within 20 working days and a stage 2 response within 40 working days. Its policy says if it requires additional time to provide a reason for the decision and manage a resident’s expectations about what it can do. It will also provide an action plan about its intentions and provide a timeline, if possible, on when it will provide a full response.
The landlord acknowledged across both stages of its complaint handling that there were delays. It offered the resident compensation of £100 in total for the delays. While it has acknowledged its failings and looked to put things right through its offer of compensation, we do not believe this goes far enough. This is because there were other failings in its complaint handling it did not recognise and acknowledge.
The landlord did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint. She told it that she spent £45 every 6 to 8 weeks on mould treatment. She also said that the draughts in the property had caused an increase in her energy bills. As previously discussed, she also raised concerns with its service provision which it did not clarify. We would have expected the landlord to establish its position around these issues and respond specifically about them. The failure to do so was inappropriate.
We acknowledge that it said that it had compensated the resident for added electrical costs. However, it was unclear, if this related to added electrical costs during the issues with the gas provision, or whether this included the issue with the draughts. Based on the failure to address all of the issues raised by the resident in her complaint we find that there was an added service failure.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will award compensation where there has been a repeated failing in engaging with the substance of a complaint or not addressing all relevant aspects of the complaint. As the landlord found the delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint, it offered her £100 compensation across both stages of the process.
The landlord’s offer was in line with its policy. However, it did not recognise its failure to consider all aspects of the resident’s complaint and as such its offer does not consider the failing found in this investigation. Based on this, we order the landlord to pay the resident an added £50 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was:
1. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a service charge refund.
2. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of reports of a lack of service provision.
3. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs and replacement to the resident’s windows and front door.
4. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
5. Service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of lack of gas to the resident’s property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology around the failings found in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £50 for its failure to clarify and address the resident’s concerns around its lack of provision of services.
3. £50 for the complaint handling failings found in this report.
4. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.