Clarion Housing Association Limited (202425587)

Background

1. The resident lives in a bungalow and has arthritis. The resident complained to the landlord that he was losing too much heat from the property. A loft inspection was carried out and the operative told him that the insulation needed to be topped up. The landlord says this is not required.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. A request for the loft insulation at the property to be upgraded.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for the loft insulation at the property to be upgraded.
4. There was service failure in relation to the handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to communicate appropriately or manage the resident’s expectations following the loft inspection. It acknowledged the service failure during the complaint process, apologised and offered compensation. However, it did not fully investigate the resident’s report that the property was cold, consider that the property had previously been included in a planned programme for an insulation upgrade and it ignored the contractor’s recommendation.
6. The landlord’s stage 1 response and stage 2 acknowledgement were delayed, and it did not acknowledge or apologise for this in its complaint process. This also meant that the final response was not issued within 25 working days of the escalation request.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord’s planned work policy says it aims “to provide safe, warm and secure homes for customers”. It also explains that referrals can be made from the landlord’s other departments to the assets team for planned works to be considered.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 January 2024 with concerns that there was no loft insulation in the property. A loft inspection was carried out on 22 January 2024, and the operative provided the following update “Completed loft inspection 250mm loft insulation could do with another 100 top up 6 rolls required if authorised.”
9. The landlord stated that the property met the building regulation requirements at the time it was built. This is likely to be correct, however from 2006 the building regulations for loft insulation have increased to 270mm. The landlord is aware the insulation at the property is not up to current building regulations, and the resident is complaining that he is struggling to retain heat in the property. It is therefore difficult to understand the position the landlord is taking on this matter.
10. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy references the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This requires landlords to ensure there are no hazards in their properties. Excess cold is a known potential hazard which the landlord is obliged to investigate. It has not provided us with evidence that an investigation was carried out, nor does it appear to have considered the impact of the cold on the resident’s health issues.
11. The landlord has accepted that an insulation upgrade had previously been carried out to the other bungalows in the area by the planned work team, although it did not provide a comment on why this property was missed out. The information provided that the previous resident refused the upgrade appears plausible. The landlord has not fully explained why it has disregarded the previous plan for the insulation to be upgraded or the contractor’s recommendations following his more recent inspection at the property. Its position on this matter does not seem reasonable under the current circumstances.
12. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that its communication with the resident was poor and caused confusion. It apologised and offered £200 compensation for this service failure. This seemed appropriate given the number of times the resident contacted the landlord about the issue.
13. However, as the landlord’s decision not to upgrade the insulation, in the circumstances, was not reasonable there was maladministration. To reflect the failure to correctly investigate a potential hazard and the inconvenience caused to the resident, an order has been made for the landlord to increase it previous compensation offer to £300.

14. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. Its policy is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says that landlords should acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. The landlord should provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
15. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 July 2024, and this was acknowledged on the same day. It provided its stage 1 response outside of its 15 working day timeframe, or 5 days to acknowledge and 10 to response. This was a failing.
16. The stage 2 acknowledgement was issued on 3 September 2025. This was 16 working days outside of the timescale of the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code. The stage 2 response was issued within 20 working days of the escalation acknowledgement but outside of the overall expected 25 working days timescale, taken from the date the complaint was escalated by the resident. This was a failing.
17. Overall, due to its delays, there was service failure which caused additional inconvenience, time and trouble of the resident. To reflect this impact, an order has been made that the landlord pay £75 compensation to him.

Learning

Record keeping

18. The landlord was unable to provide a copy of the resident’s signed tenancy agreement which raises concerns for its record keeping. The evidence provided also states the resident holds a one year assured shorthold tenancy. As the resident started the tenancy in 2020, it appears unusual that the tenancy had not been converted.

Communication

19. The landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident was poor and in its stage 1 response it confirmed this would be reviewed. It has not provided any further update to confirm whether any actions were taken following its review.