Clarion Housing Association Limited (202419349)

Background

1. The resident reported several boiler issues to the landlord. Due to the nature and frequency of the issues, she became concerned it was unsafe and unreliable and requested the boiler was replaced

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her boiler and her request to have the boiler replaced.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her boiler and her request to have the boiler replaced.
   2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. There was a delay of over 10 months in completing repairs identified during its annual service and gas safety inspection in January 2023. It carried out further works to address a further report in June 2024. It duly explained to the resident that it would not replace the boiler because it had carried out the necessary repairs.
7. There was a slight delay in the landlord providing its stage 1 response, but all other procedural timescales were met. While its complaint responses accepted some failure, these did not consider all the points raised, and its compensation award did not resolve matters.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

8. The resident has sent us records she obtained directly from the landlord’s heating contractor, which show their attendances at her property from 2022 to 2024. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint within 12 months of most of the issues arising in 2022, nor that she was prevented from doing so. Records show she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs on 5 December 2023. For that reason, our investigation does not consider matters beyond the 12 months preceding this date.

What we did investigate

9. While the historical issues with the boiler are outside the scope of this investigation, they are helpful in giving context to the resident’s concerns about boiler safety and reliability. It is unclear from the available evidence when the gas leaks occurred, but there was a carbon monoxide leak in August 2022. This, understandably, caused the resident concern, albeit she did not complain at the time.
10. Records show the landlord’s heating contractor carried out an annual service and gas safety inspection at the resident’s property on 26 January 2023. The inspection identified signs of an internal leak, possibly from the flue, which required further investigation. This was not picked up until almost 6 months later, on 23 June 2023, when the resident reported noise coming from the boiler. The contractor’s notes of29 June 2023stated they had resolved the issues. However, the annual service and gas safety inspection on 22 November 2023 appeared to identify the same internal leak. Records indicate the flue was replaced on 7 December 2023.
11. The 10-month delay in resolving the internal leak in the boiler was excessive and unreasonable against the 28-day timescale provided for non-emergency repairs in the landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy. It highlights a lack of effective monitoring and oversight of the follow-on works.
12. Other than as part of its handling of the complaint, there is insufficient evidence of the landlord’s communications with the resident. Its approach was reactive rather than proactively managing the issue over the 10-month period. Also, there is no evidence it updated her following her report of a missed appointment on 5 December 2023. This was unsatisfactory.
13. The available evidence suggests the resident next reported similar issues – a leak and noise from the boiler – on or around 11 June 2024. The contractor’s notes suggest they attended and carried out remedial works on 21 June 2024. However, the job was re-raised on 24 June 2024 and the contractor attended again on 26 June 2024. Their notes stated, “no noise heard no leak seen”. Although the resident disputed this at the time, she confirmed to us in January 2026 that there had been no further issues with the boiler.
14. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractor’s view the boiler could be repaired. In its stage 2 response, it provided a clear and reasonable explanation for its decision not to replace the boiler.
15. It is positive that the landlord made an effort to put things right by way of compensation awarded in its complaint responses. However, it failed to recognise the full extent of the delays, which dated back to January 2023, and the frustration and inconvenience to the resident of recurring issues and multiple contractor attendances.
16. Taking all circumstances of the case into account, it is evident that the landlord’s failures in the handling of boiler repairs had a longstanding adverse impact on the resident. Therefore, we have found maladministration and awarded compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

17. The resident’s email of 5 December 2023 expressed dissatisfaction with the boiler issues she had experienced up to that point. This was consistent with the definition of a complaint in the landlord’s complaints policy. However, it did not treat this as a formal complaint. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to address her concerns at the time.
18. For the most part, the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy:
    1. It acknowledged her stage 1 complaint and stage 2 escalation request within the 5 working days prescribed in its policy.
    2. It issued its stage 2 response 16 working days after its acknowledgement, which was within the 20 working days prescribed in its policy.
19. The exception to this was the stage 1 response. The landlord issued this 14 working days after its acknowledgement against the timescale of 10 working days stated in its policy. It duly acknowledged and apologised for this in its stage 1 response, which was appropriate.
20. We take the view the landlord did not conduct a sufficiently robust investigation as part of its handling of the complaint. For instance, it is unclear if it had sight of the contractor’s records, which were provided to us by the resident, or if it simply relied on the contractor’s email of 26 June 2024. Consequently, it failed to fairly assess the full extent of its handling of the resident’s reports relating to boiler repairs. The stage 1 response itself did not address the crux of the resident’s concerns, which related to her request for a boiler replacement. However, this was answered in the subsequent stage 2 response.
21. We acknowledge the landlord’s effort to deal with this complaint in line with its policy and our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). We also recognise that it sought to reflect our Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes) in its complaint responses at both stages 1 and 2. For instance, at stage 1, it was open about the steps it would take in order to learn from the resident’s complaint. That being said, we have identified shortcomings that justify a finding of service failure. We have awarded compensation for this in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. It is unclear if and to what extent the landlord had access to the contractor’s repair records. It should ensure it has sufficient oversight of repairs, and repair records, even if these are outsourced to third parties.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communications with the resident could be improved.