Clarion Housing Association Limited (202452033)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452033

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 September 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 the resident’s reports of loss of heating and hot water and its decision to not replace all his radiators.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 30 September 2024. The property is a 1 bed flat. The resident has learning difficulties, mental health concerns and a respiratory disease.
On moving into the property, the resident reported that there was no heating or hot water. The contractor attended on 4 November 2024 to complete a turn on and test procedure, found no faults in the system and confirmed each room in the property had a radiator.
On 18 November 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that he had no heating in the property again. The contractor attended the same day and found the radiator in the bathroom needed a new thermostat valve but did not find the property had no heating. It attended to replace the valve on 25 November 2024 when the resident asked that the landlord replace all the radiators in the property.
The landlord completed a heat loss survey and boiler replacement survey on 29 November 2024. The survey found the property needed a new boiler and 3 new radiators.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 16 December 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. He had no hot water or heating since he moved into the property on 30 September 2024.
2. The landlord had completed a heat loss survey, but the results were different from what operatives had told him. He understood the contractor would only fit a new boiler and replace 3 radiators.
3. Several engineers had told him the central heating system including the radiators needed replacing and a heat pump installed.
4. He had bought a heated blanket and 7 heaters at a cost of £1,454.74. He requested reimbursement of this amount as well as a rent rebate and compensation for increased energy bills and the stress caused.
The contractor replaced the boiler on 18 December 2024. The contractor attended to replace the radiators on 24 December 2024 but when it started to remove the floorboards the resident declined the works.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 February 2025. The landlord gave a history of the complaint and made the following key points:
1. It confirmed the heat loss survey found the property needed only 3 new radiators and therefore it would not replace the remaining 4 in the property.
2. It apologised that there was a delay in sending the heat loss survey to the resident and offered £100 compensation to reflect this failing.
3. It confirmed the contractor did not offer temporary heaters as the radiators all worked and therefore the property was sufficiently heated throughout the duration of the issues. The resident had not consulted with the landlord with regards to buying the heaters and it had no provision within its compensation to refund the resident for the purchase.
4. With regards to the resident’s assertion that he could not move his belongings into the property, the landlord said it had found no reason for the resident to have not moved his items in. Therefore, it would not reimburse the cost for storage.
5. It would not provide compensation for increased energy costs as the contractor said the delays were due to the resident refusing works. It asked the resident to provide evidence if this was not true.
6. It did not uphold the complaint but offered £50 compensation for the delayed complaint response.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 26 February 2025. The key points were as follows:
1. The radiators in his property did not heat up properly and therefore the landlord should replace them.
2. He disagreed that the landlord left him with adequate heating and said he had no heating when the contractor replaced the boiler.
3. He had not refused any attendances by the contractor; he had questioned why they were only replacing 3 but never refused the works.
4. He was paying £100 a week for storage as he was unable to move his possessions into the property.
On 13 March 2025, the resident provided receipts for items he had bought, including the heaters, dehumidifiers, a worktop oven and hob, clothes, electric blanket, and pots and pans and explained he had bought some of the items as his own items were in storage.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 March 2025. It gave an overview of the history of the complaint and made the following key points:
1. It had made an appointment for 25 March 2025 to inspect the condition and functionality of the radiators in the property given the resident’s ongoing concerns.
2. It was satisfied the heat loss survey was fully adhered to. It noted the survey found the property had wooden, single glazed windows with poor insulation in the walls and roof and therefore it had passed the resident’s details to its planned investment team.
3. With regards to the costs, it confirmed the radiators were always in working order. The resident had not notified the landlord of his intention to buy heaters and therefore it found no reason to reimburse his costs.
4. It had found no evidence to suggest that it had told the resident not to move his possessions into the property and the works needed would not require the removal of property. It would not reimburse the storage costs.
5. It was aware the resident had mentioned damp and mould which prevented him bringing some possessions into the home. It noted its damp and mould team had attended in December 2024 and February 2025 and had found no issues in the property.
6. Therefore, it had not seen enough evidence to justify the decision made by the resident to not bring his possessions into the property and it would not reimburse those costs.
7. It noted that the resident had refused the installation of the second radiator on 24 December 2024 and while that did cause a delay, it also made no attempt to rebook the repair until 13 January 2025. It also noted there was a delay due to a damaged radiator and therefore accepted that it was not fair to lay all the blame on the resident.
8. It had adhered to its policies and practises but accepted it could have provided the resident with better support. It offered £100 for the delay in arranging follow on works.
In referring the complaint to us, the resident requested compensation for the items bought and the overall distress and inconvenience caused. He also wanted the landlord to replace the remaining radiators in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the complaint the resident raised the impact the loss of heating and hot water has on his health. Such a determination is more appropriate for a court or would be considered a personal injury and the resident has the choice to seek legal advice. We will however consider the overall distress and inconvenience.
In referring the complaint to us, the resident raised issues within his property that did not form part of his complaint. This included issues in his bathroom, the roof, and a leak in the property. We are unable to consider these issues as they have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. The resident may raise the issues as a complaint with his landlord if he wishes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of loss of heating and hot water and its decision not to replace all the radiators in the property.

On 27 September 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that he had no heating or hot water in the property. The evidence shows the landlord referred the resident to its contractor, yet it did not arrange to attend until 22 October 2024. The loss of heating and hot water in a property would be an emergency repair under the landlord’s repairs procedure and therefore, it is not appropriate that the landlord did not attend within 24 hours to inspect the issue.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the landlord clarified the urgency of the situation to understand if the resident had access to any heating or hot water. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlords lack of support and effective investigation of the issue was not appropriate.
The repair notes from 22 October 2024 show that when the contractor attended the resident was having a smart meter fitted and the contractor advised the resident to rebook. Given the resident had reported no heating or hot water, it would have been appropriate for the contractor to have considered if it could have completed the works while the external engineer was present or, at the least, looked to clarify if the resident did have access to any heating or hot water. However, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it did so.
The contractor then attended on 29 October 2024; however, they were unable to gain access to the resident’s property. The contractor had confirmed the appointment with the resident on 24 October 2024 and therefore the contractor cannot be held responsible for the missed appointment at that time.
The contractor attended the property on 4 November 2024. During that appointment, it noted that the heating and hot water was working but recommended the completion of a heat loss survey. The contractor told the resident the request would need to come from the landlord itself. The following day, the contractor told the landlord a heat loss survey was in fact not needed due to the property having a radiator in each room. This response was confusing, and it is unclear why the contractor had noted the need for one and then back tracked on its recommendation. Again, the landlord has provided no note of the visit from the 4 November 2024 to confirm what the contractor said. This suggests a lack of an effective system to record repair visits.
However, given the resident’s persistence that he had no heating or hot water it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered if the heat loss survey was in fact appropriate.
Furthermore, while the contractor noted the heating system was working, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water with him to understand what his concerns were. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and therefore to clarify his concerns would have been useful in this instance. Its lack of communication here was not in line with its vulnerable resident’s policy which says it would take account of resident’s needs and circumstances.
On 18 November 2024, the resident reported no heating or hot water again and the landlord attended, in line with its repairs policy, on the same day to investigate the issue. On that day, the heating and hot water were working but as a valve on 1 of the radiators was too close to the wall, the resident was unable to adjust it. The landlord appropriately arranged to replace the valve, which it did so on 25 November 2024, in line with its 28 day repairs policy.
As the landlord was satisfied the resident still had heating and hot water on that date, it was reasonable of it to not consider if it needed to provide any temporary heaters to the resident.
However, it is important to note that the Heat loss survey found poor insulation throughout the property and single glazed wooden windows. The properties energy performance certificate also noted this. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider that while the radiators were working, the property may have still been cold due to the property’s poor energy efficiency. It would have been appropriate for it to have at least discussed providing the resident with temporary heaters, after it had completed the heat loss survey, while it was awaiting the installation of new radiators. This would have been particularly important given that the issues occurred during the winter months when the property would have been colder.
It is also important to note that in the stage 2 response, the landlord advised the resident that due to the condition of his property it had referred him to its planned investment team. While this step was appropriate, it is unsatisfactory that it took the landlord 3 months from receiving the heat loss survey for it to take such action. This is not appropriate, and its delay may have caused a delay in the resident’s property being overhauled.
During the appointment on 25 November 2024, the resident asked that the landlord replace all the radiators in the property as they were old and rusty. Internal evidence from 26 November 2024, shows that while the property was void, prior to the resident moving in, the landlord had not completed a building energy rating test, nor a survey of the boiler which it noted was 18 years old. Given the landlord was aware of the age of the boiler, it would have been appropriate for it to ensure it completed all tests and inspections prior to the resident moving in.
This is of particular importance because when it completed a survey of the boiler on 4 December 2024, it found that it needed replacing. Had it done the surveys during its voids process, it could have replaced the boiler prior to the resident moving into the property and therefore minimise the disruption to him. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) notes the importance of having an appropriate heating system, properly installed and maintained. The survey and the landlord’s admission that it had not completed the relevant checks in its void process are contrary to that requirement. Its lack of effective void process caused the resident to live in a property with an inefficient heating system.
On the same date the landlord completed a heat loss survey. This survey found that 3 of the 7 radiators required replacing. The resident was unhappy with this. However, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified engineers in such circumstances. A landlord’s resources are not finite and therefore it was reasonable of the landlord to only replace 3 of the radiators, in line with the results of the survey, at that time.
It is important to note that during the complaint the resident raised that he had not been sent the heat loss survey following its completion. While it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have supplied this at the earliest opportunity, it did provide it shortly after the complaint. Furthermore, it apologised for the delay and appropriately offered the resident £100 for its oversight.
The landlord replaced the boiler on 18 December 2024. This was within its 28 day repair timescales and reasonable given that the resident had a working boiler while awaiting the new one.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 16 December 2024 about the landlord’s decision not to replace all the radiators. In that complaint he said he had bought 7 heaters and a heated blanket. He said he was a vulnerable adult and needed the issue fixed. However, while the landlord was replacing the boiler and the 3 radiators, there is no evidence to show that it contacted the resident to discuss his concerns and understand why he had bought the heaters. This would have been an opportunity for it to consider if it needed to offer the resident some support, any other temporary solutions or refer him to any relevant support agencies, in line with its vulnerable resident’s policy.
This would also have been an opportunity for the landlord to set out clearly its position in relation to any costs incurred by the resident by both buying and using the radiators.
The landlord spoke to the resident again on 23 December 2024 to discuss his complaint. Again, there is no evidence to show that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and if it could have offered further support to him. This is of particular importance, as during that call, the resident specifically mentioned the increased energy costs to him. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered if it could have referred the resident for support with his energy bills.
Furthermore, during the call the resident also said that he was unwell due to the lack of heating in the property. As the landlord was aware the resident had bought his own heaters, this was a further missed opportunity for it to have clarified its position regarding the costs incurred by the resident in relation to the heaters. And to have considered if it needed to take any action itself to offer further support to him. Furthermore, we cannot see that the landlord provided any response to the resident’s concerns about being cold and its lack of concern here was unacceptable.
It is important to note that during that call and in an email to the landlord on 30 December 2024 the resident explained he had not moved his possessions into the property and was paying for storage costs. Yet, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it responded to that email to reassure the resident that he could move his possessions into the property until the stage 1 response on 14 February 2025. The evidence does not show that it sought to understand the resident’s concerns around not moving his items in. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have resolved this issue prior to the complaint response and reassured the resident that he could have moved all his possessions in. Its failure to respond at the earliest opportunity to this issue caused the resident to spend a significant amount of money on storage.
It is also important to note that, had the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the published 10 working days, it would have told the resident that it would not pay for storage at an earlier stage and clarified that it saw no reason for him not to move the items into the property. While we have assessed this delay as part of the landlord’s complaint handling, its delay to respond here caused the resident to incur unnecessary costs for storing his items.
Furthermore, the landlord’s moving in guide, found on its website, details that it would complete a sign-up call within a week of a resident first moving in and a detailed welcome visit or call within the first 6 weeks of a tenancy. The landlord has not provided evidence to show that it undertook such a visit. Had it done so, it may have discovered the resident’s concerns about moving his possessions into the property and reassured him that there was no reason for him not to move his items in.
The landlord attended to replace the radiators on 24 December 2024. This was in line with its 28 day repair timescale and therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
During that appointment, the resident declined the fitting of 2 of the radiators as the operatives wanted to remove floorboards. Given the resident’s refusal at that stage, it was reasonable of the contractors to leave the property. Appropriately, the operatives ensured all the radiators were working and the resident had hot water prior to them leaving.
However, while the resident did refuse the works, there is no evidence to show that the landlord spoke to him to understand his concerns and to explain why it needed to remove floorboards to replace the radiators. The evidence shows that the landlord did not raise works again until 13 January 2025 when it sought clarification from the contractor about the status of the works. The lack of effective communication with the resident and its contractor caused delays in the contractor replacing the outstanding 2 radiators.
On 3 February 2025, the resident reported that 1 of the radiators had fallen off the wall. The contractor appropriately attended the following day to undertake a repair. As the resident asked the contractor not to reconnect the radiator until it attended on the 12 February 2025 to complete the outstanding works, it capped the radiator.
The contractors attended to replace the remaining radiators on 12 February 2025. However, 1 of the radiators was damaged. While this would have been inconvenient, the damage did not become clear until the radiator was unwrapped. Therefore, while unfortunate, in this instance the further delay could not be helped. The landlord attended to complete the outstanding works on 25 February 2025.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said the delays in completing the works were due to the resident refusing the works. While the resident did refuse the installation of 2 radiators on 24 December 2024, the landlord also delayed in contacting the resident to rearrange the works. We cannot see beyond the incident on 24 December 2024, that the resident had refused any other works or caused further delays in the contractor completing the works. It was therefore unreasonable of the landlord to lay all the blame on the resident in this instance.
However, it is important to note that the landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that it was not fair of it to attribute all the blame on the resident and accepted that it should have contacted him to rearrange the further works. In apologising it also offered the resident £100 to reflect the delays from December until it installed the final radiators.
On 11 February, the resident provided evidence to show he had spent money on items for his home, including a tabletop oven and hob, as he was unable to move his own possessions into the home. While it is unfortunate the resident spent a considerable amount of money on these items, the landlord was under no obligation to reimburse the monies as ultimately it was the resident’s decision to buy the items and there is no evidence that he sought to discuss the purchases with the landlord.
Following the landlord’s decision to replace the boiler in the property, the resident contacted the landlord to ask why it was not installing an air source heat pump in the property. While we understand the resident wanted a heat pump, the evidence shows that the resident’s property was in fact not suitable for a heat pump.
However, the evidence provided suggests the landlord had never explained this to the resident to help him understand its decision not to install the heat pump. It would have been useful for the landlord to have explained its reasoning to the resident at the earliest opportunity. Its failure to clarify this in either of its complaint responses was not helpful.
Following the resident’s further concerns about the efficiency of the radiators, the landlord, in its stage 2 response, said it would arrange for a further full survey of the radiators to be completed. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it was appropriate of the landlord to undertake a further inspection.
That inspection, completed on 31 March 2025 shows that the contractor recommended that the landlord replace all the radiators. While it is was unfortunate that the landlord only sought a second opinion after much persistence from the resident, it was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractors at the time.
However, we understand the landlord has not replaced the radiators at this time and an order has been made in relation to this.
It was clear throughout this case that the landlord failed to understand the challenges faced by the resident. According to the landlord’s own vulnerable resident’s policy, it should have responded with sensitivity and taken the resident’s personal circumstances into account. However, there is no evidence that the landlord ever considered the resident’s specific circumstances or the impact the issues had on him. The landlord did not respond promptly to the resident’s first reports of loss of heating and hot water, nor did it properly take time to understand his repeated concerns. The landlord did not offer support to the resident’s repeated concerns that he was cold and the impact that had on him. While it replaced the boiler and the 3 radiators, its lack of empathy towards the resident was clear. It took over 7 weeks for it to respond to the resident’s reports that he had not moved his belongings into the property causing him to spend money on storage and buying items to use in the property.
It is the landlord’s lack of effective communication and failure to evidence that it applied its vulnerable resident’s policy effectively in this case that has led to a finding of severe maladministration.
A compensation order is made for £1,700, made up of the following:
1. £200 previously offered by the landlord.
2. £150 for not considering the resident’s vulnerabilities.
3. £500 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
4. £150 for the time and trouble taken by the resident.
5. £700 to cover the cost of storage for 7 weeks from when the resident first informed the landlord in December 2024 until the landlord clarified its position in February 2025.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident raised a formal complaint on 16 December 2024 which the landlord acknowledged, in line with its policy, within 5 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 February 2025. This was 31 days after the response was due and therefore, not in line with its complaints policy.
Furthermore, the resident chased a response to his complaint on 24 January 2025. Despite this, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it wrote to the resident to explain that the response would be late to manage his expectations. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that where a landlord cannot provide a response within 10 working days, it must write to the resident to explain the delay. It notes that it must agree any extension beyond a further 10 working days with the resident. The landlord’s failure to follow both its policy and the Code caused a delay in the resident receiving a resolution to his complaint.
However, the landlord apologised for the delay and offered compensation to the resident of £50 to reflect the failing. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 26 February 2025, which the landlord acknowledged, in line with its complaints policy on 4 March 2025.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 March 2025, in line with its complaints policy.
In the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process he mentioned there was damp and mould in the property. While the landlord provided a response to this in its stage 2 response, it would have been appropriate for it have raised a new complaint about the issue or to have clarified with the resident if he was happy for the issue to be responded to at stage 2. Its failure to do so has denied the resident the opportunity to pursue the issue through a 2 stage complaints process.
Therefore, while the landlord sought to put things right at stage 1 by offering redress for the late response, its failure to not consider if the damp and mould should be dealt with as a separate complaint response, amounts to service failure in this case.
A compensation order is made for £75, made up of the £50 the landlord offered for its delayed stage 1 and £25 for not considering if the damp and mould should have been considered as a separate complaint.

Determination

Under paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water including its decision to not replace all the radiators in the resident’s property.
Under paragraph 52, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £1,775 made up of the following:
1. £1,700 for its handling of the resident’s reports of loss of heating and hot water.
2. £75 for its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must undertake a review of this case. This review must consider how the landlord can improve its services for vulnerable residents including adapting its communication and understanding when it needs to offer further support to residents. It must provide us with a copy of the review.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide resident and us with a timebound action plan, setting out when it will replace the radiators in the property if it has not already done so. It must also provide details of the timescale for the planned investments works in this property. And should give consideration to completing a survey of the property.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must consider the costs incurred by the resident in relation to the storage, heaters, electric blanket, and other items bought. Taking into account the failings found in this report, it must consider if it would appropriate for it to reimburse the resident for these costs. If the landlord does not consider it appropriate to reimburse the resident, it must set that out to the resident and us why it has not paid these costs.