Clarion Housing Association Limited (202332524)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with delays in the landlord attending to repair her boiler, which left her without heating and hot water. She feels it treated her unfairly following an alleged incident between her son and a contractor, which led to unreasonable delays to repairs. The landlord is aware the resident has multiple physical vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration by the landlord in its:
   1. handling of boiler repairs
   2. handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Boiler repairs

5. Delays during the repairs process were unavoidable for the landlord, and it acted reasonably in line with its policies. However, it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the resident was not left at a detriment while the boiler was not working.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint in line with its complaints policy, dismissing several requests from the resident before finally agreeing to escalate it.

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 have not considered

7. Following the landlord’s stage 2 response in December 2024, the resident experienced further issues with the new boiler. She raised a further complaint in January 2025, which the landlord responded to in March 2025. It has confirmed the resident did not escalate this complaint to stage 2. As this complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, we have not considered issues raised by the resident after the stage 2 response of 18 December 2024. If she remains unhappy with these matters, she could ask the landlord to escalate the more recent complaint. However, given the amount of time that’s passed it may decline to do this.

Boiler repairs

8. The landlord attended a breakdown of the boiler on 28 September 2023. It needed parts to carry out repairs, so it delivered temporary heaters on 30 September 2023, which was a reasonable step for it to take. It reattended on 4 October 2023 to fit parts and left the boiler working. It booked in further works for 7 October 2023.
9. During the visit on 7 October 2023 the contractor reported an alleged incident with the resident’s son and completed a form noting safety concerns. The incident was reported to the police. The landlord made the decision not to allow its contractors to attend further appointments without a police escort.
10. It is not for us to decide whether the alleged incident took place. It is our understanding that the incident is subject to an ongoing police investigation. Our role is to consider whether the landlord acted proportionately, in line with its policies. The landlord’s Risk to Staff Policy sets out restrictions it can put in place, which can include only visiting with police support. It has a duty to protect its staff and contractors, and based on the evidence available, its decision to implement this restriction was reasonable and in line with its policy.
11. In its stage 1 response of 20 December 2023, it clearly explained to the resident why it had put the restriction in place. It noted that the resident had reported a further issue with the boiler. Its records show that the following day it reached out to local police to try to arrange a joint visit for a repair. Due to police availability, it was unable to arrange this until 30 January 2024. This visit went ahead and the contractor left the boiler working. However, they needed a further part to finish the repair.
12. The landlord contacted the police on 12 February 2024 to try to book in a further visit, but they said they did not have the resource to attend at that time. Following contact from the resident on 19 March 2024 where she said she did not have hot water, the landlord contacted the police again. It chased this several times and on 26 April 2024 was able to arrange a visit for 8 May 2024.
13. The landlord completed a further repair on 8 May 2024, and it made the decision to replace the boiler due to the frequency of reported repairs. The landlord installed the new boiler on 19 June 2024. Given the number of reported repairs and the access issues, it was a reasonable and proactive action by the landlord to replace the boiler.
14. The resident reported a further problem with the heating and hot water on 25 November 2024. A visit was booked for 28 November 2024 for a contractor to attend alongside a member of the landlord’s staff. The landlord agreed this appointment on the basis that the resident’s son would not be at the property. When they arrived at the property, he was present and so they left without completing repairs. They completed a further form noting that the resident’s son was shouting at the contractor and landlord staff member. Given the previous alleged incident, it was reasonable for them to leave the premises at that time.
15. A further visit took place with police support on 6 December 2024, where a contractor restored the boiler to working order. In its stage 2 response of 18 December 2024 the landlord said that it had agreed to the visit on 28 November 2024 due to the resident’s vulnerabilities. It stood by its contractor’s decision to decline further visits without police support. It said that all delays in repairs were due to the alleged incident and the need for police support.
16. Overall, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. It followed its policy to protect its staff and contractors, in line with documented reports of incidents. However, it is not evident that it went far enough to consider the resident being without heating and hot water for a prolonged period.
17. The landlord did provide temporary heaters quickly, which the resident told us she was able to use. However, she told us it has not provided any reimbursement for the additional cost of running these, despite her raising this in her complaint. We have also seen no evidence that it considered her lack of hot water or offered any advice on alternative washing facilities while she was without this. It has not demonstrated that it considered the residents health conditions and the impact of the lack of hot water on her. While the provision of police assistance was outside of the landlord’s control, it was also outside of the resident’s control. It should have considered the full impact of the loss of amenities.
18. Given the time that has passed and the information available, it would be difficult for us to calculate the additional cost to the resident for running temporary heaters. It is also not clear from the records exactly how many days the boiler was not working. Therefore, we do not know exactly how long she had run these, or how long she was without hot water.
19. With that in mind, we have made a compensation award in line with our compensation guidance where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. Our award has been made considering the cost of running the heaters, the lack of hot water and the distress and inconvenience caused by this to the resident. The landlord failed to address the impact on her, especially considering her vulnerabilities, and made no attempt to put things right. While the delays were understandable, it still had a responsibility to consider steps to mitigate the distress and inconvenience caused to her, which it did not do.

20. The landlord sent its stage 1 response 12 working days after the resident raised the complaint. This was slightly outside its complaints policy timescale of 10 working days.
21. The landlord missed several opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint. Contact from her local Councillor on 30 December 2023 could have been considered as a request to escalate it. When they made contact again on 11 March 2024, they made it clear they believed the complaint was ongoing and a response was required. The landlord should have taken this as a clear request for escalation, but it did not do so.
22. When the Councillor tried again to get the landlord to escalate the complaint in November 2024, it initially refused due to the time that had passed since its stage 1 response. Given it should have previously escalated the complaint, this was not a reasonable response. Its stage 2 response was subsequently sent almost 12 months after the resident first challenged its stage 1 response, which was not appropriate.
23. We have made our compensation award in line with our compensation guidance where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failures and has made no attempt to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping in the case was reasonable. It kept clear records of its communications with the police and its contractors, allowing it to complete a thorough investigation into the complaint.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication in the case was not good. It missed opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint, which could have been resolved by better communication with the resident and her local Councillor.