From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202343596)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343596

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the windows.
    2. Repairs to the boiler.
    3. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her 2 children.
  2. On 1 February 2023, the landlord raised a repair for the windows in the resident’s property. It noted the resident had reported the windows were not fit for purpose, that they were letting in a severe draught, and the wooden frames were rotting. The landlord inspected the windows in March 2023 and raised follow on works. The resident raised a formal complaint on 5 June 2023. She said that the windows had not been fit for purpose since she moved in. She said surveyors had inspected them but she had not received any update, despite chasing it.
  3. The landlord carried out a further inspection in August 2023 in which it reported the windows were in good condition. However, it recommended a surveyor inspect them further. It referred the windows for an upgrade to its planned investment team. The outcome of the stock condition survey was that it did not need to renew the windows and doors until at least 2025 and 2026.
  4. The resident submitted a further formal complaint via this Service on 23 May 2024. She said all the windows were faulty, the frames were damaged, and the glass had become loose in one of the windows. She said landlord operatives had attended multiple times but she had not received any updates following the inspection. She said she wanted the landlord to replace all the windows. The resident said the landlord fixed an issue with her boiler 8 months ago but now the same issue had reoccurred.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 4 June 2024. It said:
    1. It outlined the action it had taken since the resident’s report in January 2023. It said following the visit in March 2023, it could see that the resident chased the follow on works in June, July, and August 2023 and it did not respond. It apologised for the lack of response and for not arranging a surveyor to inspect and manage the repairs as agreed. It outlined the learning it had taken from that.
    2. As an extended period had passed since the first referral, it said it would arrange for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property to assess the current condition of the windows. It said someone would contact her within 10 working days to arrange an appointment.
    3. It explained that it had advised the resident to report the issue with her boiler and that it would treat that part of her complaint as a service request. It provided the details for its heating contractor.
    4. It noted that the resident had made a complaint on 5 June 2023. It apologised for not logging the complaint and failing to meet her expectations. It outlined the steps it had taken to improve its service going forward.
    5. The landlord offered a total of £600 in compensation for the failures identified.
  6. A surveyor attended the property on 20 June 2024. Following the visit, it said a referral had been made to its planned investment team to replace the windows. It said as the replacement could take some time, it had raised a job to carry out the necessary repairs to the windows and doors in the meantime. The work order stated the following:
    1. Glazing not secure in living room window. Please seal.
    2. Please replace split panel in front door.
    3. Refix stool ground floor front window.
    4. Carry out repairs to second floor windows to make safe where glass is loose.
    5. Carry out any other repairs required to windows.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 June 2024. She provided videos and photos of her windows. She said the glass was coming away from the frame, the frames were rotting, and there were large cracks around the window reveals. She said the failings the landlord identified caused great delays and now she was waiting on yet another surveyor report.
  8. The resident provided images of her daughter’s school attendance record and her son’s hospital discharge letter. She said they were from the times they had been ill due to the house being cold in the winter months. The resident said this was despite the heating being constantly on. The resident felt she should not have to wait until 2025/26 for a window replacement. She referred to a neighbouring property which had fully double glazed windows and paid less rent than her. She said she would like her windows changed sooner and compensation for the stress and illness endured since moving in.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 August 2024. It said the window replacements were due to be completed on its 2025 programme. It said it could not complete the replacement sooner as the programme for 2024 was already underway. It said following an inspection in June 2024, repairs were raised for the windows and doors. It said it had scheduled an appointment for the repairs on 9 August 2024. It said it would not offer any further compensation as the compensation it already awarded was in line with its policy.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said the appointment on 9 August 2024 did not go ahead and the repairs are still outstanding. She said this was because the carpenter who attended could not complete the works due to the vagueness of the instructions provided by the surveyor. The resident felt the landlord had not taken into account the stress and illnesses caused to her family. She raised concerns about going into another winter with inadequate windows.
  11. At the time of writing this report, the window replacement has not taken place.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states:
    1. “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”
  2. Part of the resident’s complaint referred to an issue with her boiler. The landlord responded to the resident and stated that it would treat the issue as a service request, rather than a complaint, and explained why. The resident did not then escalate this part of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. As such, it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and has not been investigated within this report.

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her correspondence to the Ombudsman the resident raised issues related to her smoke detectors and rent arrears. There is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint about these issues and they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As a result, they have not been considered as part of this investigation.
  2. The resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on the household’s health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Although, we will consider any impact that likely resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the windows

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it operates a service for emergency and non-emergency repairs. It advised that non-emergency repairs should be completed as soon as possible within 28 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that major component replacements are not responsive repairs, and these items should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes.
  3. The Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) refers to poorly fitted windows having the potential to pose risks to a resident’s household, for example from excess cold, security, and/or from risks of falling. 
  4. The Decent Homes Standard requires social housing to be in a reasonable state of repair and provide a “reasonable degree of thermal comfort.”
  5. It was not disputed by the landlord that there were unreasonable delays and poor communication in its handling of the windows repairs. This would likely have been distressing for the resident and caused her time and trouble in chasing a response. The landlord acknowledged that it did not clearly communicate with the resident nor manage her expectations. It also apologised for its failings and offered £500 in compensation. £400 was in recognition of the delays and the likely impact on the resident. £50 was in line with the right to repair scheme. £50 was for its failure to respond to the resident’s phone calls.
  6. When there are identified failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  7. In its complaint responses, the landlord showed fairness in its acknowledgement of failing to follow its policy and resolve matters within the relevant timescales. It outlined the outcome of the inspections and surveys which concluded that it would add the windows to its replacement programme. It noted that the windows were in poor condition and repairs were required in the meantime. The resident wanted the landlord to complete the replacements, however, the landlord was entitled to rely on the view of its qualified staff.
  8. Window replacements are major works and not something a landlord can usually undertake on an immediate basis. Landlords have a specific budget each fiscal year. Having a defined annual schedule for major works allows it to use its budget effectively by identifying in advance which properties require upgrades and managing the works accordingly. However, we would still expect the landlord to carry out interim repairs to the windows as part of its responsive repairs service.
  9. From the landlord’s records we have seen evidence of the resident reporting draughts from the windows since January 2023. The landlord raised follow on works on 17 July 2023 which suggested fitting draught excluders and seals on all the windows and back door. We have not seen evidence of the landlord carrying out this repair. The resident continued to report the windows letting in cold air and in her stage 2 escalation she referred to her children being ill due to the cold temperatures in the home.
  10. While the landlord referred to the condition of the windows in its complaint responses, it did not provide its position on the continued reports of draughts and the impact of the cold temperatures in the household. In line with its obligations, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out a risk assessment and outlined what steps it was taking to address the reports of draughts and cold. If it felt the repairs identified would address the concerns, it would have been reasonable to state that. In the absence of this information, the landlord has not evidenced that it showed consideration to the resident’s concerns for her household’s wellbeing or its obligation to ensure the property was warm enough.
  11. In her formal complaint the resident advised that the glass in 1 of her windows was loose. Following the inspection dated 20 June 2024, the landlord noted that it needed to carry out repairs to the second floor windows where glass was loose. It also said it would refix the glass on the ground floor window to improve security.
  12. Insecure windows and doors fall within the right to repair scheme and are to be attended to by the landlord within 1 working day. This is mirrored in the landlord’s repairs policy which states it will make safe emergency works within 24 hours. The landlord did not follow its policy and it acknowledged this in its response. However, the resident has 2 children living at the property and it is not appropriate that despite recognising its failings, it has still not carried out the repairs with any urgency.
  13. While the landlord arranged an appointment for 9 August 2024, it is unclear what the outcome of the visit was. In correspondence to the Ombudsman dated 27 November 2024 the landlord stated that it had “affected repairs to the windows”. It said “they are fully functioning, secure and serviceable. Therefore, the renewal was the best course of action”. The resident disputes this and has said that the landlord has not completed any of the repairs.
  14. In the absence of any supporting evidence from the landlord, we cannot conclude that it has satisfactorily resolved the issue or put things right. It is not appropriate that the resident has stated the repairs remain outstanding over a year later.
  15. The landlord demonstrated some learning from its outcomes. It said it provided feedback to its surveyors team regarding the need to continue monitoring repairs and reallocate when staff leave or have been transferred elsewhere in the business. However, it does not appear to have fully learnt from all the outcomes due to the further delays in carrying out the repairs.
  16. The landlord offered a total of £500 in compensation which was to put right the delays in its handling of the repairs, poor communication, and the likely impact caused to the resident. This was a reasonable amount of compensation for the failings identified. It was in line with the higher end of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration and where there were failings which adversely affected the resident. The compensation offered may have been reasonable if the landlord was then able to resolve the complaint within a reasonable timeframe, but it has not sufficiently evidenced that it did.
  17. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the windows. The landlord’s overall response to the resident’s concerns was not reasonable as it did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint or evidence how it had resolved the complaint satisfactorily. It did not manage the resident’s expectations regarding the outstanding repairs and likely caused distress and inconvenience to her in the time taken to do so.
  18. In recognition of the time which has now passed since its previous commitment to the repairs, the landlord must arrange for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s windows. The inspection report must confirm the current condition of the windows. If there are any works required, the landlord must provide an action plan with defined timescales for it to complete the work. This must take into account the immediacy of any repairs or replacements identified, in accordance with any risks, and the time taken to complete them so far.
  19. In recognition of the additional failures identified, the landlord must pay an additional £300 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgment. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
  2. The landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s first complaint in June 2023, which was a failing. It appropriately apologised for that and outlined what steps it had taken since to ensure it does not repeat the same mistake again. The £100 offered was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure.
  3. The resident made a further complaint on 23 May 2024 via this service. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day and responded within 6 working days which was reasonable and in line with its policy.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 June 2024. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement on 11 July 2025, 9 working days later. This was not in line with its service level agreement which was to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. However, the landlord provided its stage 2 response 16 working days after the stage 2 acknowledgement, which was in line with its policy. Therefore, we consider any impact caused to the resident from the initial delay would have been minimal.
  5. In its stage 1 response it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s report of her faulty boiler as a service request, rather than a complaint. This is because landlord’s must be afforded the opportunity to put things right before it logs a complaint. It provided the appropriate information for the resident to report the fault.
  6. In her stage 2 escalation the resident requested further compensation in recognition of the stress and illness she has endured since moving in. The landlord outlined why it would not be awarding further compensation. And as stated, the amount offered for the failings it did identify for the windows at the time was proportionate. We have considered the additional failings as part of this investigation and awarded further compensation in recognition of any likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  7. Overall, the landlord apologised for its recognised failings, it outlined the learning it had taken from the failings, and it offered a proportionate amount of compensation. Its response regarding the boiler was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint related to the repairs to the boiler is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in its handling of its repairs to the windows. This must include its failure to fully consider the reported cold temperature of the property. It must also include the time taken for it to carry out the repairs to the windows. The apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
  2. The landlord must arrange for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s windows. The inspection report must confirm the current condition of the windows. If there are any works required, the landlord must provide an action plan with defined timescales for it to complete the work. This must take into account the immediacy of any repairs or replacements identified, in accordance with any risks, and the time taken to complete them so far.
  3. Alongside the report, the landlord must complete a risk assessment in line with the HHSRS and take into account any vulnerabilities in the household.
  4. The landlord must provide an update to the resident on the status of her window replacement and what the next steps will be.
  5. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation. This is broken down as:
    1. The £500 it previously offered, if it has not already been paid to the resident.
    2. The £300 awarded for the additional failings identified.
  6. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. If the resident continues to report excess cold following the repairs to the windows, then it is recommended that the landlord consider carrying out a heat loss survey in the property.
  2. If it has not already been paid to the resident, it is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £100 it offered to the resident for its complaint handling failure.