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 (202421255)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421255

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 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:
    1. Section 20 process for replacement windows.
    2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the replacement windows and related consultation process.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been the leaseholder of the property, a 1-bedroom second-floor flat in a terraced house containing 1 other flat, since March 2015. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder of the building.
  2. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (‘the Act’), landlords must consult with residents in instances where they intend to undertake qualifying works. These are works to a building, which the landlord is responsible for undertaking, where the costs exceed the prescribed amount of £250. The consultation takes the form of a section 20 notification that outlines the works, costs, and timeframes for consultation.
  3. On 1 December 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming its responsibility to maintain the internal and external areas of his property. It advised that, as a leaseholder, the resident had to contribute to the costs. It explained that as part of its obligations under the Act, it had to serve a section 20 notice detailing its intention to conduct works and to advise the resident of his right to make representations. The landlord included the section 20 notice with the letter, as well as an estimate of costs. It described the work to be undertaken as “Cyclical decoration, window renewal & associated repairs”. The resident’s apportionment of costs was estimated as £17,292.57 and the consultation period listed as 35 days, with responses due by 5 January 2024.
  4. On 6 December 2023, the resident responded to the section 20 consultation. He advised the landlord that the kitchen, bedroom and living room windows in his property had recently been replaced with high quality double glazed units. He requested that these specific windows were not replaced again and asked if the bathroom window could be manufactured from PVC or a non-wood material. Considering his requests, he asked the landlord to revise its schedule of works and the associated costs. Over the forthcoming months the resident made several further requests for a revision of the works and costs but the landlord did not provide the information.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 July 2024. He said the section 20 notification did not contain sufficient information on the proposed works to allow for meaningful consultation. The resident explained that there was no information on what windows the landlord intended to replace, what materials would be used, the estimates the quotation was based on, or information on any work/material guarantees. He also advised that there was confusion as to whether the quotation included recently replaced windows in his flat. He stated that he had repeatedly requested clarification on the different issues and that it was not until 5 July 2024 (7 months later) that the landlord provided the information. He said that the information indicated that the costs were excessive, above market rates, and therefore unreasonable, which reduced his liability for the work to £250. He told the landlord that it had failed to provide timely information and have regard to his observations. He therefore believed the consultation was flawed. He added that despite his concerns, the landlord had proceeded with the work.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 September 2024. It said it had completed the section 20 process in line with its procedure and responded to the resident’s observations within the required timescales. It advised that the initial survey had identified 7 windows that needed replacing in the building, 3 of which were in the resident’s property and 4 in the other flat. It confirmed that it had provided the resident with the 3 quotes it had obtained from the installers. It explained that it had been using the same window manufacturer for a number of years and was satisfied with the quality and durability of the windows, which came with a 1 year guarantee. It acknowledged that the resident had supplied photographs of the windows that did not require replacement and confirmed that it would not include these windows in the final costings. It apologised for the delay in providing a response to his complaint and offered £50 compensation.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 September 2024. He said the landlord had failed to have regard to his observations in relation to the section 20 process. He added that it had taken it 7 months to provide an updated schedule of works and costings. He advised he had repeatedly told the landlord that 3 windows did not need replacement and at no point did it inform him that these 3 windows were not included in the costs. He indicated he felt the landlord was charging 50% above market rate for “inferior windows with a poor guarantee”. He stated that the landlord had caused continual delays, failed to respond to deadlines, not attended scheduled meetings, and proceeded with work against his wishes. He said the section 20 process was flawed and that his liability for the works should therefore be reduced to £250.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 November 2024. It said:
    1. It had conducted the section 20 consultation process correctly.
    2. After receiving the resident’s representations, it decided that the process could continue as it had answered the representations and they were not of a nature that would justify delaying the work.
    3. It had taken on board the resident’s comments about the windows and actioned them as requested.
    4. There was a delay in its communication with the resident between January 2024 and July 2025, when it had provided the estimates to him. Despite the delay being due to staff changes, it acknowledged that this amounted to a service failure.
    5. It had identified further service failures in its communication surrounding its processes, intentions, and the clarity of its communications. The impact of these had not been considered in its stage 1 response. It felt the service it had delivered fell below the standard that it committed to providing to leaseholders.
    6. It acknowledged that works had started on the building, but that no work was taking place at the resident’s home until the issues had been resolved. Further, it confirmed that only work included in the section 20 notification would be charged and that any additional work outside of the consultation would not be billed to him.
    7. It had failed to attend a post-scaffold meeting at the building on 13 June 2024 and had not communicated appropriately prior to or after this meeting. It apologised for this.
    8. It was aware the resident believed it was paying approximately 50% above market rates for the window replacement. However, it had obtained 3 independent quotations and was confident in the quality and durability of the windows.
    9. It apologised that the resident had had to raise issues with the cleaning and security of the building. It had reimbursed the cost of the cleaning and spoken to its contractor at the time, to reinforce the expected site rules and behaviours.
    10. It would continue to liaise with the resident regarding the works and the final estimate, but would not reduce his liability for costs down to £250 as he had requested. Any changes to costs would be applied to the final account letter, it would not issue a revised section 20 notification.
    11. It accepted that its stage 1 response was not concluded fairly and in line with its policy and processes. Neither was its offer of compensation, as it did not adequately account for the time taken to resolve the issue or the inconvenience caused.
    12. In addition to the £50 offered at stage 1 it awarded a further £465 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £15 for the missed appointment on 13 June 2024.
      2. £400 for the time taken to resolve the issue and its “extensive lack of communication”.
      3. £50 for the delayed response at stage 2.

Events post internal complaints procedure

  1. On 31 January 2025, the resident informed the landlord that he was dissatisfied with its stage 2 response. In addition, he said he had been informed that the erection of the scaffolding was charged at a flat rate, therefore he believed any overrun charges were the liability of the landlord. Further, he said it had informed him that the windows had already been manufactured. Again, the resident pointed out that the landlord should not have proceeded with any works until the consultation process had been concluded. He said he had repeatedly asked for no substantive work to go ahead until a resolution between the parties had been reached.
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 February 2025. It advised it had reinspected the building and found that 3 of the windows on the rear elevation of the resident’s flat had some rot present but were not beyond economical repair. To progress the works, it offered to remove the cost of manufacturing and installation of these windows. The total cost removed was £5,562.04. It also said it would conduct a further inspection and produce an estimate for the work required including any additional repairs. It stated that once these aspects had been agreed it would progress with the works.
  3. The landlord informed this Service that it agreed costs with the resident in March 2025 and completed the work in June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident said the landlord’s failure to adequately communicate and provide the requested information about the window replacement works and associated costs demonstrated a flawed consultation process. He provided evidence to show numerous requests for the information and for the work to be delayed until an agreement could be reached. The landlord disputed that these errors had any overall impact on the section 20 process.
  3. Paragraph 42.f of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  4.  After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the validity of the landlord’s section 20 process is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has powers to determine section 20 matters. It can also determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. It is understood that if a landlord fails to carry out consultation procedures in the correct manner, it may not be able to recover service charges beyond the statutory minimum amounts. While this aspect of the resident’s complaint is better suited to the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT), the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.

Scope of the investigation

  1. As mentioned above, the events in this case continued until the work was completed in June 2025, which is significantly beyond the landlord’s stage 2 response.  It would be unfair to include these events in our investigation without the landlord first having the opportunity to respond. This investigation will therefore cover events up to the time the stage 2 response was issued. The resident has the option of making a further complaint to the landlord about subsequent events, which he may refer to us for separate investigation if he is dissatisfied with its final response.

The resident’s concerns about the replacement windows and consultation process

  1. The landlord conducted a joint survey of the resident’s property with its contractor on 11 January 2023 and produced a scope of works. Within the scope of works, the description section stated “renew older single glazed units only”. In the measurements section, the 2 second-floor windows and rear left window of the resident’s property were listed as “not required”. Also attached to the scope were photographs of the front and rear elevation of the building. The windows in the property to be replaced were clearly circled. This shows that at the very beginning of the process the landlord was aware, and had notified the contractor, that these windows did not form part of the works.
  2. When the landlord sent the section 20 notification to the resident, it stated that it was intending to replace 7 windows in his and a neighbouring flat. It did not specify which 7 windows. When consulting with residents, the Act requires landlords to provide “details of the proposed works”. While this is a wide term, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have specifically identified those windows included and/or not included in the scope. This is especially relevant as the work was across 2 properties. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure the resident fully understood what he was being asked to pay for.
  3. In response to the section 20 notification on 6 December 2023, the resident questioned what windows were being replaced, and clarified that 3 windows in his property had recently been renewed. In its response the landlord asked the resident for photographs to identify those windows. It is unclear why the landlord made this request. Its own documentation as early as November 2023 identified 3 windows as “new double glazed units”. The request was therefore unnecessary. Nonetheless, the resident provided the photographs on 8 December 2023.
  4. In its response the same day, the landlord said it would review the associated costs once it received the photographs. Again, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have checked the scoping documentation at this stage or to have spoken to a member of staff with knowledge of the case. Had it done so, it would have realised that the windows in question were not included. The landlord’s omissions demonstrate poor internal communication and possibly silo working. Further, telling the resident that it was going to review the costs raised his expectations, and led to confusion in the process.
  5. The evidence demonstrates that the resident made 16 requests for a revised schedule of works and associated costs between 12 January 2024 and 5 July 2024. The repeated requests and failure of the landlord to deliver the information would have been frustrating for the resident and caused him time and trouble pursuing it. Of more frustration for him was the fact that the information he received on 5 July 2024 showed that the windows in question were not (and never had been) included in the work schedule or costs.
  6. On 12 February 2024, the contractor informed the resident that it wanted to erect scaffolding and begin the works to the property. The resident emailed the landlord the same day and expressed his strong view that the work should not begin. However, on 22 February 2024, the resident agreed that the scaffolding could be put in place to allow for a preliminary assessment and to assist in the production of a revised scope of works. Nonetheless, the contractor began work to the property, which caused the resident frustration as he did not feel a resolution had been reached. This was inappropriate and demonstrates the landlord’s failure to communicate appropriately with the resident.
  7. On 23 February 2024, the resident again asked the landlord that no further work went ahead until they had agreed a way forward. The landlord responded the same day. It said that it would not charge the resident for any work that it had not consulted with him on. Given the circumstances of the case, this was a reasonable approach by the landlord.
  8. On 1 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. He said that he had had to pay £150 to remove rubbish left by the contractors and that they had left the building unsecured. He advised he would not permit access until the landlord reimbursed him and provided confirmation that the contractor would secure the building at the end of each day. The landlord did reimburse the resident and provide the security commitment, which was appropriate.
  9. On 6 March 2023, the resident again stated that work should not continue until he had agreed the final costs with the landlord. We are not aware of any legal obligation that would require the landlord to stop work. Nonetheless, the resident’s repeated requests for the work not to go ahead evidenced his uncertainty about the process. This should have prompted the landlord to engage in meaningful dialogue with the resident to fully explain its reasoning, decisions, and processes. This did not happen, and the resident continued to request the information up until he raised his complaint with the landlord on 29 July 2024. The continued lack of engagement was frustrating for the resident.
  10. The evidence demonstrates that the resident believed the landlord had not considered his section 20 representations and that work should not be taking place until they had been agreed. However, the landlord’s position was that it had considered the resident’s observations but did not believe they were a reason to delay or stop the works. Unacceptably, it did not make this clear until its stage 2 response on 8 November 2024, meaning that this issue went unresolved for a period of 12 months.
  11. Not providing the information at the time of the consultation response was inappropriate. The landlord missed further opportunities to provide the information, most notably the stage 1 response, which failed to provide any meaningful information or clarification on the resident’s requests. This was unfair and led to him having to expend further time and trouble pursuing the matter.
  12. It is important for landlords to be mindful that, as they are spending residents’ money, those residents have the right to scrutinise and question what is being done with that money. There are of course legal obligations that must be complied with in the provision of information associated with service charges, as discussed above. However, in the spirit of transparency and openness, landlords should deal with requests in a fair and reasonable manner and seek to provide information at the earliest opportunity. This would have been especially beneficial in this case.
  13. Further, the landlord’s section 20 consultation policy states: “It is of fundamental importance that full and meaningful consultation with tenants is undertaken prior to any major works to their buildings commencing.” In addition, it commits to managing issues and providing a clear and transparent channel of communication for the duration of the process. The evidence suggests the landlord did not comply with its policy. Its communication was poor and mainly reactive. When it did communicate, it failed to provide relevant information or clearly explain its position and reasoning. This led to the resident experiencing avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
  14. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised its communication failures and shortcomings throughout the process. It also acknowledged that its stage 1 response did not identify these failures or put things right for the resident. The landlord’s recognition of these facts and apology were appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance. Further, it offered the resident £400 compensation, which was reasonable and in line with our guidance on remedies for circumstances where there was a failure that adversely impacted the resident. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the replacement windows and related consultation process.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If more time is required, it will communicate this delay to the complainant.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 29 July 2024 within the required time limit, which was appropriate. However, it did not provide its response on time and did not notify the resident of the delay. This was a failure to comply with its policy. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 August 2024 chasing its response to his complaint. It acknowledged the email the next day and said it had passed his email to the customer solutions team. Unreasonably, nobody got back to the resident to acknowledge the delay or provide a new timeframe as required by its policy.
  3. Overall, the stage 1 response was issued 21 days outside the required timeframe. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its response, apologised and offered £50 compensation, which was fair.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 September 2024. The landlord again acknowledged the complaint within the required timescale. On 31 October 2024 it told him that it required more time, provided reasons why, and committed to providing a response by 2 December 2024. It then issued its response 7 days later, on 8 November 2024. The landlord’s actions were in line with its policy. Nonetheless, it still apologised for the delay and offered the resident an additional £50 compensation to put things right. For these reasons we have made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the landlord’s section 20 process for replacement windows is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the replacement windows and related consultation process.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £515 compensation that it offered the resident, as this is the basis for our findings of reasonable redress.