Clarion Housing Association Limited (202440753)

Decision
Case ID	202440753
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident lives with her partner and 3 children. The resident and her children have vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord. In 2021, the landlord installed an air source heat pump (ASHP) in the resident’s home.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the efficiency of the heat pump.
2. Request for solar panels to be installed at the property.
3. Concerns about the cavity wall insulation.
4. Reports of repairs to the newly installed ASHP.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the efficiency of the heat pump.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for solar panels to be installed at the property.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling the resident’s concerns about the cavity wall insulation.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the newly installed heat pump.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

We have found that:
1. The landlord acknowledged its failings in relation to the efficiency of the heat pump and the resident’s request for solar panels, took reasonable steps to investigate, and offered compensation that was fair, proportionate, and in line with our remedies guidance.
2. The landlord unreasonably delayed resolving the cavity wall insulation issues and at the time of our investigation the evidence suggested that the issue remained outstanding.
3. The landlord responded to new heat pump faults within its target timescales.
4. While the landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the complaint delays, it failed to follow its complaints policy when it did not open new stage 1 complaints.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £400 for its handling of her concerns about the cavity wall insulation. £200 for its handling of her complaint. This includes the £50 offered at stage 1, £50 at stage 2, plus an additional £100 for the failings identified in this report. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 27 February 2026
3	Completing the works The landlord must take all necessary measures to ensure the issues that were identified during the appointment on 30 January 2025 (in relation to the cavity wall insulation) are rectified promptly, and in any event by the due date. The landlord should provide documentary evidence of the repairs, including reports and photographs of any work undertaken. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or The steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 27 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
Our findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that the resident receives the £2,232.62 that the landlord previously offered her (£2,182.62 for the heat pump and £50 for solar panels). Therefore, if the landlord has not already done so, it should pay this directly to the resident. This is in addition to the £600 ordered above.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 July 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that she believed the ASHP in her property was faulty because it was generating annual energy costs of over £4,000. She said this had consequently placed her in financial hardship.
12 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It provided a timeline of events and confirmed: It had installed the ASHP incorrectly in 2021, which it agreed had contributed to the resident’s high energy bills. In May 2024, it installed a new ASHP which had subsequently reduced the resident’s energy costs. It offered the resident £2,232.69 compensation. Of this, £1,682.62 was for excess electricity costs (calculated between January 2023 and June 2024), £500 in recognition of the delays and inconvenience caused, and £50 was for complaint handling.
12 September 2024	The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said this was because she disagreed with the landlord’s compensation calculation for its handling of her concerns about the ASHP and issues remained outstanding regarding solar panels and inadequate insulation in the property.
5 December 2024	The resident told the landlord that she was unhappy because she had reported problems with the new ASHP several times.
10 January 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It had reviewed the data provided the resident and concluded that her energy consumption was in line with the expected levels for the property, based on the energy performance certificate (EPC). It therefore considered the stage 1 compensation “generous” and did not offer anything further. Solar panels would not improve the ASHP’s efficiency, though they could offset running costs when generating electricity. However, due to high installation and maintenance costs, it was unable to install them in the resident’s property. Cavity wall insulation was present during previous inspections. However, after reviewing the resident’s recent photographs, it had arranged a thermal imaging survey for 13 January 2025. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about repeated repairs to the newly installed ASHP but concluded that the leaks and faults were isolated component issues and there was no evidence of any service failure. It offered the resident an additional £100 compensation. Of this, £50 was for the delays in providing the information about the solar panels, and £50 for the complaint handling delays.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us, explaining that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, that the insulation issues had not been resolved, and that her energy bills were still high. As an outcome, she would like the landlord to: Provide additional compensation to reflect the issues dating back to 2021. Install solar panels to improve the efficiency of the ASHP. Resolve the outstanding insulation concerns in the property.

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.

Complaint	Concerns about the efficiency of the heat pump
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

In January 2026, the resident told us that the landlord installed the ASHP in 2021 without consulting her or offering any choice. We have seen no evidence that she raised this as part of her original complaint in July 2024. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.
The resident said that following the installation of the ASHP in 2021 (the exact date is unclear), she had reported issues about the running costs to the landlord on several occasions. While we do not dispute her comments, the available documentary evidence shows that she first reported her concerns on 29 June 2023. We therefore cannot find that the landlord acted unreasonably during this period.

What we did investigate

The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs into 2 types. Emergency repairs, defined as those posing an immediate danger to residents, the public, or the property, are attended within 24 hours to make the situation safe, with follow‑on works arranged if needed. Non‑emergency repairs are to be completed as soon as possible and within 28 calendar days. The policy also explains that mechanical and electrical maintenance— including green technology installations—will be managed in line with the landlord’s wider property services policies and carried out by specialist teams and contractors.
The landlord’s repair records show that during the repair appointment on 29 June 2023, the operative adjusted the ASHP settings and noted that the resident “was happy with everything”. However, given the landlord’s later findings (that the system had been installed incorrectly in 2021), it is unsatisfactory that this was not identified at that appointment. In mitigation, between 30 June 2023 and 19 March 2024 (an interval of 9 months), there is no evidence that the resident raised further concerns to the landlord about the ASHP or its running costs.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s ASHP concerns between 20 March 2024 and 10 May 2024. This is because:
1. On 20 March 2024, the servicing engineer noted the resident’s concerns that her energy costs were “still high”.
2. The landlord arranged a follow-up appointment for 13 working days later (on 9 April 2024). This was within its repair target timescales. During the appointment, the engineer recorded that the ASHP system install was “very poor” and recommended that a survey was undertaken to ensure the system was sized correctly and check insulation levels in the property.
3. The landlord arranged for the specialist contractor to attend the property to complete a survey on 24 April 2024 (11 working days later). The contractor provided the landlord with the survey report on 1 May 2024 and concluded that the heat calculations within the property indicated that the ASHP was undersized for the output of the property, which would reduce the life span of the system and potentially increase running costs for the resident.
4. On 10 May 2024, the landlord approved the quote for the installation of a new ASHP—a turnaround of 6 working days. Given the cost of the works and the need for management authorisation, this was a reasonable response time.
The replacement ASHP was fully installed on 30 May 2024. This was a total of 71 calendar days after the resident first raised her concerns. The absence of clear target timescales for a full system replacement means it is not possible to determine precisely whether these works were completed within expected timeframes. However, the landlord’s acknowledgement at stage 1—together with the £500 compensation offered for the “failure to follow correct processes” and the “time taken to resolve” shows that it accepted the ASHP had been installed incorrectly and that delays had occurred. It was appropriate that the landlord sought to remedy this.
The landlord’s compensation and remedies policy states that when it considers compensation it “may request supporting information from the customer”. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident for copies of her energy bills so it could calculate the appropriate level of compensation for the additional energy costs she had incurred. It is noted that the landlord did not have sight of the resident’s energy bills before the ASHP was installed in 2021.
As the resident did not provide evidence of her energy supplier’s kWh rates, it was reasonable for the landlord to base its calculations on national average energy costs, and it clearly explained to the resident how it arrived at the £1,682.69 figure. However, the landlord did not reference the source of the national averages it relied upon, which made the basis for its calculations unclear. This is particularly important given that the figures it used significantly differed from those set out in the property’s EPC.
The landlord appropriately demonstrated learning from the resident’s complaint by confirming in its stage 1 response that future ASHP installations would be carried out only by specialist renewable engineers.
During the landlord’s stage 2 investigation, it reviewed all the information provided by the resident, which demonstrated that it took her request to reconsider the compensation offer seriously.
We have not seen a breakdown of the resident’s usage between May 2021 and December 2021. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response stated that she was charged £2,949.12 between 31 May 2021 and 31 December 2022—an average of £155.21 per month, or £1,862.60 per year. As the resident did not dispute these figures, it is reasonable to accept the landlord’s calculation.
The property’s EPC states that an average household would typically use around 16,254 kWh per year for heating and hot water. When compared with this benchmark, the evidence shows that the resident’s annual consumption was significantly lower (under 10,000 kWh per year) than the level expected for the property type.
Given this, it was reasonable for the landlord in its stage 2 response, to conclude that further compensation was not justified. Its position that there was no evidence that the resident had incurred annual energy costs of £4,000 was also a fair and proportionate assessment based on the information available to it at the time.
Given that the landlord had already committed at stage 1 to reimburse the resident £1,682.62 for her energy costs, it was fair that it did not withdraw its offer. We therefore consider the landlord’s total offer of £2,182.62 an appropriate and proportionate amount to resolve the complaint and sits at the higher end of the compensation ranges set out in our remedies guidance.
For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	Concerns about cavity wall insulation
Finding	Maladministration

Following an appointment on 9 April 2024 to assess the ASHP’s efficiency, the contractor recommended that the insulation levels in the property be reviewed. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord arranged this assessment, which was inappropriate.
On 5 July 2024, the resident informed the landlord that although the new ASHP had been installed, the cavity wall assessment had not been completed because, during a previous appointment, “the drill bit was too small.” We have seen no evidence of this appointment, which is indicative of poor record keeping. However, it is reasonable to accept the resident’s account, as the landlord confirmed in an internal email on 8 July 2024 that her property “was on [its] list to go back out [for] a cavity wall inspection.”
Due the lack of documentary evidence, it is unclear when the landlord contacted the resident to arrange an appointment. This gap in the records indicates further poor record keeping. Nevertheless, based on the surrounding correspondence, it is reasonable to conclude that contact was made sometime between 8 July 2024 and 15 July 2024.
An internal email dated 5 August 2024 confirmed that the landlord attended the property that day to assess the cavity wall insulation. This visit took place around 4 months after the issue was first identified, which was unreasonable and exceeded the landlord’s 28‑day repair timescale. During the appointment, it drilled holes in the walls and confirmed insulation was present but could not determine whether it was defective. It said it had advised the resident that it “could return with a thermal imaging camera to check for thermal bridging which may indicate issues with the cavity wall insulation”. However, we have seen no evidence that it raised any follow-on works, which was inappropriate.
In the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 12 September 2024, she stated that the “insulation issue [was] not resolved.” While we acknowledge that the landlord included this matter within its formal complaints process (which will be assessed within the complaint handling section of the report), it would have been appropriate for it to respond and address the resident’s concerns promptly, rather than waiting for the outcome of its investigation into its handling of the issues.
On 4 November 2024, the resident sent the landlord photographs she believed showed a lack of insulation in the property and requested an update again on 18 November 2024. The landlord did not respond until 11 December 2024, when it said it was “looking into arranging [a] thermal imaging” survey. It eventually contacted her on 19 December 2024 to book an appointment for 13 January 2025. This shows a protracted handling of the matter.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it failed to acknowledge the failings outlined above, offer the resident any compensation or explain what steps it would take to prevent similar issues in the future. Its failure to do so was not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles which require landlord’s to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
As noted earlier, in January 2026 the resident told us that the insulation issue was still unresolved and believed this was contributing to her high energy costs. We therefore asked the landlord for records relating to the appointment scheduled for 13 January 2025. The landlord advised that a thermal imaging survey was instead carried out on 30 January 2025. It did not explain why the original appointment did not take place, which indicates poor record keeping.
The landlord did not provide documentary evidence or a survey report from this visit but gave a retrospective summary. It said the survey identified a small area of cold bridging in the kitchen caused by an unfilled flue hole, and some “minor” cold bridging behind the WC boxing in the bathroom. It reported no condensation, mould, or temperature issues in the bedroom, with thermal imaging confirming normal readings. Despite these findings, we have seen no evidence that the landlord raised any remedial works for the kitchen or bathroom.
The resident told us that she has contacted the landlord about the outstanding repairs on several occasions throughout 2025. While we do not dispute her comments, we are unable to make an assessment on this, due to the lack of documentary evidence.
For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident we have ordered the landlord to pay her compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Request for solar panels to be installed at the property
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

The resident explained that her desired outcome was for the landlord to install solar panels at the property. While it is not our role to direct landlords on how it manages or invests in its housing stock, we can assess whether the landlord handled the request in line with its applicable policies and procedures and explained the reason for its decisions.

What we did investigate

During a call with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint handler on 8 August 2024, the resident said the ASHP contractor had mentioned solar panels in relation to the heating in the property. The landlord said it would raise this with the relevant staff member, but we have seen no evidence that this was followed up, nor that the resident was updated on the outcome.
On 5 September 2024, the resident asked the landlord to confirm when it would be attending to assess whether solar panels could be installed to support the efficiency of the ASHP. The landlord discussed the resident’s request internally on 6 September 2024 and concluded that it had no plans to install any solar panels to properties where they were not already in situ. However, there is no evidence that this decision was communicated to the resident. The importance of effective communication is highlighted.
On 12 September 2024, within the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2, she stated the landlord had not addressed her request for it to consider installing solar panels within its stage 1 response. This will be assessed within the complaint handling section of the report. She also said that the specialist contractor had previously told her that the ASHP “did not work well in older properties” and therefore solar panels would need to be installed. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we are unable to make any findings on this point due to the absence of supporting documentary evidence.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response of 10 January 2025, it explained that solar panels would not improve the ASHP’s efficiency, although they could offset running costs when generating electricity. It also said that, due to the high installation and maintenance costs, it could not install them at the resident’s property. Nothing seen in this investigation suggests that the landlord reached unreasonable conclusions, and it was entitled to rely on the professional assessment of its qualified staff.
We have not seen any policy that sets out the landlord’s response timescales for this type of request. However, landlords are still required to act within a reasonable timeframe, and in this case the lack of any clear response or update between 8 August 2024 and 10 January 2025—a 23‑week period—was unreasonable. It was therefore appropriate that in the landlord’s stage 2 response it apologised for the communication delays and awarded £50 compensation. Although we have not had sight of the landlord’s compensation calculation matrix, this offer aligns with our remedies guidance.
For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	Reports of repairs to the newly installed ASHP
Finding	No maladministration

As mentioned earlier, the resident first reported her dissatisfaction about the repairs she had reported for the newly installed ASHP on 5 December 2024.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it provided a timeline of events and concluded that its contractor had attended 6 times between June 2024 and November 2024 to attend to the new ASHP. It said each fault was repaired within its target timescales, and there was no evidence that the issues were related. It apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused but concluded that there was no service failure in how it handled the reports.
Based on the evidence provided, we find that this was a reasonable response from the landlord. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord via telephone on 5 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 July 2024. This was appropriate, as it was within 5 working days.
The landlord created confusion about who was handling the resident’s formal complaint, resulting in her having to provide the same information to several different staff members. This was an unnecessary expenditure of her time and reflects poorly on the landlord’s coordination and record‑keeping.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 September 2024. From the date of acknowledgement, this was a response time of 43 working days and therefore exceeded the maximum timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. As mentioned earlier, we have not had sight of the landlord’s compensation calculation matrix. Despite this, we find its apology and offer of £50 compensation for the delays appropriate and in line with our own remedies guidance.
We consider it reasonable that the landlord did not address the solar panels, cavity wall insulation, or new ASHP repair issues in its stage 1 response. This is because there is no evidence the resident raised these matters in her original complaint in July 2024. However, the landlord’s complaints policy states that where a resident raises any new or unrelated complaints during its investigation and the stage 1 response has already been issued, it will log the issue as a new complaint. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to open a new stage 1 complaint to investigate these matters. Its failure to do so, meant the landlord removed the resident’s opportunity to escalate them if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 12 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged her request on 20 September 2024. Although not an excessive delay and likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, this exceeded its complaint handling timescales (6 days against a target of 5).
The resident requested an update on her complaint on 15 October 2024. The landlord said it would return her call within 48 hours. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so.
On 11 December 2024, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays and advised that it would provide the response by 8 January 2025. This was inappropriate as 65 working days had already passed since the resident escalated her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 January 2025 without informing the resident that it would miss the 8 January 2025 deadline. In total, from the date of acknowledgement it took 75 working days to respond.
It was therefore appropriate that within the stage 2 response, it apologised and awarded the resident an additional £50 (bringing the total to £100) for the delay in its complaint handling.
Overall, while we are satisfied that the landlord offered appropriate redress for its complaint handling delays, we have made a finding of maladministration. This is because additional failings were identified that it did not acknowledge but should reasonably have been aware of. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

On several occasions the landlord’s record keeping was poor, with missing or incomplete records, including no evidence of key appointments, follow‑up actions, or when contact was made with the resident. These gaps contributed to delays, confusion, and missed opportunities to progress her concerns effectively.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout several aspects of this case was poor. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs and complaints system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.