Clarion Housing Association Limited — case 202343079

Decision Case ID 202343079 Decision type Investigation Landlord Clarion Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 26 February 2026 Background On 21 November 2023, the resident signed the tenancy for the property. However, her move-in was delayed until 3 December 2023 because the downstairs storage heaters, hot water, and electric shower were not working. She later complained to the landlord about its handling of these repairs and the impact they had on her, as well as errors in how the property had been advertised.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Heating, hot water and shower repairs. The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found the landlord responsible for: Reasonable redress in its handling of the heating, hot water and shower repairs. Maladministration in its complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Heating, hot water and shower repairs The landlord did not fully meet the expectations of its repairs policy in its handling of the heating, hot water, and shower repairs.

Its communication with the resident was also poor. However, the landlord acknowledged its failures during its complaints procedure and offered an appropriate remedy, which was sufficient to put things right. Complaint handling The landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the expectations of its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations around landlord complaint handling practices. It failed to take proportionate steps to put things right during its complaints procedure.

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 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the identified failures in its complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 26 March 2026 2 Communication order The landlord must consider the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the increased utility bills she incurred while she waited for the heating and hot water repairs to be completed in 2023. This is dependent on the resident providing evidence to show these increased costs. The landlord must set out its decision to the resident in writing by the due date.

No later than 26 March 2026 3 Communication order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her concerns about the accuracy of the electrical certificates she received when she moved into the property. Following this discussion, it must set out its position regarding the certificates in writing by the due date. No later than 26 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend that the landlord pay the resident the £150 it awarded during its complaints procedure for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the heating, hot water, and shower repairs.

Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that this amount has been, or will be, paid. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss the concerns she has raised with us relating to the installation of the hot water cylinder. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 8 December 2023 The resident complained about the heating and hot water issues. She specifically asked to be reimbursed for the increased utility costs she incurred while she waited for the repairs to be completed.

8 January 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it was appropriate to raise the heating, hot water, and shower repairs as routine rather than emergency because the resident had not yet moved into the property. the repairs were completed within its routine timescale but apologised for not returning the resident’s call when she asked for an update and for not identifying the shower issue before she moved in. The landlord awarded £50 for the communication failure and £50 for the shower issues.

The resident escalated her complaint on the same day because she did not agree with the compensation offered for the handling of the heating, hot water, and shower issues. She also said: the landlord had given incorrect information about the property. She explained that it had been advertised as having 2 double bedrooms, but it had 1 double bedroom and 1 single bedroom. the advert stated the property had gas central heating when it did not. she had concerns about the accuracy of the energy certificates and that the landlord had given incorrect meter readings.

9 February 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it should have raised the repair as an emergency rather than as a routine job and apologised. It awarded a further £50 for this. the repairs had been completed and that the services were working, and it apologised that the repairs had been needed. The landlord provided copies of the energy and electrical certificates. although the advert described the property as having 2 double bedrooms, the tenancy agreement states it is a 3‑person property which is suitable for her household.

the meter type may have changed after the void works were completed and advised the resident to contact her supplier for digital readings to resolve the issue. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident asked us to investigate because she did not feel the landlord had fully taken accountability or recognised the distress and inconvenience she experienced during its handling of the repairs and her complaint. 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 The landlord’s handling of heating, hot water and shower repairs Finding Reasonable redress The landlord raised a repair order for the heating, hot water, and electric shower issues on 27 November 2023. Around 3 days later, the landlord connected the electric shower to the fuseboard after the resident reported that it had not been connected.

Although the landlord completed this within a reasonable timescale, the issue caused the resident inconvenience. It was positive that the landlord apologised during its complaints procedure for not identifying the issue earlier, when the property was void, as this demonstrated accountability. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs must be attended within 24 hours. This does not mean that full repairs will also be completed within 24 hours, as the policy allows follow‑on appointments to complete lasting works.

The landlord later accepted that it failed to categorise the heating and hot water issues as an emergency, which meant it did not initially attend within 24 hours as expected. It completed the repairs to renew the storage heaters and hot water cylinder by 13 December 2023, which was within a reasonable timescale overall. The landlord apologised during its complaints procedure that these repairs were necessary, which showed some recognition of the impact on the resident. On 28 November 2023, the landlord advised the resident to use a hot water booster until the repairs were completed.

This was proportionate advice to ensure she could still access hot water. However, the resident told us that the booster did not work until it was repaired on around 30 November 2023, which added to her inconvenience. We have assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the increased utility costs in the section below. The landlord inspected the storage heaters on 30 November 2023. It found that 2 heaters were operational but not on the economy setting and that 1 did not work at all.

This caused the resident inconvenience. The resident told us that the 2 storage heaters did not work for more than 20 minutes before cutting out on the alternative setting. However, we have seen no clear evidence that the landlord was made aware of this at the time. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident could use the setting for heating and did not provide alternative temporary heating provisions until it renewed the storage heaters. We expect landlords to keep clear and accurate records to support transparency and accountability.

While the landlord raised 3 repair orders on 8 December 2023 for the heating and hot water issues, it has not shown why these subsequent orders were raised or why they were later cancelled. This indicates shortcomings in its record keeping. Proactive communication is essential for landlords to minimise the distress and inconvenience experienced by residents. In this case, the landlord’s communication did not meet these expectations. It is positive that, during its complaints procedure, it acknowledged that it had failed to keep the resident updated on the repairs, which she told us further compounded her distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s total award of £150 for the failures in its handling of the repairs aligns with what our remedies guidance suggests may be appropriate where a landlord’s failures have adversely affected a resident but resulted in no permanent impact. We are satisfied that the award was proportionate in the circumstances at the time of the complaint. In February 2026, the resident told us that after the landlord replaced the hot water cylinder, it was later identified that it had not been installed correctly.

In the interest of fairness, we have made the decision not to assess these concerns at this stage because the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond. The resident may wish to raise this as a new complaint with the landlord if she has not already done so. If she remains dissatisfied after the landlord issues its response, she may bring the matter to us as a new complaint. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had a published complaints policy that aligned with the Code.

Under its complaints policy, the landlord was required to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue stage 1 and stage 2 responses within 10 and 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint handling did not fully align with these expectations, which caused the resident some inconvenience. The landlord: Failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint and issued its stage 1 complaint response around 19 working days after the resident made her complaint. Acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint around 8 working days after she escalated it.

It then issued its stage 2 complaint response around 18 working days later. The landlord did not appropriately address all elements of the resident’s complaint, which was a further failure to meet the expectations of its complaints policy. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident asked to be reimbursed for increased utility costs relating to the heating and hot water issues, but the landlord did not respond to this at either stage of its complaints procedure. It also did not address her concern that she had been misinformed that the property had gas central heating when it did not.

The lack of responses to these specific issues may have led the resident to feel that the landlord had overlooked parts of her complaint, which was unfair. Although the landlord accepted in its stage 2 complaint response that the property had been incorrectly advertised as having 2 double bedrooms, it said this did not affect the suitability of the property for her household. The landlord should have apologised for the error, as doing so would have demonstrated accountability where a mistake had been made.

Its failure to do this was a missed opportunity and the overall tone of its response may have caused the resident distress. The landlord provided a reasonable response regarding the meter readings it had given by advising the resident in its stage 2 complaint response to speak with her utility supplier to resolve the matter. However, it did not respond appropriately to her concerns about the accuracy of the electrical certificates. Although it provided copies of the certificates, it did not specifically respond to her concerns that they were incorrect or her requests for them to be redone.

This was a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns. Our remedies guidance suggests that payments between £100 to £600 may be appropriate where the landlord has not acknowledged its complaint handling failings and has made no attempt to put things right. In ordering compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays and its lack of substantive responses which left some of the resident’s concerns unaddressed. Learning Knowledge and information management (record keeping) The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping.

Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report, if it has not already done so. Communication The landlord’s communication with the resident was reactive and fell short of expectations around effective communication. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures.

The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report, if it has not already done so. Complaint handling The landlord’s complaint handling did not fully align with the expectations of its complaints policy or the Code. The landlord may wish to review the training provided to staff and its procedures to ensure that its complaint handling is in line with these requirements, if it has not already done so.