Clarion Housing Association Limited — case 202441327

Decision Case ID 202441327 Decision type Investigation Landlord Clarion Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 20 November 2025 Background The property is a one-bedroom flat. On 1 November 2024 the resident requested that the storage heater in the living room be relocated to beneath the window. She explained that its current position was unsuitable and believed that relocating it would help address issues with damp and mould.

The landlord agreed to replace the heater but refused to relocate it, stating that doing so would affect its performance. The resident raised concerns that the landlord was not considering her specific needs as she suffers from osteoporosis. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the: Resident’s request for a heater to be relocated. The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about the resident’s request for a heater to be relocated.

There was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord explained that it did not relocate the heater following its operative’s advice that the cold air from the window would affect its performance. The landlord demonstrated a willingness to repair the heater. Furthermore, it acknowledged communication failure and offered fair compensation. This was reasonable and consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

The landlord failed to log the initial complaint and the stage 1 complaint response was delayed. The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures, and it took no steps to put things right. 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 in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. 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 18 December 2025 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaints 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 18 December 2025 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to arrange replacement of the heater. We recommend that the landlord pays £50 compensation (if not paid already) directly to the resident offered during its internal complaints process for the failures in its handling of the resident’s request for a heater to be relocated.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 14 October 2024 – 28 November 2024 The resident reported that the living room panel heater was not working and asked for it to be relocated to under the window. The landlord’s operative inspected the window and advised that moving it to under the window would affect its performance due to the cold air from the window. The landlord agreed to replace the heater but refused to relocate it. 3 and13 December 2024 The resident complained about the storage heater not working properly and the suitability of its location.

She said relocating it might help resolve damp and mould issues in the property. She stated that her specific needs were not being met due to her vulnerabilities. 10 January 2025 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in providing a response to the resident’s complaint. It identified a service failure for not completing a callback and offered £50 compensation for this failure. The landlord explained that it would replace the heater but would not relocate it.

It found no service failure in this decision. 14 January 2025 The resident escalated her complaint. She said that her disabilities and vulnerabilities were not being addressed, and this affected her health. She requested £10,000 compensation for stress and inconvenience. 3 February 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, and it confirmed its stage 1 findings. It stated that it had considered relocating the heater and clearly communicated the reasons for not doing so.

It explained that the resident declined installation of a larger heater. It said it followed internal procedures when considering the relocation request and offered alternatives. It stated that it did not award compensation for stress, and this must be pursued legally. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. She wants the heater replaced and relocated. What we found and why Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a heater to be relocated Finding Reasonable redress What we did not consider The resident told us that the landlords handling of her request for her heater to be relocated had a detrimental impact on her health.

It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. What we did consider On 1 and 19 November 2024 the resident requested that the storage heater in the living room be relocated to under the window as its position was unsuitable.

The landlord considered the request and on 28 November 2024 its surveyor attended to inspect the heater. The surveyor advised that moving the heater under the window could reduce efficiency and worsen damp and mould issues. Based on this advice, the landlord decided not to relocate the heater. It communicated its decision to the resident on 28 November 2024 and 8 January 2025. This decision was reasonable because the landlord relied on professional advice and acted within its repairs policy, which does not require cosmetic changes.

The landlord followed its repair procedures as it inspected the heater within 28 days and in line with its timescales for routine repairs. The landlord scheduled replacement works for 13 December 2024. However, after the resident reiterated their preference for relocation, the landlord paused the works and reviewed the complaint. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord identified a service failure in relation to the maintenance surveyor not completing a callback after the first complaint on 3 December 2024.

The landlord apologised for the communication failure and acknowledged that the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates. It awarded £50 compensation in line with its policy. This was reasonable as the landlord identified a service failure and offered compensation to put things right. On 6 January 2025, the landlord offered alternatives: installing a larger heater or adding a smaller additional heater. These proposals were reasonable because they addressed the resident’s concern about warmth without compromising efficiency.

The resident declined these options, and the landlord cancelled the works in line with procedure. The landlord demonstrated a solution focused approach by suggesting alternative options to the resident. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord upheld its decision not to relocate the heater, confirmed that staff followed procedures, and found no evidence of discrimination or failure to consider vulnerabilities. It explained that compensation for stress falls outside its policy and must be pursued through legal channels.

It also confirmed that it would raise a new work order to replace the heater in its current position. These actions were reasonable and demonstrated compliance with policy. In summary, the landlord responded within its policy timeframe for routine repairs, it explained clearly why it could not relocate the heater, it offered reasonable alternatives when the resident did not accept relocation, it acknowledged its failure in not calling the resident back promptly and it offered appropriate compensation for this failure.

The landlord’s actions amount to reasonable redress. It is unclear if the landlord has now replaced the heater following its decision at stage 2 of its process to reopen the heater replacement job. We have therefore made a recommendation regarding this. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1, it will respond within 10 working days from acknowledgement. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days from acknowledgement.

Complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and at any stage, if it needs further time, it will agree this with the resident. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had received the resident’s formal complaint on 3 December 2024. However, it did not log this complaint within 5 days of receipt, in line with its complaints policy. The resident submitted a second complaint on 13 December 2024. It is not reasonable for the resident to be inconvenienced by having to submit multiple complaints and by the delay in receiving a prompt response.

While the landlord acknowledged its communication failure in its response, it did not recognise this as a complaint handling failure. This was inappropriate. The landlord logged the complaint on 13 December 2024 following the second complaint. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 January 2025, 17 working days later. This exceeded its expected timeframe of 10 working days. In its response, the landlord apologised for the delay but did not recognise it as a complaint handling failure.

The delay was nearly double the expected timeframe, following an 8-day delay in logging the initial complaint. Furthermore, it did not update the resident about the delay. This was not reasonable or in line with its policy. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 January 2025, and the landlord responded on 3 February 2025. This was within its 20-working day timeframe for handling stage 2 complaints. In summary, at stage 1 of its complaints process, the landlord failed to log the initial complaint and did not respond within its policy timeframes.

The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures, and it took no steps to put things right. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures. Learning It is important that the landlord recognises and addresses any complaint handling failures in its formal responses, in accordance with its complaints policy. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord generally demonstrated good record-keeping practices, however, it should implement robust systems to accurately log and track residents’ complaints.

This will help prevent issues like the missed initial complaint in this case from occurring again.