The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (201907136)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201907136

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 June 2021


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 concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of condensation on her windows.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord. Her lease began in 2005. In that time her property was transferred to a new freeholder/landlord.
  2. The landlord later explained in its stage one complaint response that the resident rang it on 2 September 2019 to make a formal complaint about separate issues. During this conversation, the resident reported that there was condensation (“misting”) on one of her windows.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 23 September 2019. It referred to aspects that do not form part of this investigation. It said that it was only responsible for the window frames in her home. It suggested that the condensation was likely caused by the seal on the window, and would be her responsibility to repair.
  4. The resident then referred her complaint to this Service on 23 October 2019. Due to an error on our behalf, no further action was taken until 22 September 2020 when we asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
  5. On 8 October 2020 the landlord rang the resident to discuss her complaint. Its call notes show that she said that “she [was] not allowed under contract to just change the windows so seals and condensation” were the landlord’s responsibility.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 13 November 2020. Many aspects of its response do not form part of this investigation. In regard to the windows, it said that it had checked with its deeds and lands team, who confirmed that she was responsible for “all aspects of glazing” in line with her shared ownership agreement.
  7. On 14 December 2020 the resident provided this Service with an extract from her previous landlord’s shared ownership questions and answers handbook relating to repair responsibilities.

Assessment and findings

  1. Section 3.3(5) of the resident’s lease states that the resident shall keep “the premises clean and in good and substantial repair and condition”. The fifth schedule also says that “glass in windows and doors” is included within the extent of the premises.
  2. The extract from the previous landlord’s handbook says that the resident is responsible for repairing windowpanes, and handles. Whereas the landlord is responsible for window frames, and casements. It also explains that these responsibilities are a guide, and that “the exact responsibilities for repairs may vary according to the type of home you live in and what is in your lease”.
  3. It goes without saying that a leaseholder is bound by the terms of their lease. In this case, the resident’s lease sets out that she is responsible for repairs within the extent of the premises, including at least parts of the windows. The lease takes precedence over any handbook guidance. The handbook provided by the resident from her original landlord makes that clear.
  4. The resident’s concerns are understandable, because her interpretation of the lease is arguably reasonable. Unfortunately, it is not in the Ombudsman’s remit to make a decision as to which interpretation is more appropriate. Such decisions, given a lease’s status as a legal document, can ultimately only be made in the courts.
  5. The landlord responded in good time to the resident’s complaints, it considered the resident’s arguments, and clearly explained its position in regard to responsibility for the repairs. Its explanations were logical, and reflected a reasonable interpretation of the lease.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint reasonably, and clearly explained its stance concerning the repair responsibility.