Clarion Housing Association Limited (202327698)

Background

1. The resident lives in flat in a purpose-built block. The block has its own gated car park. The landlord began a consultation process in March 2022 to address parking issues within the estate but received a low response rate from residents. In May 2023 some of the resident’s submitted a petition due to continued parking issues. The landlord responded by introducing parking enforcement in the car park. The resident was unaware of the consultation process and complained to the landlord. She later complained the car park gate had not been repaired.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns the parking scheme went against the terms of the lease.
   2. Concerns about its communication regarding the new parking scheme.
   3. Reports of a broken car park gate.
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns the parking scheme was in breach of the lease is outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s communication regarding the new parking scheme.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a broken gate.
   4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns the parking scheme was in breach of the lease

4. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the complaint about the parking scheme being in breach of the lease is better dealt with by the court because:
   1. The resident does not have allocated parking under the terms of the lease.
   2. The resident’s complaint is she has been substantially inconvenienced by the introduction of the new parking scheme, and the landlord has failed to comply with the terms of the lease.
   3. The landlord is content its application of the parking scheme is within the terms of the lease.
   4. The matter in dispute is the interpretation of the lease, which is a legal document.
   5. It would be fairer and more effective for a court to rule on interpretation.
5. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Communication regarding the new parking scheme

6. The landlord was unfair as it failed to provide the resident with the same information as other residents as part of its handling of estate parking.

Reports of a broken gate

7. The landlord failed to raise an emergency repair in line with its repairs policy. It also failed to communicate to the resident that there were further delays to the repair.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process about a broken car park gate. The failure to do so was against its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. The resident’s block has 23 parking spaces within a gated car park. The resident does not have a parking space allocated to her under the terms of her lease.
10. In February 2022 the landlord began a consultation process with residents of the block about the parking arrangements. The process involved knocking on doors and sending residents a letter with a link to an online survey. The consultation was later stopped as the response rate was too low.
11. The resident told us she never received any of the communication regarding the consultation process. The landlord’s records show the resident did not take part, but it was unsure as to why that was case. The evidence shows the consultation included other residents who did not have a parking bay allocated to them under the terms of their lease.
12. The evidence shows the resident was not afforded the same opportunity as others in her position, and this was unfair and unreasonable.
13. In May 2023 a group of residents submitted a petition to the landlord to take action about the parking issues they were experiencing. In response, the landlord decided to implement a parking scheme to monitor parking on an opt-in basis. This practically meant that those residents with a bay could choose whether to have the use of their bay monitored by an external contractor.
14. The landlord shared this decision, and the terms of the new parking scheme, with the residents via a WhatsApp Group in June 2023. The resident was not part of the group and did not receive the information. She was made aware of the new parking scheme by another resident, 5 days before it was due to be implemented. This led to the resident’s complaint.
15. In its complaint responses the landlord apologised for not realising the resident would not and did not receive the information from it. It subsequently supplied her with the information regarding the partial consultation and new parking scheme. The landlord also committed to sending all future correspondence to the resident via her preferred contact method. It did not offer the resident compensation.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will assess compensation on a case-by-case basis. It further states it may not offer compensation where the service failure has caused little or no problem to the resident.
17. While access to the information at an earlier stage may not have changed the outcome for the resident, she was treated unfairly by not receiving the same information as others in her position. This led to a breakdown in the landlord / tenant relationship and caused the resident time and trouble in raising her complaint.
18. The landlord acknowledged its mistake, apologised, and sought to remedy the situation by providing her with the information she had not previously received, and ensured her communication preferences were updated. Despite its commitment to improving its service offer, the landlord did not acknowledge the impact its failing had on the resident and the time and trouble it caused. This leads to a determination of service failure.
19. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of this failure. This is in line with our remedies guidance for where failings may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

20. The resident reported the broken gate opener to the landlord on 21 August 2023. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord was made aware of the fault prior to this date.
21. On 1 September 2023 the fire brigade contacted the landlord. It said a resident had reported the gate could not be opened from the inside and some residents may have difficulty exiting the estate in an emergency.
22. The landlord raised an emergency repair 6 days later. The landlord’s contractor attended 2 days later. The time taken to attend the repair was outside of 24-time frame set out in its responsive repair policy and was unreasonable.
23. When the landlord’s contractor attended the repair on 8 September 2023 it found there were multiple faults. Repairs were completed to allow the gate to be opened manually. A quote for the works was approved 3 days after the contractor’s visit, and the parts were ordered. The landlord made multiple attempts to repair the gates in October and November.
24. On 6 October 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s overall complaint. It confirmed it had referred the residents complaint about the gates to its repairs team.
25. The gates were fully repaired by 20 November 2023. We have noted following the repair, acts of vandalism caused further repairs to be raised. These will not be considered as they are unrelated to the repairs complained about.
26. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will complete non-emergency communal repairs within 28 days.
27. The evidence shows the lack of availability of specialist parts and the discovery of further faults caused delays, with the repair being completed 9 weeks later than the resident could have reasonably expected. While the delays were outside of the landlord’s control, the reasons and length of time it would take to put things right was not communicated to the resident. This was despite her chasing the repair on multiple occasions. This caused her time and trouble in pursuing the matter, which could have been avoided.
28. The landlord’s failure to action an emergency repair in line with its policy and update the resident when it became aware of the delays leads to a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation to reflect these failings. This is in line with our remedies guidance for service failures that have adversely affected the resident, and in situations where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.

29. The landlord operated an interim two-stage complaint process during the time of this complaint. This was due to its efforts to manage it service provision following a cyber-security attack. It committed to acknowledge complaints within 10 working days at both stages and issue responses after 20 working days at stage 1 and 40 working days at stage 2.
30. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and escalation request in line with its policy.
31. The stage 1 response was issued 34 working days after its acknowledgment. This was outside of its policy timescales. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation.
32. In its response, the landlord said it had not raised a further complaint relating to the broken gate opener. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will not raise complaints for service requests, until it has been given the opportunity to respond. The landlord’s refusal to raise a complaint at this point was in line with its policy.
33. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 71 working days after its acknowledgement, outside of its policy timescales. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its response and offered the resident a further £250 compensation.
34. In its stage 2 response, the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint about the repairs to the gate opener. While it was appropriate for the landlord to record the complaint at this stage, the issue had not been responded to at stage 1. The failure to deal with the complaint in a stage 1 response effectively denied the resident access to escalation and a 2-stage complaint process. This is against the provisions of the Code and was unreasonable.
35. The evidence shows the resident chased her complaint on multiple occasions and the landlord did not always respond. This caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the matter, that could have been avoided if the landlord had provided timely updates as could reasonably have been expected. The landlord’s complaint responses recognised this failure. It apologised and offered a total of £300 compensation.
36. In this instance, the landlord offered significant compensation for its complaint handling errors. The amounts offered were proportionate to the level of the failings in the case. The landlord demonstrated it had acted in part in accordance with the dispute resolution principles.
37. However, the landlord failed to provide a stage 1 response for the resident’s complaint about the broken gate opener. This leads to a finding of service failure. The landlord is ordered to apologise for its omission and to pay the amount of £300 in compensation

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.

Communication

39. The landlord acknowledged and identified some of its communication errors in this case. In order to improve its service offer, it should take steps to ensure customer contact preferences are recorded appropriately and used to provide resident’s updates and information about its services, especially in situations which involve consultation and change.