Clarion Housing Association Limited (202336251)

Background

1. Around November 2022, the resident said she reported several issues to the landlord. These included a pest infestation and a draughty window. At the time of making her complaint 4 months later, the resident said the landlord had not responded.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. A window repair.
   2. A pest infestation.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to a window repair.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to a pest infestation.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Window Repair

5. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report of a window repair in line with its repairs policy. This led to a significant delay in the repair being completed.

Pest infestation

6. The landlord failed to act on the recommendations of its contractor, to block up points of entry for the pests, for a period of 6 months. It also failed to follow the contractor’s recommendations for further pest control visits or explain why it felt these were not needed.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord’s stage 1 response was significantly delayed, and the reasons for the delay were not communicated to the resident. These failures were 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.

8. The evidence shows the resident reported the issue with her living room window on 22 November 2022. The landlord raised a repair but did not attend the property.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to a non-emergency repair within 28 days. The landlord took no meaningful action following the report. The landlord’s failure to respond to the repair within its policy timescales left the resident with a draughty window throughout the winter.
10. When the resident complained in March 2023, she described how the temperature in the living room was “unbearable” and how she needed to use more heating in the property. She also told the landlord there were children in the property and her husband had stage 4 cancer.
11. The window was repaired on 21 October 2023, 11 months after the landlord had been made aware of the issue The evidence shows the delays were caused by the landlord changing its contractor, a misunderstanding of the work required, and more latterly delays in the supply chain. The landlord acknowledged these delays in its complaint responses and apologised for its failings. It also offered compensation of £150.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy states awards of up to £250 are suitable where there has been a service failure that has had no significant impact on the resident. It further states awards of £250 to £700 are suitable in cases where the failure has been over a considerable period of time. Based on the impact on the resident, the time taken to complete the repair and the different provisions of the landlord’s policy, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s offer of compensation was not in line with its policy.
13. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so we consider whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
14. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings within its complaint responses. It offered £150 compensation. Although its offer went some way to put things right, it failed to reflect the full extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In particular, it did not reflect the following issues:
    1. It failed to respond to the resident’s initial report of a problem with the window, causing the repair to be outstanding for 10 months.
    2. It failed to acknowledge the vulnerabilities in the household and the increased costs incurred by the resident.
15. The failures in this case amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the effect on the resident, we have ordered additional compensation of £350. This brings the total compensation for the repair issues to £500. This is in line with the range recommended in our remedies guidance where there were failures and the offer of redress was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.

16. The resident told us she reported the pest infestation to the landlord around the same time she reported the window issue (November 2022). She does not recall how this was reported. The landlord’s records do not contain a report of pest infestation prior to the resident’s complaint.
17. The landlord’s pets and wildlife policy states it is responsible for identifying and blocking potential access points for pests in the structure of its properties. It will also ensure infestations are removed when they have been caused by the landlord’s lack of action. The policy is silent on timescales.
18. Following the resident’s complaint in March 2023, the landlord raised a job for pest control to attend the resident’s property. Its contractor attended the property 2 weeks later and recommended the landlord carried out proofing works. This involved blocking access points used by the pests to access the property. While the landlord raised a repair, it was cancelled without the proofing work being completed.
19. The landlord’s contractor made several visits to the property in May and June 2023, to bait and assess the infestation. It reported evidence of mice had been found within the property and there was evidence of rats in the loft space. The contractor made a further request to the landlord to complete the proofing works.
20. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 July 2023 and said the pest infestation had not been resolved. The landlord’s contractor submitted a further report on 16 August 2023. The report said the proofing work needed to be carried out as soon as possible and it would need to complete 3 further visits following the works, to ensure the problem had been resolved.
21. The landlord fitted pest covers in the property in September 2023. It completed some of the proofing works on 17 October 2023, 6 months after the work had first been recommended by its contractor. The landlord’s notes recorded it attended the property on 5 and 7 December 2023 to complete the work but it was unable to gain access.
22. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged it had failed to complete the proofing works its contractor recommended. It apologised and said there had been a breakdown in communication between its contractor and its repairs department. The landlord committed to completing the proofing works, which had been booked in for the following day. It offered the resident compensation in line with its compensation policy.
23. It is unclear from the documentation provided whether the landlord was aware of the pest issue before the resident complained. The evidence shows when the resident complained, the landlord’s contractor attended the property within a reasonable amount of time. However, the landlord failed to act on its contractors recommendations for 6 months. Without addressing the entry points for the pests, it was likely the issue would not be fully resolved, and the landlord should have been aware of this. The landlord’s failure to follow the recommendations in a reasonable amount of time has delayed the resolution for the resident.
24. The evidence shows the landlord completed the proofing works it committed to in its stage 2 response. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord acted on its contractor’s recommendation of 3 further pest control visits once the works had been completed. The resident has told us she is still experiencing pest activity in the loft of the property almost 2 years later.
25. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings within its complaint responses. It offered £700 compensation in line with its compensation policy. Although its offer went some way to put things right, it failed to commit to providing the further recommended pest control visits or explain why it did not think the extra visits were necessary.
26. The failures in this case amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the enduring effect on the resident following its additional compensation offer, we have ordered further compensation of £300. This brings the total compensation for the pest infestation issue to £1,000. This is in line with the range recommended in our remedies guidance for situations where the impact to the resident was significant.

27. 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.
28. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales. Its stage 1 response was issued 7 months after the resident raised his complaint, significantly outside of its policy timescales. The landlord has provided no evidence to suggest it communicated the delay to the resident in advance.
29. In its response the landlord apologised for the delay and awarded compensation. The exact amount of compensation is unclear as it was included in an award given for the pest issue. Given the 6-month delay in its response and the lack of communication regarding this delay, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to address the compensation for complaint handling separately.
30. When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord acknowledged the request within its policy timescales. It committed to providing a response by 13 December 2023. This was much sooner than the timescales set out in its policy. When the landlord realised it was unable to respond by the time it had given, it informed the resident of the delays in advance. This demonstrated the landlord had taken learning from its earlier failings.
31. The landlord apologised in both responses and offered compensation. It has not been possible to determine whether the level of compensation offered satisfactorily resolved the complaint. However, the 6-month delay in the landlord responding at stage 1 has significantly delayed the resident’s ability to bring the complaint to us. This leads to a determination of service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. In the main, the landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication with the resident during her stage 1 complaint was poor. When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord demonstrated learning by providing the resident with timely updates regarding delays to its stage 2 response.