Clarion Housing Association Limited (202338846)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with his young family on the third floor. He reported the communal lift was not working numerous times and raised a complaint about how long it took to repair it.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift

5. The landlord delayed repairing the lift as it failed toidentify that a part was needed at the earlier opportunity.
6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that the resident and his family were inconvenienced as a result of the lift being out of order. However, the level of compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the detriment caused.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

7. The landlord took some steps to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way. However, it missed an opportunity to put things right and did not appropriately reflect on its handling of the repair to identify any learning from it.

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 landlord’s lift maintenance policy says it will repair and maintain lifts to the approved standard within agreed timescales and will deal with any emergency quickly. It will also keep residents informed about issues with lifts that may affect them directly and help residents that are adversely affected by the loss of a lift service.
9. The resident reported the lift was not working 13 times in November and December 2023. On each occasion the landlord appropriately attended, made repairs and left the lift in service. This was appropriate.
10. However, given the frequency of breakdowns, it is unclear why the landlord did not adopt a more holistic approach to the problem. Had it done so, it may have identified whether there was a recurring fault, and carried out a more lasting repair. While the landlord said it requested a full report on the ongoing faults with the lift there is no evidence provided to show it did this. The evidence therefore does not demonstrate that the landlord explored this fully. We consider this was a shortcoming in the landlord’s overall approach.
11. The resident was told by the landlord a part was needed on 29 December 2023. He replied and said the contractor had told him 3 weeks previously this part was needed and was waiting on the landlord to authorise the order for it. We have not seen that the landlord responded to this comment from the resident. As such it could reasonably have been more transparent with the resident about the lift issues,
12. The part was subsequently ordered on 2 January 2024. It is unclear why this was not ordered sooner. The landlord’s comments that the supplier was closed for Christmas are acknowledged. However, it is also noted that the part in question had been identified as the reason for the breakdown earlier in December 2023, before the Christmas holiday. In the absence of any other evidence, the landlord delayed unreasonably in ordering the part and progressing the repair.
13. The resident reported the lift was not working a further 4 times from 29 December 2023 to 19 January 2024. It is unclear why the landlord did not attend. While we acknowledge the relevant part was on order, it would have been reasonable to attend and respond to the report that had been raised. The evidence does not show that it did so.
14. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it appropriately acknowledged that he and his family had been inconvenienced. While it was reasonable for it to offer the resident some compensation, we are not satisfied that its offer of £100 was proportionate.
15. The resident reported numerous times the lift had broken down and chased the landlord for updates over a 2-month period. He also advised of the impact caused to his household by the breakdowns as he lived on the third floor. Given the resident’s testimony, and the offer which was made, the landlord failed to fully consider the detriment caused as a result of its handling of matters and therefore did not put things right for him.
16. As such we have directed the landlord pay him further compensation for the time and trouble suffered by him in reporting the issues with the lift and the difficulty caused to his day to day living. The landlord’s compensation policy for service failure has a range of £50 to £250. It is unclear why it did not consider a more proportionate offer within this range to reflect the cumulative impact caused by the period the lift was out of service, the frequency of breakdowns outside of that time, and the inconvenience in having to chase updates.

17. The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) published in 2022 applied when the resident made his complaint. The landlord used an interim complaint policy at the time due to a cyber-attack. The policy said the landlord would respond at stage 1 within 20 working days and within 40 working days at stage 2.
18. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 26 working days after the complaint acknowledgement. The landlord appropriately apologised for this delay in its complaint response and offered £50 compensation. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we are satisfied that this compensation was proportionate given the length of delay at this stage. We therefore find the landlord provided reasonable redress to its failure to respond to the complaint within appropriate timeframes. The landlord responded within its policy time frame for stage 2.
19. However, the resident had raised dissatisfaction with the compensation that was offered at stage 1. When the landlord responded at stage 2, it simply confirmed the amount of compensation was appropriate. While it may have considered this to be the case, it missed an opportunity to explain its decision further, and to help the understand why it felt it had taken appropriate and proportionate steps to put things right. As a result, the resident’s concerns about the level of compensation went unaddressed.
20. In addition, the landlord also missed an opportunity to fully review its handling of the lift repair and to set out any learning that had been identified as a result of the complaint. As such, the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, and we have found that there was service failure.

Learning

21. The landlord caused delays to the lift repair by not ordering the part sooner. We have made a relevant order related to this.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s recording keeping was appropriate and allowed us to fully investigate the issues raised.

Communication

23. The landlord appropriately communicated directly with the resident responding to his reports about the lift and providing updates to him when it could.