Clarion Housing Association Limited (202416534)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord that the heating system was not adequately heating the property. The resident and her family have vulnerabilities the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of reports about the heating system.
   2. We will also look at the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports about the heating system.
   2. There was 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 reports about the heating system

4. The landlord did not take further investigatory actions to determine the cause of the resident’s concerns with the heating system.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. The landlord did not take further steps to put things right or address the resident’s outstanding concerns.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

6. The landlord is responsible for keeping the supply of heating to the property in good working order under the tenancy agreement. Its repair policy says non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 days and emergency repairs attended within 24 hours.
7. The resident told the landlord on 24 October 2023 the heaters were not staying hot. The landlord inspected the heaters on 28 November 2023 and found no fault with them. This was reasonable as the landlord attended within its policy timeframe.
8. The resident reported the issue again on 10 January 2024. The landlord attended on the same day as it categorised it as an emergency repair. This was appropriate as the landlord acted within its policy timeframe. However, it could not identify anything wrong with the heaters. It also contacted the manufacturer who advised there were no issues with the heaters. This was a reasonable approach to take by the landlord to try and work out if there was an issue with the heaters.
9. Following both visits the landlord attempted to arrange a surveyor visit to carry out an energy efficiency test and inspection of the heaters. However, no survey or further testing of the heating system was carried out. This was a failing as the landlord did not take the opportunity to explore if there were any other issues with the heating of the property.
10. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 1 response. It offered the resident £200 compensation and said it would not arrange for a surveyor to attend as in its view the heating system was working correctly. While the amount of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable and in line with our remedy guidance, the landlord missed a further opportunity to deal with the issue raised by the resident. This was not reasonable as we would have expected the landlord to investigate the issue further to establish the cause of the resident’s heating problems.
11. As part of its stage 1 response the landlord said it would make a referral to the planned investment team as the resident had requested pump heating to be installed as a resolution to the heating problem. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she had not heard anything further about this referral. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had issues with its system and there had been a delay in making the referral. It offered the resident £100 compensation for this delay. This was reasonable as it had put the matter right by making the referral. It also offered a suitable amount of compensation that reflected the short delay in the referral being made and the resident having to chase for an update.
12. However, this was again a missed opportunity for the landlord to try and find out the cause of the heating problem. While we appreciate it could not find a repair fault with the heaters and it had made a referral to the planned investment team, it took no further action to reassure the resident it was taking her concerns seriously. This was not reasonable as the landlord took no further steps to assess the heating needs of the property. This is of particular concern as the landlord was aware of the resident and her family’s vulnerabilities and the importance of having a warm home for these. The resident had made previous historical reports to the landlord about the same issue as well that have not formed part of this investigation.
13. As such we are not convinced the landlord took a holistic approach to explore this issue and did not consider the impact the lack of heating would have had on the resident and her family. It should reasonably have identified that it needed to take further steps to deal with the resident’s concerns about the heating of the property.
14. Therefore, in line with our remedy guidance, we have directed the landlord pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failing we have found. This is in addition to the compensation it had awarded in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.

15. The timescales in the landlord’s policy are compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 2 working days outside of its policy timeframe and its stage 2 complaint 15 days outside of its timeframe.
16. We have noted the landlord did request a 10-day extension to its stage 2 response which the resident agreed to. In accordance with the Code this was appropriate as it required further time to investigate the issues.
17. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the delay in providing it. As this delay was very minor, we consider the landlord acted reasonably here and an apology was sufficient as the impact on the resident would have been minimal.
18. For the delay in providing the resident with its stage 2 response the landlord apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation. This was reasonable and in line with remedy guidance.
19. However, we are not satisfied the landlord put matters right for the resident for the failings it found in its complaint responses. The landlord appropriately identified it had not followed up on arranging a survey of the heating system. But it did not then take any steps to put this matter right. While we understand the landlord believed the heaters were working correctly, we would have expected it to have explained to the resident what further steps it was going to take to address the issue. The resident’s concerns were left unaddressed as a result of this, and no further action was taken.
20. Due to this additional failing, we have directed the landlord pay the resident a further £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in addition to the compensation it awarded in its stage 2 complaint response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

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

Communication

22. The landlord did not always communicate effectively with the resident. It missed opportunities to keep the resident informed and updated to the actions it was taking.