Clarion Housing Association Limited (202309099)

Background

1. The resident reported her keys were stolen in December 2022. The landlord attended the same day to change the locks. Throughout 2023 the resident reported repairs to the roof, guttering and external walls and an outbuilding. The resident made a complaint in December 2023 about the landlord’s handling of repairs. She was unhappy with its handling of repairs appointments and said the property had issues with damp.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, in particular:
      1. Damp and mould.
      2. Internal/external walls.
      3. Security of the property.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about increased utility costs and the heating system.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord made reasonable offers of redressed which resolved errors in its:
   1. Handling of repairs in particular:
      1. Damp and mould.
      2. Internal/external walls.
      3. Security of the property.
   2. Complaint handling.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about increased utility costs and heating system.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Considering the ongoing concerns the resident has raised that we did not investigate, we have also made recommendations for the landlord below.

Summary of reasons

Repairs

6. The landlord accepted errors in its handling of the repairs, and made an appropriate offer of compensation. It appropriately raised further inspections following the resident’s complaint, as it was previously unaware of the issues reported.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about increased utility costs and the heating system.

7. The landlord used its complaint responses to explain its position with clarity. It gave appropriate advice to contact the utility providers to see if usage had increased. It said it would investigate the matter further if the resident provided the evidence it requested. It was an error the landlord did not arrange an inspection of the heating system following the concerns raised in the resident’s stage 2 complaint.

Complaint handling

8. There were delays at both stages of the complaints process. The landlord apologised and offered appropriate redress to reflect the inconvenience caused by the delays.

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.

9. When the resident complained she reported concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs dating back to 2020. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident made a formal complaint on 6 December 2023. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of the repair issues from 2020 onwards. We have not seen evidence they were prevented from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we will not investigate the repairs dating back to 2020. Instead, we have investigated the landlord’s handling of repairs in the 12 months leading up to her complaint, from December 2022 onwards.
10. The resident told us the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and damp in particular, affected her and her daughter’s health. She also reported concerns about financial loss due to having to take time off work for missed repairs appointments. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. She may also want to make a claim for financial losses at court. The courts are best placed to deal with these types of disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. The courts can also consider evidence related to financial loss. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
11. The landlord accepted its handling of the repairs was poor and offered appropriate compensation for its errors. It is not possible to determine how the compensation offered was calculated against individual the repair issues. As such, this investigation has considered the overall offer of compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident, as a whole. However, to promote learning for the landlord, we have assessed the landlord’s handling of the individual repairs issues below, and identified areas of particular concern, and points of learning.

Damp, mould and the associated repairs

12. The landlord was on notice about the resident’s concerns about a leak from the roof, and a guttering issue allegedly causing damp from August 2023. The landlord inspected the roof on 31 August 2023, and found no evidence of a leak. Its inspection was within the 28 day timeframe for routine repairs set out in its policy.
13. The notes in the landlord’s repair records indicate the resident said she was unavailable for 1 month and said she would rebook the gutter repair when available. We are not commenting on the resident’s reasons for delaying the inspection, but this impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond. The landlord inspected and cleared the guttering on 10 October 2023, this was within a reasonable timeframe considering the resident’s availability at the time.
14. The resident report a roof leak again on 7 November 2023. The landlord was unable to speak to the resident to confirm the appointment, but it tried to inspect within its 28 day policy timeframe. The landlord later accepted errors in its communication about repairs appointments. The information for this repair indicates the landlord was not proactive enough in trying to speak to the resident to book the repair. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact the repair visit could not go ahead on 22 November 2023, as she was unaware of it.
15. The landlord then inspected the roof on 11 December 2023 and found no evidence of leaks. It was appropriate to continue with an inspection due to the nature of the repair and the potential issues within the property. However, its communication about the inspection was poor, and the resident was clearly frustrated by the lack of communication about the landlord’s handling of the inspection. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response went some way to putting this right by explaining why it had inspected the roof without the resident being made aware. It was also appropriate to apologise for its poor communication up to that point.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response inaccurately said the resident had not reported damp prior to her complaint. When she reported the gutter repair the notes show she said it was causing damp. This was a shortcoming in its response and lacked transparency. It was appropriate however to arrange a full inspection of the resident’s property. This is evidence it took her report of damp and mould seriously.
17. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position on the repairs, and explain when it planned to inspect the property. We note the landlord’s response lacked detail about repairs it planned to do. However, up to this point it had not had the opportunity to do a full inspection. The evidence we have seen shows the resident said she was unavailable for the inspection until April 2024. We are not commenting on the reasons for the resident delaying the inspection. However, this impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond to her concerns.
18. Our scheme says we have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to respond to first. We have extended the scope of our investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, but only to assess its handling of the commitment made to inspect the property.
19. The landlord inspected the property on 25 June 2024, and identified repairs related to damp and mould, and other issues. We note this was outside the timeframe set out in its final complaint response. We have seen evidence the resident cancelled the 16 April 2024 inspection, and the landlord offered to rearrange the inspection for May 2024 on the date the resident requested.
20. The landlord has provided a letter it said it hand delivered on 2 May 2024. The letter says it would inspect the property on the 14 May 2024. The resident claimed not to have received the letter. It is not possible for us to determine which version of events is accurate. However, on the evidence available we consider the landlord was making reasonable attempts to progress with the inspection. Again, we do not seek to comment on the resident’s reasons for being unavailable for the inspection. However, this impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond. Considering the difficulties in gaining access to the property we consider the timeframe to inspect the property after its final complaint response was reasonable.
21. The resident has told us she is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs it identified in its June 2024 inspection. She also provided us with photos of issues with damp and mould at the property. We have not investigated its handling of those repairs. This is because they occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to respond to first. Considering the resident’s clear dissatisfaction with its handling of the repairs, including damp and mould, we recommend it opens a complaint investigation to address her concerns.
22. The resident has ongoing concerns about damp and mould, and the time that has passed since its inspection is significant. We therefore recommend it inspects the property to investigate her ongoing concerns about damp and mould now.

Internal and external wall repairs

23. The landlord was on notice about the resident concern about the external walls from 31 August 2023. The landlord inspected on 27 September 2023. This was within the 28 day timeframe set out in its repairs policy. The inspection found no issues with the external walls, and found no issues with the external walls or “tiles”. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its appropriately qualified operative.
24. The landlord used its complaint responses to explain it had received no further reports of repairs to the internal or external walls. The evidence we have seen supports its position, as there is no indication the resident made further reports of specific repairs to the walls after her initial report in August 2023. The landlord appropriately encouraged the resident to provide a specific report of the repair and agreed to do an inspection. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of the property inspection in the damp and mould section above.

Security of the property

25. The resident reported her keys were stolen on 12 December 2022. The landlord attended the same day and changed the clocks. This was in line with the timeframe for emergency repairs set out in its policy.
26. The resident reported concerns with damage to the outbuilding at the property on 9 October 2023. The landlord completed repairs on 23 October 2023. This was within the 28 day timeframe set out in its repairs policy.
27. The landlord used its complaint responses to give a history of the repairs. It was also appropriate to encourage the resident to report any further repairs to it, and concerns about criminal activity to the police.

The landlord’s offer of redress for repairs

28. As explained above, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of repairs after its final complaint response, and recommend it opens a new complaint investigation, and does a further inspection. The resident provided us with a communication log which she said evidences the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively with her about the issues in her property. We acknowledge her concerns, and it is clear she was inconvenienced by the landlord’s communication in this case. The landlord accepted in its complaint responses that its communication with the resident was poor, and appropriately apologised.
29. The landlord offered a total of £250 in compensation in recognition of errors in its handling of the repairs. Our compensation guidance, which is available on our website, says up to £600 in compensation is appropriate where failings had no permanent impact on the resident. Such a situation applies in this case. The landlord’s offer was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors. We recommend it pays the resident the compensation it offered, if it has not already done so.

30. The government guidance on utility meters in residential properties sets out the maintenance of meters is the responsibility of the supplier to that property. We acknowledge the landlord was not responsible for the meters, and was limited in the actions it could take in relation to the increased costs the resident claimed to experience. If the resident remains concerned about her utility meters, she may wish to raise her concerns with her suppliers. We have assessed the landlord’s response to her concerns and whether its position was reasonable in the circumstances.
31. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to advise the resident to contact her utility suppliers to see if her usage had gone up. It advised the utility providers could investigate whether meters were working. It also said if the resident provided bills that evidence increased costs, it would investigate the matter further. This was appropriate in the circumstances. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask for evidence of increased usage before it committed resources to investigating the matter further. We have seen no evidence the resident provided the landlord with copies of her energy bills. We encourage her to do so now. We recommend the landlord investigates the matter further if the resident provides evidence of increased usage at the property. It may want to consider a heat loss survey.
32. The resident said in her stage 2 complaint that she believed her energy bills were higher due to an issue with the boiler, and the fact the emersion heater was on all the time. We have seen no evidence the landlord sought to investigate this concern further at the time. This was an error in its handling of the matter. The first instance we have seen of the landlord inspected the heating system and immersion heater was in June 2024, 4 months later. This was an unreasonable delay and the resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise this matter again before the landlord inspected. The stage 2 complaint response inappropriately said the “matter was closed” despite the resident reporting concerns about the boiler.
33. Considering the complaint handling error in not addressing this concern in detail. We consider it reasonable in the circumstances to extend the scope of our investigation beyond the final complaint response to cover the June 2024 inspection. We acknowledge the inspection in June 2024 found the immersion heater to be working correctly. But, the resident has told us during this investigation there is still an issue. We acknowledge the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its appropriately qualified operative at the time. However, due to the resident’s ongoing concerns we recommend it inspects the heating system to investigate the resident’s concerns.
34. The resident told us her water supplier told her there was possible evidence of a leak as she used more water than expected for a household of her size. She said the landlord had not responded to her concerns. This matter was raised with us after the resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, so we have not investigated it. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to respond to first. Considering the resident’s clear dissatisfaction, we recommend it opens a complaint investigation to address her concerns.
35. Our compensation guidance states an order for up to £100 is appropriate where a landlord’s error may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the case. Such a situation applies in this case, and we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the error.

36. Our Complaint handling Code sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. It says stage 1 complaint response must be sent within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 27 working days after she complained. This was an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. It appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the delay.
37. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 25 working days after the resident first expressed unhappiness with its stage 1 response. This was not an excessive delay, but any delay would cause some inconvenience. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation for the delay.
38. Our compensation guidance says that for complaint handling errors up to £100 is appropriate where there is a delay of more than several days, or there were repeated minor delays. The above applies in this case. The landlord made an offer in line with what we would have ordered for the inconvenience cause by its complaint handling errors.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) & communication

39. The landlord’s records were adequate to enable us to complete our investigation. The landlord accepted its communication was poor in relation to the repairs. We note it had difficulty in contacting the resident to confirm repairs appointments on occasions. A more proactive approach after its complaint process, such as hand delivering letters, was appropriate and is evidence it learnt from its earlier communication errors.