Clarion Housing Association Limited (202344005)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy the landlord failed to act on her reports of dog mess on the stairs and mat in a communal hallway. She is also unhappy that it merged complaints about separate incidents together. The landlord is aware the resident has a mental health condition, which she says has been impacted by the issues under investigation. She moved out of the property in October 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dog mess on communal carpets.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of dog mess on communal carpets
   2. the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Dog mess

5. The landlord has failed to demonstrate it took reasonable steps to clean the carpets following the resident’s multiple reports of issues. Despite identifying issues with carpet cleanliness in the block, it failed to take any steps to resolve this.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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.

7. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported dog mess on the carpet in the communal lobby on 21 October 2022 and again on 15 November 2022. We have seen no evidence the landlord took any action following the first report. After the second report it responded on 16 November 2022 to say that it would contact its cleaning contractor and ask them to attend to resolve it. We have seen no evidence this happened.
8. The resident brought this issue to the landlord’s attention again on 6 February 2023. The landlord replied on 10 February 2023. It said carpet cleaning was not part of the usual cleaning contract, but it would arrange for this to be done in the coming weeks. We have seen no evidence the landlord did anything until an internal email of 3 April 2023, when it said it needed to arrange for its cleaning contractor to clean the carpet by the main entrance door. However, we have seen no evidence it contacted its contractor to arrange this, or that any cleaning took place.
9. On 14 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint about dog mess on the carpet. She said she had reported it many times, but the landlord had still not dealt with it. She told it that despite a recent deep clean due to the poor standard of cleaning, dog mess was still visible on the carpet. In its regular estate inspection of 23 July 2023, the landlord graded the cleanliness of the carpet as poor.
10. The resident continued to chase the landlord for a response during August 2023. The landlord conducted further estate inspections on 20 August and 17 September 2023 before the resident moved out in October 2023. At both inspections, it again graded the cleanliness of the carpet as poor. We have seen no evidence the landlord took any actions to arrange further cleaning following any of these estate inspections, which was not appropriate.
11. In its stage 1 response of 19 January 2024 the landlord said it had raised an order for a deep clean in 2023, which its contractor completed in July 2023. It said it conducted an inspection later in July 2023 and found stains still visible, so contacted the contractors to return and carry out further cleaning. It has not provided any evidence to show these inspections or cleaning went ahead.
12. In its stage 2 response of 28 February 2024 the landlord said it had conducted inspections following each of the resident’s reports and found no mess in the communal area. However, we have not seen any evidence of these inspections. The only inspections it has provided evidence of are from after the resident raised her complaint, and do not support that it resolved the issues with the cleanliness of the carpets.
13. The landlord’s Neighbourhood Management policy says it will inspect blocks of flats regularly to ensure they are clean and well maintained. Where a neighbourhood is frequently assessed as unsatisfactory it will consider taking a planned approach with specific actions for improvement. In this case, the landlord has demonstrated that it was regularly inspecting the block. However, it has not shown that it took any action to improve cleanliness, despite repeatedly finding it in a poor condition.
14. We have made our compensation award in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where a resident has had to repeatedly for responses and the landlord has failed to address the issue over a considerable period. It has failed to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s vulnerability when dealing with her reports. Its failure to resolve matters within a reasonable timeframe caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
15. As the issue complained about took place almost 3 years ago and the resident moved out shortly after, we have not seen evidence the issue is still ongoing. So, we have not made an order for it to review its handling of reports of dog mess and other communal cleanliness issues. However, we have identified learnings which are set out at the end of this report.

16. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord missed several opportunities to log the resident’s complaint, despite her clearly requesting to raise this formally
    2. it acknowledged the complaint 19 working days after she first raised it (14 July to 10 August 2023) – outside its complaints policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it sent its stage 1 response 113 working days after acknowledging the complaint (10 August 2023 to 19 January 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 20 working days
    4. it acknowledged her escalation request after 12 working days (20 January to 7 February 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 10 working days
    5. it sent its stage 2 response 15 working days after acknowledging her escalation request (7 February to 28 February 2024) – within its policy timescale of 40 working days
17. The landlord’s complaints policy does not say it cannot or will not merge similar complaints together. From what we have seen, the resident raised complaints about multiple instances of dog mess in separate parts of the communal area – an entrance mat and the stairs. Given the similar nature of the issues and required remedy, it was reasonable for it to consider these under one complaint.
18. The landlord offered compensation to the resident in its stage 2 response, specifically for a delay in sending this response. However, although there was a 2-day delay in it acknowledging the escalation request, it sent its stage 2 response within its policy timescale.
19. What the landlord failed to acknowledge was the significant delay in it sending its stage 1 response. It provided no explanation for this delay, and despite acknowledging her complaint in August 2023, it did not send a response until more than 5 months later.
20. Considering the circumstances of the case, the £50 compensation awarded by the landlord did not reflect the distress, frustration and time and trouble incurred. It did not demonstrate that it considered the impact of its failings on her, given her circumstances. It missed several opportunities to provide a resolution at the earliest opportunity. The address this, we have awarded £100 to replace the landlord’s offer.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord did not keep good records of inspections and cleaning conducted in relation to this issue, leading it to be unclear whether it had resolved the issue. It was unable to confirm that its contractors conducted additional cleaning following its request in August 2023. However, it failed to recognise this failing during its internal complaints process and does not appear to have taken action to rectify this.
22. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlords may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.

Communication

23. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. The resident had to raise her complaint repeatedly and it did not keep her updated with delays to its complaint response. It also failed to keep her updated during the cleaning process. It should be more proactive in keeping residents updated while issues are ongoing.