Clarion Housing Association Limited (202317028)

Background

1. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about several communal issues. She remains unhappy with the way it handled her concerns about the standard of communal cleaning, which she says is poor. She is also unhappy with its response to her health and safety concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. concerns about the health and safety of a communal wall and shed doors
   2. a poor standard of communal cleaning and its failure to carry out a promised deep clean
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the health and safety of a communal wall and shed doors
   2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a poor standard of communal cleaning and its failure to carry out a promised deep clean
   3. reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Communal wall and shed doors

5. The landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and visited the site to assess the wall and shed door, which it found no problems with. We have seen nothing to show this assessment was unreasonable.

Communal cleaning

6. Despite being aware of an ongoing issue with the performance of its contractor, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it took any steps to investigate or improve this. It only offered the resident a short term solution, with no long term resolution.

Complaint handling

7. The were delays during the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, it acknowledged these delays and offered appropriate compensation at both stages.

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.

8. In July 2023 the resident raised concerns about a communal wall and communal shed doors. She said the wall needed repointing. She said the shed doors had been rehung and now opened outward instead of inwards, which she said was a health and safety issue.
9. In its stage 1 response of 31 October 2023 the landlord said that the wall was secure, and it did not need to carry out work. It said it would not change the shed doors as they were not a health and safety concern. In its stage 2 response of 15 February 2024 it confirmed that a manager had attended the site on 17 January 2024 and checked the shed doors and all brick walls. They found that there was no repointing required and the shed doors were operating correctly.
10. We appreciate the resident remains concerned about these issues. However, the landlord attended the property to inspect the issues and so demonstrated it had assessed these issues in line with her concerns. We have seen no evidence to suggest that its assessment was incorrect.

11. The landlord’s internal records from 14 April 2023 show that it had concerns about cleaning in the resident’s block not being done correctly, saying many things were being missed. In June 2023 the landlord said it would carry out a deep clean. The landlord has provided evidence it raised a ticket with the contractor but we have seen no evidence this resulted in any additional cleaning at that time.
12. In her complaint email of 9 August 2023 the resident raised dissatisfaction with the communal cleaning. The landlord’s internal records of 11 August 2023 show it was aware its contractors had not cleaned the block since 16 June 2023. It failed to respond to this issue in its stage 1 response of 31 October 2023. This was not appropriate, especially given that its records show it was aware of an ongoing issue with scheduled cleaning being missed.
13. In her escalation request of 5 November 2023 the resident said the landlord had not completed the deep clean it promised in June 2023 issues remained outstanding. The landlord’s internal communication of 30 November 2023 said that the block should have fortnightly cleans but had only been cleaned 9 times that year.
14. In its stage 2 response of 15 February 2024 the landlord said it had asked its contractors to conduct a deep clean and it was disappointed it had not completed this. It agreed this was a failing and offered compensation of £50 and said it would complete this within 6 weeks. Given it had already been 8 months since it promised the deep clean, it was not reasonable that it could not arrange this more quickly.
15. The landlord’s internal records of 15 March 2024 stated that its contractors had not cleaned the block since 23 February 2024, so it had again missed a visit. It has not provided any evidence it took any steps to raise this with its contractors, which was not appropriate.
16. The landlord’s internal communications of 29 May 2024 stated that its contractor had carried out a deep clean on 26 April 2024. A landlord staff member had subsequently inspected the block and was satisfied the contractor had completed the clean to a good standard. It took longer than the 6 weeks the landlord committed to in its stage 2 response for its contractor to carry this out. The landlord identified that the contractor was not visiting as often as it was meant to. We have also seen no evidence it took any action to address this underlying cleaning issue.
17. The landlord carried out estate inspections in July, August and October 2024 during which it found that the cleanliness was poor. In October 2024 it contacted its contractor and asked it to carry out an urgent deep clean as the cleaning was of a poor standard. We have seen no evidence the contractor did this, or that the landlord has taken any steps to address the ongoing cleaning issues.
18. We have made our compensation award in line with our compensation guidance where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but its actions and offer were not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. It took too long after concluding the complaints process to carry out the deep clean. Despite evidence that it was aware of ongoing issues with the frequency and standard of cleaning, it also failed to take steps to improve this, causing the resident additional distress and inconvenience. Our award of £200 replaces the offer of £50 made by the landlord during its internal complaints process.

19. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 59 working days after the resident raised it (9 August to 31 October 2023) – outside its policy timescale of 20 working days
    3. it acknowledged her escalation request 15 days after she made it (5 November to 25 November 2023) – outside its policy timescale of 10 working days
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 55 working days after acknowledging the request (25 November 2023 to 15 February 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 40 working days
20. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures in both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses and offered £50 compensation at each stage. These offers were proportionate to its failings and in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord has kept records of its cleaning contractor’s visits and its own site visits. However, as described above, it has failed to take any action despite clear gaps in service identified by these records.
22. While it is important that a landlord keep complete records, it is vital that it uses these records effectively to ensure it is providing residents with the appropriate services. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights without 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 date. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.

Communication

23. Overall the landlord’s communication on this case was reasonable. It mostly responded to the resident’s communications in a timely manner. And where it failed to respond to the complaint within its timescales, it apologised and provided compensation for this.