Clarion Housing Association Limited (201901431)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201901431

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 May 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal lift at the property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. On 19 March 2019 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of repairs to the communal lift at the property. The landlord responded the same day with its stage one complaint response. In its response the landlord said that the lift had broken down on 11 March 2019 and its contractor had attended within 24 hours but was unable to fix the lift as a part was needed. The contractor fitted the part on the 13 March 2019 and the service was restored.
  2. Following an enquiry from the resident’s councillor the landlord reopened the complaint and issued a further stage one response to the resident on 25 April 2019.  In its response the landlord said that the repair to the lift was carried out in accordance with its service level agreement with its contractor and so it was unable to award the resident any compensation but apologised for the disruption she had encountered.
  3. On 29 April 2019 the resident’s councillor sent an email to this Service to “formally refer” the complaint to the Ombudsman.
  4. On 24 May 2019, following contact from this Service, the landlord confirmed that the complaint had not exhausted its internal complaints process and that it would escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
  5. On 13 June 2019 the landlord issued a stage two response to the complaint. In its response the landlord said that whilst there was no service failure with regards repairing the lift, given the resident’s circumstances at the time it “should have been more proactive and provided clear information on your options for being temporarily moved out of your home.” The landlord apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation for the three days she had been unable to stay at home and a further £75 for the poor communication concerning its investigation into her complaint. As the resident had arrears on her rent account it said that it would pay the £225 compensation into her rent account.
  6. The landlord’s letter dated 13 June 2019 was its final response to the complaint confirming that its internal complaints procedure had been exhausted.
  7. On 19 August 2019 the resident’s councillor sent an email to this Service saying that the landlord had agreed to pay the resident £250 to settle the complaint. However, she wasn’t happy that the money had been paid into her rent account. The councillor said that he intended to raise this with the landlord but asked for a copy of the Ombudsman’s decision on the complaint.
  8. Fifteen months later, on 14 December 2020 the resident’s councillor sent an email to this Service saying that the resident was still unhappy that the compensation had been paid into her rent account and again asking for a copy of the Ombudsman’s determination on the complaint.
  9. On 11 March 2021 this Service sent an email to the resident and to the landlord asking for a copy of the final response to the complaint.
  10. On 30 March 2021, following contact from this Service, the landlord sent the Service a copy of its final response to the complaint dated 13 June 2019.
     

Reasons

  1. There appears to have been some confusion concerning the Ombudsman’s involvement in the resident’s complaint. The councillor’s email to this Service on 29 April 2019 (see paragraph 6 above) said that he was formally referring the complaint to the Ombudsman. It appears that the councillor sent this email acting as a designated person wishing to refer the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.
  2. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme says that:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.”

  1. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 24 May 2019 that the complaint had not exhausted its internal complaints procedure and it would escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure (see paragraph 7 above). Therefore, the complaint was not investigated by the Ombudsman following the councillor’s referral on 29 April 2019, as it had not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  2. Paragraph 39 (d) of the Scheme states that:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:  were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.”

  1. The resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process on 13 June 2019. The Ombudsman did not receive a copy of the final response to the complaint until 30 March 2021, 21 months after the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  2. Although this service has not seen any authorisation from the resident that the councillor is acting as her representative in dealing with the Ombudsman, further correspondence was received from the councillor in August 2019 and December 2020 concerning the complaint. However, the correspondence did not say that the resident wished the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman would expect a resident to actively pursue a complaint. As the resident did not inform the Ombudsman that she wished the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under the provisions of paragraph 39 (d) of the Scheme.