Clarion Housing Association Limited (202006786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006786

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 May 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is regarding:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s pathway and manhole covers on his property.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s guttering.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured non-shorthold tenancy with the landlord and has resided at the property, a three-bedroom house, since 2016.
The landlord has a complaints policy which states that, when a resident reports a non-emergency repair, they should be given ‘the next available appointment that suits the resident and (this) will be offered within 28 calendar days.’
The repairs policy also notes that while the responsive repairs service is ‘as far as is practicable…limited to minor building repairs’, ‘complex repairs such as disrepair cases…and other complex casework are also completed through the responsive repairs service.’ It also states that, if a repair is believed to be not economical, it can be referred to the landlord’s Planned Investment programme and a ‘regional maintenance team will consider the referral’.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy, with a Stage One response stage and Peer Review stage. The policy provided to this Service does not include any target times for how long the landlord aims to take to respond to complainants at each stage of its process, although the landlord does refer to a 20-working day response target in correspondence with the resident regarding the Peer Review stage. The policy also states that the landlord aims to ‘put things right within reasonable timescales.’
The landlord has a Compensation Policy. For repairs which go over target, it states that compensation will be paid at ‘£10 for the first day over the time limit…plus £2 per day for each further day the repair(s) remain outstanding subject to a maximum of £50.’ It also states that discretionary compensation can be paid for instances of service failure which include time taken to resolve a complaint, inconvenience suffered by the household, failure to follow process and repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem. The policy states that the landlord will ‘work towards £100 for every year the issue has taken to resolve’.

Summary of Events

On 10 June 2019, following a report from the resident that his guttering was blocked and loose and the fascia to his property was broken, the landlord raised a works order. Landlord records state the resident was given an appointment, although the date was not noted, and ‘this will be referred to PI (Planned Investment) to replace fascia board/soffit and guttering to property’.
On 24 January 2020, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord regarding outstanding repairs. He stated that:
1. Guttering around his house was cracked and he had not received information regarding a resolution.
2. Foundations around his property were cracked but following an attendance by the landlord in December 2019, when works were apparently agreed to secure the foundations, he had not heard further.
3. Two of the five manhole covers in his garden were major trip hazards and ‘nothing has been done about it’ by the landlord.
4. He had reported his patio door was damaged and two operatives who attended in December 2019 were unable to repair it. Since then he had been advised the job had been passed to a subcontractor, but he had received no further update and at one point the landlord had advised him to contact the subcontractor himself.
Landlord records show internal communication on 5 February 2020 confirmed that someone did attend the resident’s property in December 2019, but they were a contractor. In its records, the landlord noted the contractor’s report stated there were ‘no structural issues’ at the property but did acknowledge that the repairs the resident listed in his complaint were outstanding.
On 19 February 2020, the landlord issued its Stage One complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays regarding repairs to the structure of the resident’s property and delays in repairing his patio doors. In its response, the landlord:
1. Confirmed that an order had been raised for an operative to ‘attend to provide a quote to remove and relay concrete perimeter and reset the manhole covers.’ It advised it would contact the resident once the quote had been received and it had been ‘passed to the area surveyor for approval’.
2. Apologised for the delay in repairing the patio doors, stating that this had been due to an oversight. It provided the resident with an appointment for 5 March 2020 and stated he could contact it to rearrange if this was inconvenient.
3. It offered the resident £175 in compensation for the delays to the repairs and for the inconvenience caused.
On or around 11 June 2020, the resident submitted a new Stage One complaint. In recording the resident’s new complaint, landlord records noted that he had refused the £175 compensation offered in its last Stage One response. The resident stated this was because repairs that had been agreed following the previous complaint had yet to be completed:
1. There were still cracks to his property and the issue had not been resolved.
2. A specialist was due to be sent to look at his patio doors but had not attended.
3. His damaged guttering and fasciae had not been replaced.
4. Four drains in his garden remained damaged, not just two near his patio doors that he stated had been picked up by the landlord’s repairs team.
On 30 September 2020, the landlord provided its Stage One response to the complaint received in June 2020. In its response, the landlord advised it had spoken to the resident by phone and, further to that call:
1. Confirmed that structural engineers had attended the property to inspect the reported structural cracks and ‘no structural issues were raised’.
2. Advised that, regarding the resident’s pathway, major works to the path would not be undertaken. The landlord stated an inspection had taken place on 15 September 2020 and it was agreed that various concrete repairs would be carried out. It noted that it had arranged an appointment for 1 October 2020 but this had then been cancelled by the resident.
3. Confirmed it had attended to ease and adjust the resident’s patio doors on 13 July 2020 and reattended on 21 July 2020 for follow-on works but that the repair was now completed.
4. It acknowledged that there had been ‘a delay in carrying (out) the repairs due to Covid 19 lockdown restrictions’ and that it upheld the resident’s complaint as it had identified service failure. It apologised for ‘any issues you may have experienced and any inconvenience caused’.
On 6 October 2020, the resident contacted this Service and stated he was unhappy with the landlord’s most recent Stage One response. This Service wrote to the landlord on 8 October 2020 and requested it provide him with advice on how to escalate his complaint as its complaint process was yet to be exhausted.
On 14 October 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the repair issues further. It advised it would progress his complaint to its Peer Review stage and would aim to provide a response within 20 working days.
On 23 November 2020, the landlord issued its Peer Review (Stage Two) response, which addressed the two complaints raised by the resident on 24 January 2020 and on or around 11 June 2020 and its two responses at Stage One. Regarding the resident’s escalation request following the most recent complaint regarding structural issues to the property, pathways and manhole covers, the landlord noted that the resident had stated he did not believe the landlord was taking sufficient action regarding the concerns he had raised. The landlord provided a summary of the surveys it had carried out at his property to date and how it had considered what work it would carry out following those surveys and inspections. The landlord noted that:
1. An independent specialist survey had been carried out on 15 October 2019, following the resident’s report that the foundations around the property were cracked. It noted that no structural issues were identified but ‘there were some recommendations made’.
2. The matter was then referred to a surveyor on 6 July 2020, who considered the above report and a further drainage report carried out by the landlord on 5 November 2019. It advised that the recommendations made by the independent specialist on 15 October 2019 were outside the remit of the report for drainage alterations, including ‘additional drainage and breaking up and relaying of concrete areas’. While the landlord did arrange for a contractor to provide a quote for these works, they were then referred to in its initial Stage One response of 19 February 2020, which the landlord acknowledged was ‘misleading for you as to what was actually happening’ and raised the resident’s expectation ‘about the scope of the work we would be completing.’
3. The landlord later established it would arrange for essential repairs but that the additional improvement recommendations made would not be carried out. The landlord stated it considered its repair responsibilities and decided that, while it would ‘normally only repair paths from the boundary access to the front and rear doors’, the essential repairs identified ‘went beyond’ this and therefore ‘allowance would be made for paving outside of this definition’.
4. After a further inspection in September 2020, arranged following the resident’s more recent complaint, the landlord agreed the following ‘essential’ repairs:
  1. Repair cracks to rear concrete path.
  2. Repair cracks to rear concrete patio area.
  3. Repairs to concrete surrounds to drainage access covers.
  4. Crack repairs to concrete area to front and cut new drainage channel to prevent water pooling of area.
5. The landlord noted that the above repairs had been booked in to begin on 1 October 2020, but they had subsequently been cancelled by the resident.
6. The landlord acknowledged the resident had lodged a subsequent accident report stating he had sprained his ankle due to a dip in the path around his home. It stated it had completed a Customer Accident Form and identified that crack repairs to the pathway were required to address the issue, which could be included within the jobs raised on 22 September 2020. The landlord stated that, regarding the resident’s concerns over trip hazards, while its proposed repairs would not ‘provide a complete level area in the garden’, they were ‘quite extensive and will improve the current condition and reduce the risk’. It stated that it hoped the resident would reconsider his decision to cancel the proposed repairs and that he could contact it to arrange a new appointment.
7. The landlord noted the resident refused the offer of £175 compensation made in its first Stage One response in February 2020. The landlord acknowledged that, although the resident had notified it that the repair to his patio doors had been completed and did not form part of the review, there had been further delay in carrying out this repair and therefore awarded an additional £50 compensation. It also awarded an additional £50 for the inconvenience caused while it confirmed the scope of repairs it would carry out to his pathways and a further £50 for the delay in respect of arranging those works once they had been identified and agreed. Overall, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £325 and provided and apology to the resident.
8. Regarding the resident’s guttering, the landlord also confirmed that works relating to roof replacement, fasciae, soffits and guttering would now be undertaken by its Planned Investment Team and included in their programme for the financial year 2020/21. It advised the resident he would be written to ‘shortly…to introduce the works and advise on the next steps.’
On 8 March 2021, the landlord contacted this Service to advise it had conducted a further review of the resident’s case, following the conclusion of its complaint process. It advised it had decided to offer a further £50 compensation for a delay between its peer review response and then starting the repairs it had outlined. It also offered a further £50 for the delay in issuing its peer review response. This brought the total compensation offered to the resident to £425.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s pathway and manhole covers on his property.

It is not disputed that the resident has raised concerns regarding cracks and damage relating to pathways and manhole covers on his property. Information provided to this investigation demonstrates that the landlord has responded to those reports and carried out or commissioned several surveyor inspections in which it looked at cracks to the resident’s property, where it found no structural issues, but also his pathways and manhole covers at the property. It is not for this Service to determine whether the decisions made by the landlord in respect of how it decided to resolve those issues are correct. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the required technical expertise or knowledge to assess the outcome of the inspections and decide what work is required in this case. The role of this Service is to consider how the landlord has responded to the concerns the resident has raised and, based on the evidence available, whether it has done so reasonably and appropriately.
From the information provided to this Service, it is apparent that the landlord took a significant length of time to determine the scope of the work it would carry out to the resident’s pathways, which service area would be responsible for the work and whether it even had an obligation to carry out some of the work identified by a surveyor it commissioned. While this Service appreciates that the landlord had to consider its repair responsibilities, its records show it took an unreasonable length of time to determine the scope of the work it would carry out and this Service would expect to see better communication from the landlord regarding the progress of its internal referrals. It is noted that the landlord did acknowledge this in its Peer Review response and also acknowledged its response to the resident’s original Stage One complaint raised his expectations by indicating that the work to his pathways would be more extensive than ultimately agreed.
The landlord’s initial Stage One response appropriately provided an apology for the delay to the repair and its Peer Review response subsequently acknowledged that there had been further delays and that it had given the resident conflicting information regarding the scope of the works that would take place. In its Peer Review response, the landlord provided a further apology and increased its offer of compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was an appropriate response and demonstrated that it had properly reviewed its actions, identified failings, and sought to put things right via a proportionate offer of redress.
It is also noted that, following the resident’s latter complaint in June 2020, the landlord undertook a further visit to his property and carried out an additional inspection. Following this, repairs to the pathway and around manhole covers (detailed in paragraph 14d) were agreed with the resident and booked in for completion on 1 October 2020. However, these works were cancelled by the resident. In its Peer Review response, the landlord advised that these works could be rebooked by the resident if he wished for them to proceed. This was an appropriate response and it is this Service’s understanding that the works have since been completed, although it is also noted that, in correspondence with this Service, the resident has indicated that he remains dissatisfied with the outcome.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s guttering.

Landlord records show that the resident first reported a blocked gutter and broken fascia at his property on or around 10 June 2019. On receiving the report, records show that the landlord raised an order and arranged an appointment. However, the appointment date itself is not recorded so it is not possible for this Service to determine whether this appointment was appropriately scheduled within the landlord’s target time of 28-calendar days for a non-urgent repair.
It is not disputed that the repair did not take place following the resident’s report and the initial scheduled appointment. While landlord records relating to the repair note the ‘fascia board (is) rotted all round’ and that it had notified the resident that the agreed works had been referred to its Planned Investment team ‘to replace fascia board/soffit and guttering to property’, there is no further reference to this work within the repair logs provided to this Service. Until issuing its Peer Review response, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord had provided the resident with any further update regarding the progress of the referral to the Planned Investment team or any indication of when the work might take place. This was not appropriate and caused confusion for the resident, leading to him citing the outstanding repair in his later complaint in June 2020.
It is noted that in correspondence with this Service, the resident had advised that, to date, the repairs have still not been completed. This is confirmed by information provided to this Service by the landlord in which it confirmed that the work would now be included within its Planned Investment budget for 2021/22. From the evidence available, it is not clear whether the resident had been updated regarding this. This is not appropriate and indicates further issues with regards to the landlord providing the resident with updates and information.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Within the landlord’s Peer Review response, it addressed its two previous Stage One responses regarding complaints raised by the resident in January 2020 and June 2020. This was a reasonable step for it to take and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, showed that the landlord appropriately identified that the complaints were linked, which allowed it to provide a more comprehensive overview of how it had handled the repair issues and to identify any failings in its response.
Regarding the resident’s initial complaint in January 2020, the landlord’s Stage One response showed that it acknowledged that there had been delays in addressing the repairs to the resident’s pathway and drains and patio doors. It apologised for this and offered £175 in compensation for the delay and inconvenience caused. It provided an update on its plan to address the pathway repairs and gave the resident a booked appointment for the repair to his patio doors. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a proportionate response from the landlord and demonstrated an attempt to put things right. However, following this there were further delays to both repair issues.
In its Peer Review response, the landlord acknowledged the further delays regarding the reported issues with the patio doors and property structure. The landlord noted that the patio doors were no longer within the scope of the complaint as the work had now been completed in July 2020 but acknowledged that there had been a further four-month delay and so awarded an additional £50 compensation. This was appropriate and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was a proactive effort by the landlord to offer reasonable redress considering it had been determined as being outside the scope of the review. Furthermore, the landlord specifically acknowledged the delay in confirming the scope of the repair work to the resident’s pathways and awarded £50 compensation for this service failure. It also awarded a further £50 for the delay in arranging the job once the works had been agreed. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord was attempting to put things right, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
However, regarding its response to the resident’s complaint regarding his guttering repair, the landlord was incorrect in stating that he had not raised the issue in either of his Stage One complaints, as its records show it discussed this with him when recording his latter complaint in June 2020. While it did refer to the issue in its review response, the fact it was treated outside of the scope of the review meant it missed an opportunity to fully investigate the issue. While the landlord did provide the resident with an update in its Peer Review response and advised that the works relating to roof repair, guttering, soffits, and fasciae would now be undertaken by its Planned Investment Team under its programme for the financial year 2020/21, it did not provide any explanation why this work had not yet been carried out following the resident’s initial report in June 2019, when it initially advised him it would refer the work to that team. This was not appropriate. It is also noted that the landlord did not acknowledge the significant length of time, almost 18 months, that had elapsed since the resident made his repair report in June 2019 and therefore missed an opportunity to apologise for this or seek to offer redress for this part of the resident’s complaint. As noted above, the landlord has confirmed to this Service that the work has now been included within the financial year 2021/22 but from the information available to this investigation, it is not clear if the resident had been advised of this. This is not appropriate. As the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out, identifying actions that can put a matter right is essential for effective complaint handling. It is important however that any such actions identified are then progressed within an acceptable timescale. Furthermore, this Service would expect to see that the resident would be kept updated of progress and any further delays.
While the landlord’s complaints policy does not appear to specify target timescales for its responses at the Stage One and Peer Review stages, it is noted that in correspondence with the resident, it refers to a target time of 20-working days. While the resident has not raised concerns over the handling of his complaint, it is noted that the landlord has, in a further review carried out after the completion of its complaint process, identified a delay in sending out its Peer Review response and awarded £50 compensation for this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a proactive and appropriate action for the landlord to take and constitutes reasonable redress. That the landlord undertook a further review of the case following the completion of its complaint procedure is also a positive action in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
However, it is noted that the landlord’s second Stage One complaint response was issued on 30 September 2020, whilst the complaint was recorded on or around 11 June 2020 and despite the landlord’s further review of the case, this more significant delay has not been acknowledged. Whilst this delay was unhelpful and would have added to the resident’s overall dissatisfaction with the service provided to him, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the compensation of £50 that the landlord later awarded for the delay in issuing its Stage Two response also constituted adequate redress for this earlier delay.
It is also noted that the landlord has, in the same post complaint review, awarded a further £50 for an identified delay between the issuing of its Peer Review response, and starting the agreed repair work to the resident’s pathways. Again, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is a proactive response from the landlord and is considered reasonable redress.
This takes the total amount of compensation awarded by the landlord to £425, consisting of:
1. £175 relating to ‘inconvenience for delays to repairs, failure to follow process and repeat visits to repair matters reported for patio doors and property structure’.
2. £50 for delay in repairing the resident’s patio doors.
3. £50 for ‘inconvenience while confirming actual scope of repairs, proposed to be carried out to the paths from April 2020 to September 2020’.
4. £50 delay from initial Stage One response to arrange job for pathway repair.
5. £50 for delay in issuing Peer Review response.
6. £50 for delay in carrying out repairs cited within Peer Review response.

Determination (decision)

31.In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was in the Ombudsman’s opinion reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s pathway and manhole covers on his property.

32.In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s guttering.

33. In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

While a significant period of time elapsed between the landlord first attending the resident’s property to inspect the pathways and manhole covers in his garden, in its complaint responses the landlord has acknowledged failings, including the length of time taken to respond, the length of time taken to decide on the scope of works and raising the resident’s expectations unnecessarily in its initial Stage One response. The landlord has apologised for this and offered compensation that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is in line with its compensation policy and reasonably addresses the inconvenience and disruption caused to the resident.
The resident first raised a repair report regarding the guttering around his property in June 2019. Initially, the landlord responded, logging the repair, noting the work required and advising that it would be referred to its Planned Investment team. However, from that point on, the landlord does not appear to have progressed the issue and did not keep the resident updated regarding progress of the referral, or the reasons for any delay. In its Peer Review, the landlord erroneously stated the resident had not previously raised the issue as a complaint, when landlord records show it discussed this with him when noting his second complaint in June 2020. Although it referred to the issue in its Peer Review, it therefore missed an opportunity to provide a full response regarding the reasons for the work being delayed. Additionally, at this stage it advised the resident the work would be included in its Planned Investment for 2020/21 but this did not happen. It has now advised this Service it is included in the schedule for 2021/22 but it is not clear if this has been communicated with the resident.
While the resident has not raised the issue of the landlord’s complaint handling, it is noted that the landlord carried out an additional review and identified its delay in issuing a response at the Peer Review stage. It offered compensation for this, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was more than appropriate given the relatively small delay. It is also noted however that it failed to acknowledge the more significant delay in issuing its second Stage One response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £525 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, consisting of:
1. The £425 already offered to the resident and outlined above.
2. £100 in recognition of the delay in progressing the repairs to the resident’s guttering, fasciae and soffits and for the lack of updates provided to the resident regarding the Planned Investment schedule.

Recommendations

The landlord should write to the resident, if it has not done so already, and provide a timescale, even if provisional, for the Planned Investment work, and to confirm the scope of the works that will be undertaken.