Clarion Housing Association Limited (202014288)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014288

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 July 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to issues raised by the resident after she returned to the property following a decant for repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat.
  2. The resident was decanted from the property in January 2021 for repairs. The Ombudsman has determined a complaint about matters prior to the decant and other issues under case reference 202007394, so this investigation does not look at issues considered within this.
  3. On returning to the property, the resident complained about contractors using gas and electricity without this being pre-agreed; a freezer being switched off and meat being ruined; paint on a bathroom shelf; paint and pencil marks on a wall; water damage marks on a wall; paint on a window; a broken window latch; a bathroom fan not being changed; and a sound system missing a wire. She asked the landlord to apologise and compensate her; reimburse her for the electricity and gas usage and cost of spoiled food; and move her to another property.
  4. In its response, the landlord confirmed it had spoken to staff/contractors that attended the property about the energy usage and food spoilage. It said that the gas had not been turned on, and that battery operated equipment had been used apart from lighting. It said that it was reasonable for it to have used a small amount of electricity and offered £10 for estimated electricity usage. It said the freezer was not turned off or unplugged, and there was no reason for it to have been, and referred the resident to her insurance for loss of spoiled food.
  5. The landlord repaired the window latch, and asked the resident to contact it to arrange a repair for paint on a window, if unable to remove it herself with soap and water. It noted that a bathroom fan was not due to be replaced, and asked the resident to let it know if this needed a repair so it could arrange an inspection. The landlord noted it had attempted to inspect or carry out works for other repairs issues, and had been asked to leave/refused access. It invited the resident to contact it and arrange further appointments.
  6. The landlord said that moving the resident was not an appropriate resolution to the complaint, but it reviewed her transfer application and provided guidance about how to move via transfer and mutual exchange. The landlord acknowledged that there had been service failure in respect of a delay in response to the complaint, and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  7. The landlord subsequently reviewed the complaint between March and May 2022, which it said was part of ongoing learning to improve the way it handled complaints. It said it would arrange for the bathroom fan to be cleaned, and replaced if it did not work. While it noted it could not identify how this occurred, it said that it would arrange reimbursement of £250 to cover the food loss as a result of the freezer being switched off. It detailed some steps it would take to work with the resident to support her move.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine cause or liability for the sound system or the freezer being turned off. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the issues the resident raised.
  2. The landlord acknowledged, apologised and compensated for a delayed response to the complaint. This was appropriate as it took over a month to issue its stage one response, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion the compensation awarded was reasonable for the detriment this will have caused the resident.
  3. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about repairs. The information provided advises that it visited on her return to the property and noted her concerns, which was appropriate. It subsequently attended and completed the window latch repair, attempted to inspect and carry out repairs, and invited the resident to make contact to re-book these, which was a reasonable resolution. This investigation also cannot see that fan replacement formed part of the decant repairs and the landlord was therefore reasonable to invite the resident to also arrange an inspection for this. This investigation notes the resident arranged for some issues to be repaired herself and does not specifically complain about doing so, however this investigation would not consider it reasonable to make a finding for this, since there is no evidence that the landlord was given reasonable opportunity to complete the works.
  4. This Service understands that it would have been distressing for the resident to return to the property to find issues or damages that she believed the landlord or its contractors were responsible for. This Service’s guidance in respect to insurance confirms a landlord should investigate if it or its contractors are reasonably responsible for damages, and confirms that if fault is disputed or a complainant is unable to evidence the level of claimed damages, it may be reasonable to refer a complainant to an insurer to establish negligence and liability.
  5. The landlord responded generally reasonably to the resident’s reports of food spoilage as a result of freezer being turned off, as it considered this aspect appropriately by discussing it with contractors. The landlord could have demonstrated it took further steps to consider the possibility of food spoilage resulting from contractor action and weighed the evidence for this, e.g. demonstrate that it considered the chronology of when contractors finished in the property and when the issue was reported. However, it is not in this Service’s jurisdiction or expertise to determine liability if a claim is disputed and not evidenced, as an insurance procedure or court are best placed to offer a definitive decision in such circumstances. The landlord’s later review of this aspect was a positive exercise of discretion, and demonstrates that it subsequently sought to be resolution and customer focused for this issue.
  6. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request to move. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a tenant should be rehoused but whether a landlord responded appropriately to in relation to the matter. The landlord demonstrates it considered this aspect, set out its position, and provided guidance and assistance on how the resident might maximise her chances of achieving her desired outcome to move, which demonstrates it considered the issue reasonably and sought to be helpful and customer focused. The landlord was reasonable to say that moving the resident was not an appropriate resolution to the complaint, as there is no evidence the landlord was specifically obligated to in the circumstances here.
  7. This investigation understands that as part of the resident’s remaining dissatisfaction with the complaint, she was unhappy the landlord had not compensated for a sound system that she returned from her decant to find non-functional and which she consequently replaced. The landlord demonstrates it responded reasonably to the claim, as it considered this appropriately by discussing it with contractors. As noted above, it is not in this Service’s jurisdiction or expertise to determine liability and since this is disputed, only an insurance procedure or court could offer a definitive decision if the resident wished to pursue this issue.
  8. Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord responded reasonably to the issues raised by the resident after she returned to the property following a decant for repairs. The landlord took steps to consider and address the issues the resident raised and responded reasonably, based on the evidence available, then later exercised positive discretion to compensate for the food spoilage. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged, apologised and compensated for service issues identified with its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to issues raised by the resident after she returned to the property following a decant for repairs.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took steps to consider and address the issues the resident raised and responded reasonably, based on the evidence available, then later exercised positive discretion to compensate for the food spoilage. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged, apologised and compensated for service issues identified with its complaints handling. It is not in this Service’s jurisdiction or expertise to determine liability for issues with the sound system and since this is disputed, only an insurance procedure or court could offer a definitive decision if the resident wished to pursue this issue.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to ensure it considers the Ombudsman’s guidance on insurance when considering complaints from residents that involve claims.