Clarion Housing Association Limited (202015276)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015276

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 November 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of external redecoration works to the property. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background and summary of events

  1. The property is a maisonette. The resident entered into a leaseholder agreement with the landlord on 27 March 2002.
  2. At some point in September 2020 the resident contacted the landlord about the external redecoration works and asked for a formal complaint to be logged. The landlord has stated that it told the resident that it would need to be looked at by the relevant business area and the matter was passed to the relevant group.
  3. On 15 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord advising that she had received a letter stating that a contractor for the works had been appointed and a surveyor would attend on 21 October 2020. She noted that it had been a while since the survey and she had not heard anything. She raised her concerns that works had not yet started and this could mean further deterioration of the property and greater costs.
  4. On 18 March 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord referring to the recent letter about the consultation on the proposed works. She stated that she wanted to bring to the landlord’s attention the wooden fences at the front and back of the property which were rotten and a broken window sash cord.
  5. On 30 March 2021 the landlord advised this service that it would raise the resident’s concerns as a stage one complaint.
  6. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 8 June 2021. In this letter it referred to the resident making a formal complaint to the landlord on 23 April 2021 about the delay to the works, and it apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. It explained that not all areas were covered in the 2018/19 planned programme due to time and budgetary constraints and therefore some planned works were deferred. This mean that works originally proposed for 2021/21 were delayed. Therefore the proposed works to the property for cyclical decorations were not moved to the first quarter of 2021/22. It noted that the section 20 process was now due to begin and pre-consultation letters had been sent on 28 April 2021. It resent this letter to the resident on 5 May 2021. It advised the resident that a more detailed breakdown of the works would be included in the formal section 20 notice. It acknowledged that there was a further delay to the process which was the result of the need to engage a private consultancy for some of the scoping of the work and that, in hindsight, it recognised that it should have written to all leaseholders to explain the delay. It apologised for not doing so. It advised that it hoped to start the formal section 20 process by the end of May. It apologised for not responding to an email from the resident sent on 18 March 2021. It awarded the resident £250 compensation – £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint; £100 for the repeated contact by the resident; £100 for inconvenience to the resident.
  7. The resident responded on 17 June 2021, requesting that the complaint be escalated.
  8. On 7 July 2021 the landlord had a telephone conversation with the resident, followed up by an email confirming that her complaint would be escalated.
  9. On 18 August 2021 the landlord provided a final response to the resident. It confirmed its position as set out in the stage one complaint – that the delays were due to budgetary and time constraints. It stated that it was unable to provide specific confirmed dates for the work until the section 20 process was completed in full. It explained that its planned works programme is driven by stock condition which looks at data over a period of 5 years. It aim to deliver works effectively and efficiently and also undertakes patchwork repairs/decorations on an ongoing basis to maintain homes in a reasonable condition. The landlord stated that it would increase the £250 compensation offered at stage one to £300 to reflect the delay in responding to the resident’s escalation request and the delay in providing the stage two response.
  10. On 23 August 2021 the resident advised this service that she was unhappy with the response. She stated that the landlord should redecorate every five years, but it had not been done since 2006/07. She complained that since 2018 she had got letters promising to do the external redecoration and surveyor visits but nothing further.
  11. The landlord completed the section 20 consultation on 21 September 2021.
  12. On 6 October 2021 the resident told this service that she remained unhappy with the matter. She was unhappy with the landlord’s explanation for the delays and with the proposed compensation. To resolve the complaint she wanted a confirmed date and greater compensation to reflect the distress she had suffered. She noted that she had been requesting “for years” that the cyclical works be done and referred to the lease requiring that they be done every five years.
  13. There were delays to the works after the end of the consultation due to some issues regarding access and scaffolding requirements. The landlord has stated the costs for this will not be passed on to leaseholders. The works started on 24 October 2022.
  14. At some point the resident has sold the property and is no longer the leaseholder.

Assessment and findings

Redecoration works                  

  1. The crux of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord unreasonably delayed external redecoration works on the property.
  2. The resident has referred to the landlord having an obligation to redecorate the exterior of the property every five years. Section 3 of the lease between the parties states that the landlord has an obligation to “maintain [and] redecorate the exterior of the property”. It does not specify a timeframe for this. Section 2 of the lease imposes an obligation on the resident to paint internal parts of the property every five years. However, this timeframe is not replicated for the landlord’s obligations.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s obligation is to redecorate the exterior of the property within a reasonable timeframe – which may not be every 5 years. When considering what is reasonable, the Ombudsman will take into account the landlord’s overall obligations across its programme of works for its properties and its need to manage its resources efficiently and effectively.
  4. The Ombudsman will take into account that, when undertaking the external works, the landlord is also required to have regard to The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 which set out the consultation requirements for major works which exceed certain amounts for leaseholders. The landlord should give notice in writing of an intention to carry out major works, and describe the works; explain why they are necessary; state the estimated cost; invite observations on the proposed works and expenditure; and specify the deadline for when these can be made. If leaseholders wish to challenge service charges, they are able to apply to the First-Tier Tribunal to decide the reasonableness of the charges. This process in itself will require a reasonable timeframe to complete.
  5. The Ombudsman has been provided with limited evidence on the history of redecoration works to the property. The resident refers to the property last being redecorated in 2006/07. It appears that the landlord began communications about the works being done in 2018. These works ultimately started in October 2022.
  6. The Ombudsman would consider it reasonable for the landlord to turn its mind to redecoration works in 2018, as it seems that the property had not been redecorated for a significant period before this.
  7. The landlord’s position is that, having begun the process in 2018, there were delays due to budgetary and time constraints. It has stated that it determines its planned work programme by looking at the condition of its overall stock on the basis of five year data. The Ombudsman is satisfied that this is a reasonable position for the landlord to take. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that the exterior was in a state of notable disrepair and that the resident’s ability to access and inhabit her property was compromised by the landlord not undertaking redecoration work. Given that there is no evidence that the lack of redecoration was notably impacting on the resident’s living circumstances and use of the property, the Ombudsman does not consider that it was unreasonable for the landlord to delay the works from 2018 to fit into its overall programme of works. The landlord has stated that it was prepared to undertake “patchwork” repairs were these were needed to maintain the property in a reasonable condition. It does not appear that this was necessary.
  8. There were further delays after the section 20 consultation was completed on 21 September 2021. These were because of issues with access and scaffolding requirements. The Ombudsman again understands the resident’s frustration. However, it is not unusual for challenges to arise with erecting scaffolding and gaining access for works such as this. The works were not urgent and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord was unreasonable in handling these further issues.
  9. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there were no failings by the landlord with respect to undertaking the redecoration works.

Complaint handling

  1. Whilst the Ombudsman is satisfied with the landlord’s handling of the works, there have been failings identified with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The evidence suggests that the resident first raised the matter as a complaint in September 2020, however this was not progressed within the formal complaint process by the landlord at that time. The landlord does not appear to have progressed the matter through the complaints process until it was contacted by this service. The landlord advised this service on 30 March 2021 that it would progress the matter as a stage one complaint. However, in its stage one complaint letter, the landlord refers to the resident making a formal complaint on 23 April 2021. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord failed to properly register and respond the resident’s stage one complaint within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The landlord also failed to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process in a timely manner. The resident responded to the landlord on 17 June 2021 that the complaint should be escalated, however the landlord does not appear to have actioned this until a conversation with the resident on 7 July 2021. The second stage complaint response was not provided until 18 August 2021. Given that this was a relatively straightforward matter, the Ombudsman considers that this was an unreasonable amount of time.
  4. The landlord has acknowledged that there were failings in its complaint handling. In its stage two complaint response, it offered the resident £300 compensation. This was made up of £50 for the delay in responding to the stage one complaint; £100 for the repeated contact by the resident; £100 for inconvenience to the customer; and £50 for the delay in responding to the stage two complaint.
  5. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
  6. In this case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable. As set out above, the evidence does not indicate that the resident was impacted negatively in her use of the property by the redecoration delays. The compensation was for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaints handling and communication failings with the resident. The amount offered by the landlord is consistent with the approach this service takes to awards of this type.
  7. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there were service failings by the landlord with respect to its complaints handling, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord offered reasonable redress in recognition of these.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been no maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of external redecoration works to the property.
  2. In accordance with section 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress with respect to its complaint handling, however.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that the exterior was in a state of notable disrepair and that the resident’s ability to access and inhabit her property was compromised by the landlord not undertaking redecoration work. The Ombudsman therefore does not consider that it was unreasonable for the landlord to delay the works from 2018 to fit into its overall programme of works.
  2. The landlord failed to correctly record and respond to the resident’s stage one complaint and there were further delays in escalating the complaint. However, the landlord acknowledged this and the compensation it offered was reasonable and in line with the approach this service would take.