Clarion Housing Association Limited (202015970)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015970

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 October 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 about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damage to the property’s front door.
2. Delay in setting up the resident’s rent and service charge account.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the shared-owner of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord is the freeholder.
The property is a newbuild flat.
The resident purchased his share of the lease in April 2018. The defect liability period ended in April 2019.

Summary of events

On 11 April 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord to raise concerns regarding its response to replace the property’s front door and its delay in setting up his rent and service charge account. In summary the resident said:
1. On moving into the property in April 2018 the landlord confirmed that the front door would be replaced as it was damaged. The resident stated that it was unsatisfactory that the replacement was outstanding 12 months later.
2. Despite requesting his account details, in order to pay in his rent and service charge, the information had not been provided. The resident advised that he was having to save up the rent and service charge “on [his] own accord ready for payment”.
Within his correspondence the resident also noted that the property had a significant crack on the landing and cracks in the bathtub which required remedying. As the resident’s referral to this Service did not include these matters, they will not be further referenced in this report.
On 2 May 2019 the landlord responded stating that as the resident was the shared-owner of the property he was responsible for addressing repairs. The landlord also confirmed that the resident’s account had been set up and he was therefore able to make payments.
On the same day the resident replied. The resident stated that the landlord confirmed that the property would be subject to a 12 month “snagging” policy as it was a newbuild. The resident reiterated the landlord had committed to replacing the front door on completion of the sale as it was “already damaged”.
On 20 May 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had requested further information to determine if the damage to the front door was “raised at [his] end of defects inspection”. The landlord confirmed that it would provide an update once it had received a response.
On 24 September 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord following his last contact with it “five months [ago]”. In summary the resident said:
1. The front door replacement was outstanding. The resident stated that at no point had the landlord attempted to correct snagging issues which were present upon purchasing the property.
2. Despite recent attempts to pay his rent and service charge he had been unsuccessful as his account had not been set up correctly. The resident noted that currently he owed the landlord £3721.50 in rent and service charge.
On 26 September 2019 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence. The landlord apologised that the resident had not received an outcome to his concerns. The landlord confirmed that it would follow it up internally.
On 30 September 2019 the resident chased the landlord for an update. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord replied.
On 13 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that it was unsatisfactory that it had failed to respond to or address his concerns in respect of the front door and his rent and service charge account.
On 16 December 2019 the landlord replied suggesting that he make a formal complaint to “get a full response from those that [could] provide it”.
The resident states that he made a formal complaint to the landlord on 31 December 2019. While the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman can see within the landlord’s internal records that it refers to a complaint made by the resident in December 2019.
In late July 2020/ early August 2020 (exact date not known) the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the front door and his rent and service charge account. In summary the resident said:
1. Upon completion of the sale of the property the front door was damaged and he was “assured verbally” that it would be repaired or replaced. Despite continuing to raise the issue with the landlord the door had not been replaced and he had recently been told that it was his responsibility to remedy.
2. The only information which he had received in relation to his rent and service charge payments was in the memorandum of sale. The resident confirmed that despite trying to make payments the landlord had failed to set up an account. The resident set out that he had chased his account details on many occasions however had not received a response.
3. He had made several complaints to the landlord about the matters however it had not responded.
On 22 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that his rent and service charge account was in arrears of £6767.76 and to request payment.
On 25 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding its letter dated 22 August 2020. The resident stated that the letter appeared to be a “formality” following the creation of his account and in response to his complaint. The resident advised that the amount of arrears was incorrect and did not appear to be calculated using the correct rent and service charge figures. In response the landlord confirmed that the letter was an automated letter sent to anyone showing in arrears. The landlord confirmed that the letter was however not relevant to the resident, and it would provide further details within its complaint response.
On 28 August 2020 the landlord provided it stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of the front door:
  1. It had spoken with the developer of the property who advised upon checking its system the only issue reported to it was regarding no hot water in 2018. The landlord confirmed that the developer had also checked the handover sheet and no report of the front door issue was recorded. The landlord stated that the developer had therefore advised that the resident should contact the National House Building Council (NHBC) to make a claim as it was able to investigate all claims within 24 months of the property completion date. The landlord explained that the NHBC had the power to recall the developer to complete works where necessary, whereas it was unable to do so.
2. In respect of the rent and service charge account:
  1. Following an internal investigation it had established that while the resident’s account was set up it had not been made live since he purchased the property. The landlord confirmed that this was the reason the resident had been unable to make rent and service charge payments.
  2. The resident’s rent and service charge account was activated on 21 August 2020.
  3. The rent increases for the past two years would not be applied to the resident’s account and his rent would not change until April 2021. The landlord confirmed that the amount owed by the resident for rent and service charges, calculated from the original memorandum of sale, was £6767.76.
  4. It was sorry for its letter dated 22 August 2020 demanding that he clear his arrears within seven days. The landlord confirmed that the letter was automated and was issued to anyone showing in arrears.
  5. Due to the delay in setting up the resident’s account it was able to offer “a long term” repayment plan to clear the account by March 2021. The landlord noted that it considered this timescale fair as the resident had confirmed to it that he had saved money each month with the intent of paying it. The landlord confirmed that it would call the resident to discuss the payment plan.
  6. It was sorry for the length of time it had taken to resolve this matter. The landlord confirmed that it would like to offer the resident £500 compensation comprising £250 for “failure to follow process” and £250 for “inconvenience”.
On 1 September 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response. In summary the resident said:
1. In respect of the front door:
  1. “Regardless” of whether the damage to the front door was recorded on the handover document he had emailed the landlord on 22 July 2019 and 14 October 2018 to inform it of the damage. The resident also confirmed that he had other email correspondence with the landlord dating back to 2018/ 2019 showing that it was seeking to resolve the issue. The resident noted that his communication would have fallen within the 12-month defect period and therefore the landlord should have “at the very least investigated the matter”.
2. In respect of the rent and service charge account:
  1. He did not feel that £500 compensation was reflective of the difficulties he had experienced in respect of this matter. The resident confirmed that this included oversights by the landlord, poor communication and “financial uncertainty spanning two and a half years”.
  2. The landlord should review its offer of compensation.
On the same day the landlord replied confirming that its stage one response was based on the information from the business areas during the investigation. The landlord confirmed that it could arrange to escalate the complaint if the resident would like.
On 2 September 2020 the resident responded confirming that he would like his complaint to be considered at stage two. The resident confirmed that he had also attached copies of some correspondence with the landlord from 2018 reporting damage to the front door and raising concerns about his rent and service charge account.
On 14 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that his complaint had been logged at stage two of its complaint procedure and a full response would be provided within 20 working days. Within its correspondence the landlord noted that the resident had previously raised a complaint about the same issues on 31 December 2019 which was closed on 27 February 2020, however it was not clear if he had received a response. The landlord asked the resident to confirm. The landlord also asked the resident to provide any additional supporting information he would like considered as part of its stage two investigation.
On the same day the resident responded. In summary the resident said:
1. He had not received a formal response to his complaint dated 31 December 2019.
2. He had made several other complaints, concerning the front door and his rent and service charge account, which he had not had a response to.
3. He had attached correspondence documenting his attempts from 2018 to try and resolve both issues which were the subject of his complaint.
On 22 September 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s response and additional information, confirming that a stage two response would be provided within 20 working days.
On 27 October 2020 the resident chased the landlord for the outcome of his stage two complaint. The resident stated that it was unsatisfactory that the landlord had missed its deadline for responding.
On 28 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise for the delay in providing its response. The landlord confirmed that its handling of the complaint would be covered within its complaint response. The landlord also asked the resident if he had any other evidence available to support his complaint, and if so, could he provide it.
On the same day the resident provided the landlord with “30 other pieces of evidence” to support his complaint. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with “complaint evidence with annotations” demonstrating the information he provided the landlord.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of its complaint handling:
  1. The resident had made a complaint about the same issues in December 2019 however it had not provided a response. The landlord noted that its records indicated that, while no response was provided, the issue was investigated. The landlord did not provide further details of its investigation. The landlord confirmed that it would like to offer the resident £100 compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused.
  2. It was sorry for the delay in providing its stage two/ final response. The landlord confirmed that it would therefore like to award £50 compensation.
2. In respect of the front door:
  1. It had identified that there had been “miscommunication regarding this concern”.
  2. When the resident purchased the property an order was raised in respect of the door, however it was rejected by the developer. The landlord advised that the developer failed to inform it of its decision and therefore there was confusion over whether the door would be replaced. The landlord confirmed that it would like to offer the resident £150 compensation for poor communication and on-going inconvenience in respect of this matter.
  3. The resident should refer the defect to the NHBC for a resolution
3. In respect of the rent and service charge account:
  1. It considered its stage one response to be appropriate, including the level of compensation awarded for its failings.
4. Its total offer of compensation was £800 comprising:
  1. £100 – not providing a response to the formal complaint in December 2019.
  2. £50 – delay in providing its stage two/ final response.
  3. £150 – miscommunication regarding the front door defect.
  4. £500 – delay in setting up rent and service charge account.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer their complaint to this Service for adjudication if he was not happy with its response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the property’s front door

The landlord’s website sets out the following in relation to new build properties:
1. New build properties sometimes have minor defects. If these occur within a defects liability period, either 12 or 24 months, the developer is responsible for repairing them.
2. The defects liability period starts from the date the property is handed over from the developer to the landlord.
3. A defect is a fault in a newly built property that needs repair, or rectifying, such as a door that will not close properly.
4. The landlord’s customer care and quality team are responsible for overseeing the defects liability period.
The schedule of outstanding items at handover document, dated 2 April 2018, did not record damage to the front door.
On 12 April 2018 the landlord completed a defect order, assigned to the developer, setting out “deep gauge to the front door inside”. The Ombudsman has not identified any response to the order from the developer, or that the landlord followed the order up following it being issued.
The evidence shows between July 2018 and April 2019, the end of the defect liability period, the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions in respect of damage to the front door. For example, in July 2018 the resident stated “was told door would be replaced due to damage – no communication since” and in October 2018 the resident requested “further information on the repair of [his] front door”.
While there is no record documenting damage to the front door on key handover, the Ombudsman is satisfied based on the information provided in paragraphs 33 and 34 that the landlord was aware of the issue within the defect liability period.
Despite the landlord being aware of the damage to the front door the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence that the landlord was actively seeking to investigate the resident’s concerns, including with the developer, during the 12-month defect period, other than issuing the defect order. This is unsatisfactory as the landlord was responsible for pursing the developer in respect of the defect in order to get a response and position on the matter.
Following the end of the defect liability period, and from April 2019, the evidence shows that the resident continued to report damage to the front door to the landlord and to request intervention. From review of the chronology of the case from this point the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the landlord’s response. This is because, despite the resident’s multiple contacts from April 2019, it was not until the resident’s formal complaint dated summer 2020 that the landlord sought to provide a position on the matter. A period of more than 15 months. This is unsatisfactory, and will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and time and trouble for the resident. It was also unsatisfactory that the resident was required to raise a complaint in order to generate a response to his concerns, demonstrating a lack of ownership by the landlord in resolving his concerns.
The landlord confirmed within its final response that the resident must seek replacement of the front door via a claim with the NHBC as the developer had rejected the request for it to be replaced. As part of this determination the Ombudsman is not able to comment on the developer’s decision to refuse to replace the door, whether it was reasonable or not, as the developer is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman considers however that it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident of his right to refer damage to the front door to the NHBC, although this advice should have been provided at a much earlier point. This is because the property was still under warranty with the NHBC and he had reported that damage to the front door was a defect outstanding from property handover rather than a repair issue.
The Ombudsman notes that the NHBC confirms the following on its website – “Buildmark Choice is our policy for landlords, and covers homes occupied by rental tenants and shared owners. Buildmark Choice usually covers a home for 10 years from the completion date (occasionally it’s 12 years). If you have problems with your home you should contact your landlord or managing agent. If your home is less than 2 years old your landlord or managing agent should contact the builder/contractor in the first instance. If your home is older than this your landlord should contact us”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, taking into account the information from the NHBC and the landlord’s failure to pursue the developer during the defect liability period, it would have been reasonable and best practice for the landlord to have offered to have contacted the NHBC on the resident’s behalf.
The landlord acknowledged within its final response that its communication following the defect order, dated April 2018, had been poor as the developer’s decision had not been communicated to the resident at that time – to not replace the door. From review of the chronology of this case the Ombudsman agrees with this finding. Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress. In this case the landlord awarded £150 compensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may award compensation where mistakes have occurred and where a resident has experienced a loss of service. As the landlord had identified a service failure it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will award between £50 and £250 “for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the amount of compensation offered was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case and the impact on the resident to reflect the length of time his enquiry was outstanding. Further the landlord’s award does not reflect that as a result of the poor communication and its failure to follow up on the defect order, the resident was denied the opportunity to challenge the developer’s decision during the defect liability period.
The Ombudsman is not clear whether the resident pursued the damage to the front door via the NHBC following the landlord’s final response.

The landlord’s delay in setting up the resident’s rent and service charge account

In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in setting up the resident’s rent and service charge account due to an administrative error. The landlord confirmed that the account was activated in August 2020, which was approximately 28 months after he purchased his shares in the property. This was an unacceptably protracted period of time.
The evidence shows that between April 2018 and the resident’s stage one complaint dated July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions attempting to resolve the issue with his rent account. Despite the resident’s contacts the landlord did not take action to address the problem. This is unsatisfactory. Where a resident raises an issue, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to take proactive steps to investigate in order to ensure that things are put right as soon as possible, where it is found that something has gone wrong. In this case the landlord did not do so. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord, and will have resulted in inconvenience, distress and uncertainty to the resident who was seeking to comply with his contractual obligations as a shared owner to pay rent and service charges.
Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will consider if the landlord has made a suitable offer of redress to put things right. In this case the landlord apologised and awarded £500 compensation.
The apology was appropriate as it demonstrated that it accepted responsibility for the service failure and to acknowledge the impact this had on the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will award between £250 and £700 for cases where it finds considerable service failure including where a resident repeatedly has to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes. While the resident considers that a higher amount of compensation is due, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s award of compensation was proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint and the impact on the resident. The landlord’s offer was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies.
As part of the landlord’s complaint response, it confirmed that the resident’s rent and service charge between April 2018 and March 2021 would not increase from the amounts set out in the memorandum of sale. This was appropriate as a resident must be given advance notice of a change in rent and service charges and therefore it would not have been appropriate for the landlord to backdate any increase. The landlord also agreed a short repayment plan for the resident to pay the rent and service charge due on his account. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the short repayment plan was appropriate, including as the resident had confirmed that he had set aside money each month to cover rent and service charge while he did not have access to an active account.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord defines a complaint as “dissatisfaction expressed by a customer regarding a service, action or lack of action”.
From April 2019 the evidence shows that the resident began registering expressions of dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s response to his concerns regarding the front door and his rent and service charge account. Despite this, it was not until August 2020 that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns under its complaint procedure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord should have sought to have explored the resident’s concerns under its complaint procedure at a much earlier time, by proactively engaging its complaint procedure. It was a missed opportunity by the landlord that it did not do so.
The landlord acknowledged within its final response that its complaint handling had not always been satisfactory as it failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in December 2019 and delayed providing its final response. While it was appropriate that the landlord awarded some compensation, £150, in recognition of these failures, in the Ombudsman’s view the compensation was not proportionate to the length of time the resident was left without resolution to his concerns and therefore the distress and inconvenience he would have experienced while the matters were outstanding.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damage to the property’s front door.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in respect the delay in setting up the resident’s rent and service charge account.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage to the property’s front door

While the landlord recognised that there had been failings in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damage to the property’s front door and therefore awarded £150 compensation in recognition of this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because the offer does not reflect the length of time his enquiry was outstanding, the time and effort he expended in pursuing the matter and that he was denied the opportunity to challenge the developer’s decision during the defect liability period.

The landlord’s delay in setting up the resident’s rent and service charge account

The landlord offered a proportionate sum of compensation, £500, in respect of its delay in setting up the resident’s rent and service charge account to reflect the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord recognised that there had been failings in relation to its complaint handling and therefore awarded £150 compensation in recognition of this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because the offer does not reflect that the length of time the resident was left without resolution to his concerns and therefore the distress, inconvenience and uncertainty he would have experienced while the matters were outstanding.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation:
1. £400 compensation in respect of its response to his reports of damage to the property’s front door. This award includes the £150 compensation which the landlord offered within its final response.
2. £300 compensation in respect of its complaint handling. This award includes the £150 compensation the landlord offered within its final response.
The landlord should contact the resident to establish whether he made a claim to the NHBC in respect of the property’s front door. If the resident has not done so, the landlord should further discuss this option with the resident and offer to make the referral on his behalf.
The landlord should comply with the orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £500 compensation it awarded him in respect of the delay in setting up his rent and service charge account if it has not already done so.
The landlord should share this report and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its officers who deal with complaints to ensure that complaints are responded to in accordance with best practice.
As set out in paragraph 14 of this report, it was unsatisfactory that the resident was advised to make a formal complaint in order to get a full response to his concerns. This demonstrated a lack of ownership by the landlord in terms of seeking to proactively resolve the matters the resident was seeking to raise. The landlord should therefore ensure that all staff are aware that they should take a proactive approach to addressing issues raised by residents. This should include ensuring that staff are aware that, while it is appropriate to ensure residents are aware of their rights to raise a complaint, it is not acceptable to simply suggest that a resident raises a complaint in order to get a full response.