Clarion Housing Association Limited (202101002)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101002

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 June 2023

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:
1. The landlords handling of the repairs to plaster within the property.
2. The residents report regarding staff conduct.
3. The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a fixed term six-year tenancy of a three bed property. The tenancy started on 5 April 2019.
The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure of the property. This agreement also states that it is the resident’s responsibility “to decorate the rooms in your home as often as necessary to keep them in good decorative order”.
The landlord’s website which sets out its “responsibility for repairs”, states it is responsible for repairing the “walls, ceilings and plaster” and tenants are responsible for “minor defects or imperfections in plaster”.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy has two priorities of repair; emergency and non-emergency. Emergency repairs are classed as those which present an immediate danger to the resident or public and are to be attended and made safe within 24 hours. In the case of non-emergency repairs, an appointment is to be offered to the resident within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s complaints policy has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one of this process, it aims to provide a resolution within ten working days, otherwise it will keep the resident informed and provide a timescale for resolution. At the final stage of the complaints process, the landlord aims to resolve complaints within 20 working days, and again will keep the resident informed and provide a timeframe for resolution if it is unable to meet its published timeframe.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for the payment of discretionary compensation when a service failure had had some impact on a resident. This policy provides for the payment of £50 per quarter per failure where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.

Summary of Events

The resident reported wallpaper coming off “despite sticking back several times” and the walls crumbling. A works order was raised by the landlord to “skim walls in hall and bedroom” as per an operative on 25 February 2021, the operative comment reads “Note – 5hr to skim wall by fed and bedrooms”. The resident says she was advised at this initial visit to strip the wallpaper off in the hallway and bedrooms to the best of her ability.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 March 2021 to formally complain about an operative who had attended her property that day but disagreed with the work that had been booked in. The resident expected walls in her property to be skimmed but the operative advised he would just fill the holes which were visible. The resident said the operative at the visit started to “shout” at her which she found “very intimidating”. The resident called the repairs line who advised her she was correct and the job was booked to plaster not fill holes. The resident asked the operative to leave without completing any work as he refused to do anymore other than fill holes. The resident advised the job was assessed two weeks ago and it was agreed that the walls in the hall and two rooms would be replastered due to wallpaper coming off despite sticking back several times. She advised the wall had been “crumbling” and the plaster was “falling off”.
The landlord’s contact log shows the resident contacted them on 30 March 2021 to chase up when it would return to carry out the works, this note stated the resident said it “needs skimming not patching”.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 6 April 2021 as she had not received a response to her complaint or her enquiry about a date for the works.
The resident contacted this service on 13 April 2021 as she had not had a response to her complaint. She advised the landlord had called her that morning to say it would not be completing all the work previously advised.
On 22 April 2021 this service requested the landlord respond to the resident’s complaint dated 22 March 2021. The landlord responded to this service on 23 April 2021 saying it had logged a stage one complaint on this day. It advised a coordinator would contact the resident to acknowledge and investigate her concerns.
The landlord’s contact log shows an entry on 29 April 2021 for an “acknowledgement of complaint receipt” but no detail is provided so it is not clear if this was a letter to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. The contact log shows the landlord spoke to the resident on this day also to confirm the resident’s complaint. According to this log the resident was contacted by the landlord on 13 April 2021 and found the operative as “rude”.
Numerous contact logs have been seen by this service between 29 April 2021 and 13 May 2021 which show the landlord attempted to gather information to respond to the resident’s complaint. A contact log dated 13 May 2021 also states the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the time taken and that it was trying to gather the information.
The resident contacted this service on 7 June 2021 to advise she had not had “any contact from the complaints team in weeks”. She advised she still hadn’t received a response and “was no closer to having the walls plastered which is very frustrating”.
According to the landlord’s contact log is called the resident on 8 June 2021 and discussed it’s “resolution letter”, “apologised for delay in responding and advised how to escalate”. Its notes state resident was “happy” with the call.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 9 June 2021. Within its response it:
1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. Clarified the resident’s complaint as being about:
  1. The landlord’s response to wall repairs.
  2. Staff conduct/attitude of contractor who attended to repairs.
3. Clarified the resident was seeking the following outcomes:
  1. Repairs are completed.
  2. Staff conduct investigated.
4. Advised the residents concerns about the operative had been passed to an Area Manager to investigate.
5. Advised the resident raised concerns with a call handler’s conduct on a call from 13 April 2021 had also been passed to the relevant line manager and the call has been listened to.
6. Advised that both incidents of staff conduct had been investigated in line with internal procedures but it was unable to advise of the outcome due to GDPR.
7. Apologised for any upset caused and advises it will use the issues raised as a “learning curve to improve the level of communication and service”.
It also advised that the operative took photos of the walls and sent them to the Area Manager who informed the resident it would not skim these walls but it would complete “patchwork to necessary areas”. It reiterated it would repair areas which had blown and had already been identified.
It concluded its letter reiterating its apology for the delayed response to her complaint and offering a payment of £50 as it had failed to respond within its published timeframe.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 14 June 2021 via email. In this email she:
1. Reiterated that at the initial visit to assess the work, she was advised that the walls would be replastered and was requested to strip the walls of the wallpaper attached as it was falling off and plaster was crumbling underneath.
2. explained that the operative who attended the job on 22 March 2021 was “unhappy with all the works involved as he was given an 8-1 slot and the job would take much longer to do”. It was this operative who advised her he would only fill the cracks in.
3. confirmed she had called the repairs line who confirmed the job was to plaster walls not just fill the cracks in.
4. She also advised she requested a call back after this but did not receive one.
5. said the operative became “agitated” and shouted that he didn’t have time to do the job. The resident asked the operative to leave as she was alone and felt threatened. She advises the landlord she did not authorise the operative to take pictures and she did not realise he had.
6. She concluded in saying that she was unhappy to be asked to remove wallpaper if the walls were not to be replastered.
A note on the landlord’s contact log dated 29 June 2021 says the resident had contacted and chased a response. A further email is recorded from the resident on 28 July 2021 in which she stated “this is getting ridiculous now” as she had still not received a response.
The resident contacted the environmental health office after this date, although the exact date is not clear, the resident received a letter from the environmental health office on 3 August 2021. This letter advised her it could not assist unless she had followed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure through to the final stage without a satisfactory outcome. In addition to this the letter stated she would need to have raised the issue with this service also and received an unsatisfactory outcome. It concluded the letter saying it would advise the landlord of her service request but it would not take any further action unless the above had been followed.
The resident contacted this service on 10 August 2021 as she had not had a response from her landlord following her request to escalate her complaint on 14 June 2021.
Internal correspondence shared with this service indicates a surveyor attended the property on 12 August 2021 following the environmental health service request and a works order was raised to “make good cracking” in numerous places and “allow to make good skim coat to front bedroom”. This job was scheduled for 16 September 2021 and the resident was according to the landlord “very reasonable and understanding on the next steps of work”.
This service contacted the landlord on 18 August 2021 and requested it respond to the residents request to escalate her complaint.
The landlord responded to this service on 20 August 2021 and confirmed that the complaint had been escalated under reference: CMP30023070 and it would review the complaint.
Internal emails were shared with this service from September 2021 which showed the landlord was gathering the evidence needed to respond to the resident’s complaint. These included details of previous plastering jobs from 2017 and 2109 whereby there was a “sensible assessment of areas that require plastering” and others which are “hairline cracks” and should be resolved by the tenant. The landlord clarified within this correspondence that it had a repair responsibility to complete repairs to surfaces so that they are ready for decoration.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 September 2021 as an operative attended her property and advised he would only fill cracks and not skim or plaster the walls. She advised in this email that the surveyor that came a few weeks ago advised her it would all be done however, the operative was only “given a 2.5 hour time slot to do the works and said he don’t have time to do it”.
An internal email dated 21 September 2021 confirms the plaster repairs were carried out to the hall and stairs but states the resident insisted it do the “complete bedrooms”. This email confirmed the surveyor advised that the resident understood this would not be done.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 21 September 2021. The landlord advised “the purpose of the review” was to determine whether the response it provided “at the first stage was accurate and reasonable, in line with policies and procedures”, and to determine if there was anything else it could have done. This response letter included:
1. An apology for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint which it logged on 23 April 2021 following contact from this service.
2. An apology for the resident remaining dissatisfied with the stage one response.
3. Reference to the resident’s email of 21 June 2021 and her dissatisfaction being due to her stripping the wallpaper expecting walls to be plastered not patch repaired.
4. The landlord advised the staff complaint raised at stage one had been “relayed” to the relevant line manager who had discussed the issue with the staff member. It gave assurances that concerns raised were taken seriously and investigated.
5. The landlord referenced previous repairs made and the assessment made on these repairs.
6. The landlord confirmed the initial assessment in March 2021 was carried out by a trade operative who had “some basic competency for wall repairs” but was “not a skilled plasterer” and the job was raised for 5 hours “to complete patch repairs”.
7. The landlord apologised for any misunderstanding between the resident and this operative but went on to say it “would not advise a tenant to strip wallpaper to complete major plastering repairs”. It also said it was equally as important that its “skilled plasterers lead on deciding the scope of works required”.
8. The landlord explained the photos were taken as there was “some clarification needed on the scope of wall repairs needed”. It said the operatives are “encouraged to take photos within the context of the repair to assist with providing a correct service”.
9. The landlord referenced the surveyor’s visit on 12 August 2021 and the subsequent “patch repairs” which were raised. The surveyor had confirmed the resident fully understood the scope of these works.
10. The landlord clarified it “would work towards completing necessary wall repairs so that they are left ready for decoration and dependant on their condition would be patch repaired, filled or skimmed if needed or left for tenant decoration”. Therefore, it would not re-plaster areas where it was not necessary.
11. It confirmed following the visit on 16 September 2021, it concluded that “the existing condition is a surface ready for decoration” and it would not plaster the walls in the bedroom for “aesthetic” purposes.
12. The landlord noted that it did not call the resident back as she had requested on 22 March 2021 but it had sent her concerns to a manager.
13. It again apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, advising it was not escalated on 21 June 2021 due to an admin error. It confirmed the error had been highlighted as a “training issue”.
14. It offered £50 in recognition of the delay to provide its response which was outside its published timeframe.
The resident contacted this service on 23 September 2021 as she was not happy as the landlord was refusing to plaster so would “request they put the wallpaper back up over the patch repairs”. The resident advised she did not accept the offer of compensation and wanted more “for all the inconvenience and time this has caused me”.
Information provided to this service showed a works order completed on 18 October 2021 with the following comment “made good walls in front and rear bedroom and upstairs landing”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to plaster within the property.

The landlord confirms on its website it is responsible for the repair of the plaster work in the property. Therefore, it was appropriate for it to raise repairs following reports of repair from the resident. It acted reasonably and attempted to carry out the plastering works initially within a reasonable period of time. However, it failed to adequately confirm what works would be completed on more than one occasion. This service has seen no evidence confirming what was agreed with the resident at the initial visit in February 2021, however the works order notes say, “skim walls in hall and bedroom” and “Note – 5hr to skim wall by fed and bedrooms”. Therefore, the resident was not unreasonable in expecting her walls to be skimmed. When she disputed the patch repairs on 22 March 2021, when the plasterer attended, she called the landlord, who further confirmed the residents understanding that the walls were to be skimmed by confirming the works order notes to her over the phone.
It was reasonable for the landlord to reinspect the property in August 2021 following the resident approaching environmental health. Although it is not clear why the landlord did not proactively try to resolve this through their complaints process. The resident complained in March 2021 and it provided its stage one response in June 2021, even though it clarified that it would only carry out patch repairs in its response it should have proactively tried to discuss this with the resident to complete the works and resolve the complaint. Rather than asking the resident to contact to book the work in, in the usual manner if she agreed.
In addition to the initial visit, this service has seen no evidence of what was discussed with the resident by a surveyor in August 2021. Although the works order raised for “make good cracking” in numerous places and “allow to make good skim coat to front bedroom” alongside the internal communications which state the resident was aware of the scope of the works. The resident subsequently expressing her dissatisfaction in a further email following the operative attending her property on 16 September 2021 as she was expecting the bedrooms to be skimmed illustrate it was not made clear to the resident what works would be completed. This was a complaint regarding the scope of the works therefore the landlord should have confirmed in writing following its surveyors visit the works agreed to avoid any further disputes. The landlord failed to communicate effectively to the resident what works would be done, this along with the residents continued dissatisfaction leads to a reasonable conclusion that the landlord failed to manage the residents expectations and failed to adequately advise her of the detail of what work it would carry out.
While there was a dispute over the scope of works to the plaster, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the professional opinions of its staff. However, the initial visit was carried out by a trade operative, which the landlord said had “some basic competency for wall repairs” but “was not a skilled plasterer” and therefore would not have known exactly what works were needed. It is reasonable to conclude however, that even though this operative was not a skilled plasterer, if the landlord would not re-plaster areas where it was not necessary, which is the reasonable and expected response then this operative should have been aware of this and communicated such to the resident. This miscommunication, which was then reinforced by a phone operative telling the resident the works order raised was to skim the walls, led to avoidable frustration for the resident who was expecting more works to be completed. In addition, the landlord should ensure whoever attends a resident’s property is fully competent and has the authority to decide on what work is required in any instance. It should also maintain clear repair records which detail exactly what works are to be done to ensure all parties are clear on what the repair will be. The failure to do this constitutes maladministration on behalf of the landlord to communicate effectively with the resident on the works required.
The landlord’s repair obligations within its policy and information on its website, say it will keep properties in a safe state, with all components safe and serviceable for day to day use by residents. Therefore, it was a reasonable approach for the landlord to only repair the parts of the plaster that required repairing rather than skimming the wall in full.
Overall, there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord to comply with its obligations in repairing the plaster, its failure was due to poor record keeping, repeated lack of clarity on the scope of works provided to the resident and how this was subsequently handled.

The residents report regarding staff conduct.

The resident had expressed dissatisfaction in relation to the landlord’s staff conduct at her property and over the phone. This service will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate or inappropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available. For example, the landlord would generally be expected to conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an independent investigation so that it can reach an informed and therefore fair and reasonable decision on the complaint raised.
This service has seen internal notes relating to what was discussed with the staff member who attended the resident’s property following the resident’s complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss this with the staff member and get his version of events. It was also appropriate to not divulge the details of these discussions to the resident but advise her concerns were taken seriously. The landlord acted in a reasonable manner in this situation by discussing the matters raised in this complaint with both parties however it should keep clear records of discussions involving staff conduct in order to ensure conduct can be monitored and action taken accordingly.
The resident also raised concerns about why during a phone call, a staff member, had questioned her if she had what the operative had told her in writing and also questioned her about the scope of works initially agreed. It is clear that the resident had found this questioning approach to be inappropriate. It is unreasonable for the landlord to require the resident to provide written evidence of verbal comments made, or works scope, neither of which she had any responsibility to record or seek a written record of. Indeed, the onus is on the landlord as the service provider to keep records of its communication with residents, upon which it can refer back to and rely on.
The landlord responded to this part of the resident’s complaint in both its complaint responses, it advised that her concerns had been passed to the relevant manager for them to investigate and the call listened to. Although this service has seen the resident’s complaint in this respect passed to a manager, it has not seen the evidence of the call being listened to therefore it is not able to confirm what was said within this call. The landlord has not provided evidence that this was indeed acted upon which constitutes a service failure. It then continued to advise that it had been investigated in line with internal procedures but was unable to advise of any outcome due to GDPR. The landlord did not dispute this part of the resident complaint however and apologised for any upset caused and advised it would use the issues raised as a “learning curve to improve the level of communication and service”. In doing so, it provided redress to the resident for accepted service failings and demonstrated the Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary there has been a service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct. The landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about the operative at her property and discussed them with the relevant staff. The landlord failed to provide evidence of the call being listened to which was an oversight between departments. The landlord apologised to the resident for any upset caused and advised it would use her complaint as a “learning curve”.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident initially complained to the landlord on 22 March 2021, but received no response to this email, she then sent a further email on 6 April 2021 before contacting this service on 13 April 2021. It was only after this service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf was a stage one complaint logged by the landlord on 23 April 2021, 23 working days after when she first complained. The landlord failed to acknowledge this period of time in its complaint responses and failed to acknowledge the date the resident initially complained. As it failed to acknowledge this period of time it also failed to give any explanation as to why it did not respond to the residents’ communications. This is a clear example of the landlord failing to follow its own policy, not responding to the resident’s complaint and not identifying this was a failing on the part of the landlord.
Once it had logged the resident’s complaint on the 23 April 2021, it took 32 working days to respond, providing a response on 9 June 2021. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the resident’s complaint stated it would respond within 10 working days, if it was unable to it would keep the resident informed and provide a timescale for resolution. Although it is noted that it contacted the resident on two occasions between these dates and it offered an apology for the time taken to investigate on 13 May 2021, this service has seen no evidence that the resident was advised as to when she could expect a resolution. The resident contacted this service within this time also so it is reasonable to conclude a timeframe was not given nor kept to.
Its stage two response was also delayed, both in the escalation and response. The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 14 June 2021. She contacted the landlord on a further two occasions, 29 June 2021 and 28 July 2021 before contacting this service again on 10 August 2021. It was only after this service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf for a second time, that a stage two complaint was logged by the landlord on 20August 2021, 50 working days from her initial request to escalate her complaint. This is a clear example of the landlord failing to follow its own policy and respond to the resident’s complaint.
It provided a stage two response on the 21 September 2021, 71 working days after the resident’s request to escalate on the 14 June 2021. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage response, although it referred to the resident wishing to escalate her complaint on 21 June 2021. This service has seen no correspondence from this date however we have has seen the residents email dated the 14 June 2021, in which she clearly states her dissatisfaction. The landlord gave an explanation that the complaint was not logged correctly due to an admin error, it did not explain however, why it did not respond to the resident’s further contacts when she did not receive a response.
In summary both responses were significantly delayed with little explanation as to why, and from her first complaint on 22 March 2021 the resident had to wait until 21 September 2021 to receive the landlord’s final response on the matter. This was a considerable amount of time which should have been avoided. Each of the complaints raised by the resident were addressed in the landlord’s responses however, the situation was exacerbated by the landlord’s poor complaint handling, it failed to adequately consider the inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident as a result of the prolonged complaint process it subjected her to. Due to the extent of its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in a reasonable timeframe a finding of maladministration has been made.
Further, the landlord offered £50 in compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint at each stage, which although this was in line with its policy, in the circumstances of the case this service does not see this as a reasonable amount to put things right. A further amount of compensation is considered appropriate and proportionate to reflect the prolonged failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the repairs to plaster within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report regarding staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord complied with its obligation to repair the plaster in the resident’s property. Its failure was due to the lack of clarity on the scope of works provided and how it subsequently communicated this to the resident.
The landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the employee who visited her property and discussed this with the relevant staff, it failed however, to provide evidence of the call being listened to which it agreed to include in the resident’s complaint. This could be a record keeping error, nonetheless, is a failure. The landlord did not dispute this aspect of the resident’s complaint and apologised for any upset caused and advised it would learn from this.
There were significant delays in logging the resident’s complaint, the resident had to chase it for a response on multiple occasions and this service had to intervene on two occasions. Its compensation did not go far enough to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble the resident had experienced in trying to reach a resolution to the matter. The landlord failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failures nor did it take accountability for its complaint handling failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience caused by the landlords handling of the repairs to plaster within the property.
3. Pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and other failings in its handling of her complaint.
4. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100 for compensation related to this complaint. If the landlord has already paid the resident this amount, this should be deducted from the amount ordered and the landlord should pay the resident the remaining £400.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the orders above. Any payment should be made in full to the resident and not put onto the residents rent account to pay any arrears in line with the complaint handling code.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention to ensure the scope of decoration works are clearly defined on works orders to manage expectations of customers and assist staff.
2. Its intention to ensure all available evidence is considered for complaints in relation to staff conduct so as to ensure demonstrable integrity and thoroughness into its investigation process.
3. Its intention to ensure when complaints are raised, they are consistently recorded and responded to within published timeframes.