Clarion Housing Association Limited (202106834)

Back to Top

 

 

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106834

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 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 

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. damage caused to the resident’s belongings by the landlord’s contractor, and;
    2. a tenancy breach process started by the landlord for alleged failure to give access.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2012. The property is a ground floor flat in a house conversion with sole use of a rear garden.
  2. The layout of the properties in the building means from time to time the landlord requires access through the resident’s property to carry out works relating to the flat above. In this case, the flue serving the gas boiler in the upstairs flat could only be accessed by entering the resident’s garden and using ‘work at height’ equipment.
  3. The landlord requested access to the resident’s garden to carry out works to the boiler flue of the upstairs flat. The resident’s position was that items in her garden had recently been damaged by the landlord’s contractor while accessing the flat above and her complaint about it was under investigation by the landlord. (A separate complaint made prior to this complaint). The resident sought a resolution to that complaint and reassurances about contractor conduct before agreeing to further access to her property.
  4. This resulted in the contractor advising the landlord that the resident had failed to give access to her property. In turn, the landlord started a tenancy breach process for ‘failure to provide access’.
  5. The work needed to the boiler in the upstairs flat became urgent. At this stage the landlord formally requested access to the resident’s garden.
  6. The parties agreed a date and the work was carried out on 6 August 2021.  The landlord’s contractor accessed the resident’s back garden and damaged plants and solar lights in the resident’s garden.
  7. The resident complained again to the landlord about the issues. The resident’s stage 1 complaint was upheld by the landlord, it apologised for the damage, paid £81.50 to reimburse the resident for the cost of the damaged plants and solar lights and agreed to remove the tenancy breach from the resident’s tenancy records.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and felt the landlord’s stage 1 response still insinuated she had failed to give access and the landlord still had not removed the tenancy breach process from her tenancy file.
  9. On this basis the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that she had not refused access and it agreed that it had been too slow to remove the tenancy breach process from her tenancy file. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and paid £50 compensation.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  11. To resolve the complaint the resident would like to be compensated for the upset and distress, the landlord to change its policies to ensure resident’s do not experience the same issues, and the landlord’s contractors to be respectful in their service delivery.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident.
  3. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Damage caused to the resident’s belongings by the landlord’s contractor.

  1. The landlord’s contractor had previously damaged the resident’s belongings when it was in her garden which gave rise to a formal complaint to the landlord. Understandably, when the contractor requested they be given access to her garden a second time, the resident was cautious and sought assurances about how the work was going to be managed.
  2. In discussion with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised the damaged plants were planted as memorials to late relatives. The landlord was also aware of the meaning of the damaged plants to the resident. The resident advised the Ombudsman that seeing the plants damaged caused her emotional upset and distress.
  3. A contractor has a duty to act with care when working in a resident’s home or garden on behalf of the landlord. This did not happen.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised, reimbursed the resident for the damaged plants and belongings, and advised it had addressed the matter with the operatives involved and the contractor would be monitored.
  5. While it is acknowledged the landlord reimbursed the actual cost of the damaged plants the landlord has not addressed the matter of the emotional upset and distress caused to the resident and not addressed the issue of it being the second occasion of contractors causing damage to the resident’s belongings.
  6. The landlord should have recognised this would have been distressing for the resident. The Ombudsman considers an additional compensation payment to recognise the emotional upset and distress caused by the damage done would be appropriate in the circumstances.

A tenancy breach process being started by the landlord for alleged failure to give access.

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord wrote it was ‘willing to waiver the tenancy breach once access was provided’. The landlord misunderstood the resident’s position as the resident had not refused access but had asked for a discussion on the details such as the access route of the contractor, what was going to happen during the works, and assurances about the contractor’s conduct.
  2. The landlord’s misunderstanding of the resident’s position led to the landlord starting a tenancy breach process that was recorded on the resident’s tenancy records.
  3. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the resident had not refused access and acknowledged her concern that the tenancy breach process had caused a blemish on her tenancy records.
  4. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns. It provided written reassurances that the issue would have no impact on her tenancy records and accepted it had not been quick enough to remove the tenancy breach from the tenancy records. The landlord also paid the resident £50 in compensation.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response demonstrates it learned from the complaint. The complaint response stated it would change its internal processes to ensure all facts are checked before starting a tenancy breach process on a resident’s tenancy records.
  6. Accordingly, the landlord has offered reasonable redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was service failure in the landlords handling of damage caused to the resident’s belongings by the landlord’s contractor.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its handling of a tenancy breach process.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 for the distress and upset caused to the resident when the contractor damaged her belongings.
  2. The landlord is recommended to reoffer the £50 compensation it offered in relation to the tenancy breach if it has not already paid it.