Clarion Housing Association Limited (202108929)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108929

Clarion Housing Association Limited

6 May 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 level of compensation that the landlord has offered to the resident for the delay in repairing a faulty external door that did not lock.

Background

2. The resident moved into the ground floor property in February 2016 on a fixed term tenancy.
3. The resident made a complaint in July 2021 that the door had been broken since she moved in. Despite numerous visits by contractors, the landlord had failed to complete a repair over that extended period. She also highlighted that she had made previous complaints that were closed, despite the issue not being resolved.
4. In response to the complaint the landlord accepted that there had been a delay in completing the repair and a failure to resolve previous complaints. It offered the resident compensation of £2,750.
5. The resident is dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered as she does not think it reflects the seriousness of the matter and the level of stress and anxiety it caused. Therefore, she would like the amount of compensation to be reviewed.

Assessment and findings

6. The resident says that she reported the door as faulty at the time of moving in, however the landlord’s repairs history records the first contact about the door as being in March 2018.
7. The repairs history shows that the landlord’s contractors attended three times in 2018 in relation to the door and that by August 2018 it was identified that a new door was needed. Measurements were taken but it is recorded in August 2019 that the new door did not fit.
8. There is nothing else on the repairs history until April 2021 when the door is again reported as having a split frame which caused issues with it closing. A contractor then visited again in July 2021 to carry out a condition report and measure up for a new door. The new door was finally installed in October 2021.
9. The resident has said that she had to sleep on the sofa due to security concerns about the back door not locking, which caused her sleepless nights and anxiety. Her two sons have disabilities and learning difficulties and were also worried that the door did not lock. She feels that the compensation amount is not enough because all three of their lives were at risk.
10. It is clear that the resident would have felt a great deal of anxiety about the security of herself, her family and her property. The Ombudsman can look at the impact that the delay in repairing the door had. However, the Ombudsman cannot consider hypothetical impacts (in terms of what might have happened), only what did happen. With that in mind, it must be noted that no evidence has been provided of the resident suffering any security breaches as a result of the faulty back door.
11. The landlord has identified reasons for the failure to carry out the repair, including a change in personnel that led to communication failings. As a result of this it has implemented some internal procedural changes, such as detailed handovers between staff with follow on works being monitored. It has also explained that it now has an enhanced complaints process. This Service considers that this approach by the landlord, in response to the complaint, is reasonable and it reflects the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principles of ‘learning from outcomes’.
12. In identifying whether there has been any maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make any findings of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
13. The landlord originally offered compensation of £2,100 in its stage 1 response. This was broken down as £1,100 for failure to act in accordance with policy to address the repair and £1,000 for distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s stage 2 review concluded that the impact on the resident and her family had not been fully taken into account. It therefore offered an additional £650 compensation, broken down as £50 for the time taken to carry out the stage 2 review and an extra £600 for the impact on the family due to their vulnerability. Therefore, the total compensation offer was £2,750.
14. In terms of repairs that have gone over target, the landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it will pay £10 for the first day over the time limit and then £2 per day for each further day, up to a maximum of £50. Clearly, the delay in this case was exceptional. The landlord’s offer of £1,100 in response to the repairs element of the complaint is significantly over its own defined maximum award.
15. The landlord’s Compensation Policy also sets out the highest total level of award as ‘£700 and above’. By offering an amount at the top end of its award tariff, the landlord has appropriately recognised the significant impact of the delays on the resident. This has also taken account of the difficulties she experienced in making the complaint and having to pursue the issue over a number of years. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that, in offering compensation of £2,750, the landlord has properly considered the range of factors that it needed to under its policy, such as the severity of any distress, the degree of any inconvenience, the period over which the problem occurred and the nature of its actions (or inactions).

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has identified and acknowledged service failings and made an apology and an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the faulty door.

Recommendations

17. The landlord should pay the resident the compensation offer of £2,750 if it has not already done so as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.