Clarion Housing Association Limited (202110226)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110226

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 October 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 landlord’s response to the resident about her request for cyclical works and pigeon spikes.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The property is an upstairs flat in a Victorian conversion.
  2. The lease sets out the contract between the parties. The landlord is obligated to maintain, repair and renew the structure of the building including the roof and windows. The resident is obligated to pay a proportion of the service charge, including costs in respect to the maintenance of the building.
  3. The landlord delivers routine repairs under its responsive repairs policy under which works completion timeframes range between 24 hours and 28 calendar days. The works under this policy are minor building repairs which are aimed to keep properties safe and serviceable for day to day use by residents. The policy advises that more major repairs are not responsive repairs and should be referred to relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes.
  4. The landlord meet its wider obligations to maintain leaseholder properties under its planned investment policy, under which it prepares an annual programme of major works and manages these, based on factors that include stock condition surveys and resident preferences. The policy confirms that where leaseholders are present, there must be consultation in line with legal requirements and procedures.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy advises that one of its teams will initially attempt to resolve queries before a complaint is recorded. It then operates a two stage complaints procedure if an initial attempt to resolve a query is not successful. The complaints policy confirms that the landlord does not normally consider complaints about issues that occurred more than six months before a complaint was made.

Summary of events

  1. On 28 July 2020, the resident complained to the landlord about the external condition of the property. She advised that she had contacted previously in 2019 about urgent cyclical maintenance required at her block. She reported that there was a pigeon infestation and that spikes were urgently needed to protect the building from faeces. The landlord acknowledged this and confirmed the issue had been referred to a department.
  2. On 9 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again. She noted she had recently made a complaint and had received no decision or response. She advised that the exterior was in disrepair and urgently needed cyclical maintenance, including to fix spikes on the roof against the pigeon infestation which had affected the outsides of windows. She advised that the landlord was responsible for the upkeep of the building which she paid towards in her service charge. She asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord subsequently confirmed the issue had been referred to a department on 17 September 2020, and advised that it was unable to log the issue as a complaint as a team was in the process of dealing with the issue.
  3. On 18 September 2020, the resident clarified that the pigeon issue was not the only issue she complained about, and she was unhappy that cyclical maintenance had not been carried out for many years and the exterior had fallen into disrepair. She was unhappy that nothing was being done, although she paid service charges, and unhappy this had affected the value of her property. She said her complaint was a formal complaint that the landlord had not carried out its responsibilities in the lease. The landlord subsequently confirmed that the pigeon issue and external decorating had been referred to a department on 28 September 2020.
  4. On 28 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive. She said she had contacted the landlord and made complaints since 2019. She said she paid services charges, including fees towards a sinking fund, but the exterior had not been kept in a reasonable condition. She also said there was a pigeon infestation that affected the exterior and windows, because spikes on the roof to deter pigeons were removed for some reason.
  5. On 29 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It noted its planned works team had confirmed they had contacted her about intended works that included pigeon spikes, and noted a Section 20 would be sent in due course. The landlord’s account advises that in discussions between the resident and its planned works team, it was noted she would be abroad from December 2020 to March 2021, so it held off starting any process. The resident’s later correspondence however suggests she was informed the property would be included in the cyclical works programme for the 2021 to 2022 financial year.
  6. In March 2021, the landlord carried out a stock condition assessment of the property in order to produce a scope of works required. Later the same month, the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to inform her, as soon as possible after the new financial year started on 1 April 2021, when the works at her property were to be scheduled.
  7. In April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord on two occasions to query when planned works would start, and was informed these were passed to major / planned works teams.
  8. On 5 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive. The landlord had agreed to urgent works in respect to the exterior and reinstatement of pigeon spikes from April 2021, but she had been unable to get answers to requests for dates. She was currently outside the UK and wanted to be informed of the dates for the works so she could plan when to return. The landlord raised the resident’s correspondence as a formal complaint on 11 May 2021.
  9. In June 2021, the resident requested the likely works commencement date from the landlord’s contractor, which responded that they did not have a start date yet. They advised that once the scope of works had been approved by the landlord, she would be updated about when the work would commence.
  10. On 8 June 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response to the complaint. It noted that a report had been compiled with proposed works and inclusion of pigeon spikes would be looked at. It noted that the costs for the proposed scope of works had been requested from its contractor. It explained that a pre-consultation letter that included a breakdown of the works would be sent to all leaseholders, which the resident would be able to make observations on and it would respond to. It explained that once this was completed, there would be a formal Section 20 consultation which would last 30 days. It advised that it was looking to commence the works in August or September 2021, assuming there were no delays.
  11. On 25 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. She was unhappy that despite recent emails and phone calls there had not been a clearer response about dates for the works. She noted being informed that prior to works a Section 20 notice must be sent out and time allowed for responses. She noted an inspection had occurred in March 2021 and complained that the Section 20 process could have started some time ago. She wanted to be informed of dates for the works so she could plan to return when they started.
  12. On 30 July 2021, the landlord provided its final response to the complaint:
    1. It explained that providing the works start dates was not simple, as there were more factors involved than the usual responsive repairs process.
    2. It advised that it was looking to start the works in September 2021, but was unable to estimate or agree a start date until the formal Section 20 consultation process had concluded and all observations were responded to.
    3. It explained that the full scope of works and costs would be provided when the Section 20 consultation started, but it confirmed the scope of works would include external and internal decoration, window repairs and pigeon spikes.
    4. It explained that it awaited the works costs from its cyclical works contractor, and once these were received it would start the Section 20 consultation. It advised that the costs for the works had been chased and the contractors had been asked to prioritise these so it could move forward with the consultation, discuss dates with residents and accommodate any travel or other concerns.
    5. It acknowledged that the information may not be what the resident wanted, but it reassured her that it would keep her updated and share the start dates when these were agreed.
    6. It noted that there had been delays responding to the complaint and it awarded £50 compensation for this.
  13. The landlord’s account notes that around this time, its contractor provided assurances that the costs for the works were imminent.
  14. In August 2021, the resident confirmed she wanted to bring her complaint to this Service. She stated that the landlord had been in breach of its obligations in the lease to maintain the structure of the building for several years and had complained since 2019. She stated that her desired outcomes were for:
    1. the Section 20 consultation to start immediately;
    2. the works to commence immediately after the consultation;
    3. the costs payable by her to be reduced due to the delays in undertaking the maintenance;
    4. the landlord agreeing to undertake maintenance every five years;
    5. the landlord to pay compensation for the stress and upset caused by its poor practice and unresponsiveness.
  15. The landlord’s account acknowledges that it took its eye off the ball in respect to ensuring it received the costs from the contractors and from September 2021, after it received contact from the resident, it apologised for delays, chased the costs from the contractors, and met with the resident and discussed photographs taken at the inspection, the provisional scope of works and possible timescales. It noted that she was informed that it was still possible for the works to occur that year but if there were any delays they may have to wait until spring time. It was noted that she was disappointed with the delays but she was assured the works were at the final stage as the consultants and contractors had visited, a scope of works had been agreed and the Section 20 process could start. The landlord subsequently issued the Section 20 notice to the resident on 14 October 2021.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident’s correspondence reports that she had complained since 2019 about the pigeon spikes and lack of cyclical works at the property, however the resident’s correspondence in July 2020 suggests that she had not contacted the landlord about the issue for at least seven months. This investigation therefore focuses on events between July 2020, when she contacted most recently about the issue, and July 2021, when the landlord issued its final response. This reflects that the landlord does not normally consider complaints about issues that occurred more than six months before a complaint was made; the Ombudsman’s own scheme; and that the longer time goes on, the more difficult it is to effectively investigate a complaint.
  2. The resident claims the landlord has breached its obligations under the terms of the lease in regard to the maintenance of the property, and feels her costs for works should be reduced in reflection of this. It is not in the Ombudsman’s authority to make definitive and legally binding decisions about whether a landlord has breached lease terms in the same way as the courts. It is also not in the Ombudsman’s authority to make definitive and legally binding decisions about the reasonableness of service charges such as charges for major works; and would not order the landlord to reduce costs that the resident is obligated to pay under the terms of her lease. We can consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and responded in a reasonable way, and this investigation goes on to do this.

The landlord’s response to the resident about her request for cyclical works and pigeon spikes

  1. This investigation notes the resident’s concerns about the external condition of her property, and her understandable desire for these to be maintained. This investigation also understands the course of events may have caused frustration to her. As noted above however, it is not in the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide whether the landlord breached the lease by not carrying out works sooner. This investigation notes the residents provides photos towards her concerns, and it is not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to determine at what point cyclical works should be carried out. The nature of the issues means they do not fall under the landlord’s day-to-day repairs policy, where there may be more concrete completion timeframes against which this Service could assess whether there was a service failing. The issues instead come under the landlord’s planned works policy, where completion timeframes can be lengthy and depend on multiple factors. These factors may include the landlord’s views on the property condition; the urgency the works are given; the status of any current and future works programmes in progress; and how the landlord is generally prioritising major works to its housing stock.
  2. The information provided advises that between July and September 2020, the resident raised her concerns and these were referred to the landlord’s planned / major works department. This seems in line with the landlord’s policies since the concerns related to the exterior condition rather than repairs that would be eligible for immediate response. The information provided advises that by September 2020, the resident was told that the landlord intended to add the property to the next financial year’s major works programme. This likely meant that the works were aimed to be done at some point between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022, which it is not entirely clear was explained to manage the resident’s expectations, and therefore a recommendation is made in respect to this.
  3. However, overall the landlord seemed to take reasonable steps after the resident raised her most recent concerns, as her account shows she was informed the landlord aimed to carry out the works in the next financial year, and its subsequent survey in March 2021 shows it was taking steps to try to meet this aim. This investigation is aware that landlords can schedule planned works several years in the future in some cases and the actions following the resident’s communication in July 2020 seems reasonably timely, given there seems no evidence that the works were definitely required to be done by the end of the 2021 financial year. The aim to include the property in the next possible works programme shows the landlord clearly gave regard to the resident’s concerns.
  4. When the resident complained about the lack of provision of dates for the works, the landlord explained that providing start dates was not simple; detailed the intended works; explained the costs for these had been requested; explained the Section 20 consultation process that would need to be undertaken; provided a  provisional timeframe for the works; committed to keep her updated; and offered £50 in recognition of delays responding to the complaint. While this investigation notes the resident desired the dates for the works for multiple reasons this response seems to have been reasonable, as it is understandable the landlord was not able to immediately provide specific dates for works or commence the Section 20 notice, given the information and administration required before this. The responses show that the landlord sought to provide explanation and accurate updates about progress and appropriately recognised delays in its response, for which the remedy offered seems reasonable considering all of the circumstances.
  5. This investigation notes there was some further delay in progression of matters due to delayed receipt of the costs from contractors, which amounted to around a month and will have been frustrating for the resident. The landlord should have been more pro-active in ensuring that costs were received in a timely manner, however the information provided advises that it responded appropriately by chasing the costs, and by apologising to and meeting with the resident. This investigation is not aware of the current works status, however the subsequent commencement of the Section 20 consultation in October 2021, just over two months after the landlord’s final response, shows it progressed matters in a reasonably timely manner and shows it was trying to meet its commitment to carry out the works in the near future.
  6. In the Ombudsman’s opinion therefore, the landlord overall provided reasonable acknowledgement, apology, compensation and action for issues in the course of the complaint. While the resident’s concerns about the external condition of her property and desire for these to be maintained were understandable, it is not evident that the works were definitively required as quickly as she wanted. The landlord shows that, in seeking to provide a positive outcome for the resident, it sought to be customer and resolution focused and sought to meet its maintenance obligations in a reasonable way.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident about her request for cyclical works and pigeon spikes.

Reasons

  1. The landlord overall provided reasonable acknowledgement, apology, compensation and action for issues in the course of events. While the resident’s concerns about the external condition of her property and desire for these to be maintained were understandable, there seems no evidence that the works were assessed to be definitely required as quickly as she wanted. The landlord shows it sought to be customer and resolution focused, and sought to meet its maintenance obligations, in seeking to provide a positive outcome for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review the status of the cyclical and pigeon spike works and if outstanding, ensure these progress appropriately and inform the resident of the estimated completion timeframe.
  2. The landlord to review how it handles similar enquiries about major works and clearly effectively manages resident expectations in respect to the timeframes in which they will be realistically carried out.