Clarion Housing Association Limited (202113563)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113563

Clarion Housing Association Limited

03 May 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. the landlord’s handling of the repair of a storage heater.
   2. the associated complaint handling and offer of compensation.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord.
3. The resident reported an issue with the storage heater in his downstairs toilet in January 2021. This was identified at the time by the landlord as being “broken” and in need of replacement.
4. Between January and September 2021, the landlord made seven internal repair log notes relating to the storage heater and associated orders and their cancellation.
5. On 14 September 2021, the resident contacted this Service requesting our involvement in his complaint.
6. Following our involvement, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 12 October 2021. In the response, the landlord stated the storage heater could not be replaced unless alternative options were considered. It also stated the resident had “sufficient heating” without the use of the storage heater.
7. The resident requested escalation and the landlord issued a stage two response on 9 December 2021. In its response, the landlord agreed to replace the storage heater and offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding.
8. During a call with this Service, the resident indicated his dissatisfaction with the offer and requested an award of £300.
9. Following its own internal review in February 2022, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to a total of £300. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures and the substantial delay to the repair.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the repair of a storage heater

10. 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. 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’.
11. The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord was obliged to “…keep in good repair and proper working order any installations for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity, including: (iii) water heaters, fireplaces, fitted fires and central heating installations.” There is a like provision in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
12. The landlord has been unable to provide evidence showing who the repair was first raised with or how. This demonstrates poor record keeping by the landlord, as it should have accurate and comprehensive records of all repairs.
13. The resident reported the repair on or around 3 January 2021. The landlord’s records accept that the heater was in disrepair. The landlord was therefore bound to repair it within a reasonable time.
14. A reasonable time is dependent on the facts of a given case. In most cases landlords have repairs policies which set out timescales to repair. In this case, the policy stated that non-emergency repairs were to be completed at the resident’s convenience and ought to be completed within 28 days. This ought to be agreed with the resident when they report the repair.
15. The repair was completed on 2 February 2022, which was some 13 months later. In order to consider if this was reasonable, the Ombudsman has to decide if the landlord was responsible for the delay or if it was outside the landlord’s control.
16. In this case the Ombudsman has seen evidence that, following from the report on 3 January 2021, the landlord raised a work order on 20 January 2021. There is no evidence that an appointment was booked to complete the work. The work order was then passed on to another department and, on 25 January 2021, a duplicate order was raised and then cancelled.
17. There was some suggestion that the resident refused the repair based on the potential running costs. However, the landlord accepted in its complaint responses, the resident had not refused but had just raised concerns.
18. A surveyor attended on 11 March 2021 to review the heating and the windows. Damp and mould treatment was recommended at this time. It is not clear why this inspection could not have been completed sooner. More importantly, the property at this time had problem with the windows and the heater as well as damp and mould.
19. A job was raised on 23 March 2021 for the heater to be replaced, including replacing an extractor fan and to clean the damp and mould. This was three months after the repair had been reported. The job states the extractor fan was replaced but the matter was referred back to the surveyor. There is no information on why this was or why the storage heater could not be replaced.
20. A further job was raised on 24 May 2021 and subsequently closed. It is not clear why this was. Importantly, the property was suffering from damp and mould and the landlord was aware of this. The Ombudsman notes that suitable heating is integral to ensuring properties are not affected by damp and mould. It appears the landlord failed to recognise this at that time.
21. The resident requested an update from the landlord on 5 July 2021, as the repair had not been completed at this time. The landlord raised a further job. By this stage, it is important to point out that the landlord had raised at least three work orders. This indicates a problem with the way the landlord raises work orders and ensures the works are completed in a timely way.
22. Following this Service’s involvement, the landlord completed the repair on 2 February 2022, after alterations to the bathroom to accommodate the replacement heater.
23. On review, the landlord has produced no evidence to show that it was necessary for the works to take as long as they did. The landlord was responsible for maladministration because it has not demonstrated the works were completed within a reasonable timescale, having taken around 54 weeks – whilst the property was affected by damp and mould.

The associated offer of compensation

24. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out ranges for awards of compensation, these are:

“£50 to £250. Remedies in the range of these amounts may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.”

“£250 to £700. Remedies in the range of these amounts may be for cases where we find considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.”

“£700 and above. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.”

25. In a review of the resident’s complaint, the landlord made an offer of £200 compensation for the substantial delay in repairing the storage heater.
26. From the landlord first identifying the heater as needing a replacement on 3 January 2021, it took a total of 276 working days to repair the issue. The information provided to this Service does not give a reasonable indication as to why there was such a substantial delay between the job being raised and its completion.
27. While the landlord has acknowledged its failings and sought to put things right, this Service has found the level of compensation offered was insufficient given the impact and circumstances of the case. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests that awards of £250 to £700 may be appropriate for cases where there has been considerable failure, but no permanent impact. Given the failings by the landlord in this case, the offer of £200 is not proportionate to those identified by this Service.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the associated offer of compensation

28. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is best practice which sets out when landlords should respond to complaints. These are:

“Stage one decision – 10 working days from receipt of complaint – if this is not possible, an explanation and a date by when the stage one response should be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.

Stage two response – 20 working days from request to escalate – if this is not possible an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.”

29. This Service contacted the landlord about the storage heater on 14 September 2021. The landlord issued its stage one response on 12 October 2021, which detailed reasons for not being able to replace the heater.
30. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested escalation to the peer review stage of its complaint process. Following receipt of this request on 21 October 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 9 December 2021. Having recognised a delay in providing a peer review response, the landlord offered £50 compensation. This was increased to £100, following the landlord’s review of the resident’s complaint in February 2022 (totalling £300).
31. This Service is satisfied that the landlord identified failings in its complaint handling and made an offer of compensation proportionate to the impact on the resident. However, recommendations are to be made about the exclusion of timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair of the resident’s storage heater.
33. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

34. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £700, made up of:
    1. £300 (£200 for repairs issue and £100 for complaint handling) that it offered during its complaint process (if this has not already been paid).
    2. an additional £400 in recognition of the substantial delays in repairing the resident’s storage heater and the continued inconvenience caused in completing the resident’s repairs.
35. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

36. This Service recommends the landlord completes a lessons learned review of this case, to help identify why the repairs were repeatedly cancelled and why the delays occurred.
37. This Service also recommends the landlord reviews its record keeping and process for the logging and completion/cancellation of repairs. The records for repairs should be comprehensive and accurate. The process should assist in preventing cancellations of repair jobs when the repair has not been carried out.
38. This Service identified that the landlord’s complaint policy does not include timescales for handling complaints. It is recommended the landlord considers the timescales set out in the complaint handling code and whether its policy requires review.