Clarion Housing Association Limited (202119610)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119610

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 April 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 the level of compensation offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request to access communal areas for boiler repairs.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property, owned by the landlord, a housing association. He has been in residence at the property, which is a flat, since 2020.
3. On 11 May 2021, the resident requested access to communal flues in the corridor to enable his plumber to fix a broken boiler. Access was provided on 5 July 2021, after which the resident’s engineer realised on 30 July 2021 that additional access was required to the loft. This was communicated to the landlord on 2 August 2021 and the loft was accessed on 7 September 2021. The resident reported that he was without hot water and heating since 11 May 2021. These were the issues regarding which the resident made a formal complaint through the Housing Ombudsman Service in November 2021.
4. The landlord, in its stage one response of January 2022 apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered the resident £50 in compensation for this. It also acknowledged failure in granting the resident access to fix his boiler. In recognition of the disruption, inconvenience and impact on the resident the landlord offered him an additional £250, making a total of £300 compensation.

5. The resident requested an escalation to stage two stating that the compensation failed to reflect his experience and hardship. He also provided further clarification that he sought compensation for £1000 to reflect increased electric bills and petrol costs incurred on journeys to his parents’ home where he washed.
6. The landlord increased the compensation to £400 by an additional £100 for expenses incurred. The resident remained dissatisfied with the amount offered and confirmed his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Assessment and findings

7. Clause 5.1 of the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy draws the distinction between emergency and non-emergency repairs.  Regarding the former, the policy classifies it as “repairs that would jeopardise the health of the resident” and which should be attended to within 24 hours. It is accepted in the industry, due in part to the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985, that hot water and heating are emergencies, failures of which would jeopardise the health of a resident.
8. The landlord did not treat this repair as an emergency. When the resident sent a chaser email to the landlord on 13 May 2021, he confirmed to them that he had been without hot water for three days. As such, even where the landlord had erroneously identified the job as a routine repair, that email should have triggered a speedier response. In any event, the landlord continued to raise the job as a routine repair and only made a first aborted visit on 10 June 2021, over 28 days from the initial contact.
9. The resident’s engineer attended on 30 July 2021 and realised that additional access to the loft was required to fix the boiler. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2021 to convey this request. The landlord booked a job and attended on 23 August 2021, but the contractors were unable to complete the job and referred it back to the landlord. The resident chased on 1 September 2021 and access was thereafter made on 7 September. This means that the property remained without heating or hot water for four months from the resident’s initial report of the matter.
10. When failings have been identified, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (DRP): to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
11. In its stage one response to the resident, the landlord apologised and noted that its response should have been for an urgent repair. It also attempted to put things right by providing access to the loft so that the boiler could be fixed. It tried to be fair by offering the resident £50 for the delays and an additional £350 for inconvenience. However, this Service finds that the landlord’s error in classifying this issue as a routine repair was repeated in its compensation calculation and offer to the resident.
12. The landlord’s offer of compensation had two elements to it: for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and for disruption/inconvenience to the resident. In its stage two response, there was little change to this; it sought to respond to the resident’s concern that the award did not reflect his increased energy bills and travel costs to his parents where he had to wash. It did so by adding an extra £100 to the second element of its offer.
13.  The landlord could have gone a little further in meeting the DRP of putting things right. In this case, the resident was without hot water and heating between 11 May 2021 to 5 July 2021 after which, the landlord provided access as required. It was informed on 2 August 2021, 27 days later, that additional access was required to the loft, which was granted on 7 September. There are 119 days from 11 May to 7 September 2021; absent the 27 days, the landlord should have considered how best to put things right for the 92 days it delayed in responding to the resident’s request.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy at appendix 2 provides its compensation guidance. It lists £5 per day each, for loss of hot water and heating “during winter”. The months of May to September are not considered winter months. Nevertheless, reimbursement in line with the published compensation policy would require payment towards the loss of hot water for 92 days at £5 per day, that is, £460. Therefore, the landlord’s offer should, at least, essentially have added up to the sum of £460. This would have acknowledged the inconvenience in regard to lack of hot water and to recompense for it too. To that sum should have been added the £50 for the delay to the complaint handling and an additional amount for inconvenience in chasing for additional sums for the resident’s expenses.
15. In its initial correspondence with the resident on 12 May 2021, the landlord asked him to confirm if he was without hot water or heating. The resident confirmed in the affirmative, stating that as of 13 May 2021, he had been without hot water and heating for three days. Internal memos show that on 24 June 2021, the landlord noted that the resident had been without hot water or heating for two months. Similar concession was made in the stage one response for the four months period. There was therefore no challenge to the assertion that the resident was without hot water or heating.
16. As such, and in line with its compensation policies to recompense for out-of-pocket expenses the landlord should have asked for evidence of receipts and for the resident’s utility bills. Instead, the resident was left to chase and raise a complaint. For that reason, an additional £90 should be payable for the inconvenience in chasing the landlord, bringing the total due to £600.
17. The landlord tried to put things right, but it did not address all of the concerns of the resident, nor did it request sight of the resident’s utility bills. This constitutes a failing to which the landlord should pay the sum of £600.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s application of its own policies and procedures.

Orders

19. Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £600, comprising:
    1. £400 that it offered through its complaint process if it has not already done so.
    2. An additional sum of £200 which, together with the sum already offered, represents adequate redress for the inconvenience, distress and delays to the considering the complaint.

Recommendations

20. The landlord to consider reimbursing the resident for any additional costs for travel and higher electricity bills reasonably incurred during the relevant period, subject to the resident providing evidence of these costs.