Clarion Housing Association Limited (202119635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119635

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 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

The landlords handling of:

a. Repairs to a gas valve.

b. Issues with the communal lighting.

c. Scaffolding erected on a nearby building.

d. Repairs to remove a water tank in the resident’s loft.

e. The related complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The landlord has said that the repairs relating to the gas valve were historic and related to works carried out in 2016 and 2017. The landlord confirmed that all the repairs relating to this issue had been completed.
Under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. If a complaint was brought to the landlord within six months, then it would need to be brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlords handling of repairs to a gas valve.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began on 13 July 2009. The resident lives in a three bedroom second floor flat.
The landlord has provided a copy of its repairs policy which states that communal repairs would be dealt with within 28 days and prioritised depending on whether they were an emergency or not. Emergency repairs would be attended within 24 hours.
The landlord has provided a copy of its compensation policy which awards up to £250 compensation for service failure, resulting in some impact on the resident. The policy allows for awards up to £700 where there has been a significant failure.

Summary of Events

On 2 December 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with her landlord as a water tank had not been removed from her loft, despite an asbestos check revealing that this was not an issue. The resident said that the tank had leaked previously and stained the ceiling. The resident also complained about scaffolding on other buildings which she felt had been up too long with no repairs being completed. She said the scaffolding was up from the summer of 2020 until October 2021.
On 7 December 2021, the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint. On 12 December 2021, the resident also complained about the communal lights not working properly, as they did not come on at the correct time.
On 19 January 2022, the landlord sent an electrician to look at the communal lights. It was found that the lighting was controlled by a timer, which had been switched off. The electrician turned this back on and reset the timer for the correct settings.
On 21 January 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays in sending a response. It explained to the resident that it needed a bit more time to gather some further information and that it would respond at the end of the next week.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s property to assess the water tank. The operatives concluded that the tank should not be moved due to health and safety concerns. On 27 January 2022, the landlord’s internal emails showed that the issue was with the size and weight of the tank as it was a galvanised tank. It was explained that the safety issue involved the manual handling of the tank from the loft.
On 31 January 2022, a supervisor attended the resident’s property. It was explained that it would have to cut the galvanised steel tank up into smaller sections which would be difficult, and it was safer to leave the redundant tank in position. On the same date, the landlord spoke to the resident who informed it that the communal lights were still coming on at 2pm and not 3pm as they should. Internal correspondence showed that the landlord raised the repair as a priority.
On 2 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response letter, which said the following:
1. In relation to the scaffolding, it spoke to the resident on 25 November 2021 to apologise for any disruption. It confirmed that the scaffolding had been removed. The landlord said that it had been erected for the length of time that was needed to complete works and removed at the earliest convenience. The landlord said it would look to learn any lessons it could from the feedback.
2. The resident had asked if her building could have sensor lighting installed which would be similar to other buildings in communal areas. The landlord said that it discussed the matter with its repair team after they had visited the resident’s block of flats on 19 January 2022. The landlord said that the lighting was controlled by a timer, which had been switched off. The landlord said that the clock had been reinstated and it would turn on at 3pm and turn off at 8am. It was confirmed that the resident’s block’s lighting was a newer system than some of the other buildings.
3. It said that communal lights were working as they should do, but recognised the benefits of upgrading the lighting and said it was obtaining information on this. The landlord said that this would not be classed as a general repair and would come under a Planned Works Programme. It said that if this happened, then it would notify all residents.
4. With regards to the resident informing the landlord about the communal lighting coming on at 2pm on 28 January 2022, the landlord explained that it provided this information to its contractors. The timer switch seemed to be defaulting back from the previous times set and the landlord said that the timer was readjusted to 3pm.
5. With regards to the water tank, the resident was waiting for this to be removed from her loft. The landlord said that it contacted its contractors for a repairs history relating to the water tank, and a repair was reported on 20 January 2021 relating to a leak and that was it. The contractor said that the water was reinstated and their assistance was no longer required. There was only one other previous appointment and that was from 29 December 2021; however, this was cancelled as a member of the household was shielding and it was requested they the resident would rebook the appointment when it was suitable.
6. The landlord’s contractors attended on 25 January 2022 to assess the water tank and found that the tank was not in use and in a staged position. The landlord confirmed that due to health and safety, the tank could not be removed from the loft. This was also confirmed by a supervisor who attended on 31 January 2022. The landlord apologised for any inconsistencies in what it had said it was willing to do with regards to the water tank but specified that the tank had no impact on the function of the property.
7. It said that in regards to the historic elements, it would pass on the feedback. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and said that this was due to the case complexity. The complaint was upheld and £150 compensation was offered for the inconvenience.
On 11 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she was not happy with the stage one response.
On 9 March 2022, the resident mentioned in an email that the lights were now coming on at 3pm which was the correct time.
On 7 March 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint and apologised for the delay in progressing the complaint. The landlord said that it would provide the stage two response by 4 April 2022.
On 28 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage two response. The response said the following:
1. It reiterated what it had said at stage one regarding the scaffolding. On one of the neighbouring blocks, there were some delays as the landlord was unsure about which contractor it was going to use to the complete repairs. The landlord apologised again for any disruption caused by scaffolding on the neighbouring blocks.
2. The landlord said it was satisfied with its initial response regarding the communal lighting. It also said it was satisfied with its response at stage one with regards to the water tank, reiterating that moving the steel tank would be a health and safety hazard.
3. It said it upheld the offer of £150 compensation, previously awarded at stage one. It also added an additional £25 in recognition of the delay in providing its stage two response. The total compensation offered was £175.
On 4 April 2022, internal emails showed that the landlord had emailed the representative and that they had confirmed the water tank remained.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of issues with the communal lighting

On 12 December 2022, the resident complained about the communal lights not working properly. The landlord’s repairs policy says that communal repairs would be attended to within 28 days, unless they were an emergency. The lights coming on at 2pm instead of 3pm would not be classified as an emergency, and the landlord sent an operative out on 19 January 2022 to fix the issue. This was a reasonable action and within the time frame set out in its policy.
On 31 January 2022, the resident made the landlord aware that the lights were still coming on at the wrong time. Internal correspondence showed that the landlord requested that this be looked at as a priority. In the stage one response, the landlord explained what the issue was and said that it had been rectified. Correspondence from the resident dated early March 2022, confirmed that the issue had been resolved. The landlord therefore acted within the correct time frames and took the appropriate action to resolve the matter.
In the stage one response, the landlord said that it recognised the benefits of upgrading the lighting and said it was obtaining information on this after the resident asked if her building could have sensor lighting installed. The landlord said that this would not be classed as a general repair and would come under a Planned Works Programme and it would notify all residents if it decides to do this. The landlord took reasonable action by agreeing to look into the matter further to assess its options, but was clear that this would not be a general repair. This was reasonable, as the landlord was not under an obligation to upgrade the lighting system, but demonstrated that it was open to explore ways to improve the lighting.

The landlords handling of scaffolding erected on a nearby building

The resident was unhappy that scaffolding had been erected on a neighbouring building for an extensive period of time. The scaffolding was removed prior to the resident complaining, but the resident wanted to know why it was up for so long considering she did not think the repairs were completed.
In the stage one response, the landlord apologised to the resident for any inconvenience. It said that the scaffolding had been erected for the length of time that was needed to complete works and removed at the earliest convenience. The landlord said it would look to learn any lessons it could from the feedback provided. These were reasonable actions from the landlord as it has said it would learn from the situation which is reflective of the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Furthermore, the landlord had explained in its responses why there were a few delays. It is noted that this was during the pandemic lockdowns and, as such, it is reasonable to expect some of the delay could have been caused by this. The resident’s property was not affected by the erecting of scaffolding, as it was located at a neighbouring building. Also, the landlord was aware of what repairs it needed to do, but the repairs were apparently complex and required an extended period of time to be completed. The landlord has not acted inappropriately in the circumstances, and has apologised for any inconvenience caused which was reasonable for it to do.

The landlords handling of repairs to remove a water tank in the resident’s loft

The resident was unhappy in December 2021 that a water tank had not been removed from her loft. The resident said that the tank had leaked previously and so she wanted it removed.
The landlord visited the property twice during January 2022 to assess what action it would take and it decided that due to health and safety concerns the tank should remain where it is. Internal correspondence said that due to the tank size and weight, it would be too difficult for it to be safely removed as it would need to be cut into smaller pieces by heavy machinery. The landlord concluded that the redundant tank should remain in the loft. It was reasonable for the landlord to assess the situation and consider the resident’s request which it did on two occasions. The landlord completed a safety assessment and then decided what the appropriate action would be in the circumstances.
The resident had stated that the issue had been ongoing for a long time and an operative came to remove the tank, but then needed to check if there was asbestos in the loft. The resident said that no asbestos was found but the tank was not removed. The landlord did not confirm or deny this, and it was not clear what had previously been agreed between the parties, as the landlord said it had no records to show that the tank had been disconnected.
The landlord apologised for any inconsistency which was reasonable considering it may have given misleading information. It also offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused – this was in line with its compensation policy and proportionate given that there was a service failure which resulted on some impact on the resident.
The landlord confirmed that the tank had no bearing on the functionality of the property and therefore it could remain where it was in the loft. This was also reasonable for the landlord to conclude, as the tank was redundant and did not make a difference to the property’s use.
The landlord’s actions with regards to looking into the water tank were appropriate. It investigated the matter and felt that the best situation was to leave the tank where it was. It was confirmed that the tank was no longer in use and was not in the way of the resident’s use of the property. However, the landlord recognised that some inconvenience had been caused for a misdirection, repeated visits and disruption and offered £100 compensation. Given that there was a service failure due to potentially misleading the resident, the compensation offered was reasonable redress.
The resident mentioned that the water tank had leaked in the past and stained her ceiling and therefore this may need to be looked into by the landlord for a potential repair. A recommendation has been made to this effect below.

The landlords handling of the related complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 2 December 2021, and although the landlord contacted the resident on 7 December 2021 and 21 January 2022 to discuss the complaint, it did not send its stage one response until 2 February 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy does not provide timescales, therefore the landlord’s actions have been assessed against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states that a stage one response should be sent within ten working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
The landlord took two months to respond which represented an unreasonable delay. The landlord addressed this delay in its stage one response and offered £50 compensation. The compensation is reasonable redress given the delay will have caused the resident some time and trouble and inconvenience albeit the overall outcome of the complaint would not have changed.
Furthermore, the landlord also caused a delay with escalating the complaint to stage two as the resident requested this on 11 February 2022, but the landlord did not acknowledge this until 7 March 2022. The landlord provided its stage two response on 28 March 2022 and offered a further £25 compensation to account for the short delay in responding. The compensation represented reasonable redress given that the delay was only a few weeks and the landlord then responded within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds no maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of issues with communal lighting.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds no maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of scaffolding erected on a nearby building.
In accordance with Paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress for failings identified with regards to the issue of removing a water tank.
In accordance with Paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress with regards to the delays in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted reasonably to resolve the issue of the communal lighting and completed this within the correct timescales from being notified of the issue.
The issues with the scaffolding involved a different block to the resident’s building and therefore did not affect her use of her own property. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused but needed to complete repairs on the other buildings which it was entitled to do. The landlord had not acted unreasonably in the circumstances and also explained to the resident why the scaffolding was up for the length of time it was.
The landlord acknowledged it provided conflicting information to the resident when responding to her concern raised about the water tank. The resident was expecting the water tank to be removed, but the landlord was not aware that this had been disconnected until it had this checked. The landlord’s records did not provide enough clarity on the matter and therefore it offered redress in recognition of its failing which was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy for service failure. The landlord’s actions in investigating and then deciding not to remove the tank were reasonable.
There were delays with issuing both the stage one and stage two responses and therefore the landlord did not comply with the timescales in our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord offered reasonable redress to address the delays in both its responses.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to book an appointment to inspect her ceiling to identify if any repairs are needed.
If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £175 compensation it previously offered.
The landlord should advise this Service of its intentions in regard to the above recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.