Clarion Housing Association Limited (202119747)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119747

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 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 the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is secure tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The tenancy began in July 1994.
4. The resident reported her toilet was leaking on 30 June 2021. The landlord attended on the same day, and the leak was resolved. However, follow-up works were required. These were initially scheduled for the beginning of July; however, the appointments were cancelled by the landlord. The works were later completed on 17 August 2021. On 5 September, the resident reported a further leak from the toilet. She expressed concern that the leak was caused by the works that had been undertaken on 17 August.
5. The resident also reported that remedial works were required for a damaged bath panel and to replace the rotten flooring which had been repaired instead of renewed, leaving it uneven.  The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to progress this work. However, the landlord considered that further works were not required, and appointments were not raised as a result.
6. The resident subsequently contacted her MP in September 2021 to express her concern about the outstanding repairs. The MP wrote to the landlord at the end of September 2021, and asked it to respond to the resident’s concerns accordingly.
7. The landlord issued its stage one response on 1 December 2021. Within this, it apologised for the delay in responding to both the repair and the complaint. It advised that the remedial repairs would be completed on 29 December 2021.  The landlord also offered compensation of £50 for the delay in the complaint response, £50 for the delay in repairing the bathroom and £30 for two missed appointments in July. The resident refused the landlord’s offer. She added that the complaint had not addressed her concerns about appointments not being arranged or the quality of repairs. The complaint was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure accordingly.
8. The landlord issued its stage two response on 7 January 2022. Within this, it offered an apology for the delay in providing its stage two response, and confirmed all remedial works were completed on the planned date.  It noted that as no further failings had been identified, the previous compensation amount was reasonable. The landlord acknowledged the time taken to pursue the complaint and the resident’s concerns about the potential for cancellation of the remedial repairs’ appointment due to staff availability.  It offered a further £50 discretionary payment – bringing the total compensation offered to £180 – and stipulated that any payment would be offset against any rent arrears. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service for further consideration.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom

9. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report that her toilet was leaking on 30 June 2021. An emergency repair was raised and completed to ensure that the leak was resolved. The landlord arranged further appointments on 2 July and 9 July for follow-on works to complete the repair, however both appointments were cancelled by the landlord. The repair logs note this was due to operative availabilities and skill set requirements.
10. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that non-emergency repairs appointments should be offered within 28 calendar days of being reported. However, the repairs were not completed until 17 August 2021 with the delay attributed to the requirement for the repair to be a two-man job. The repair log for 17 August 2021 recorded that the toilet pan was removed, and part of the bathroom floor was replaced with a cut-to-size piece of plywood. The lino was replaced, and the toilet pan refitted with a new seat.
11. The inconvenience caused by the missed appointments was identified in the stage one response and the landlord apologised and offered compensation of £30. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. Within the stage two response, the landlord also acknowledged the delay in completing the repair and apologised for the “failure in service”. While this was appropriate, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the inconvenience that was caused to the resident as a result of the delay in completing the works, and to take steps to try to put things right. That the landlord did not was a missed opportunity.
12. A second leak was reported by the resident on 5 and 6 September 2021. The leak was made safe on 6 September, in line with the landlord’s policy timescales. The notes from the repair logs show that the issue was a leaking toilet pan connector that had been installed on 17 August 2021.
13. The resident contacted the landlord after the leak had been made safe to arrange the follow-up works that were required to the bath panel and the floor. The resident explained that the floor was rotten and the lino damaged. The member of staff advised that the details of the call had been taken and that it would await a report from the operative who had attended that morning.
14. The resident chased the matter on 7 and 8 September via phone. During the call on 8 September, the member of staff informed the resident that it had spoken with the contractor and repairing the floor and bath panel was “not something we (it) would come out and do”. This was reconfirmed on 9 September, when the resident again contacted the landlord to request an appointment for the outstanding work. The landlord advised that any appointment made would be cancelled as it had already determined a repair was not necessary after reviewing photographs of her bathroom.
15. While the landlord is entitled to rely on the view or opinion of its operative, it is unclear how it concluded that no follow-up works were required. It was not in dispute that there had been a further leak. The resident had also advised that damage had been caused to the surrounding areas as a result. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise an inspection. This would have helped to identify what works were required and would have ensured that they were carried out in line with its policy timescales.
16. As the landlord did not take steps to inspect the property, the resident raised her concerns via her MP towards the end of September. The matter was subsequently raised as a formal complaint in October. Within her correspondence, the resident expressed concern that not only were follow-up works outstanding, but the toilet had continued to leak – and she considered that this was as a result of the floor being uneven. The landlord subsequently visited the property towards the end of November and identified that works were required within the bathroom. This was over two months after the resident had requested that the repairs be completed.
17. The landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint on 1 December. Within this, it advised that the remedial works would be completed on 29 December 2021 – almost four months after they were reported by the resident. The landlord also offered compensation of £50 for the delay in repair which was upheld at stage two. A further £50 was also offered when the complaint was considered at stage two. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident some compensation, given the events detailed above and the extent of the delay, the offer was not proportionate in the circumstances. The evidence shows that the resident was consistent in her reporting and as the landlord did not arrange for an inspection in September, it was necessary for the resident to raise the matter via her MP and as a formal complaint before action was taken. This was inappropriate. During this time, the resident had a mouldy bath panel and an uneven bathroom floor and was concerned that the toilet had continued to leak. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order aimed at putting things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

18. The evidence provided to this Service does not demonstrate that the landlord raised a complaint within an appropriate timeframe. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. Section 1.3 of the Code states that a resident does not have to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such.
19. The evidence that is available shows that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with how the landlord was dealing with her bathroom repairs at the beginning of September. The call transcripts provided to this Service shows that on 9 September, the resident had referred to her concerns as “a complaint”.
20. Following this, the resident contacted her MP for assistance. The MP contacted the landlord too and explained that the resident was dissatisfied with the response she had received to her request for works within the bathroom to be carried out. Given the evidence, and the Code, it is unclear why the landlord did not raise a formal complaint at this stage. However, that it did not was a failing in the complaint handling.
21. It is noted that a telephone conversation subsequently took place between the resident and a member of landlord staff on 18 October. During this conversation, the resident advised that she was unhappy with the works that had been undertaken and that she wished for her bathroom to be restored to its previous condition. The evidence suggests that the landlord raised a formal complaint following this conversation. However, when the landlord issued its stage one response, it referred to the complaint being received on 14 October. As such, there is a lack of clarity surrounding the landlord’s decision to open a complaint and what prompted this.
22. The stage one response was issued on 1 December 2021. This was 35 working days after the landlord says the stage one response was received – and 25 working days outside the timescales detailed in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged the delay in responding within its correspondence and offered an apology and compensation of £50 for the delay in responding. While this was appropriate, the landlord failed to acknowledge that the resident had tried to raise her concerns as a complaint from the beginning of September. The failure to acknowledge this was a missed opportunity by the landlord.
23. The resident remained dissatisfied with the stage one response and the matter was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s procedure. The landlord’s correspondence to the resident on 13 December 2021 explained that the stage two process would involve a review of the stage one response to determine whether it was accurate and reasonable.
24. The landlord’s internal peer review (undated) conducted as part of its stage two response reviewed the resident’s complaint and the stage one response provided. It noted the reasons for the resident’s dissatisfaction as: refusal to complete repairs; the delay to fully resolve the leak and bathroom repairs; and the quality of the repair to the toilet. However, an assessment carried out on 1 December 2021 by the landlord concluded that both the flooring and the toilet needed repair which was arranged for 29 December 2021.
25. The stage two response was provided on 7 January 2022 which was 24 working days after the complaint was escalated – and four days outside the landlord’s policy timescales. The landlord offered an apology for the delay in responding. The response documented that the resident’s concerns were the delays to complete the repairs and the quality of the repairs which were resolved on 29 December 2021.  While the landlord acknowledged that there was some delay in completing the repairs, it failed to address the issues that the resident had raised about the repairs being refused in September. The landlord also failed to explain how it had decided that repairs were not necessary or acknowledge the inconvenience that had been caused to the resident in having to pursue the matter. A series of orders have therefore been made aimed at putting things right with the resident, and to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

28. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £580 compensation, comprised of:
       1. The £180 offered during the course of the complaints process, if not previously accepted.
       2. £50 for the delay in completing the bathroom repairs between July and August 2021.
       3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out repairs in the bathroom between September and December 2021.
       4. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
    3. Issue complaint handling staff with a reminder of the timescales for responding to complaint as set out in its complaints policy.
    4. Remind complaint handling staff of the provisions in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code around expressions of dissatisfaction, and when it would be appropriate to raise a formal complaint.