Clarion Housing Association Limited (202126704)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126704

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 September 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal front door.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident owns her property under a shared ownership lease dated 25 April 2014. The property is a one-bed flat in a block of flats. The block has two bike storage areas in the common parts of the building, which have their own separate doors.

Policies and Procedures

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is required to maintain and repair all common parts of the building. This includes the communal front door to the block.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out the expected timescales for repairs. With regard to repairs of communal areas, the policy says the repair must be completed within 28 days.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. Stage one responses must be issued within 10 working days, and stage two responses must be issued within 20 working days of the escalation request.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair logs record a call out regarding the communal front door, with works completed on an unspecified date in April 2021. The logs say it had received a report that the communal door was not locking properly. Its inspection notes state that the communal front door was catching on the frame, and that the repair had been passed to the landlord’s builders. The landlord has referred to works being completed on 4 May 2021, but has provided no evidence of any action being taken after the repair job was passed back to its builders in April 2021.
On 1 June 2021, the resident reported that the communal front door had been broken for a number of weeks. She said she was aware this had already been reported by other residents, and that when the door was closed, it did not lock properly. She said she had returned home that day to find that both bike storage areas in the building had been broken into. She said that as there was no damage to the front door, she thought the individuals responsible must have gained access through the unlocked front door.
On 4 June 2021, the landlord told the resident it was aware of the damage to the bike storage area, and that an engineer would attend on 17 June 2021. The landlord has provided no evidence of an inspection or repair on 17 June 2021.
The landlord has said that it passed the repair to its mechanical and electrical team on 23 June 2021, and that the repair was passed to a subcontractor on 27 June 2021. The landlord’s repair logs for June state that ‘the magnetic plates to [the] communal FED are not latching’. The notes state the main door had dropped, and that this had been passed to the landlord’s builders to repair. The landlord stated that the repairs were completed, but has provided no evidence of any further action being taken after the repair was passed back to its builders.
On 26 June 2021, the resident told the landlord that the communal front door had not been fixed. She said there had been repairs to the bike storage area, but there was a high likelihood of further break-ins if it did not repair the communal front door.
On 30 June 2021, the landlord told the resident that its repair team had attended on 26 June 2021 and said there was nothing wrong with the door itself, but that the electrical lock was not working. It said that this had been forwarded to its property team. It said if it was not repaired within five working days, the resident should get back in contact so that it could chase up the property team.
On the same day, the landlord carried out a block inspection. Its notes state that there was no sign of antisocial behaviour, and no issues identified in the block.
On or around 9 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again. She said the communal door was still not locking when closed. She said since reporting the fault, there had been a break-in at the bike storage area, and substantial damage to an internal wall. She asked when the engineer would be attending to repair the door.
On 13 July 2021, the landlord told the resident that an engineer would attend on 23 July 2021.
On 12 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord. She said it was unacceptable that the door had not been repaired after three months, and requested a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy.
On 22 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again. She said the communal front door had been broken for three months, despite both her and her neighbours reporting the issue on multiple occasions. She said this had resulted in damage to an internal wall and the bike storage areas. She said that the bike storage areas had been broken into again that day, and that her bike had been stolen.
On 2 September 2021, the landlord logged the resident’s complaint and booked a repair appointment for 9 September 2021.
The resident says that she contacted the landlord on 16 September 2021 for an update, and told it that the door was still broken. She said the landlord told her that it had been unable to fix the door on 9 September 2021, and that the repair had been passed to a specialist repair team.
On or around 20 September 2021, the landlord investigated the complaint. Its notes from the investigation show disagreement between two departments regarding the progress of the repair. One department indicated that the repair was with the specialist contractors, and they were awaiting an update from those contractors. Another department said that the visit on 9 September 2021 identified that the issue related to the door alignment, and that the repair had been passed back from the specialist contractors to the landlord’s repair team on 13 September 2021. It said this was because the repair did not relate to the door entry system, and that if the repairs team had not carried out the repair, that would explain why there was still a the problem with the door.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection of the block. Its notes state that there were no signs of antisocial behaviour, and no issues identified in the block.
On 30 September 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It said:
1. It first attended to the door on 4 May 2021, and completed the repair the same day. It also attended and completed repairs on 27 June 2021, 6 August 2021, 2 September 2021 and 9 September 2021. It said it also attended and realigned the front door on 16 September 2021.
2. It had booked a repair job to resolve the issues with the front door for 2 October 2021.
3. It had attended to every repair and responded within its service level agreement, and resolved the issues at the time.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about delays in repairs, but upheld her complaint that she had not received a promised call back. It offered £15 compensation for the missed call back.
On the same day, the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She said the landlord had provided no explanation for why the door was still broken after 139 days, and she disputed that the landlord had fixed the door at any point since May 2021. She said this was not an issue which recurred every few days, but an issue which had never been fixed.
On 14 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident by phone. Its notes say the resident confirmed the door was still not fixed, and to her knowledge no specialist had attended. She said vandalism and crime in the building had significantly increased as a result of the door being broken. The landlord’s records for that date state that a repair to the bike store went ahead that day. There is no reference to any repairs to the communal front door in the records for that date.
On 9 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint. It said:
1. It had attended every report within 28 days, and the issue with the door was the result of antisocial behaviour by residents on a number of occasions.
2. Its contractor attended on 2 October 2021 and provided an estimate for repairs, which would go ahead on 1 November 2021.
3. The repair was a specialist ironmongery repair, and the parts needed took a significant period of time to source.
4. It was likely that further repairs would be needed in future as a result of antisocial behaviour, which was out of its control.
5. The resident should claim for the theft of her bike on her insurance.
6. While it was sorry the resident did not feel safe, the primary security for her property was her front door, and not the communal doors.
7. It offered a further £200 compensation for inconvenience, the length of time taken to resolve the issue, and the delays in replying to the resident’s complaint at stages one and two.
On 10 December 2021, the landlord recorded that there were ongoing issues with the communal front door. Its notes state that it adjusted the door on 21 December 2021. It recorded that further issues with the door were reported on 24 January, 15 February, 8 March and 11 March 2022.
On 14 April 2022, the landlord issued an addendum to its stage two response. It said the front entrance door had been repaired and was confirmed as being in full working order. There is no reference to this inspection in the repair logs provided. On 22 April 2022, the resident told the landlord that the door was still broken. She also said she was unhappy that the landlord would not take responsibility for the theft of her bike, which she said was caused by the front door not being repaired.
On 10 June 2022, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord’s negligence had resulted in two of her bikes being stolen, so the landlord should compensate her for those losses.
In July 2022, the landlord’s subcontractors inspected the communal front door. The notes say that the communal door was not locking as the door was catching on the frame. The repair was then passed back to the landlord’s repairs team.
On 15 January 2023, the resident told the Ombudsman that the communal door was still broken, the bike storage area had been broken into again, and that non-residents were congregating in the halls as a result of the communal front door being broken.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that there have been ongoing issues with the communal front door since the landlord responded to her complaint. Any events after the landlord issued its stage two complaint response had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time this complaint was referred to the Ombudsman, so the Ombudsman cannot consider any issues after 9 November 2021 as part of this investigation. The Ombudsman will therefore only refer to events after the landlord issued its stage two response where those events provide context.

Repairs to the communal front door

The landlord said it became aware of issues with the door in May 2021, and repaired the door on multiple occasions. It said the issues with the door were a result of antisocial behaviour. The resident said that the door had never been repaired, and that the locking mechanism being broken had led to multiple thefts from the bike store and allowed non-resident perpetrators of antisocial behaviour into the building. She said this made her feel unsafe in her home.
The landlord’s repair logs show that it sent a subcontractor to attend call outs for the communal front door on five occasions from April 2021 to July 2022. The logs state the month of attendance, but not the specific date. The subcontractor’s notes say that in April 2021, June 2021, and September 2021, they identified that there was an issue with the door catching on the frame, and the door having dropped, which prevented the magnetic catch from engaging. On each of those three occasions, the subcontractor passed the repair back to the landlord’s repairs team. The landlord has not provided evidence of any action taken by its repairs team on any of those occasions.
The landlord has said it attended and carried out repairs on multiple other occasions. However, there is no mention of further visits related to the communal front door in the repair logs it has provided. It has also provided no inspection notes, or any other evidence to show either an inspection or any repairs on those dates. In the absence of any such evidence, the Ombudsman cannot reasonably conclude that any further inspections or repairs took place.
In March 2022 and July 2022, after the landlord’s stage two complaint response, the subcontractors attended further call outs. In March 2022, they identified that the metal latch had fallen off. The notes stated that the door was catching on the floor, and the plate and fixings had been forced from the door. In July 2022, the subcontractor attended and inspected the door. The subcontractor’s notes say ‘communal door not locking. Main door is catching the frame we have passed this to [landlord’s] builders a couple of times pass it to them again’.
Under its repairs policy, the landlord was required to carry out the communal repairs within 28 days. The landlord was aware of the issues with the door as early as April 2021. Its repair logs show inspections which resulted in the repair job being passed to its repairs team, with no evidence of any repairs taking place, and the subcontractors identifying the same issue on subsequent visits. While the landlord states that it attended on multiple occasions and completed repairs, that is not supported by the evidence it has provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord has also alleged that the issues with the door were caused by antisocial behaviour rather than an underlying issue with the door. However, it has provided no explanation for how it reached that conclusion. Its own quarterly estate inspection reports state there was no evidence of antisocial behaviour identified on any of the inspections. It has not carried out an antisocial behaviour investigation, or identified any CCTV footage of the front door which shows anyone damaging the door.
On one occasion, its subcontractors refer to fixings being forced from the door. However, the notes do not identify how this was likely to have happened. That inspection also took place in March 2022, almost a year after the landlord became aware of the issues with the door, and after it had already concluded that the issues with the door were the result of antisocial behaviour. The landlord has not therefore demonstrated that the ongoing problems with the door were the result of antisocial behaviour rather than a failure to carry out a lasting repair.
When a repair falls under a landlord’s repair obligations, the landlord is required to carry out a repair within a reasonable timeframe. If the same issue keeps being reported, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out a more detailed technical inspection to identify the underlying issue, which would enable it to carry out a lasting repair.
Rather than carrying out a lasting repair, the landlord has sent the same subcontractor to inspect the door on multiple occasions, and has provided no evidence of repairs being carried out following the inspection. It then told the resident that repairs had gone ahead, and alleged that the problems with the door were the result of antisocial behaviour, despite it having not investigated any antisocial behaviour.
This led to the resident having to repeatedly report issues with the door and chase up repairs, and she has explained that she no longer felt safe in the building. The landlord has not shown that it took any steps to offer additional support to the resident given her safety concerns, which was a missed opportunity to try to put things right. The landlord has not acted reasonably or appropriately, and its handling of the repairs to the communal front door amounts to maladministration.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident believes the landlord should compensate her for the theft of her bike. However, the bike was in an area which had its own separate locked door. The resident has not demonstrated to the landlord that the theft of the bike was purely as a result of a failure to repair the communal front door, and in the circumstances it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to her contents insurance. However, the Ombudsman does consider that compensation is warranted for the resident’s inconvenience, time and trouble in having to repeatedly report issues with the front door and chase up repairs.
The landlord has offered a total of £215 compensation for a combination of delays, poor communication, and delays in complaint handling. The Ombudsman does not consider that the compensation offered is sufficient to make up for the impact of the delays on the resident. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £350 to compensate for her distress, inconvenience, time and trouble arising from its maladministration in handling the repairs. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, and where a landlord has not done enough to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident expressed dissatisfaction with delays to repairs on 12 August 2021. Under its complaints policy, the landlord should have opened a complaint at that stage, and issued a response within ten working days. It did not open a complaint until 2 September 2021, which was after its deadline for a response. It then did not issue a stage one response until 30 September 2021, which was 35 working days after the complaint was made. It also issued its stage two response after 28 working days, despite being required to issue a response within 20 working days under its policy. The landlord has offered no explanation for these delays, so the Ombudsman cannot conclude there was a good reason.
It is also of concern that the contents of both complaint responses are contradicted by the landlord’s repair logs and complaint investigation notes. For example, the landlord’s stage one response states that the landlord first carried out repairs in May 2021, while its repair logs state that its contractors inspected the door in April 2021, and referred the repair back to the landlord’s builders. Both responses also state that a door repair was completed on 9 September 2021, while the internal complaint investigation notes state that the engineer who attended at that time found that the door was misaligned and passed the job back to the landlord’s repairs team on 13 September 2021.
The landlord’s stage two response also contains conclusions which are not supported by the evidence provided by the landlord. The landlord told the resident that the issues with the front door had been caused by antisocial behaviour by residents. However, it did not explain how it reached that conclusion. The landlord’s internal emails confirm it has not opened any antisocial behaviour case or investigated any alleged antisocial behaviour, the records from the landlord’s quarterly block inspections stated that there was no evidence of antisocial behaviour during any of the inspections, and the landlord has provided no evidence which shows the issues with the door were caused by antisocial behaviour rather than a repair issue.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to ensure that it properly investigates complaints, and that its complaint responses are accurate. The landlord’s stage one response was significantly delayed, and the contents of both its stage one and stage two responses are contradicted by the landlord’s own records. The landlord’s stage two response stated that the issues with the door were caused by antisocial behaviour, but the landlord has not shown that to be the case. The landlord’s complaint handling was therefore inappropriate, and amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of repairs to the communal front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has not shown that it responded reasonably to reports that the communal front door was broken, or that ongoing issues with the door were the result of antisocial behaviour rather than a repair issue, as it alleges. The landlord’s compensation award was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
Both the stage one and stage two complaint responses were delayed, and contained information which was contradicted by the landlord’s own records and investigation notes.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £550 in compensation (inclusive of the £215 previously offered). This is calculated as follows:
  1. £350 for its maladministration in handling repairs to the communal front door;
  2. £200 for its maladministration in complaint handling.
3. Arrange for an inspection of the communal front door by an appropriate specialist contractor to identify any faults with the door, the most likely cause of any faults found, and any repairs that need to be carried out. When the inspection has been completed, the landlord must write to the resident to set out the following:
  1. The results of the inspection.
  1. Whether, following the inspection, it believes there is an underlying fault with the door, or if it maintains its previous conclusion that the door was being vandalised. If it maintains the door was being vandalised, it should explain how it reached that conclusion.
  2. Its action plan for resolving the issues, either through lasting repairs or taking steps to deal with any vandalism or antisocial behaviour, including its planned timescales for taking any action.
  3. If the landlord believes it does not need to take any further action following the inspection, what its reasons are.

The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord arrange refresher training for all staff who handle complaints to prevent a recurrence of the complaint handling failings identified in this report.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.