Clarion Housing Association Limited (202200379)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200379

Clarion Housing Association Limited

13 March 2024

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a windows repair.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, where he lives with his teenage son. The landlord is a housing association, which owns and manages the property.
The landlord’s repair log shows jobs were raised on 14 December 2016, 23 May 2017 and 13 July 2017 to repair 2 windows (1 bedroom and 1 kitchen window). The notes confirmed the wooden window frames were rotten and hanging off. The first job was noted as “complete” on 14 December 2016, the second as “cancelled” on 30 June 2016, and the third as “complete” on 23 October 2017. There are no notes to explain what specific work was completed, or why the second job was cancelled. However, the resident has told us the landlord partially boarded up his son’s bedroom window during this period.
The resident made another report about a window on 15 November 2021. The repair log shows the landlord attended on 10 December 2021 and took measurements for a window. The notes show the resident told the landlord that it was meant to complete work on 2 windows previously, but it only did the work for 1 of them.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 February 2022 to ask for an update. Following this, the landlord noted on 23 February 2022 that the hinges on the bedroom window needed to be fixed as they were falling off. It also confirmed the glass unit would need to be replaced and the window frame repaired. The landlord arranged an appointment for 25 March 2022. However, the resident was unavailable on this date so it later changed this to 8 April 2022.
This Service received contact from the resident on 6 April 2022, when he complained about the landlord boarding up his window rather than repairing it. He said the landlord had poor communication and had not kept a number of appointments. We asked the landlord to send a stage 1 complaint response to the resident by 23 April 2022.
The landlord attended on 8 April 2022 and told the resident it would need to remove the window entirely and board up the gap for around 5 weeks until a replacement unit was manufactured. The landlord’s notes say the resident did not want to proceed with this because he was going on holiday on 12 April 2022 and saw this as a security risk.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 25 April 2022. It said:
1. It understood the resident was going to make a new appointment for it to work on the window when he returned from holiday.
2. It had no record of him raising a complaint about the matter.
3. It recognised there had been a service failure with the delay in repairing the window. It apologised for this and awarded the resident £300 compensation.
4. The resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 if he was unhappy with its resolution.
The resident sent 4 emails to the landlord between 11 July 2022 and 15 August 2022, in which he said:
1. The window had not been functional since 2016. He said the window would not open, the wood was rotting and it had been partially boarded up, which he considered a fire hazard.
2. The landlord’s failure to repair the window had caused him to have asthma flare ups and caused his son mental health problems.
3. There had been an appointment arranged to get the window repaired on 21 July 2022, but the landlord had not kept this. He had taken a day off work unpaid to be home for this.
After receiving further contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 22 August 2022 and asked it to send a stage 2 response by 6 September 2022.
The resident sent the landlord a letter via his solicitors on 31 August 2022. This said:
1. They were submitting a claim on behalf of the resident in relation to:
  1. Damp and mould in the hallway.
  2. Damp and mould in both bedrooms.
  3. Windows in both bedrooms not opening.
2. The resident had raised these issues multiple times in 2016, 2018 and 2021 via an online portal.
3. The resident had “suffered inconvenience, distress, discomfort and embarrassment” and, in their view, the landlord was in breach of its repairing obligation.
4. The issues in the property, in their view, made it unfit for human habitation.
5. They proposed that the property should be fully inspected.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 21 October 2022, in which it:
1. Apologised for the delay in sending the response, which it said was caused by IT issues following a cyber-attack.
2. Said it had gained access to the property and measured up for a new window and double glazed unit on 30 September 2022. Its supplier was in the process of manufacturing this.
3. Stated it had been trying to contact him to arrange an appointment to fit the window but he had not been answering the calls. It had therefore arranged an appointment for 25 October 2022 and asked him to contact it if this was not convenient.
4. Said it had not raised any other complaints because he had raised no further concerns. If he wished to raise a complaint about something else, he could do this via its website or social media.
5. Confirmed it had arranged a payment of £50 for the delay in providing a response to the complaint. However, there would be a delay of 6 to 8 weeks in the payment due to IT problems following the cyber–attack.
6. Explained how he could approach this Service with the complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord raised a job on 26 October 2022 in relation to 1 of the bedroom windows. The notes said that the landlord had previously removed the window and installed internal and external boarding to keep out rain and draughts. The notes confirmed the job was being raised to fit the new window. The repair log says this job was “complete” on 10 November 2022, though there are no additional notes with specific details.
The landlord raised 2 further jobs on 11 November 2022. The first job was to install security handles and a seal on the new window. The second job was in relation to a window hinge, which the notes said was broken and rotten. The repair log says these jobs were completed on 23 November 2022 and 1 December 2022 respectively. However, there were again no notes added with specific details.
The landlord completed an inspection of the property on 6 February 2023. During the inspection, the landlord noted that:
1. There had previously been a leak in the hallway from the flat above. This had stained the ceiling and walls, as well as the inside of a cupboard. The landlord ordered decoration works to address this.
2. There was black mould on the walls and at the side of the bed and sofa in the first bedroom. The window in this room had black condensation mould forming around the glazing and was difficult to open. The landlord said that the window was porous due to a lack of cyclical decorating. It recommended a mould wash around the walls, ceiling, the side of the bed and windows.
3. There was black mould on the window in the second bedroom and the window was difficult to open. There was also an area of debonded plaster. The landlord recommended ease and adjust work to the window and plastering and patch painting to the wall.
4. The kitchen worktop had minor damage. The resident had raised this in his claim letter but the landlord agreed to replace the worktop.
The resident signed a works completion on 28 April 2023, which said he was satisfied all works had been completed to his expectations.
The resident duly made his complaint to this Service on 14 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the windows repair

The resident initially reported issues with 2 windows at the property between 2016 and 2017 (the kitchen and bedroom windows). He told the landlord on 10 December 2021 that the landlord had only completed work on 1 of these windows and left the other window in disrepair.
The resident has provided a copy of an email he sent to Environmental Health on 25 July 2017. In this, he said the landlord had boarded up his child’s bedroom window in December 2016. He said the landlord then took measurements to replace the window in January 2017, before contractors attended on 24 July 2017 to complete the work. However, the contractors did not complete the work and told the landlord no further work was needed, despite the window being held in by the boards. The resident has also provided a photograph of the bedroom window, which shows it was partially covered by a hardwood panel.
The landlord’s repair log for this period does not contain any specific notes detailing the work completed. Considering this and the resident’s evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord applied a hardwood panel to the child’s bedroom window rather than completing the repair. The landlord appears to have left the window in this condition for several years until the resident raised the issue again on 15 November 2021.
Fire safety is a consideration as to whether a home is fit for human habitation under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. Fire is also one of the hazards included in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Section 24.22 of the HHSRS says that dwellings should “provide safe and ready means of escape”.
Section 13.4 of the policy says that its technical staff within the local maintenance teams “are trained in identifying risks and hazards under the [HHSRS] scheme, as well as completing risk assessments, and these duties are included within their roles”.
Section 5.4 of the landlord’s “repairs and maintenance policy” defines an emergency repair as one that “presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property; or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident”. The policy states these repairs should be attended within 24 hours and made safe, with further repairs being completed subsequently if needed.
Given it was not possible to open the window, and the landlord knew this as a result of its visit, it should have identified the hazard and treated the repair as an emergency. Instead, the landlord took no action and decided, upon visiting again in July 2017, that no action was required. This is a serious failing from the landlord.
As well as a potential fire hazard, the inability for the resident to open the window would have led to problems with ventilation in the property. This is important to prevent mould buildup. The resident has provided photographic evidence of significant amounts of black mould in the bedroom. The Ombudsman considers the broken window would have been a significant contributing factor to this. The resident has explained that the issue caused his asthma to flare up and affected his son’s mental health. The landlord should have been aware of the health implications of a lack of proper ventilation in the property and it should have ensured the window was repaired.
There is no documented evidence the resident raised the repair again before November 2021. However, the resident’s solicitors confirmed in their letter to the landlord that he had raised it via the landlord’s online portal several times between 2017 and 2021. Given the issues with the landlord’s record keeping (which will be addressed separately below), the Ombudsman considers it plausible that the resident raised the issue further times between 2017 and 2021 but the landlord has no record of this.
The landlord showed no urgency to fix the repair when the resident reported it again on 15 November 2021. It first attended to take measurements on 10 December 2021, 25 days after the report. It took no further action until late February 2022, when it arranged an appointment for 8 April 2022. By the time it attended on 8 April 2022, it had been almost 5 months since the report in November 2021.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord placed an order for a replacement window after it took measurements on 10 December 2021. The landlord attended and took measurements again 10 months later on 30 September 2021.
It took the landlord over 5 months to complete the full property inspection requested by the resident’s solicitors on 31 August 2022. The landlord has not provided an explanation for this delay, nor provided records showing any attempts to arrange this. Given the serious nature of the claims made in the letter, including that the resident’s home was not fit for human habitation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to treat this request with a high level of urgency.
Damp and mould is another hazard included in the HHSRS. The landlord was made aware of the mould in the solicitor’s letter dated 31 August 2022. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord took any action following this to support the resident or attempt to complete mould treatment. The landlord only did this after its inspection in February 2023 but, by this time, it had been aware of the problem with mould for almost 6 months.
The Ombudsman released his ‘spotlight on damp and mould’ report in October 2021. Among the recommendations were for landlords to adopt a “zero tolerance” approach to damp and mould interventions and to “ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. It is evident the landlord did not approach the damp and mould in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
Given the significant amount of time the disrepair went unresolved, the significant hazards posed to the resident and his child during this period and the failure of the landlord to treat the matter with urgency when notified, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. Clear and accurate records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The Ombudsman released his “spotlight on knowledge and information management” report in May 2023. The seventh recommendation in this report was for a landlord to develop key data recording standards across its organisations to ensure good records that supports its business.
The “spotlight” report highlighted that, if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate or partial information.
As noted in paragraphs 4, 14 and 15 of this report, there were several examples of the landlord’s repair logs where it marked jobs as “complete” without providing full information as to the work completed and whether any follow up visits were needed. This made it unclear if these jobs were completed in full.
The landlord was impacted by a cyber–attack in June 2022. However, the evidence does not suggest that the poor record keeping was caused by this. The landlord has repair records for the resident’s property dated before and after the cyber–attack incident and the quality of some of the record keeping is similar in both periods. This points to inadequacies in the landlord’s record keeping practices being the problem rather than the cyber-attack. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to improve its record keeping practices for repairs to prevent this problem affecting other residents in the future.
Due to the poor quality of the repairs record keeping, and the impact this had on the landlord’s ability to fix a significant repair issue for the resident, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Complaint handling

Under section 5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords are required to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. They must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. Landlords can add 10 working days to each of these stages, as long as they contact the resident with an explanation of the delay and a new date for a response.
The landlord missed the timescale under the Code to send the stage 1 response by 2 days, and it missed the stage 2 response by 45 days. However, we note the landlord explained its stage 2 response was caused by IT problems following the cyber-attack. We also note the landlord previously provided the resident with £50 to recognise the delay.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord only considered the repair logs from 15 November 2021 onwards. This shows a lack of thorough investigation, as the logs from 2016 and 2017 were available. The Ombudsman notes the landlord did not speak to the resident before issuing its stage 1 response. Had it done this, the resident likely would have told the landlord that the matter began in 2016 and the landlord could have responded accordingly. The failure to contact the resident before issuing the stage 1 response goes against the ”promise” in the first part of the landlord’s complaints policy to “listen and ensure we understand your complaint”.
The resident sent several emails between 11 July 2022 and 15 August 2022 expressing his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. However, the landlord only escalated the complaint to stage 2 after this Service contacted it on 22 August 2022. This is a failure under section 5.9 of the Code, which says the landlord must progress complaints to stage 2 “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1”. That said, the Ombudsman appreciates that the cyber-attack on the landlord around this time may have contributed towards delays.
Section 5.6 of the Code states landlord must “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. In his stage 2 request emails, the resident said the window had not been functional since 2016. He also said there had been an appointment to fix the window on 21 July 2022 which the landlord had not kept. The landlord did not respond to either of these points in its response.
Due to the delays in responses, the failure of the landlord to understand the complaint and the failure to address all points raised by the resident, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the windows repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with an apology written by the chief executive.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £1,700. This is in addition to the £350 the landlord previously provided during its internal complaint review and comprises:
1. £1,200 for the failures identified in the landlord’s repair obligations, and the significant detrimental impact this had on the resident and his child.
2. £300 for the impact of the record keeping failures identified.
3. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified.
It is ordered that, within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord completes a review of its record keeping and information management practices in relation to repairs and provides this Service with the outcome. Specifically, the Ombudsman requires the landlord to assess whether it can introduce a procedure whereby repair logs are never closed unless there are notes added providing details of:
1. The date and time the operative attended the job.
2. The work completed.
3. What work was not completed, if any.
4. Whether any follow up visits are required, and why.
5. Why the job is being marked as complete or closed if all required work has not been completed.