Clarion Housing Association Limited (202202829)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202829

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to windows at the property.
   2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has occupied a 3 bedroomed flat with her partner and three children, on the eleventh floor of the building, since 3 July 2017. She has an Assured Tenancy and has an adult son that lives with her, who is autistic.
3. The resident first reported issues with her windows on 26 August 2020. Someone attended the property on 14 September 2020 but did not have the right parts, so no works were carried out. The following day, the landlord’s job record shows, replacement hinges needed to be ordered. It is unclear what transpired following this.
4. On 16 March 2021, the resident again reported that the main bedroom window and the children’s window, would not open, and still needed to be repaired. The landlord sent someone to inspect the windows on 23 March 2021, but it was noted that the repair would need to be carried out by an external contractor. The resident chased the landlord for the work to be done on 3 June 2021, and a job was raised for someone to attend, on 11 June. Following that visit, it was again noted that parts for the window needed to be ordered.
5. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 21 June 2021. She said that the window had been broken for several months. She added that they were unable to open the window and they were “suffering” in the heat. The landlord sent an acknowledgement email on the same day.
6. On 17 July 2021, the landlord attended the property because the bedroom window was not working properly, and following a visit the same day, it was locked shut. A contractor also attended the property on 18 August 2021, to again make the window safe. However, the notes of the visit say the window could not be opened as the hinges were broken, and the landlord needed to source the parts. The windows remained unrepaired.
7. The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 23 August 2021 and asked for the complaint to be considered at stage two. The letter explained that the windows in both the resident’s and her son’s bedrooms were broken and could not be opened. Despite several visits, the repairs remained outstanding. They said the resident did not receive a response to her June 2021 complaint, and she had had to resort to using artificial ventilation. It was added that the issue was affecting their enjoyment of the home. The landlord was asked for an apology and an explanation for the delay.
8. The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 1 September 2021. However, the resident’s representative had to chase the landlord for a response again, on 7 October 2021.
9. On 21 October 2021, the landlord attended the property and put duct tape around the child’s bedroom window, while it waited for the parts needed to complete the repair. The landlord sought a quote from a window company, to replace the bedroom window, on 10 November 2021. On 16 November, the landlord asked the window company to contact the resident, in order to arrange a time to measure up for a replacement window.
10. The landlord issued a stage one response on 29 November 2021. It said:
    1. The issue had been reported on 26 August 2020 and there had been an issue sourcing parts. A decision had been made to replace the window and the supplier attended the property on 6 December 2021 to measure up.
    2. It would pay the resident £450 compensation; made up of a £400 payment to recognise the time taken to carry out the repair, repeat visits, having to chase the repair consideration for vulnerabilities, and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
11. The resident chased the landlord for an update on when the window would be replaced, and on 24 March 2022, someone attended the property, but measured the window again and resealed the child’s window. It is noted in the job record that the resident was not happy as she had expected the window to be replaced that day. She also chased the landlord for an update on 11 April 2022.
12. On 13 April 2022, the landlord asked the window provider again for a quote to have a new window installed. It chased the quote on 24 May, 31 May and 6 June 2022.
13. On 11 May 2022, the landlord sent the resident another stage one response to a complaint, that it deemed made, when she chased it on 11 April 2022. It said she was complaining that there had been a delay replacing her windows and a lack of communication. The landlord said:
    1. Having received the resident’s complaint, the resolution agreed was to replace the windows at the property. However, this had not been done, and there was a lack of communication from the Repairs team, and it was affecting her autistic son and meant she was paying more in energy bills.
    2. It had spoken with an area manager who said the windows were made in another country and it had been unable to obtain parts. The replacement windows had been requested on 13 April 2022, and had a lead time of eight weeks.
    3. It offered £175 compensation to the resident; made up of £150 for the inconvenience of chasing and having an autistic son who was suffering, and £25 due to the delay dealing with the complaint.
14. The resident remained unhappy, so the landlord conducted a stage two peer review of the case on 6 June 2022. It noted:
    1. The first report of an issue with the window was dealt with as an emergency on 26 August 2020. It was made safe and follow on work was needed, but not carried out. This was regarded as a “process fail”.
    2. An emergency job was raised on 13 March 2021 and the window was put back on its tracks and made safe. No follow on work was arranged.
    3. A further visit took place on 23 March 2021 and the notes say a contractor needed to attend and the job was closed.
    4. The resident sent several emails chasing works, but no works/job was raised until 30 March 2021. However, the job was closed by planners as the work could not be completed in house.
    5. A new job was raised on 19 April 2021 but then closed with a note saying it was awaiting an area manager and to update the resident. It states, “process fail”.
    6. The review says this continued for several months, while waiting for approval for a contractor to attend the property. The review states, “We appear to have failed the resident on several occasions through not completing the works to not updating them.”
    7. In terms of lessons learnt, it said contact with the resident should have been better, in terms of the status of their repair and what actions were taking place next. The notes on jobs should be clearer, and there should be updates added by the area manager.
15. The review said the window was having to be sourced from a specialist supplier and it was still awaiting a quote. The review concluded by saying, “I am not aware of what compensation has already been awarded however I believe some should be awarded in this case due to length of time to complete and lack of update/contact.”
16. The landlord sent a further letter to the resident, on 12 July 2022. It said it had reviewed the complaint at stage two. It apologised for the delay in responding and explained there had been a cyber-attack which had caused issues. It said:
    1. The resident had chased the landlord over the lack of action in replacing the windows.
    2. She was dissatisfied with its 11 May 2022 response because:
       1. The windows had still not been replaced.
       2. She was having to keep a fan on all the time and there was mould appearing due to a lack of air.
       3. The £175 compensation offered was insufficient.
    3. It acknowledged the issue had not been handled well and that there had been delays.
    4. It accepted it had not followed processes and arranged follow on work as it should have. The notes on its system were not clear and jobs were closed down without action being taken. This is in addition to the resident having to chase for updates.
    5. It apologised for being unable to provide a definitive time for replacing the windows, but said the mould had been treated on 17 June 2022. It said communication with the resident by planners and the area manager should have been better in terms of updating her on the status of the repair.
    6. It said the £450 compensation awarded in November 2021 and £175 compensation awarded in April 2022 were in line with its compensation policy. However, it said it would pay an additional £100 compensation; although the breakdown it provided said it would pay a further £175, made up of £100 for the further delay with the windows and £75 for the delay responding to the complaint.
17. The resident subsequently confirmed that she wished for the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said that the window repair was still outstanding, and the landlord had “only offered £175 compensation”. The resident also expressed concern that her electricity bills were high as a result of having to use fans to cool the rooms.
18. An appointment to repair the window hinges was booked for 31 October 2022. However, the landlord has advised that owing to an administrative error, the appointment was not scheduled until 9 January 2023. This appointment did not go ahead as the operatives had been “overbooked” for that day. However, the appointment was rearranged for 31 January 2023, and the repair was completed at that time.
19. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and explained the scope of the work had changed from replacing the windows, which were in good repair, to just replacing the hinges. However, there had been an issue sourcing them. The landlord paid the resident £215 compensation; made up of £200 to recognise the inconvenience to them and £15 for the missed appointment.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The Tenancy Agreement and relevant statute

20. The Tenancy Agreement says, “We agree to repair and maintain the structure of your home including any shared parts of the building which your home is a part of; any outside shared areas we own; or any outhouses we have provided.
21. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

22. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy says it, “aims to ensure that repairs to properties are carried out in a timely and efficient manner, ensuring that the repairs service represents value for money and achieves high levels of customer satisfaction.”
23. It says, residents can report repairs in a number of ways, but if online, it aims to call them back within five working days to offer an appointment. It explains emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at that visit. Further repairs may then subsequently be required. Non-Emergency Repairs appointments are offered by way of the next available appointment that suits the resident; within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
24. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it has a two stage complaints procedure.
    1. Stage 1 – If an initial attempt to resolve the query is not achieved, a formal complaint will be recorded, investigated, with the aim to resolve it within 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 – Peer Review – A complainant may ask for a review or escalation of the complaint and the landlord aims to resolve those complaints within 20 working days.
25. With both stages, the landlord says it will keep complainants informed if it cannot resolve the complaint within the timeframes set out. It will then explain why the complaint has not been resolved and provide a timescale for when the complaint is likely to be resolved.
26. The landlord’s Compensation Policy says it may pay the following compensation.
    1. £50 – £250 – where there is a service failure with some impact on the complainant.
    2. £250 – £700 – where there has been a considerable failure but no permanent impact on the complainant.
    3. Over £700 – where there has been a severe long-term impact on the complainant.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to windows at the property.

27. The landlord has accepted the resident first reported an issue with windows at the property not working, on 26 August 2020 and it arranged for someone to attend the property on 14 September 2020 and make the area safe. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy says it, “aims to ensure that repairs to properties are carried out in a timely and efficient manner. With the resident living on the eleventh floor of the building with three children, and having windows that were not functioning correctly, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to prioritised the repair, in order to ensure the windows were secure. Leaving it three weeks before sending someone to inspect the windows, was therefore unreasonable.
28. Having initially attended the property, the landlord then failed to ensure any follow on work was completed within a reasonable amount of time. It took the resident and her representative to contact the landlord, in order to try and get things moving. Even then, when it issued its response to her complaint, on 29 November 2021, it explained that as a result of being unable to source materials for a repair, it had decided to replace the windows, but did not provide the resident with timescales for when the work would be done. Given the delays already experienced by the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided a rough timescale for when the repair was likely to be carried out.
29. When the landlord addressed complaints made, it appropriately acknowledged its failings and offered compensation; however, it failed to learn from its mistakes. There was a lack of availability of parts, which was outside its control; but, the landlord could have been more proactive in monitoring the situation and following up with the supplier. Importantly, it could have also ensured the resident was regularly updated. Instead, it seems to have been the resident chasing an update on 11 April 2022, that prompted the landlord to contact the window company, and ask for a quote for new windows. On 11 May 2022, the landlord recognised the resident had a vulnerable son and said the new windows had been requested on 13 April 2022, and had an eight week lead time. It is unclear why the landlord provided such advice as within the stage two peer review it said that it was still waiting for a quote. The explanations provided by the landlord were not consistent and would, understandably have been the cause of confusion for the resident.
30. The internal review which took place on 6 June 2022, acknowledged it had failed the resident several times by not providing updates. It noted contact should have been better, in terms of the status of their repair and what actions were taking place next. In addition, it said the notes on jobs should be clearer, and there should be updates added by the area manager. This was put in writing to the resident on 12 July 2022. Despite the apologies about how long things had taken and being aware of the resident’s son’s needs, a further six months passed without the repair taking place. This was inappropriate. The landlord had advised in November 2021 that it would replace the windows. However, it subsequently decided that a repair could be facilitated by replacing the hinges. While an appointment to do this, was made for 9 January 2023, the appointment did not go ahead and was rescheduled to 31 January 2023 instead. It is noted that the operative was overbooked; however, this was a further delay and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord had been making offers of compensation along the way, and it apologised to the resident again on 27 January 2023, and said it would increase the compensation offered; meaning it had offered the resident compensation of £940.
31. It took the landlord about 2 and a half years to get the repair done. The landlord appropriately acknowledged during that period that its communication was poor, and it had to be chased. Even with complaints being made, the landlord missed opportunities to then put things right promptly and keep the resident updated. Instead, further delays occurred, which added to the resident’s frustration. It certainly did not ensure the repair was carried out in a timely and efficient manner, as per its Repairs and Maintenance Policy.
32. In this case, the landlord offered compensation of £865 for delays, inconvenience, family vulnerabilities and a missed appointment (£400 + £150 + £100 + £215).The compensation offered was proportionate and demonstrated that the landlord had considered how the resident and her family had been affected as a result of its handling of the repair. It had also given consideration to the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities.
33. While the landlord took steps to put things right with the resident, it did not demonstrate that it had learnt from each complaint. It failed to use this learning to inform how it responded to matters going forward. Therefore, while there was reasonable redress in terms of the offer made to the resident, the Ombudsman has made some recommendations aimed at ensuring that the landlord reviews it practices to prevent similar errors from occurring in the future.

Complaint handling.

34. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 June 2021, and their representative had to chase for a response to the complaint on 23 August 2021. While the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 September, it did not provide a response thereafter, and had to be chased again on 7 October. The landlord, in accordance with its Complaints Policy should have issued a stage one response within ten working days; in this case, it sent its response on 29 November 2021, some 115 working days after the original complaint was made. This was inappropriate.
35. When the landlord issued its response, it appropriately apologised for the failings. However, the letter contained an error, as it referred to the window supplier having attended on 6 December 2021 to measure up. This was clearly a future date, and it suggests the landlord did not take care when drafting its response. It would have also created confusion for the resident and is indicative of the landlord not having a clear record of its repairs.
36. As well as offering compensation for the issue with the window repairs, the landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
37. Having apologised for the delays and acknowledged its failings in November 2021, nothing seemed to improve, as the resident had to chase the landlord again on 11 April 2022 for an update. The evidence provided shows that it was only then, on 13 April 2022, that the landlord contacted the window company in order to obtain a quote for replacing the windows.
38. The landlord treated the resident’s concern about the delays in fitting new windows and the lack of communication, as a new complaint, and sent another stage one response on 11 May 2022. This was 22 working days after the complaint was made. Both aspects of the complaint were upheld, and aside from the compensation offered in relation to the window repairs/replacements, the landlord offered further compensation of £25 for the delay in responding to that complaint.
39. The complaint was escalated to stage two, and having carried out an internal review which identified several failings in its service, it provided its response on 12 July 2022. As well as paying further compensation due to the delays in repairing the windows, it offered an additional £75 compensation for the delay responding to the complaint, once again.
40. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says the landlord will aim to resolve a stage one complaint within 10 working days, and a stage two complaint within 20 working days. The landlord failed to meet these targets every time a complaint was made. It also did not keep the resident informed that it would not meet the timescales, as it said it would in its Complaints Policy.
41. The landlord has offered £150 compensation in total for the delays in dealing with the complaints; but, this is not proportionate to the failings identified. Its complaints handling failed in other ways. The resident, as part of the complaint, mentioned the broken windows were affecting her son and that she was incurring additional costs ventilating the room. No evidence of additional costs being incurred were presented to the landlord; but it would have been reasonable if the landlord had asked about any additional costs, so reimbursement could be considered further. It could have also done more to acknowledge it may have been uncomfortable within the property sometimes, being unable to open windows.
42. In addition, it was usually left to the resident to have to follow up with the landlord in order to find out what was happening, which inevitably added to her frustration and upset. Each of the landlord’s responses to the complaints, attempted to address points made by the resident, but the landlord did not acknowledge the cumulative effect on the resident and her family, having to chase it up several times, over a 2 and a half year period.
43. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling fell short, and amounts to maladministration. The landlord accepted certain failings. However, the resident had to complain many times over a long period, as well as dealing with the delay in responding to the complaints; therefore, the compensation offered, does not go far enough to remedy the situation and should be increased from £150 to £350.

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows at the property.
45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

46. The landlord delayed dealing with the repairs to the windows at the property. It appropriately acknowledged the delays when responding to the resident’s complaint and offered a sum of compensation that was proportionate. However, it failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from the previous complaints and did not take action to mitigate the inconvenience caused to the resident.
47. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout, was poor and took action mainly when chased by the resident.
48. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint and delayed in issuing its responses to other complaints made.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. Within the next four weeks the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,215, broken down as follows:
       1. £850 for delays, inconvenience to the resident and her family (if it has not done so already).
       2. £15 for a missed appointment (if it has not done so already).
       3. £150 for the poor complaint handling, that it had already offered (if it has not done so already).
       4. An additional £200 to recognise the extent of the poor complaint handling and lack of learning from the complaints.
50. Within the next four weeks, considering the failings in this case, the landlord should review its approach to:
    1. Ensuring repairs are actively monitored until fully resolved.
    2. Keeping residents updated during ongoing works.
    3. The time taken to respond to complaints.
51. The landlord should share the outcome of the above review with this Service, also within four weeks. This review should as a minimum include:
    1. Any planned changes to its approach, including any staff training, which will reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
    2. Any changes already made in its approach, including any staff training which has taken place, which will reduce (or has reduced) the likelihood of similar failings happening again.

Recommendations

52. The landlord to provide training to relevant staff in relation to its own Complaints Policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, in order to recognise when a complaint is being made and the timescales it should be adhering to, when responding.