Clarion Housing Association Limited (202204728)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204728

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 August 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a complaint relating to the resident’s previous tenancy;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of its contractor causing damage to the property during planned works and leaving aspects of the work unfinished;
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of loss of water supply to the property;
4. The landlord’s handling of replacing the windows in the property;
5. The landlord’s handling of the decision of whether it would replace the front entrance door to the property.
This report also considers the landlord’s complaint handling.

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of a complaint relating to the resident’s previous tenancy;
This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident’s complaint about matters in her previous tenancy in October 2020, this was not brought to the attention of this Service until July 2022, a period of 21 months later.
This investigation will therefore not consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint relating to her previous tenancy, and reference to this complaint are made to provide context only.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of its contractor causing damage to the property during planned works and leaving aspects of the work unfinished;
This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
In June 2022, when the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman was duly made, the landlord had not had the opportunity to fully consider this complaint as it had not completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the repairs to her property following the landlord’s final complaint response, she can escalate this to the Ombudsman Service as a new complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and moved into the property, a two-bed house, in June 2020 with her two children. During the signing of her tenancy agreement the resident disclosed mental ill-health, this is noted on the sign-up document. However, the landlord has advised this Service that it has “no vulnerabilities listed for [the resident]”.
The resident moved to the property from another property owned by the landlord where she had reported being a victim of antisocial behaviour and of a serious criminal act.

Landlord policies and procedures, and statutory regulation

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 states that a property is unfit for human habitation if there are any defects found with the water supply or drainage and sanitary convenience that makes the property unsuitable for occupation. The courts have deemed that a property is not reasonably fit for habitation if the state of repair means the resident might be injured or experience injury to health as a result of ordinary use of the property.
The landlord’s fire safety management policy states that “All buildings managed by Clarion will be maintained in accordance with current standards and recognised best practice.”
The Building Regulations 2010: Approved Document B: Fire Safety provides that all habitable rooms should have either an emergency escape window or external door, or direct access to a protected stairway. This legislation is not retrospective so does not apply to the resident’s property which was built before 2010.
Government technical advice on window replacement states that replacement windows should be sized to provide at least the same potential for escape as the windows they replace. It also states that “All first floor windows in dwellings should ideally have opening lights large enough to allow you to escape through them if you were trapped in the room by a fire”.
At the time of the resident’s complaints the landlord operated a two-stage complaint process:
1. Stage one complaints will be responded to within ten working days, if the landlord requires longer to resolve the complaint it will explain this to the resident and provide a timescale for resolution.
2. Stage two complaints (which it refers to as ‘peer review’) will be responded to within 20 working days. If an extension is required the landlord will explain this to the resident.
It is noted that on 17 June 2022 the landlord introduced an ‘interim’ complaints policy which increased its response timeframes to 20 working days for stage one complaints and 40 working days for stage two complaints. The interim policy remains in place at the date of this report according to the landlord’s website.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that where a resident has no supply of cold water, compensation will be “Calculated weekly rent divided by 7 x no. of days without water (after first 24 hours)”. Where the resident has no access to sanitation, the landlord “may offer an amount equal to 100% of the rent”.

Summary of events

The sign-up document signed by the resident on 27 May 2020 contains a note on the property condition assessment section stating, “window…front door”. No other information is contained on what the issue was with its condition.
On 20 July 2020 the resident made a formal complaint. Most of the issues within the complaint have been determined to be outside jurisdiction as detailed earlier in this report. However, the resident also raised within this complaint that she had been advised when she moved into the property that the windows and door would be replaced but this had not yet been done.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response to the resident on 29 October 2020. The response also stated that the windows and doors in the property were due for replacement “in this financial year”.
On 25 April 2021 the landlord’s repairs log shows that the resident reported that the bedroom window was missing a closing handle and she had no cold-water supply to the upstairs of the property.
Repair records demonstrate that between 25 April 2021 and 17 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord on four occasions to report loss of cold-water to the upstairs in the property, and on a further five occasions to report no cold-water at all throughout the property. The resident reported that she was unable to flush her toilet, use the shower, or at times access drinking water. Repair records show that the loss of cold-water was caused by a suspected air lock and that landlord operatives attended on a number of occasions and carried out temporary repairs but the landlord did not fully resolve the issue until 17 June 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 June 2021 stating she wished to make a formal complaint because:
1. When she viewed the property prior to moving in she had pointed out the following repair issues with the windows and doors:
  1. windows and external door were in poor condition
  2. the upstairs windows did not allow escape in case of a fire
  3. the front door did not provide sufficient security as the glass panels were broken and flimsy.
2. She had been advised by the planned investment team that the windows and doors would be replaced during cyclical works in 2020/21 but this had not been done.
3. She had been reporting for nearly six weeks that she was having issues with the cold-water supply.
4. The issue had escalated and she now had no water at all upstairs so could not shower or use the toilet. The landlord had advised her to fill a bucket from downstairs but she had “a registered mental health disability which inhibits me from doing such on a regular basis numerous times throughout the day just to bathe and use the toilet”.
5. Operatives had attended on numerous occasions for emergency repairs but these only provided a temporary fix which lasted around four to five hours.
A note on the landlord’s repair log on 11 June 2021 ordered that a “water drop” (supply of bottled water) be arranged but records do not confirm that this was provided. Internal landlord emails from September 2021 state that the water drop was not made as the issue had been “resolved”.
On 15 June 2021 the resident again emailed the landlord stating that she wanted to make a formal complaint as she had had no drinking water or working toilet at the property for over a month.
The landlord responded to the resident on 24 June 2021. It stated that its records showed that the issue regarding lack of water supply had been resolved on 17 June 2021 and that the resident had been contacted by a surveyor regarding the windows on 18 June 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 June 2021 stating that she wished to raise a formal complaint. She said that whilst her water supply issues had been resolved she still felt she should be compensated for the month she was impacted. She also felt that her front door required replacement as it did not provide sufficient security, and that the replacement windows should be egress windows. The landlord replied on 30 June 2021 to advise that the complaint had been passed to an area manager who would respond within five working days. This Service has not seen any response from a manager to this email.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 July 2021. She stated that when she moved into the property in June 2020, she had been advised that the windows and doors were due for replacement and asked:
1. Why the windows and doors had not been replaced.
2. Why she had been advised by the landlord’s contractor that the door had been removed from the replacement programme.
3. Why the landlord was proposing to replace the windows like for like when they did not meet fire regulations. They should be replaced with egress windows.
On 16 September 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. She stated that she had raised complaints with the landlord over the previous months regarding repair issues with the property but that her complaints had “gone unanswered and ignored”. Her complaints related to:
1. No water supply – In May 2021 she reported that she had no water supply to the property for over a month. She reported this to the landlord numerous times and the landlord attended but did not resolve the issue and she was left without drinking water or a working toilet. The resident stated she had to buy water from the shops to flush her toilet, and bathe at friends and family’s houses.
2. Broken windows – When she viewed the property prior to moving in June 2020 she advised the housing officer that the glass in the front door and surrounding the front door would need replacing as it was broken. She had also pointed out that the window in the bedroom did not close due to damage from the previous tenant and from being swollen from water damage and it needed replacing. She was advised that the windows and door were due to be replaced on the 2020/21 planned works programme but they had not yet been replaced despite posing a security risk.
3. No means of escape from upstairs – The windows in the upstairs of the property did not provide a means of escape in case of a fire. The landlord was legally required to install egress windows.
4. Damage to roof times and the chimney – slate and debris had fallen from the roof and chimney blocking the guttering and could have caused an injury.
The landlord logged a formal complaint for the resident on 17 September 2021 regarding:
1. roof slate and cement which had come loose and was blocking the guttering
2. loss of water supply
3. window replacement.
On 19 October 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response. This stated:
1. The repair log showed that the fallen slate and cement had been raised as a repair on 7 September 2021 and marked as completed on 8 October 2021 with the slate refixed, concrete renewed, guttering washed and downpipe re-fixed.
2. The windows and door were inspected in December 2020, the windows were confirmed for renewal but the door was in reasonable condition.
3. The windows were due to be manufactured and “indicative timescales” would be requested from the contractor.
4. Planning permission had already been obtained.
5. The resident had reported loss of water on 4 May 2021 due to an air lock, the repair notes stated that there was “limited water supply to the bathroom and bath, however issues with the rest of the property”. Repair notes in June stated there was water in the kitchen but not in the rest of the property and there was total loss of water from 9 June 2021 to 11 June 2021, and 15 June 2021 to 17 June 2021.
6. Repairs operatives attended on “repeated visits”, there was “loss of water for five days” where the resident had no alternative water supply.
7. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £167.20 comprising:
  1. £92.20 for loss of water for five days
  2. £50 for repair delays
  3. £25 for complaint handling delays.
The landlord logged a further stage one complaint for the resident on 1 November 2021 regarding:
1. Broken front door glass, damaged wooden frame and key lock box
2. Window requiring replacement
3. Damage to the parapet wall on the roof.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 16 November 2021 regarding her complaint. The resident stated that before she moved into the property, she was told by the landlord that the front door would be replaced that financial year. She said the landlord had “refused” to replace the broken glass in the door as the whole door was due to be replaced. The resident advised that a contractor had attended to fit a uPVC door but had been unable to do so as the frame was wood, they then returned and said the landlord had now advised it that it would not be replacing the door. The resident said that the landlord kept giving contradictory information, communication was poor, and she was not being given clear answers.
On 3 December 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident acknowledging her complaint. In its email the landlord stated, “I have been advised that the door does not require replacing, however can be painted”. The resident replied on the same day and asked that the landlord telephone her as it had misunderstood her complaint. She stated, “This is getting very…frustrating as I feel I’m repeating the same thing…and not being heard…I’m sick of being contacted…regarding the same thing but with no clear answers as to the actual issues I have raised.”

The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 9 December 2021. The response letter stated:
1. The resident had complained that the landlord had provided incorrect information in its response to her previous complaint, namely:
  1. The roofing works were not completed on 8 October 2021
  2. The front door was not in good condition and the landlord’s contractor had advised it was going to be replaced.
2. The resident had been incorrectly advised by the contractor that a new door would be installed. The planned investment team advised that the door is not due for replacement and this was relayed to the resident on 25 November 2021.
3. The windows would be installed the week commencing 12 December 2021.
4. Minor repairs were carried out to the roof on 6 October 2021 and confirmed by the contractor on 8 October 2021, no further repairs to the roof were required. Some pointing repairs were required to the parapet wall on the roof and this would commence 20 December 2021.
5. The landlord acknowledged a service failure for misinformation regarding the door replacement, apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation:
  1. £50 for giving incorrect information
  2. £50 for a delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 December 2021 following receipt of its complaint response. She stated:
1. The landlord’s response was “ill informed, inaccurate and outright insulting” and that it contained “numerous purposeful lies and fabrications”.
2. Its complaint response was dated 9 December 2021 but was not sent to her until 16 December 2021 by email.
3. She had been told by the tenancy officer on 28 May 2020 when she was given the keys to the property that the door and windows would be replaced on the 2020/21 planned investment programme.
4. She had been advising the landlord for 18 months that the windows needed to be replaced with egress windows, not like for like. The landlord had told her this was incorrect and had spoken to her like she was a “stupid child”. After 12 months the landlord had acknowledged they were wrong and confirmed the property did require egress windows due to fire safety legislation. Despite this the landlord installed like for like replacement windows on 31 December 2021, they were not egress windows and therefore were unsuitable. This failing had not been addressed in the landlord’s response letter.
5. The resident stated that she felt that the landlord had treated her as if she was stupid because she was a social housing tenant.
6. The landlord was ‘gaslighting’ the resident by stating that the door was never due to be replaced and had blamed its contractor for giving her incorrect advice. It had been the landlord and not the contractor that had advised her that the door would be replaced.
7. The landlord incorrectly ordered UPVC windows which then could not be installed as planning required them to be timber.
8. The door had been measured four times but had not been replaced. On one occasion the contractor attending with a UPVC door despite the frame being timber.
9. She rejected the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation and requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaint process. She wanted the following resolutions:
  1. An apology
  1. Egress windows to be installed
  2. Her front door to be replaced
  3. Financial compensation
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 January 2022 to acknowledge receipt of her request that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaint process.
Internal landlord emails of 23 January 2022 show that the landlord’s stage one complaint response letter dated 9 December 2021 had been sent by mistake to another resident. The emails state that the landlord needed to apologise to the resident, “check with DPA and confirm what actions have been taken as we need to re-assure customer about her data”.
On 27 January 2022 the landlord provided its final complaint response letter. In the letter the landlord:
1. Confirmed that the front door had been due for replacement and apologised for the recent “miscommunication” which had refuted the planned replacement.
2. Acknowledged that the resident had considered its miscommunication to be “intentionally dishonest” however this was not its intention and it apologised.
3. Whilst the door was on a programme of works, its condition would still need to be reviewed. This was not made clear in the landlord’s stage two complaint response which had indicated that the door would be replaced. The landlord apologised “for the understandable confusion caused”.
4. Surveys carried out in October 2021 and December 2021 by the contractor and landlord deemed that renewal was not required as the condition of the door was satisfactory and there was no suggestion the door was “not secure and/or poses a security risk”. The contractor would replace the damaged pane of glass.
5. The windows were replaced like for like which was “approved by planning and…compliant with all current safety regulations”. The landlord found a “clear lack of internal communication between teams” which had resulted in contradictory information being given to the resident. It had located emails demonstrating that the resident had been told that egress windows would be fitted but this was not communicated to the contractor or the rest of the team. The landlord would review the windows and consider whether it could install egress windows.
6. The landlord had addressed the matter of conduct with the two staff members who the resident had complained about and apologised if either had been “dismissive or unprofessional…This was not intentional”. The landlord was carrying out an internal review and was unable to share any further information about this but would provide any necessary training and guidance to the staff members about best practice.
7. The landlord’s complaint response dated 9 December 2021 had been sent to an incorrect email address and therefore was re-sent to the correct email address on 16 December. This was not a deliberate attempt to mislead and should have been clarified at the time.
8. It acknowledged that there were discrepancies between the landlord’s stage one complaint and this final response. This was due to miscommunication between teams which resulted in some information provided being “not entirely accurate”.
9. The landlord offered the resident £975 compensation comprising:
  1. £25 for the delay in its stage two complaint response
  2. £100 offered at stage one
  3. £700 “discretionary compensation for window and door repairs” due to “having to repeatedly chase responses…repeated failure to meaningfully engage… failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint…misdirection – incorrect and/or contradicting information being provided”
  4. £150 for complaint handling.
Internal landlord emails of 9 February 2022 show that the landlord had obtained quotes to replace the stained glass surrounding the front door and to replace a cracked glass pane in the door itself.
An order form demonstrates that new windows were ordered on 28 March 2022. On 31 March 2022 the landlord’s planned investment team stating that its contractor had confirmed that the egress windows it was due to install would match the existing windows in the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2022 and asked that it replace her front door rather than just replacing the stained-glass panel that surrounded it. She stated that the was bowed and caused a “severe draft” and security issues due to it not closing properly. The resident stated that the heat loss from the door was leading to extremely high utility bills and proposed that she pay the different between the cost of the replacement of the stained glass and the full cost of a new door.
The landlord responded to this email on 5 May 2022 apologising for the delay in providing the resident “with an update regarding your request to purchase a new front entry door and for [the landlord] to have the door installed”. The landlord stated that as the door was in good condition and did not require renewal, the landlord would not pay for a new door or install one. The resident would need to request permission from the landlord if she wished to replace the door herself. The landlord had however previously agreed to replace the stained glass around the door.
The resident replied to the landlord on 5 May 2022 stating that the door was bowed, insecure, and let in a severe draft and that its replacement had been agreed prior to her moving into the property so could not be described as being in good condition.
On 12 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and said that the stained glass for the side of the front door was being manufactured and would be on site in two to three weeks. The egress windows were due for delivery in four to six weeks. The email stated that the contractor and surveyor who had visited the property both stated that the front door was in good condition and did not need replacing.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 May 2022. She requested that the landlord provide reports relating to inspections of her property. The resident stated that it was unreasonable that the repairs to her windows and door had been outstanding for two years as the works impacted on the security and fire risk of the property. She said that the landlord had left a disabled tenant in a property that they could not escape in case of a fire due to no egress windows being in place on the upper floor and the front door being bowed.
On 16 May 2022 the landlord’s planned investment team emailed the resident to state that its contactor had attended in Autumn 2021 and reported that the resident’s front door was “a solid door in good condition” and that the surveyor had stated it did not need replacing.
The resident replied to the landlord on 16 May 2022 and stated that the contractor could not have stated that the front door was in good working order as “they advised on both visits the door is bowed due to water damage…it does not fully close…which results in the serious draft from the front door”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 May 2022 advising that she wished to make a formal complaint. She stated:
1. In December 2021 the wrong windows were fitted to the property.
2. The front door had not been replaced as promised, and the broken stained glass which surrounded the door was not repaired or replaced. The landlord had been aware of these issues since June 2020.
3. The property did not meet fire safety or security requirements due to the repair issues with the front door.
4. Her daughter was disabled and the repair issues put the lives of the resident and her daughter at risk.
On 9 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update to the planned investment works to replace two egress windows in the property. The landlord said that works would take one or two days to complete. The landlord noted that scaffolding was already up at the property due to roofing works and further scaffolding would be installed at the rear of the property. It would contact the resident when it was able to confirm installation dates.
Internal landlord emails of 14 June 2022 demonstrate that it had tried to arrange to erect scaffolding to enable it to install the windows but the resident had advised this was not possible as she was replacing her bathroom and the old suite was in her front garden.
The landlord’s repair records show that egress windows were installed in July 2022.
The resident has advised this Service that as a result of the landlord’s delays in replacing her windows and door she has felt “extremely fearful” that she would be unable to escape the property in case of a fire and that someone could break into her property. She stated that her mental health conditions have been exacerbated leaving her feeling “scared, fearful, unsafe, anxious, on edge and hyper alert all the time”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of loss of water supply to the property

The resident first reported issues with the water supply on 25 April 2021 when she described loss of water to the upstairs of the property.
On 7 May 2021 the resident reported total loss of water to the property. She went on to report total loss of water on four occasions and loss of water to either the upstairs or downstairs of the property on further four occasions over a period of over seven weeks.
The resident has referenced the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 within her communications with the landlord. The resident rightly points out that defects found with the water supply and sanitary convenience are described by the act. However, this Service considers that the loss of water did not make the property unsuitable for occupation as ordinary use of the property did not mean that the resident might be injured or experience injury to her health. Therefore there was not a category one hazard.
Even so, this Service considers that evident detriment was caused to the resident as she was unable to access water freely to drink, bathe, and use the toilet and she should have been able to do.
Operatives attended the property on at least nine occasions to attempt to resolve the loss of water. It is acknowledged that sometimes repeated attendance is required to diagnose and resolve repair issues, it was unreasonable however that it took the landlord 53 days to resolve an air lock which limited to resident’s access to water to drink and bathe.
Although there was one mention within the repairs log of a “water drop”, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord arranged for a supply of drinking water to be provided to the resident. This was a missed opportunity to provide support to the resident and demonstrate a desire to lessen the impact on her and her family and was a failing.
The landlord stated in its stage one complaint response of 19 October 2021 that the resident experienced total loss of water supply for a period of five days and therefore offered her compensation of £92.20 for this period.
The landlord offered no redress for the occasions where the resident’s access to water to drink, bathe, and have full use the toilet despite the clear distress and inconvenience the resident described. This was not reasonable.
This Service does not consider that the compensation offered to the resident provided reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience of being without any water supply for five days, with limited supply for a further four days, and with intermittent and erratic supply for a period spanning more than seven weeks. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of loss of water supply and an order for further compensation has been made.
This Service considers that the landlord should pay the resident further compensation of £240 for intermittent water supply for a period of 53 days. This has been calculated at 50% rent for four days, plus 25% rent for 44 days. No additional compensation has been ordered for the five days when the resident had total loss of water as a full rent rebate of £92.20 was offered.

The landlord’s handling of replacing the windows in the property

Whilst the Building Regulations 2010 state that bedrooms should have windows that allow emergency escape, this applies to newly built properties. Government technical advice however advises that, whilst not a legal requirement, best practice is for first floor windows to allow for egress in case of fire.
The landlord’s fire safety policy states that it will maintain its properties “in accordance with current standards and recognised best practice” and therefore it is reasonable to expect that, when replacing first floor windows, the landlord would install egress windows.
The resident was advised in a complaint response letter from the landlord in September 2020 that the windows would be replaced that financial year. The resident continued to chase up their replacement and in October 2021 she was advised that the windows would be replaced in December 2021. In December 2021 the landlord did replace the windows but did so with like for like units rather than egress windows as had been agreed with the resident. The egress windows were finally installed in July 2022.
In this case, the landlord has acknowledged failings in its handling of replacing the resident’s windows and offered compensation. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord, in its final complaint response of 27 January 2022, offered the resident £700 to compensate for failures in both the “window and door repairs”. As the landlord did not provide any further detail, this Service considers that half of this amount, £350, was to compensate the resident for the issues with the windows.
The compensation payment was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which suggests that payments of between £250 and £700 in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration which did not cause permanent detriment to the resident. As examples of when this level of redress should be considered, the guidance suggests:
1. misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information
2. a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
In summary, the landlord was not legally obliged to install egress windows, however as its policy stated that it would adhere to best practice, it is right that it did so. It took the landlord two years to replace the windows with egress windows and due to delays and poor communication the landlord had to replace the windows twice. However, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised and made payment compensation which was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the decision of whether it would replace the front entrance door to the property

It is important to note that the resident reports being the victim of serious crime and antisocial behaviour in her previous tenancy. The landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns as it was the landlord of her previous tenancy and moved her to her current property in part due to her experiences there. This is relevant as the resident’s experiences could not but have heightened her concerns regarding her safety and security in her current property.
This Service is not an expert in all areas of repair and cannot with certainty determine, based on photographs and the conflicting accounts of the resident and landlord, whether the front entry door was fit for purpose or in need of total replacement.
This Service can however consider whether the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the matter and its consideration of her concerns was reasonable.
As referred to above, the landlord has offered the resident compensation of £700 for issues relating to the windows and door. This Service considers, in the absence of any detailed breakdown by the landlord, that £350 of this compensation was for issues relating to the front door.
Given the specific concerns expressed by the resident regarding safety and security, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to consider why she had such concerns. Had it done so, the landlord would have understood that the resident’s fears were related to her lived experiences of victimisation. The landlord could then have considered referring the resident to specialist support providers who may have been able to reassure her by fitting things like panic alarms or target hardening measures.
Overall, the landlord provided the resident with conflicting advice regarding whether her door would be replaced on a number of occasions. This miscommunication served to erode the resident’s trust in the landlord and understandably raised her concern that she was being lied to. Therefore, this investigation finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of, and communication relating to, the front door replacement.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Whilst not introduced until after the timeframe of the resident’s complaint, it is of concern that the landlord has in place an ‘interim’ complaint policy that effectively doubles its timeframes for responding to complaints. The interim policy was introduced in July 2022 and according to the landlord’s website remains in effect. This Service appreciates that the interim policy was put in place after the landlord fell victim to a serious cyber-attack however over a year has passed and such a longstanding policy cannot realistically be described as ‘interim’. A recommendation has been made in relation to this issue.
The resident first made a formal complaint regarding the outstanding replacement of the windows and doors in the property in July 2020. The landlord’s response in September 2020 confirmed that the windows and doors would be replaced that financial year.
In June 2021 the resident made a further formal complaint relating to loss of water supply as well as delays in the replacement of her windows and door. The resident was forced to chase the landlord for a response on three occasions before it formally logged her complaint in September 2021, three months after it was raised. This was a failure and caused the resident to feel frustrated and ignored.
The landlord’s formal complaint response in October 2021 was provided 22 working days after the landlord logged the complaint and more than four months after the resident raised the complaint. This unreasonably delayed the resident’s access to this Service and required the resident to have to invest an unreasonable amount of time and effort to produce a response from the landlord.
In November 2021 the resident raised another formal complaint about the replacement windows and door as well as a new issue relating to a roof repair. The landlord treated this as a new stage one complaint. This was incorrect, as the complaint was in large about the same matter as the previous complaint, the landlord should have dealt with this as an escalation request and provided a stage two response. The landlord’s failure to do again unreasonably delayed the resident’s access to this Service.
Following the resident’s November 2021 complaint it took the landlord two weeks to contact the resident and a further two weeks to formally acknowledge the complaint. The landlord also failed to fully understand the resident’s substantive complaint and this caused her to feel that she was “not being heard”. This caused the resident distress and time and trouble in trying to make herself understood.
The landlord’s December 2021 stage one complaint response was sent almost two weeks outside the timeframes of the landlord’s own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This was not reasonable as it further delayed the resident’s access to this Service.
It is of significant concern to this Service that, despite identifying a breach of General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) when it sent a complaint response intended for the resident to another tenant, no evidence has been seen that the landlord:
1. made the resident fully aware of the GDPR breach
2. apologised for the breach
3. reported the breach to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).
Matters pertaining to data protection fall within the remit of the ICO and therefore whether the landlord breached GDPR is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Such matters are better suited to the legal process and the resident should seek her own legal advice about this. The resident is also able to contact the ICO for further advice and guidance regarding data protection issues.
The landlord failed, for a period of 18 months, to adhere to its own complaints policy or the Code and in doing so it caused the resident time and trouble and delayed her right to appeal. The resident felt frustration that the landlord failed to understand her complaint which left her feeling unheard and this significant failing amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of loss of water supply to the property
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of replacing the windows in the property;
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decision of whether it would replace the front entrance door to the property;
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (a) of the Scheme the following complaints are outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman:
1. The landlord’s handling of a complaint relating to the resident’s previous tenancy;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of its contractor causing damage to the property during planned works and leaving aspects of the work unfinished.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide proportionate compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience the resident experienced when she suffered a total loss of water supply for five days, limited supply for a further four days, and intermittent supply for a period spanning more than seven weeks.
This Service does not consider that the compensation offered to the resident provided reasonable redress for the Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of loss of water supply and an order for further compensation has been made.
The landlord acted properly by installing egress windows as its policy stated that it would adhere to best practice. It took the landlord two years to install the egress windows however, it acknowledged its failings, apologised and made payment compensation which was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
The landlord, on a number of occasions, provided conflicting information regarding whether the door would be replaced. This miscommunication damaged the resident’s trust in the landlord caused her to feel that she was being lied to which caused her distress.
The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy or the Code and failed to properly understand the resident’s complaint. These failings caused the resident time and trouble, delayed her right to appeal, and caused her to feel distressed and unheard.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £590 comprising:
1. £240 for interruptions to her water supply;
2. £350 for complaint handling failures.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident the £975 it previously offered to her in its stage two complaint response on 27 January 2022. Evidence of payment should be provided within four weeks of this report.
If it has not done so within the last six months, the landlord is ordered to instruct an independent survey of the front entry door to the property to determine whether it is fit for purpose and provides adequate security and energy efficiency. The landlord should provide a copy of the survey to this Service within four weeks along with details of its intentions regarding the door’s replacement or refurbishment.
Within four weeks of this report the landlord to discuss security concerns with the resident and refer her for additional support if required eg target hardening, panic alarm, intruder alarm etc.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its interim complaint policy and is strongly urged to bring its timescales in line with those specified in the Code. The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to this recommendation within six weeks of the date of this report.