Clarion Housing Association Limited (202204839)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204839

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 October 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:

a)     The resident’s report of a neighbour’s caravan being parked on the landlord’s property.

b)     The associated complaint.

Background.

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
  2. The landlord had historically requested that the resident remove her caravan from land at the back of her property, which was owned by the landlord and did not form part of the resident’s property. The resident adhered to this and removed the caravan. Following this, a private owner had put his caravan on this same bit of land, which was situated at the end of the resident’s garden, beyond the resident’s fence. The resident advised this had been raised with the landlord for 10 years and there had been no progress in this caravan being removed.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 September, 3 August 2021, and 9 August 2021 regarding the neighbour’s caravan. She said she had been advised the neighbour’s caravan would be removed from the area of land to the rear of her property, which she believed the landlord owned. The landlord advised the resident that it had issued the private owner with a 28-day notice letter to remove the caravan, which expired on 30 July 2021. The landlord said it was seeking legal advice on how to progress this.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 20 October 2021 advising that she had reported this issue for 10 years and the landlord had not reasonably progressed this matter. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident on 19 November 2021 advising that it had previously written to the private owner telling them they had until 31 July 2021 to remove the caravan, or the landlord would seek further enforcement action. The landlord confirmed this matter sat with its legal team and was currently progressing, with updates being provided where possible. It offered the resident £100 compensation for poor communication through this process.
  5. The landlord’s internal communication on 10 August 2021 and 9 September 2021 show that it was in conversation with its legal team on how to reasonably progress this matter as the private owner had not removed the caravan from the disputed area, as well as continuing to engage with the private owner to attempt to resolve this matter prior to any legal action taking place, to ensure it had considered all options available.
  6. The resident raised a further formal complaint with the landlord on 12 January 2022 advising she had been told legal letters had been issued to the private owner, but the caravan was still there. The resident was seeking that the caravan be removed from the land, with an apology and compensation for the length of time this matter had been ongoing.
  7. The landlord responded to this on 25 January 2022. The landlord confirmed that it was taking the matter seriously but as this is a legal matter, and due to GDPR, there was only so much information that it could share with the resident, but it did clarify that there was a dispute over the ownership of the land. This was confirmed via phone call on the same day. The resident escalated this to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process, although it is unclear what date this request was made, and how the resident requested this escalation.
  8. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response to the resident on 24 February 2022. The landlord found the following:

a)     The landlord had received complex information from the land registry regarding the ownership of the land. Due to the complexity it needed to carry out further investigations with the land registry.

b)     It had provided the resident with further updates following her stage one complaint and had maintained regular communication.

c)     As it was pursuing legal action and working through land registry queries, it would provide updates where possible, but the information would be limited due to GDPR.

d)     It had sent a 28-day warning letter to the neighbouring resident to remove the caravan, but the neighbour had failed to do this.

e)     Before legal action could proceed, it needed to demonstrate that it had attempted to resolve the matter using informal actions to resolve the issue, which can take time if there is a dispute.

f)       There had been avoidable delay in issuing a letter of proposed legal action to the private owner, but this did not affect the landlord’s stance or the action it was taking, or the complexity of the issue.

g)     The landlord was proactively investigating this, but it was unable to confirm a timescale for the matter to be resolved. The landlord offered further compensation to the resident of £100 for the delay in issuing the private owner with a notice of its intent to start legal action.

  1. Between the 11 November 2022 and 3 May 2023, the resident chased the landlord for an update on the progress of the legal action it was taking against the neighbour. The landlord had provided responses to the resident, although this was to advise it was seeking further updates from the legal team.
  2. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this matter, and the length of time she had reported this issue to the landlord. The resident had expressed to the landlord that she does not believe it was being transparent in the information that is being shared to her and it was using GDPR as an excuse not to provide her with information. The resident is seeking the caravan to be moved from the land and to be compensated for the length of time this matter had been ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident had reported that the landlord requested that her caravan was moved from this land 15 years ago. She has said the private owner parked his caravan on this same land 10 years ago. The resident had advised this had been reported to the landlord at the time. However, there is no indication that the resident made a formal complaint about this prior to 20 October 2021. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of these matters arising. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, although the historic events give context to the more recent issues, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the neighbour’s caravan which she raised in 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a neighbour’s caravan being parked on the landlord’s property.

  1. The landlord had engaged with the private owner to have the caravan removed, with the private owner refusing to move the caravan, disputing the ownership of the land. The landlord had correctly advised the resident that it was in the process of seeking legal action against this private owner but would continue to liaise with them in order to try and resolve this outside of court in an informal manner. In order to succeed in legal action, the landlord would be expected to show the court that it had been thorough in its attempts to resolve this issue informally, with legal action being the final option. While the resident remained dissatisfied with the length of time this matter was taking to resolve, the landlord had been clear that it would not be able to provide the resident with any timescales on this matter being resolved. This was due to the case being passed to its legal team to further progress.
  2. This Service accepts that where there is legal action, timescales may be beyond the landlord’s control as there can be multiple parties involved with the landlord needing to wait for information from others before taking action. While the landlord had advised the resident that it would be limited to what information it could share due to GDPR, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to explain why this limited its ability to share information with the resident. This may have given the resident a better understanding of the landlord’s position in relation to information sharing, rather than the resident’s feeling that the landlord was using this as an excuse. However, ultimately the landlord was correct in saying that it could not provide detailed information about the ongoing legal dispute to the resident because it concerned other people’s personal information which the landlord was obliged to keep confidential.
  3. The landlord had explained the complexity of aspects of this case including a dispute over the ownership of the land and poor quality of information provided by the land registry which the landlord had advised it was continuing to investigate. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord had reasonably considered the potential outcomes of pursuing legal action, and the importance of ensuring that it had a strong case to present in court. It is clear that the landlord had wanted to ensure it was confident over the land ownership before progressing with any further action.
  4. While there is evidence that the landlord had maintained reasonable communication with the resident prior to the stage two complaint response, there is no indication that the landlord had maintained its agreed level of contact with the resident following the stage two complaint response. This was a missed opportunity from the landlord to maintain a level of trust with the resident regarding its handling of this complaint.
  5. The landlord had advised the resident in its communication between 11 November 2022 and 5 May 2023 that it was waiting for further update from the legal team regarding this matter. On each occasion, the resident had to contact the landlord to chase an update, advising that the landlord had not kept in regular communication with her. There are clearly periods where the landlord did not have updates to provide to the resident. The landlord should have communicated this to the resident or considered amending the frequency of the regular updates that were provided to the resident to manage her expectations. It is not reasonable for the landlord to repeatedly advise the resident that it was waiting for updates from the legal team, and not evidence this was proactively being pursued. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain when it last chased its legal team for an update and when the resident could expect further update from the landlord. This caused inconvenience to the resident, and it was right that the landlord offered compensation in view of this.
  6. The landlord offered the resident a total of £200 compensation during the complaints process. This was made up of:

a)     £100 for the delay in issuing the private owner with a notice of pending legal action,

b)     £50 for poor communication.

c)     £50 for the resident having to chase the landlord for updates.

  1. This offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. compensation in this range is appropriate when there has been a minor failure from the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge this failure and/or fully put it right. This offer would have amounted to reasonable redress from the landlord, however, following the stage two complaint, there is further evidence of poor communication from the landlord. It had failed to provide resident with regular updates. As a result of this, there is a finding of service failure by the landlord. The landlord should offer a further £100 compensation to the resident in view of this.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. At the time of this complaint, the landlord’s complaints process was a two-stage process. At the first stage of this process, when the landlord is unable to resolve a query, a formal complaint is recorded and will be investigated. The second stage is ‘peer review’ when a customer has requested that their complaint be reviewed, with the resident advising why this should be considered and their desired outcome. At the time of this complaint, the landlord’s complaint’s handling policy did not have timescales for complaint responses. The landlord updated this complaints process on 17 June 2022 to be brought in line with this Service’s published complaint handling code (the code) The complaint handling code was published in July 2020, and sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly.
  2. The code advises that landlord’s complaints procedure shall include the following maximum timescales for response:

a)     Logging and acknowledgement of complaint – 5 working days.

b)     Stage one decision – 10 working days from the receipt of the complaint. If this is not possible, the landlord should provide an explanation and a date by when the resident should receive the stage one response. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.

c)     Stage two response – 20 working days from request to escalate. If this is not possible, the landlord should provide an explanation and a date by when the resident should receive the stage one response. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.

  1. The resident logged her formal complaint with the landlord on 20 October 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this complaint at the point of the complaint being raised. The landlord provided a complaint response to the resident on 19 November 2022. This was 22 working days after the resident had raised her complaint. This was outside of the maximum timescale as set out in the code and represents an unreasonable delay which would have caused some degree of inconvenience to the resident. However, the overall delay was not excessive.
  2. The resident raised further complaint to the landlord on 13 January 2022 regarding the ongoing issue with the neighbour’s caravan. The landlord failed to acknowledge this complaint within 5 working days. The landlord provided a further stage one complaint response with issued on 25 January 2022, 8 working days after the resident submitted the complaint. The landlord had provided a complaint response within acceptable timescales. However, as the resident was raising further complaint regarding the same matter, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have logged this as a stage two complaint, as the matters raised had not been resolved from the landlord’s stage one complaint response. The landlord’s decision to log this as a stage one complaint caused further delay, and ultimately delayed the resident’s ability to bring her complaint to this Service. This was unreasonable from the landlord.
  3. The landlord provided the resident with a stage two complaint response on 25 February 2022 advising this had been raised following a discussion with the resident on 22 February 2022. While it was likely that this was the date the complaint was escalated, it is unclear from the evidence provided the nature of this discussion, which would indicate a record keeping issue from the landlord. The landlord provided the resident with a stage two complaint response within 3 working days, which was within an acceptable timeframe as set out by the code.
  4. While the landlord should have issued a stage two complaint response rather than a further stage one complaint response on 25 January 2022, it had responded to the resident’s complaints within a reasonable timescale as set out by the code. While this did cause some delay in the resident being able to bring her complaint to this Service, this was a minor delay. Due to this, there is a finding of no maladministration for the landlord’s overall complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the report of a caravan being parked on the landlord’s land.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £300 compensation broken down as the following:

a)     £100 for the landlord failing to maintain regular communication with the resident as agreed in its stage two complaint response.

b)     £200 offered by the landlord as part of the stage one and stage two complaint responses. This should be deducted from the total if this had already been paid to the resident.

  1. The landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for the failing to provide the resident with updates regarding this matter.
  2. A copy of this letter should be shared with this service.
  3. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to provide the resident with an arranged quarterly update regarding the progress with any legal action.