Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212254)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212254

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for:
    1. A repair to a brick wall.
    2. Other repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 4 May 1998. The landlord reports that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, its repair logs note that the resident was recovering from cancer in November 2020.
  2. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. At the time of the complaint there was a brick wall on the boundary in the rear garden of the resident’s property. It divided the garden from the neighbouring property which was owned by the local authority.
  3. On 20 July 2020 the landlord raised a works order to make safe the brick wall which had fallen into the neighbour’s garden. However, the local authority made safe on the same day and the landlord’s inspection took place on 4 August. The resident chased the landlord regarding works in September 2020, January, February, April and September 2021. It is unclear when the wall was repaired.
  4. On 21 May 2021 the landlord raised a works order to repair bathroom tiles which were “coming away from the wall.” A works order was raised on 25 April 2022 to regrout the tiles. A further works order was raised for a tiler to make the bathroom watertight on 6 September. A number of further works orders were also raised on 6 September including repairs to a kitchen unit under the sink, a bathroom unit and window. The landlord asserted that these repairs were completed on 28 September.
  5. On 4 September 2020 the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the delays in repairing the brick wall.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response (A) on 8 December 2020, as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay in replacing the wall. It said it was a lengthy process because it had to appoint a party wall surveyor to act on its behalf and to liaise with the local authority.
    2. It had offered to erect a temporary plastic barrier which the resident had declined.
    3. Having experienced a lack of response from the local authority it contacted its party wall surveyor directly.
    4. Consequently, an agreement had been reached whereby it would provide the local authority with a quote to rebuild the wall and to replace it with a fence.
    5. It would carry out works once it had an agreement on costs and materials with the local authority.
    6. There had not been a service failure but it was sorry for its late complaint response. It therefore arranged for £50 to be credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.
  7. It is unclear when the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. However, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response (B) on 20 January 2022, as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay in its response.
    2. It acknowledged that the resident has been chasing the repair since July 2020.
    3. Its surveyor was not made aware of the situation until October 2020 which it said it “could only attribute to an administrative oversight.” Once they were made aware the repair was not progressed quickly and the resident continued to chase.
    4. Apart from inspections in 2020 and July 2021 there was no evidence that it had updated the resident (including revised response times Covid-19) for which it apologised. It said “we did not respond to you in a timely manner and you were left chasing responses from us.”
    5. Its complaint response of 8 December indicated that the resident refused its offer of temporary fencing. However, it could see from photos taken by its surveyor that this had already been fitted by the local authority to their side of the damaged wall prior to October 2020 when its surveyor visited.
    6. There were further delays because ownership of the wall needed to be determined and delays were compounded by it not acknowledging the updates it received from local authority.
    7. The local authority installed temporary fencing which separated the 2 gardens so the resident could still use it, although it acknowledged that the wall was unsightly.
    8. It attended on 26 January 2022 to specify and quote for replacement fence as per the resident’s request, subject to local authorities’ agreement. It expected to receive costings by 31 January and would then liaise with the local authority to discuss the proposal. Its surveyor would provide fortnightly updates until the issue was resolved.
    9. It had not updated or progressed the repair “as it would have expected.”
    10. On 12 January 2022 it held a training session with all relevant surveyors to remind them of expectations in managing repairs.
    11. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience. It offered £450 compensation comprised of:
      1. £50 for delay in issuing its complaint response.
      2. £200 for inconvenience, time & trouble.
      3. £200 for its lack of communication.
  8. The resident went onto seek the assistance of this Service in relation to the garden wall and a number of additional repairs. We wrote to the landlord on 8 September 2022 to ask that it provide a stage 1 complaint response in relation to repairs to the:
    1. Garden wall.
    2. Unit under the sink.
    3. Hallway window.
    4. Bathroom including a unit and tiling.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response (C) on 7 October 2022. It apologised for the delay in providing its response and confirmed that all the repairs were completed on 28 September. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in providing its complaint response.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 October 2022 to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. This was because the surveyor had failed to contact her regarding the garden wall and she felt the offer of compensation was too low.
  11. On 23 November 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response (D) as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay in its response.
    2. It agreed that there were outstanding repairs to the kitchen unit door and drawer front. This was because it could not match the colour and the colour it offered was initially refused by the resident. However, she later agreed it could proceed on the closest possible colour match.
    3. It attended on 9 November and arranged to reattend with its surveyor on 15 November to complete the repair. However, the surveyor did not attend due to an emergency elsewhere.
    4. It attended on 17 November to replace the cupboard door and drawer front. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the colour. In the alternative the resident asked it to seal the damaged area of the door and drawer front which it did. It concluded there was no service failure and the complaint was not upheld.
    5. It confirmed further works were required in the garden and agreed it had not kept the resident informed of repairs since June 2022.
    6. Its surveyor booked an appointment to inspect the external wall on 21 November. They were running late so missed the resident and left a calling card. It said it would call the resident that week to arrange a new appointment. It upheld the complaint in relation to the delay in completing the garden repairs and its lack of communication for which it apologised.
    7. It offered £100 compensation plus an additional £100 for the lack of communication.
  12. On 19 April 2023 the resident contacted this Service to request that we investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings 

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. 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. It says that it responds to emergency repairs within 24 hours and that works to make safe or carry out a temporary repair should be completed at this visit. It aims to respond to non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days.
  2. Its complaints policy for complaints before 17 June 2022 said that it aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Its interim complaints policy for complaints after 17 June 2022 said that it aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
  3. Its compensation policy says that it will consider making a payment of discretionary compensation where there has been a failure of service.

Scope of the investigation

  1. During the call with this Service on 21 August 2024 the resident referred to her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her request to repair a skylight window at the top of the stairs. The landlord’s records show this was reported on 23 June 2023. This was after the complaints process had concluded and was therefore not part of the complaint considered by the landlord.
  2. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s approach set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we may not investigate complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This is because it has not had the opportunity to provide a formal response. If the resident remains dissatisfied she may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord.

Brick wall

  1. On 20 July 2020 the landlord raised an emergency works order in relation to the brick wall that had fallen into the neighbour’s garden. It was cancelled on the same day and relogged as a routine job following a conversation with the resident who confirmed the local authority had carried out works to make safe. The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
  2. The landlord attended the property on 4 August 2020, it took photographs and noted that it was a “big job.” The landlord said it was unable to provide copies of the photographs for the purposes of this investigation because they were lost following a cyber security incident. An entry dated 21 August on the landlord’s repair logs noted the local authority had asked that the repair be dealt with urgently.
  3. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident regarding its findings and its plan of action to carry out the repair. This caused her inconvenience, time and trouble when she phoned the landlord on 4 September 2020 to chase.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response (A) of 8 December 2020 appropriately apologised for the delay. It attributed the delay to having to liaise with the local authority. However, its stage 2 complaint response (B) of 20 January 2022 said that its surveyor was not made aware of the repair until October 2020 which it could only “attribute to an administrative oversight.”
  5. While it is accepted that the need to liaise with the local authority would have delayed matters to some extent, it was the landlord’s failure to raise the job with the surveyor which caused an initial delay of 3 months.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response (A) was not entirely transparent about the landlord’s failure which was inappropriate. It is acknowledged that having experienced initial delays it set out next steps to the resident as to how it would progress.
  7. However, it subsequently failed to provide further updates to the resident. The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident called to chase for an update 6 times between January and September 2021. The landlord’s lack of communication was inappropriate creating uncertainty and causing inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident.
  8. An internal email dated 22 April 2021 noted that the surveyor had not received an instruction for the property. This was inappropriate because it meant that 8 months after its inspection it had not progressed the repair. The landlord did not comply with its repairs and maintenance policy. Furthermore, this was the second time its surveyor had not been instructed which demonstrates a lack of learning from the complaint to improve service delivery.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response (B) of 20 January 2022 acknowledged that it had not updated the resident who continued to chase. It also accepted there had been further delays which it said were caused by the need to establish ownership of the wall and by it not acknowledging the updates it received from the local authority.
  10. It said it had made an appointment to attend the property on 26 January to specify and quote for a replacement fence which it expected to receive by 31 January. This is a repeat of the action it said it would carry out in its complaint response of 8 December 2020. Despite the issues it said it had experienced, that 12 months later it had still not obtained the quote was unreasonable. It said it had not updated or progressed the repair as it would “have expected.”
  11. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. In its stage 2 complaint response (B) the landlord was honest about its failure to provide a service. It demonstrated some learning by arranging a training session for its surveyors and offered the resident compensation as a way of putting things right. It offered £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble and £200 for its lack of communication.
  12. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that complaints should be resolved at the earliest opportunity having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required.
  13. The landlord failed to use the complaints process to expedite a timely resolution of the substantive issue. Due to the ongoing lack of progress with the repair the resident was caused further inconvenience, time and trouble when she contacted this Service for assistance.
  14. In its stage 1 complaint response (C) of 7 October 2022 the landlord said that all repairs, including the garden wall, were completed on 28 September. This was inaccurate because on 13 October the resident emailed the landlord to say that the surveyor had not contacted her regarding the garden works. Over 2 years since the repair was first reported the works remained outstanding.
  15. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response (D) of 23 November 2022 acknowledged that further works were required. It said its surveyor was booked to attend on 21 November but was running late and missed the resident. A call to the resident to let her know would have been appropriate as a courtesy. It may also have avoided the inconvenience caused to her by having to facilitate a second appointment. The landlord said it would call to make a new appointment that week.
  16. It upheld the complaint regarding the delay to resolve the repair and its lack of communication for which it apologised. It offered £100 compensation and an additional £100 for its lack of communication.
  17. This was the second time the landlord acknowledged issues with its communication, offering compensation to the resident on each occasion. While it was appropriate that it tried to put things right for the resident, there is no evidence that it reflected on the recurring issue to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider this important aspect of complaint handling.
  18. On 29 November 2022 the landlord raised an order to make safe the brick wall. It noted that part had already been removed but that the remainder was unstable and its complex works team could not carry out any works until December. It is unclear when the works were finally carried out. The landlord has been asked to confirm the date for the purposes of this investigation but has not provided a response. This is a record keeping failure.
  19. However taking December 2022 as the earliest date when the landlord carried out the works, this was 2 and a half years after the issue was first reported by the resident. The delay is particularly concerning given that the works order raised on 29 November said the wall was unstable. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out risk assessments during the period of the delay. Furthermore, the response was well outside the landlord’s response time for non-emergency works.
  20. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged that it failed to carry out the repair in a reasonable timeframe and to engage in effective communication with the resident. While it is positive that the landlord was generally open about its failures it failed to identify what had gone wrong in relation to its communication and what it would do differently. This is particularly significant given that it was identified as a failure in both stage 2 complaint responses.
  21. Furthermore, this investigation has identified 2 occasions on which the repair of the wall was not progressed to the surveyor. While it was positive that it arranged training for its surveyors once they received the referral there is no evidence that it identified what had gone wrong with the referral process and what it would do differently. This was particularly inappropriate because it was a repeated failure.
  22. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response (B) of 20 January 2022 disputed the resident’s assertion that she was unable to use the garden while the repair was unresolved. It acknowledged that the wall was “unsightly” but did not prevent the resident from using the garden. However, there is no evidence that it had carried out checks to assess the stability of the wall to ensure the garden was safe for use while the repair was ongoing which was inappropriate.
  23. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response (B) of 20 January 2022 offered the resident £400 compensation. In its stage 2 complaint response (D) of 23 November it offered £200 compensation. The total compensation offered was £600.
  24. The failures identified above include:
    1. It took at least 2 and a half years to carry out the repair.
    2. There were repeated failures in communication and in referring works to the surveyor.
    3. The landlord did not carry out checks to assess risk.
    4. The information provided in its stage 1 complaint response (C) of 7 October 2022 was inaccurate.
    5. There is evidence of a record keeping failure.
  25. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response. The landlord failed to provide a service to the resident for over 2 years which was unacceptable. This had a significant impact on the resident who continually chased throughout the period to try to reach a resolution. The failures would have amounted to severe maladministration had the landlord not acknowledged some of its failings and attempted to put things right by offering £600 compensation.
  26. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1000. It may deduct the £600 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Other repairs

  1. On 21 May 2021 the landlord raised a works order to repair the bathroom tiles which were “coming away.” An order was raised to attend on 14 June to cut out the grout, regrout, clean and make good. The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy.
  2. However, it is unclear whether the works ordered on 21 May 2021 were carried out. This is because a repeat works order was raised on 25 April 2022 to regrout the bathroom tiles to ensure they were “sealed and watertight.” The records show that an appointment was made to attend on 26 April. However, a recall job was booked for 17 June to rake out the old grout and regrout around the bath.
  3. The repair logs show that the issues with the bathroom tiles were still not resolved over 12 months after the repair was first raised. This was not appropriate because the landlord’s response was not in line with its repairs policy.
  4. On 6 September 2022 the landlord raised a works order to:
    1. Make the bathroom watertight.
    2. Repair the kitchen unit which had rotted away under the sink.
    3. Assess a fitted wooden unit in the bathroom.
    4. Repair “a window.”
  5. On 8 September 2022 we contacted the landlord to report that the resident had complained about delays in resolving repairs to the unit under the sink, hallway window and bathroom.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response (C) of 7 October 2022 the landlord advised that all the repairs were completed on 28 September however, this was inaccurate. This is because an entry on the landlord’s repair logs dated 10 October stated that the job relating to the leak in the kitchen had been resolved on 26 September. However, the resident had called to say works to the damp sink unit were outstanding. Furthermore, on 13 October the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the repairs were outstanding.
  7. The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In its stage 2 complaint response (D) of 23 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged that a “number” of repairs remained outstanding. However, it only provided a response in relation to the kitchen unit door and drawer front which was inappropriate. The landlord’s explanation and finding in relation to the kitchen unit was appropriate. However, the information it provided is not detailed in the repair logs provided to this Service which is a record keeping failure.
  8. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
  9. The landlord was asked to provide further information relating to these works for the purposes of this investigation but has not provided a response. This is a record keeping failure.
  10. It is unclear when the works to the bathroom tiles were carried out. However the first order was raised in May 2021 and works were still outstanding as of 6 September 2022, 16 months later. Therefore, the landlord failed to comply with its repairs policy. Based on the evidence provided to this Service the landlord’s response to the rotten unit under the sink was reasonable. It has not possible to carry out an assessment of the landlord’s response to the hallway window and bathroom unit owing to record keeping failures.
  11. Considering the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the other repairs. This is because there were failures which had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord failed to identify its failures in relation to works to the bathroom tiles and therefore failed to put things right. There were record keeping failures. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £350 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised her first stage 1 complaint on 4 September 2021. The landlord issued its response (A) on 8 December which was 67 days later and significantly exceeded its response time of 10 working days. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered £50 compensation.
  2. While it appropriately tried to put things right, it failed to provide an explanation for the delay. This would have been appropriate, particularly given the lengthy delay. It failed to identify what had gone wrong and what it would do differently.
  3. It is unclear when the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. However, the landlord’s complaint response (B) of 20 January 2022 apologised for the delay. It again offered the resident £50 compensation to put things right.
  4. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 8 September 2022. In its email to this Service of 8 September the landlord explained that a cyber security incident meant it may not be able to provide its complaint response within its normal timescales. The landlord provided its response (C) on 7 October which was 20 working days later.
  5. The Code sets out that residents are more likely to be satisfied with complaint handling if the person dealing with their complaint is competent, empathetic and efficient. Therefore, it was inappropriate that response (C) contained inaccurate information citing a completion date for works which remained outstanding. This combined with the general brevity of the response is evidence that the landlord did not carry out a thorough investigation of the complaint which was inappropriate.
  6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 13 October 2022. The landlord provided its response (D) on 23 November which was 29 working days later.
  7. Complaint responses (C) and (D) were issued in line with the landlord’s interim complaints policy following the security-cyber incident. However, on both occasions the landlord apologised for the delay and in the case of complaint response (C) it has also offered £50 compensation. While there was no detriment to the resident it is evidence that the landlord fettered its discretion by failing to refer to its policy when writing the responses.
  8. The failures identified in this report amount to maladministration. The landlord has offered a total of £150 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. However, the landlord’s lack of learning and the inaccuracy of complaint response (C) means this cannot prevent an adverse finding.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a repair to a brick wall.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for other repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £1350 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for a repair to a brick wall. It may deduct the £600 it has offered if this has already been paid.
      2. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request for other repairs.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review to ensure that it undertakes exploration of what went wrong with its communication and in its referrals to its surveyors. It should identify what it will do differently and how it will embed this into the culture and practices of the organisation.
  3. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.