Clarion Housing Association Limited (202219861)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219861

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 April 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water at the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to relocate the gas meter at the property.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The landlord has said it is not aware of any recorded vulnerabilities that the resident has.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in November 2022. She said she was unhappy with the service provided by the landlord’s contractor following her report of her boiler not working. She said that it did not complete a lasting repair as the boiler stopped working around 2 weeks after it attended. She said that the contractor had failed to attend appointments and it had not offered her any temporary heating appliances despite her not having any heating or hot water. She also told the landlord that she was disabled.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 January 2023. It apologised for its delay in providing the response. It said:
1. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
2. The manufacturer of the boiler attended and repaired the boiler on 30 November 2022. It said that its contractor referred the repair to the boiler manufacturer as the boiler remained under warranty.
3. It had not identified any service failures regarding the repair to the boiler because the boiler manufacturer was responsible for any missed appointments and the quality of the initial repair.
4. Following the resident’s concerns that the boiler was not functioning properly, it attended the property on 17 January 2023. It said it would ensure that any required works were completed to resolve any current issues.
5. It upheld the complaint because of the length of time that she was left without heating and that it did not provide any temporary heaters.
6. It offered £75 compensation which was made up of £25 for the time without heating in the property and £50 for the delay in providing its complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 26 January 2023. She said that the landlord’s information was not correct, as it was the landlord’s contractor who missed the appointments and later told her to contact the boiler manufacturer herself. She said she was unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord and its contractor, and that the landlord’s response did not acknowledge its failings in handling the boiler repair. She also said that she was disabled and that she organised for carers to attend the property for the appointments which were then missed. She said that an operative told her that the gas meter was in a dangerous position and needed to be moved and that her gas supplier said that the landlord would be responsible for relocating the meter.
On 30 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in providing its response. It said:
1. It apologised for the conflicting information regarding the warranty of the boiler. It said it would not expect residents to manage the warranty call out process and said that its contractor should have liaised with the boiler manufacturer itself.
2. Its contractor should have provided her with temporary heaters, and should have notified her in advance of not being able to attend the appointments.
3. It would discuss the service issues with its contractor and explained steps it would take to review this with them.
4. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by any unannounced visits and the failings it identified with its contractor. It said it would ask its contractor to note her disability and her need for help answering the door on its system for future reference.
5. It was not responsible for relocating the gas meter and said it was the responsibility of the gas supplier. It said it had found adequate draining around the meter box but that it would monitor this at any future visits.
6. It offered £205 compensation. It said it had already paid £50 compensation which was offered in its previous complaint response. The £205 compensation was made up of:
  1. £25 for the time without heating at the property.
  2. £100 for its contractor’s handling of the boiler repair.
  3. £30 for 2 missed appointments.
  4. £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service. She said that she felt the landlord did not take responsibility for its contractor’s failings and that it did not acknowledge its lack of communication to her about the boiler repair. She was also concerned about the ongoing dispute about whether it was responsible for relocating the gas meter. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 27 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has mentioned that her health had been affected by the lack of heating and hot water at the property. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water at the property

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, and its agreed service levels with its contractor, both state that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It states that alternative heating must be provided by the contractor if a repair cannot be resolved within this timescale and results in a resident being without heating or hot water.
The resident reported a loss of heating and hot water to the landlord on 23 October 2022. The landlord’s contractor repaired the boiler on 24 October 2022. The response was appropriate and in line with its emergency repairs timescale.
On 4 November 2022, the resident reported a lack of heating and hot water again. In line with its policy, the landlord should have responded to the repair within its emergency repairs timescale of 24 hours. The contractor failed to attend both the appointment on 4 November 2022 and its rearranged appointment on the following day. This prompted the resident to contact the contractor on 5 November 2022 when she advised that she was vulnerable and disabled and had been without heating and hot water for over 24 hours. The contractor apologised for the delay but said it would attend on 6 November 2022. It was a failing for the landlord not to have responded to the repair sooner and for it to have not updated the resident regarding it being unable to fulfil the appointments. This would likely have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident at a difficult time.
The resident raised concerns to the landlord about the competency of the contractor as she continued to experience issues with her boiler. They attended as planned on 6 November 2022 and identified a part was required, and returned on 8 November 2022 to fit this and repair the boiler. The resident disputes this and has said that it was repaired on 9 November 2022. The resident reported a boiler issue again on 12 November 2022 which was repaired the following day. It told her that the manufacturer would need to attend if the issue persisted.
On 20 November 2022, she asked the contractor to arrange for the manufacturer to attend as the boiler had stopped working again. The following day, she told the contractor that she still had no heating or hot water. The contractor attended without notifying the resident on 24 November 2022 and found a boiler part was required. The contractor had already been informed of the resident’s vulnerability and that she had requested for appointments to be arranged so that her carers could allow access to the property. It was not appropriate for it to attend without notice. This would have understandably added distress and inconvenience to her in how the repairs were being managed.
The landlord’s (and its contractor’s) record keeping with regards to the repairs was poor. Its repair logs state that the contractor attended on 28 November 2022 but the resident disputes this. It is evident that the resident contacted the contractor on the same day, and they told her to contact the boiler manufacturer herself. She contacted the landlord on 29 November 2022 and said she remained without heating and hot water and had not had any updates about repairing the boiler. The landlord acted appropriately and asked its contractor to liaise with the boiler manufacturer. It highlighted that its contractor should not expect the resident to do this herself, which was appropriate, especially given her vulnerabilities (which both the landlord and its contractor were aware of).
The landlord’s contractor liaised with the manufacturer and arranged for the boiler manufacturer to attend on 30 November 2022. This was rearranged by the manufacturer, and they attended and repaired the boiler on 2 December 2022. This delay was not a fault of the landlord.
The resident was without heating and hot water intermittently between 23 October 2022 and 2 December 2022. Following the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide temporary heating if it could not repair the issue within 24 hours. It is evident that there were 2 occasions where the resident remained without heating and hot water for more than 24 hours. This was between 4 November 2022 to 8 November 2022, and 20 November 2022 to 2 December 2022. The landlord failed to follow its own policy by not providing any temporary heating during this time. This was not appropriate, especially given that the landlord was aware that the resident was vulnerable and disabled.
The resident was concerned that the landlord’s contractor had not completed a lasting repair to the boiler, as it repeatedly stopped working during this time. There is no evidence provided to this Service to suggest that the repairs it eventually completed on each occasion were not satisfactory.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was written based on information provided by its contractor which was not accurate. The response said that the boiler was repaired on 30 November 2022, but it was actually repaired on 2 December 2022. It also said that any missed or unannounced appointments and the delay in repairing the boiler were solely the fault of the boiler manufacturer.
The response would have understandably caused confusion and distress to the resident as it was not accurate. It is a concern that the landlord failed to consider its own evidence. If it had, it would have shown that the contractor was responsible for the initial boiler repairs up until they passed this to the boiler manufacturer (following the landlord’s own instruction on 29 November 2022). By relying on inaccurate evidence, it failed to appropriately identify its failures as well as the impact on the resident because it said it attended appropriately in line with its repair timescales, which it had not.
The landlord’s offer of £25 compensation for the time the resident remained without heating and hot water was not proportionate. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the impact of the lack of heating and hot water, it failed to fully assess that impact because of the inaccurate information it used to calculate this amount. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay an additional £100 for the lack of heating and hot water at the property. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for circumstances where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has tried to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified within the investigation.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord reviewed its earlier position and said that it did not dispute that there were failings in its contractor’s handling of repairs to the boiler. Where there are failings by a landlord, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered £30 compensation for two failed appointments on 4 November 2022 and 5 November 2022. This was appropriate and represented redress for this failing. The landlord also reviewed its previous position and apologised that its contractor had failed to provide the appropriate level of service. It said that it would liaise with its contractors to ensure they provided temporary heating where needed and reiterate their responsibility for managing the repairs. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this failure and outline how it would put things right going forward.
In acknowledgement of the contractors mishandling of the repair, the landlord awarded £100 compensation for any inconvenience or disruption caused, the need for repeated contact from the resident and consideration of her vulnerabilities. It is understood that this amount considered the conflicting information that the resident received regarding whether the boiler was under warranty and was for the inconvenience caused by the resident being expected to contact the boiler manufacturer herself.
While the landlord made an attempt to offer redress, it did not achieve this because its response put the onus entirely on its contractor and it failed to clarify whether it took responsibility for the contractor’s failings itself. The landlord has a duty of care to ensure that its contractors are providing appropriate services to its residents as they are an extension of the landlord. The landlord is recommended to be mindful of its responses regarding complaints about its contractors and to ensure that it makes clear that any fault of its contractor is a fault of the landlord.
While the landlord had included consideration of the resident’s vulnerability in its award of £100 compensation, the Ombudsman’s position is that this is not appropriate redress for the failings identified within the report. The resident had informed the contractor that she required afternoon appointments, but it is evident that they did not consider this request as a reasonable adjustment to the service provided to her. The contractor continued to arrange some morning appointments. This would have understandably added inconvenience to the resident as she had informed them that she needed to arrange for her carers to attend to allow access to the property.
The landlord acknowledged this in its final complaint response and said that it had asked its contractor to record this information on their system for future appointments. While this was appropriate, the landlord itself needs to ensure that it also has a record of the resident’s disability and her need for a reasonable adjustment, under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord has told this Service that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident which is a concern as it referenced her vulnerabilities within its complaint process.
The landlord is ordered to review and update the information it holds on its system regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is in line with the landlord’s vulnerable residents policy which states that it will record known vulnerabilities and access needs on its customer records. It should also consider how it shares such information with its contractors to ensure that reasonable adjustments are considered during any repairs.
Considering the failings identified within this investigation, the £100 compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate and so it is not considered to represent full redress. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay an additional £200 compensation to the resident. The landlord also did not acknowledge its poor record keeping and did not offer redress for providing inaccurate information within its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord is ordered to pay a further £25 compensation in consideration of the distress and inconvenience caused by this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to relocate the gas meter at the property

The resident asked both the landlord and her gas supplier to move her gas meter because it was positioned low to the ground, and it was at risk of corroding when the area flooded. On 30 December 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and said it had received an email from her gas supplier about relocating the gas meter which said the gas supplier would not be responsible for this. The landlord told the resident it was not responsible for moving the gas meter. This would have understandably caused frustration to the resident, but this is not solely the fault of the landlord.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report of flooding water damaging the gas meter. It arranged for its contractor to inspect the issue. It attended on 17 January 2023, which was in line with its non-emergency repair timescale of 28 days. It found that the guttering terminated next to the meter which caused the meter to flood. The landlord raised a further repair job on 25 January 2023 in response to the operative’s findings, but its records are unclear about whether this job was attended and what the outcome was.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 26 January 2023. The landlord discussed the gas meter complaint internally on 22 March 2023 which resulted in it arranging for an operative to attend to investigate the guttering and the flooding to the gas meter. On 27 March 2023, it confirmed internally that the guttering had been inspected and was found to be in a good condition.
It is unclear why the landlord delayed the inspection that was requested by its operative on 17 January 2023. It should have responded to this repair within its non-emergency repair timescales of 28 days, but it instead completed this 69 days after the follow-up inspection was raised. This is not appropriate, especially given the resident was still experiencing the issue with her gas meter being at risk of flooding during this time and that she had an open complaint about the matter. The landlord’s delayed actions would likely have caused the resident to assume that it was not taking her concern seriously and therefore caused further distress.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said it was not responsible for relocating gas meters. While the advice was correct, the landlord’s response could have provided a greater amount of detail and clarity to counteract the contradictory advice she had received. It would have been helpful for it to explain that it was responsible for moving the protective gas meter box. This would have given the resident more understanding about the role it had with regards to the gas meter itself. Instead, the resident was left confused, and found herself in the middle of a dispute between the landlord and her gas supplier.
The resident made a complaint to the Energy Ombudsman regarding her gas supplier and the responsibility of the gas meter. While this Service cannot investigate complaints dealt with by another Ombudsman or about the gas supplier, this Service can consider the recommendations given by the Energy Ombudsman in January 2023. The Energy Ombudsman confirmed that the landlord is only responsible for moving the gas meter box which protects the gas meter held within it and that the resident would need to liaise with the network operator regarding moving the gas meter itself.
While the landlord is not responsible for arranging the gas meter to be relocated, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to offer support to the resident in contacting the gas supplier and the network operator. This would show that the landlord had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered a reasonable adjustment in line with its vulnerable residents policy. The landlord is therefore recommended to outline what support it will offer the resident in contacting the gas supplier and network operator regarding her request to move the gas meter.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord operated an interim complaints policy at the time of this complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its delay in providing its responses at both stages of the complaints process.
The landlord took 55 working days to provide its stage 1 response, from when the complaint was made on 5 November 2022 to when it responded on 26 January 2023.
During this time, the resident contacted the Ombudsman for support as the landlord had not responded to her complaint. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 January 2023 and asked it to provide its response by 25 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing the response and offered £50 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer redress to put things right given the likely inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord then took 45 working days to provide its stage 2 response, from the resident’s escalation request on 26 January 2023 to when it responded on 30 March 2023. It offered a further £50 compensation for its delay. This was appropriate to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience that the poor handling of the complaint would likely have had on the resident.
The resident raised concerns to the landlord that it had paid the compensation to her rent account, and she was unhappy that she did not receive the compensation herself. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said that it would make payment to the rent account where it is unable to contact the resident to make the payment or where the rent account has any arrears. While this response is understandably frustrating for the resident, the landlord is entitled to pay compensation to the rent account, in line with its compensation policy.
The resident has told this Service that her rent is paid through housing benefit and that it falls into credit and debit regularly each month as the payment and rent dates are misaligned, but the rent account is up to date. The landlord is therefore ordered to review the rent account and pay any credit on the rent account to the resident directly. It should provide its decision with evidence of the balance of the rent account to the resident.
The landlord failed to keep accurate records in relation to the resident’s complaint. The resident made her complaint through a letter to the landlord, which was dated 5 November 2022. The landlord did not respond to her complaint and so she submitted her complaint again through its online webform. The webform was dated 8 November 2022 but the landlord’s complaint logs note that the webform was received on 14 November 2022. It is important that the landlord maintains clear and accurate records in order for it to be able to respond to the complaint appropriately and within the correct timescales.
In addition, the landlord failed to maintain clear records regarding its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s complaint log stated that its response was sent on 20 January 2023, but it is unclear whether this was provided to the resident or not. It then amended its response and provided this to the resident on 26 January 2023, but the response remained dated as 20 January 2023. This was a record keeping failure as it was not able to clearly evidence when its response was sent.
In consideration of its complaint handling failures regarding its record keeping, the landlord is ordered to pay an additional £25 compensation to the resident. The landlord would have been ordered to evidence steps it would take to improve its complaint handling and record keeping, but such an order has not been made as it has recently been ordered to demonstrate its improvement within another investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to relocate the gas meter at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay £255 compensation previously offered within its complaint responses.
2. Pay an additional £350 compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident and not to the rent account. This is made up of:
  1. £325 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water at the property.
  2. £25 for the associated complaint handling.
3. Review and update the information it holds on its system regarding the resident’s vulnerabilities and confirm this to the resident and this Service.
4. Review the resident’s rent account and pay any credit, resulting from the £255 previously offered within its complaint responses, to the resident directly. It should provide its decision with evidence of the balance of the rent account to the resident.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider its complaint responses and be mindful to ensure that it clearly explains that any fault of its contractor is also a fault of the landlord.
The landlord should consider how it shares information regarding residents’ vulnerabilities with its contractors to ensure that reasonable adjustments are considered during repairs.
The landlord should outline what support it will offer the resident in contacting the gas supplier and network operator regarding her request to move the gas meter.