Clarion Housing Association Limited (202219905)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219905

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 October 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured lifetime tenancy with the landlord since 26 May 2008. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with her children. One of the resident’s children has autism and significant sensory processing disorder. The landlord has no vulnerabilities or reasonable adjustments recorded on its system for the resident or her children.
  2. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 18 November 2021. The inspection found that the resident’s bathroom needed replacement. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 March 2022 to ask for an update. The landlord advised it had referred the work to the relevant team who would contact the resident. The resident complained to her landlord through her MP on 9 May 2022 regarding the lack of updates regarding her bathroom replacement.
  3. The landlord contacted the resident on 19 May 2022 to explain that the relevant team had tried to contact her in 2021. The landlord explained that it did not receive a response from the resident. Due to this, she had missed the planned bathroom replacements taking place in 2021. The resident complained about the length of time it would now take to receive a replacement bathroom. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 May 2022 to explain that they had added her to the list for bathroom replacements for the 2022/2023 year.
  4. The resident emailed a complaint to the landlord on 16 June 2022 about an issue with her fence and bathroom replacement. In relation to her bathroom the resident complained that the landlord’s staff member she spoke to on 19 May 2022 had laughed at her. The resident requested written confirmation that the landlord would replace the bathroom by the end of 2022, as agreed.
  5. The landlord responded by email on 1 July 2022 to explain that due to a cyber attack it could not progress the resident’s complaint. The resident responded on 2 July 2022 to explain that she had ongoing complaints and did not consider it appropriate to place her complaints on hold. The resident chased a response from the landlord on 8 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 February 2023. In relation to the bathroom replacement and complaint handling, it said:
    1. It acknowledged that it had completed a bathroom inspection and asbestos check in preparation for a bathroom renewal for the 2022/2023 financial year. It said that it had planned the renewal for the previous year, but the resident had made no contact despite it sending three letters.
    2. It understood that its Planned Investment team had spoken to the resident. It confirmed that it would replace the bathroom by the end of March 2023. The relevant team would request that the contractors contact the resident to arrange a date.
    3. it advised that the cyber incident had affected its telephone system and due to this, it had been unable to review the call where the resident said that its representative had laughed at the resident.
    4. it apologised for the delay in issuing a response within its published timescales and awarded a total of £350 for this delay and complaint handling. In addition, it awarded £410 for fence related issues bringing the total compensation to £760.
  6. On 20 February 2023, the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint, as she had unanswered questions. The resident explained that she did not consider the landlord had dealt with her complaint when no appointment dates had been set for the bathroom works. The resident advised that the landlord had never contacted her to state that it would replace the bathroom by March 2023. The resident asked that:
    1. the landlord confirmed who had contacted her and how.
    2. how long the works would take.
    3. what access to facilities she would have while the works progress, as she has a disabled child home 24 hours a day who will find this extremely difficult and will require reasonable adjustments to manage the bathroom replacement. The resident did not explain what reasonable adjustments she required.
    4. that she found it “convenient” that the landlord had details of her complaints, repairs, responses and all contact apart from the call where the staff member was rude.
  7. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response on 12 April 2023. It said that:
    1. The bathroom works started on 7 March 2023 and that it completed this on 6 April 2023. It acknowledged that it still needed to install the extractor fan. The delay was due to national supply delays. Once completed the post work inspection would take place.
    2. The work was a full bathroom renewal and that its Planned Investment Manager spoke to the resident on 20 March 2023. The manager had checked that its contractor was providing the right adjustments. The manager also spoke to the contractor manager who would personally monitor completion of the bathroom to ensure it completed this to the expected standard.
    3. It had not been able to identify any delays surrounding the bathroom works. It was confident that it had started the renewal within the timescale promised. It advised that it acknowledged and identified the previous delays within its stage 1 response. It apologised for the experience.
    4. There had been further delays in resolving the fence/gate issue. It awarded a further £200 for this delay and the inconvenience this caused.
  8. On 26 November 2023, the resident requested that our Service investigates her complaint. The resident explained that:
    1. She had complained to her landlord about having her bathroom refurbished and that its complaint response had led to the landlord making a last-minute booking.
    2. The work started on 7 March 2023 and that the landlord removed her extractor fan on 8 March 2023. However, to date the landlord had still not fitted the extractor fan, leaving a hole in her bathroom wall.
    3. The landlord had disconnected her bathroom radiator for 3 weeks during an extremely cold period.
    4. The bathroom fitting took 5 weeks, which caused significant distress to her disabled child.
  9. On 8 January 2024 and 12 April 2023, the resident emailed our Service to explain that the landlord had still not installed the extractor fan. The resident explained that the failure to install a replacement extractor fan was now causing mould and damage to the decoration in the new bathroom.
  10. The landlord said that it installed the extractor fan on 9 August 2024. The resident has confirmed this. She said that she now has damp in the bathroom which has ruined the redecoration. She also said that the paint has bubbled and pealed due to an extractor fan not extracting the moisture from the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
  2. The resident has complained to this service about an issue regarding the installation of heat and smoke detectors in her property. However, this issue has not been through the landlord’s internal complaint process. Therefore, it is outside the scope of this investigation.
  3. The resident has complained to the landlord about issues relating to the repair of her fence and gate. The landlord has responded to this complaint at stage 1 and 2. The resident has not complained to this Service about the landlord’s response to this issue. Therefore, this Service considers that the landlord has already resolved this issue to the resident’s satisfaction. Due to this, this Service will not consider this issue in this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement.

  1. The landlord’s contractor rules for planned home improvements states that its contractors will:
    1. Provide additional help and show extra consideration to vulnerable or elderly residents, or anyone with special requirements.
    2. Where possible, maintain all services and facilities.
    3. Consult with residents on the scope of works and choices, where applicable.
    4. Provide residents with adequate notice and relevant information before work starts, in line with the standard communications flowchart provided by the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s standard communications flowchart states that 2-4 weeks before work is due to start the contractor will contact resident to gather resident’s contact information, agree start date, run through information packs and confirm any colour/style choices (where relevant).
  3. The landlord’s Vulnerable Resident’s Policy states that under paragraph 2.1 that as a responsible social landlord, its overall objective is to ensure that vulnerable residents receive the services and assistance they require to sustain their tenancy. To achieve this, it aims to:
    1. Record any vulnerabilities on the resident’s contact record and keep this up to date.
    2. Use all available information to identify if a resident is vulnerable.
    3. Take account of known vulnerability factors in the provision of services and in decisions around tenancy management and enforcement
    4. Consider any additional needs due to the vulnerability and where appropriate vary our service delivery to ensure vulnerable residents still receive the same level of service.
  4. The landlord’s policy also states under paragraph 6.1 that it will record on the customer record any known vulnerability, any particular communication or access needs and whether there is anyone with delegated authority to speak to us on the resident’s behalf, such as a care or support worker. This will ensure our staff will have advance knowledge of any additional factors to consider when delivering services.
  5. The three letters sent by the landlord between August and September 2021 requested that the resident contact it regarding works to her property. However, these letters did not specify any consequences should the resident fail to respond. The landlord’s stage 1 response referred to the resident’s failure to respond as a reason for its delay in completing the bathroom works. This is not fair or reasonable. The landlord’s communication had not been clear and there is no evidence that it sent a further update explaining that it would no longer be completing the work due to the resident not responding.
  6. The resident had inspections relating to her planned bathroom replacement on 18 November 2021 and 31 January 2022. However, the landlord did not inform her that she had missed the planned replacement scheduled for 2021 until 19 May 2022. This was only after the resident had chased an update on 15 March 2022 and complained through her MP about this issue on 9 May 2022. The Ombudsman considers the length of time taken for the landlord to provide the resident with an update unreasonable.
  7. The resident stated in their email dated 16 June 2022 to the landlord that it told her on 27 May 2022 that it was completing further work in her area later in 2022. She explained that the landlord told her that it would now include her property in this work programme and complete the bathroom replacement around October 2022. The landlord emailed the relevant team on 27 May 2022 to request that the resident’s property be added to the current 2022/2023-year programme of works. The landlord’s internal notes explain that it would complete the work before 31 March 2023.
  8. The resident had a reasonable expectation following her call on 27 May 2022 that the landlord would complete the bathroom works around October 2022. If this expectation was incorrect, the landlord had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s email and provide the correct timescale for it to complete the bathroom works. However, the landlord provided no updates about the bathroom replacement until its stage 1 response on 14 February 2023.
  9. The Ombudsman considers the lack of updates provided by the landlord a failure in service. It would have been good practice and reasonable for the landlord to confirm in writing the estimated timescale for the bathroom replacement. The landlord’s failure to update the resident has caused the resident inconvenience and frustration due to not knowing when the replacement work will take place.
  10. The resident made the landlord aware on 16 June 2022 and 1 February 2023 that she had two disabled children. The resident made the landlord aware on 16 June 2022 that her youngest child was not attending school and did not cope well with strangers in their home. The resident provided a further explanation of this on 20 February 2023. On this date, the resident explained that her disabled child was home 24 hours a day and would find the replacement work extremely difficult. The resident explained that her child could not leave the home and so they would need to make reasonable adjustments to manage the replacement.
  11. The resident did not explain what reasonable adjustments she expected the landlord to make. However, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to contact the resident to discuss what adjustments the resident required. In addition, in line with the landlord’s Vulnerable Resident’s Policy, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have recorded the vulnerabilities at the resident’s property on its system. However, the landlord has acknowledged that it had not done this. The landlord in its response to our Service on 21 August 2024 has committed to now update the resident’s casefile, however, this action would have been appropriate at a much earlier stage. In all the circumstances of the case the landlord has not done enough to satisfy the Ombudsman that it suitably considered its obligations to this household from an equality perspective.
  12. As of 20 February 2023, the landlord/contractor had not contacted the resident about the bathroom replacement start date. However, the bathroom replacement work started at the resident’s property on 7 March 2023, 15 days later. It is not clear from the evidence that the landlord provided the resident with at least two-week’s notice as required for such works under its standard communications flowchart or procedure. Given the vulnerability at the resident’s property, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to give the resident as much notice as possible. This would have allowed the resident time to prepare herself and her child for the effect the works would have.
  13. In addition, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to create and agree a schedule of works that reduced as much as possible the effect on the resident’s child. However, the landlord did not contact the resident until 20 March 2023 to check that its contractors were providing the right adjustments, 13 days after the work had started. It is also not clear what was included within this discussion. The Ombudsman considers the delay in the landlord contacting the resident unreasonable given the circumstances at the property.
  14. It took the landlord from 7 March 2023 to 6 April 2023 to complete the work. This was a period of 4 weeks 2 days. The length of time taken to complete a bathroom replacement varies depending on the work required. Therefore, the Ombudsman could not conclude that the length of time taken to complete the work was unreasonable.
  15. The resident has complained that the landlord disconnected her bathroom radiator for 3 weeks during a very cold period during the bathroom fitting. The Ombudsman appreciates that a contractor may need to disconnect a radiator while it completes specific work. However, the landlord’s contractor site rules state that a contractor should maintain all facilities where possible. Due to this, our Service would have expected the contactor to reconnect the radiator as soon as possible.
  16. In addition, our Service would have expected the landlord to have taken reasonable steps to ensure that the resident could keep the bathroom at a suitable temperature during the period it disconnected the radiator. However, there is no evidence that it has done this. This is a failure of service.
  17. This Service accepts that the resident being left without a working radiator for 3 weeks and the length of time taken to complete the bathroom replacement will have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident’s household.
  18. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that its contractor had not yet installed a replacement extractor fan due to a national stock issue. The Ombudsman appreciates that a stock issue delayed this work. However, it took the landlord until 9 August 2024 to install the replacement extractor fan. During this time, the resident’s bathroom had a hole in it where the extractor fan would eventually go. This Service understands that this affected the temperature in the bathroom, with the resident reporting further mould and decoration issues due to this.
  19. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that its contract manager would personally monitor the completion of the bathroom. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it kept to this agreement. The Ombudsman considers that there has been an excessive delay in the landlord installing the extractor fan. This is a significant failure to follow through on the agreement the landlord made during the complaint process.
  20. The landlord in it stage 2 response stated that it has not been able to identify any delays with the bathroom replacement. It was confident that it had started the replacement within the timescales promised. However, the landlord had not completed the bathroom replacement by the end of 2022/2023 year as it stated it would. The works commenced shortly after the landlord’s February 2023 stage 1 response and they did not complete until some time into the following financial year. In addition, the landlord failed to follow through on the completion of these works by installing the required extractor fan until a long time after.
  21. In all the circumstances, the landlord’s conclusion that it had acted in a reasonable timeframe in relation to the bathroom replacement is not satisfactory. There were significant delays before the works began in the 2022/23 financial year. The substantive works then progressed into the following financial year and the landlord did not complete the required ventilation works until some time after.
  22. Furthermore, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it managed her bathroom replacement.
    1. It failed to provide the resident with a clear timescale of when the bathroom replacement would take place, provide confirmation of this in writing or provide updates when requested.
    2. The landlord failed to provide the resident with reasonable notice of the works start date, preventing the resident from preparing her household for the effect the work would have.
    3. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it responded appropriately to the resident’s household vulnerability.
    4. The landlord left the resident without heating in the bathroom for 3 weeks.
    5. The landlord failed to complete the bathroom replacement within the timescales stated and there has been a significant delay of 520 days in the landlord installing a replacement extractor fan.
    6. There is no evidence that the landlord has monitored the completion of the resident bathroom or inspected the completed work in line with its agreement in its stage 2 response.
  23. The landlord did not identify any failures in its handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement in its stage 1 and 2 responses. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that the Ombudsman award compensation of between £600 and £1,000 where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Given the level of failures by the landlord and the extensive period this issue has impacted the resident’s bathroom, it is the view of this Service that the compensation awarded should fall at the upper end of this range.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. Its complaint process up to 16 June 2022 was:
    1. Stage 1 – Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and investigated and responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
    2. Stage 2 – Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt of the escalation and responded to within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
  2. Following a cyber incident, the landlord introduced an interim complaint’s policy from 17 June 2022. Its new process was:
  3. Stage 1 – Complaints are acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being made
  4. Peer Review (stage 2) – Complaints are acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 40 working days.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 June 2022 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 July 2022. However, the landlord advised that it could not progress the resident’s complaint further at this time due to a cyber security incident. The landlord explained that it would progress the resident complaint as soon as it was able to.
  6. The Ombudsman appreciates the effect a cyber incident can have on an organisation. It is reasonable that an organisation may need to pause its normal processes while it puts plans in place to deal with the effects of a cyber incident. However, the length of time it has taken the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint without providing further updates is unreasonable.
  7. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 until 14 February 2023, 169 working days after the resident raised the complaint. This is significantly outside of both this Service’s complaint handling code and the landlord’s own timescales under both its original and interim complaint policy. The landlord did not communicate with the resident after 1 July 2022 until 1 February 2023, despite the resident resubmitting the complaint on 8 September 2022.
  8. 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 25 January 2023. The landlord then contacted the resident on 1 February 2023 before issuing its stage 1 response on 14 February 2023.
  9. The landlord apologised at stage 1 for the delay in providing a response and awarded £100 for its failure to respond within its published time limits. The landlord also provided an award of £250 for complaint handling. This was to apologise for the inconvenience caused, its failure to follow process and vulnerability. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its delay in providing a response at stage 1.
  10. The resident requested their complaint escalated on 20 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged this escalation on 25 February 2023 and advised that it would be in touch within 20 working days. However, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 peer response until 12 April 2023. This was 31 working days, which was outside the timescale it stated it would respond within.
  11. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response for the delay in providing a response. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its delay in providing a response at stage 2.
  12. The resident complained in her email dated 16 June 2022 that the landlord’s staff member had laughed at her on a call on 19 May 2022. The landlord in its stage 1 response advised that it had been unable to locate the call due to the cyber incident. The landlord did not address this issue in its stage 2 response, despite the resident challenging its response.
  13. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord does not have a recording of the call on 19 May 2022. However, the Ombudsman would expect to confirmation that a landlord has completed an internal investigation into this. Such as enquiries made with the staff member involved.
  14. Responding to complaints about staff conduct allows landlords to provide its version of events, apologise if deemed appropriate and clarify any misunderstandings. It also provides reassurance to the resident that the landlord has taken the issue seriously. Early complaint resolution is more effective in cases of complaints about staff conduct where the recollection of events can change over time. Therefore, making an investigation more difficult. It was a failure that the landlord did not seek to obtain details of the staff behaviour complained of and investigate accordingly at the earliest point.
  15. Overall, the Ombudsman concludes that there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. There was a considerable delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint, which left the resident unaware of when her bathroom replacement would take place. The landlord has acted appropriately in acknowledging, apologising and compensating for the delay.
  16. The apology provided within the complaint responses and £350 compensation awarded for complaint handling provided a reasonable and proportionate remedy for the failures identified by the landlord in this respect. However, the landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct. As such, an overall determination of service failure has been reached with the landlord ordered to pay the resident an additional £50 in compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks from the date of this report, ensuring that it provides the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance by the same date:
    1. Provide a further written apology to the resident for the additional failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1,050 compensation in addition to the compensation of £960 already provided. The breakdown of the additional compensation is as follows.
      1. £1,000 compensation for the handling of the resident’s bathroom replacement.
      2. £50 for complaint handling failures.
    3. Inspect the bathroom to determine if the replacement work completed is to the required standard and arrange to complete repairs for any damage caused by the delay in fitting an extractor fan.
    4. Record details of the vulnerabilities and any requested reasonable adjustments for the resident’s property, if not already done so.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord inspect the resident’s heat and smoke alarms and if not wired correctly, take the appropriate action to resolve this issue.