We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202222519)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222519

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 December 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 handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom house.
  2. In March 2021 the resident raised a disrepair case as she said she had experienced problems with her outdoor pipes freezing and the cupboard the boiler was housed in flooding as a result, which damaged items that were stored in the cupboard. The resident did not continue with the case as the landlord carried out repairs to the pipework to resolve the problem. All repairs were completed by 15 December 2021.
  3. On 12 December 2022 the resident reported that the problem had returned and the boiler had flooded. After inspecting the boiler that day, the landlord’s operative noted that as the weather was still cold the resident had agreed to run the condensate pipe into a bucket for a week, after which the operative would return to refit the condensate pipe back into the pump and then carry out further work in the new year.
  4. On 25 January 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and explained that she wanted to raise a complaint as the landlord had cancelled various appointments since the inspection and that she was still having to regularly empty the bucket. She said the work had been due to be carried out that day but the builder had cancelled as he had to wait for the installation team. She said a supervisor and engineer had attended that day to agree what work would be carried out. (The repairs records confirm that they were also assessing whether the boiler could be relocated). She said a new appointment to carry out the work had been booked for 31 January 2023 but had then been changed to 20 February 2023, by which time she would have been emptying the bucket for 10 weeks.
  5. On 30 January 2023 the Ombudsman referred the resident’s complaint to the landlord and asked it to acknowledge the complaint at stage 1 by 6 February 2023 and  to contact the resident to discuss the complaint, before providing a stage 1 complaint response by Monday 20 February 2023. The landlord responded the same day to confirm it had now raised a complaint and would issue a response by the deadline.
  6. On 20 February 2023 the landlord responded to the resident to say that the issues had previously been raised as a legal disrepair case and the issues had been addressed. It said that in line with process it would not be raising a stage 1 complaint and that the resident should contact her solicitor for any information about the final outcome of the case.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman to say that she had not continued with the disrepair case. On 2 March 2023 the Ombudsman advised the landlord that even if relying on legal proceedings to exclude the complaint from the complaint procedure, it was still required to provide a final response. However, it understood that no legal proceedings had been issued. Therefore, we asked the landlord that by 9 March 2023, to provide a copy of any issued claim form or particulars of claim, and to provide a Stage 1 response to the resident on all complaint grounds.
  8. On 9 March 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said it understood that the resident had not been satisfied with its previous response and that it been unsuccessful in trying to contact her to confirm the reason for her dissatisfaction or the resolution she sought. It said following her legal disrepair case in March 2021 it had taken action to resolve the issue, including replacing the external pipework. It said all works were completed by 15 December 2021 and there were no outstanding works, in relation to the issues raised.
  9. It advised it had identified a service failure, due to the delay in resolving the issues. It said, “In recognition of the issues that were involved with your complaint, I have arranged an award of £350.00, as compensation, in addition to our using discretion, to approve your chosen kitchen design.” It explained that the £350 was a discretionary payment for any inconvenience suffered or a degree of disruption to the household and a recognition of failure to follow process/policy and repeat visits to resolve the problem.
  10. On 12 March 2023 the resident responded to say that the previous actions the landlord had referred to, had not permanently resolved the issues with the boiler. She said that following the most recent leak in December 2022 the pipe was still hanging over a bucket, and that she was fed up with having to empty the bucket, as she had been doing so for over 3 months at that point. She said she was happy with the landlord’s offer of her chosen kitchen design and £350 compensation and asked whether this meant the boiler was going to be placed in the kitchen. She said her only query was when the works would be completed by.
  11. The landlord responded on 18 March 2023 to say it had escalated her complaint due to her dissatisfaction with the outcome of her complaint at stage 1.The resident responded to say she had not been dissatisfied with the outcome and was happy with the offer of her chosen kitchen design and £350 compensation. She said she had only asked for clarification about whether it was offering to resolve the boiler issue by moving it to the kitchen, and when the works to the boiler and kitchen would take place (as she was still having to empty the bucket of water in the meantime). The landlord replied to say it raised a stage 2 complaint to ensure the complaint was reopened and her response viewed and that it would also get the boiler issues resolved.
  12. In its stage 2 response on 11 May 2023 the landlord said that the alteration work to the boiler pipework had been completed on 23 March 2023. It said it had not been deemed necessary to replace the boiler, therefore there was “no question to answer regarding where a new boiler may be sited.”. It said the resident had “raised an enquiry about kitchen design despite this not being mentioned in the stage 1 response”. It said her property was not currently listed for a kitchen replacement in the next financial year, either as part of planned works or as a ‘one off’ job. It said it had been unable to contact her via telephone, to ascertain exactly what her enquiry referred to but that if it had been mentioned as part of the disrepair case she should refer back to her solicitor.
  13. It said she had already been compensated for identified failures of service and that it considered the £350 awarded previously for the “substantive issue” to be adequate. It advised it was unable to identify further failures apart from the delay in providing the stage 2 response and awarded an additional £50 compensation for that.
  14. The resident responded the same day to say that she had already accepted the offer of a new kitchen design and that the landlord was now backtracking on its offer. She also sent a picture of the final boiler repair as she was unhappy with the finishing, as well as pictures of an unrelated repair. She said a better solution was needed for the boiler issues.
  15. The landlord responded to the resident on 12 May 2023 advising her to contact the Ombudsman if she was unhappy with its final complaint response. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman that day.
  16. During the investigation of this complaint in December 2024 the resident advised the Ombudsman that she is still experiencing problems with the boiler and that she has previously been advised by operatives that the boiler issues are due to the location of the boiler. Therefore, she would like it to be relocated or a permanent solution found. She said the landlord still maintains that it never offered her the option of a new kitchen design and is not prepared to replace or relocate the boiler.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs that were reported to it in December 2022. Although references have been made to the boiler repairs in 2021, these have been made for the purpose of adding background and context and will not form part of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. At the time of the complaint a reasonable timescale was considered to be 6 months.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.

  1. The landlord’s repair policy for the relevant time period states that emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at that visit, though further repairs may then subsequently be required. It also states that appointments for non-emergency repairs will be offered within 28 days.
  2. When the resident reported that she had no hot water or heating and that the boiler pump was leaking on 12 December 2022 the landlord responded the same day which was appropriate. The operative noted that the cold weather had caused the condensate pipe to freeze and this had caused the pump to back up. He also noted that while the weather was still cold it would freeze again. Therefore, the operative’s decision to run the condensate pipe into a bucket which the resident would need to empty regularly, and then return in a week to complete repairs when the weather was milder was reasonable, as a short term measure. The resident agreed to this, as it meant that she would have heating and hot water and emptying the bucket would only be an inconvenience for a week until the follow on appointment.
  3. However, the follow on appointment was repeatedly cancelled by the landlord. The repair notes show a number of different reasons ranging from a change of engineer, no builder being available to carry out necessary pre work and confusion over whether parts had already been ordered or needed to be authorised by the buying team. Once the resident had raised her complaint it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured that the repairs were completed as a priority. However, due to a lack of understanding during the complaints process that the issues were ongoing and repairs were still outstanding (which will be addressed in the complaint handling section of this report) the landlord failed to do so.
  4. The repairs were eventually completed on 23 March 2023, after the resident had pointed out to the complaints team on 18 March 2023, that she was fed up with having to empty the bucket. The repair had taken over 3 months to complete which was far outside the timeframes in its repairs policy and was not acceptable. During that time period the resident had become increasingly stressed by having to regularly check and empty the bucket to make sure it hadn’t overflowed and would worry about this when she couldn’t be at the property continuously due to being at work. She was also unable to use the walk in cupboard for storage during this time period and has said that the cupboard was left smelling of stale water.
  5. In its stage 1 response on 9 March 2023 the landlord awarded £350 compensation in relation to the boiler. However, the offer was made based on the misinformation that repairs to the boiler had been completed in December 2021 and that there were no ongoing issues. The landlord failed to acknowledge there were ongoing issues with the boiler. Therefore, although the landlord made an offer of compensation for historical events up until December 2021, it made no offer of compensation for the failings that occurred after the resident reported the boiler issues in December 2022.
  6. As the landlord failed to complete the repair that was reported on 12 December 2022 within a reasonable timeframe and left the resident having to empty buckets of water for over 3 months there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the boiler. In line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord did not acknowledge its failings, we will be ordering the landlord to pay additional compensation of £300. This is in addition to the £350 compensation it has already awarded.
  7. As the resident has reported that she continues to experience similar issues with the boiler, an order has been made below for remedy.

Complaint handling.

  1. When the Ombudsman initially requested that the landlord contact the resident and respond to her complaint by 6 February 2023, as the disrepair case had been discontinued, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided a full complaint response addressing all the resident’s concerns. However, it failed to do so and instead incorrectly refused to raise it as  stage 1 complaint. This was a failing.
  2. It did take appropriate steps to issue a response after the Ombudsman’s second request on 2 March 2023. However, it would also have been appropriate for it to have acknowledged that its previous response had been incorrect and apologised for that. That it did not was a failing. It would then have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed all of the resident’s concerns. The resident had provided the Ombudsman with some background about previous issues with the boiler. However, her main concern was that the boiler issues she had reported on 12 December 2022 had not been resolved and she was still having to empty buckets of water while she awaited a resolution. The landlord failed to acknowledge or address the main issue, stating there were no ongoing issues and instead referred to previous issues which had been resolved in December 2021 and awarded £350 compensation in relation to those. This was a further failing.
  3. It may have been helpful if the landlord had contacted the Ombudsman to request an extension to the response deadline, rather than issue a response that failed to address the resident’s main concern. However, even without contacting the resident, the landlord should have been able to see that there were current issues with the boiler by looking at its repair records. It failed to do so.
  4. In its stage 1 response the landlord also said that its offer of £350 compensation was “in addition to our using discretion, to approve your chosen kitchen design.”  The resident accepted this offer and asked for more details about whether the boiler was being relocated to the kitchen (hence the need for  a new kitchen design). This was a reasonable assumption to make based on the limited information the landlord had provided, and the lack of any ,mention of repairing the boiler in the stage 1 response.
  5. However, the landlord escalated her complaint and its stage 2 response said that she had “raised an enquiry about kitchen design despite this not being mentioned in the stage 1 response”. It is unclear why the landlord said this when its stage 1 response clearly included a reference to it approving the resident’s chosen kitchen design. This comment, along with the comment that there was “no question to answer regarding where a new boiler may be sited.” gave the response a dismissive tone that implied the resident had asked completely irrelevant questions. This tone was not appropriate.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response also failed to apologise for the fact that it had previously stated that there were no outstanding works and for its failure to acknowledge that there were ongoing issues with the boiler when the resident raised her complaint. It correctly confirmed that repairs had been completed on 23 March 2023 (although we understand there was some follow on work after this date). However, it failed to address the fact that it had taken over 3 months to do so or the impact this had on the resident. This was a further failing.
  7. The resident has raised concerns that her complaint was escalated to stage 2 even though she had accepted the landlord’s offer and was only asking questions about the boiler. However, as the landlord’s stage 1 response had failed to properly address the ongoing boiler issues, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate that the landlord escalated the complaint. Once the complaint was escalated the landlord should have responded within 20 working days of its acknowledgment on 18 March 2023, in line with The Ombudsman’s complaint handling guidelines. However the stage 2 response was not issued until 11 May 2023, which was 35 working days rather than 20. As such, the landlord’s decision to award £50 for its late stage 2 response was appropriate.
  8. However, the numerous complaint handing failings identified in this report has led to a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. Therefore, we will be ordering the landlord to pay additional compensation of £350 for this aspect of the complaint. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, leading to distress and inconvenience, disappointment and loss of confidence in the landlord. This is in addition to the £50 it awarded for its late stage 2 response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1050 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £400 previously awarded if this has not already been paid.
      2. £300 compensation for its maladministration in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler. This is an addition to the £350 previously awarded.
      3. £350 in relation to its maladministration in respect of its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £50 it previously awarded.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to :
    1. Arrange for a suitably qualified person to inspect the boiler to see if any further repairs are needed or whether relocating the boiler would resolve the recurrent issues.
    2. Clarify its position with regards the resident’s kitchen( following the boiler inspection). This is because the landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had “arranged an award of £350.00, as compensation, in addition to our using discretion, to approve your chosen kitchen design. A member of our customer support team will be in contact with you within the next 28 days to move this forward.” and then in its stage 2 response stated “You raised an enquiry about kitchen design’ despite this not being mentioned in the stage 1 response.”
  3. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to the Ombudsman.