Clarion Housing Association Limited (202229282)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229282

Clarion Housing Association Limited

8 February 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Latent defects in the resident’s bathroom.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident purchased a 25% shared ownership in the property on 15 October 2021.
  2. On 24 January 2022 the developer of the property visited the resident to perform a survey of the bathroom. On 28 March 2022 the developer contacted the resident to inform him he would need to vacate the property for 2 weeks to allow it to perform remedial work. The resident e-mailed the landlord regarding this on 30 March 2022 and 12 April 2022. He queried the landlord’s plan to complete the works and the decant process. He asked questions about who would bear the cost of electricity when work was being completed and was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of clarity and openness about the issues. He wanted compensation for the inconvenience of having to decant from the property.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 25 April 2022. The resident was unhappy about being contacted by the developer about the decant and the work needed. The resident had received no written communication from the landlord, felt the decant property did not meet his needs and had still not been provided an answer about who would pay for electricity whilst the work was ongoing. The resident wanted the landlord to take responsibility for the situation, be transparent in its communication and provide compensation for the distress and inconvenience. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 May 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint, awarding £50 compensation and apologising for not responding to his earlier e-mails. It said that the developer was taking responsibility for the works, and to direct all questions specific to the work to it.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 15 May 2022. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s decant policy, its failure to send any correspondence advising of the work and that it did not have proper records of the agreement it had made with the developer regarding the work. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 August 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered him £250 compensation. This consisted of the £50 offered at stage 1, £50 for its delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response, £100 for its lack of correspondence about the work, and £50 for the inconvenience of having to be decanted. The landlord also reiterated that the developer remained responsible for the works and the decant. It also confirmed that the developer had offered the resident appropriate accommodation for the decant.
  5. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 22 February 2023. He felt that the landlord had not supported him throughout the repairs and that it had failed to properly communicate with him about these. He felt the landlord should have done more to offer guidance throughout the process. The resident said to resolve his complaint, he would like substantial compensation and an apology from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. Paragraph 41b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which ‘concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme’. Given this, the actions of the developer and its communications with the resident have not been considered as part of this investigation.
  2. The resident raised concerns about data protection and in particular the landlord passing on his phone number to the developers. Complaints about data protection do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and should be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The landlord’s handling of the latent defect in the resident’s bathroom

  1. The landlord’s decant policy states that it does not normally ‘provide financial assistance or book accommodation for leaseholders and shared owners who need to temporarily move out’. It says in these situations residents would usually be expected to recover costs from their insurance provider.
  2. The landlord has reached an agreement with the developer that it will take responsibility for the repairs and provide a decant for the resident. As per its policy, the landlord in this situation would not be expected to offer a decant to the resident due to the latent defect discovered. The landlord’s position in its policy towards shared owners is reasonable and in line with standard practice.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord directed the resident to contact the developer to answer specific questions he had about the decant. This included the issue relating to any accrued electricity costs during the repair. As the landlord would not be the party undertaking the repairs, this was a fair action for the landlord to take. The resident also raised a question about his insurance to the landlord. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have informed the resident he would need to speak with his insurer about any concerns he had relating to the insurance. 
  4. The landlord provided a letter from February 2022 about the works however this is undated and unnamed. There is no evidence the landlord sent this letter to the resident prior to contact from the developers. The landlord should have done more to contact the resident prior to the developer doing so. It would have been good practice for it to outline the ongoing situation and to provide the resident with any contact details for the developer.
  5. The landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident was poor, apologising and providing a combined £150 for this inconvenience. This relates to its failure to send out any correspondence to the resident prior to receiving contact from the developer, and its failure to answer his e-mails from 30 March 2022 and 12 April 2022. The landlord’s offer of compensation was a reasonable amount of redress for the distress and inconvenience its communication failures caused the resident.
  6. The landlord also offered the resident an additional £50 for the distress and inconvenience of the decant. This was also a fair offer of compensation for the resident.
  7. The landlord’s offer of compensation for its handling of the latent defects in the bathroom represented reasonable redress. It acknowledged its communication failures, and also provided an additional discretionary payment for the overall distress and inconvenience the resident had encountered.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s interim complaints policy states that it will provide a complaint response within 20 working days at stage 1, and inside 40 working days at stage 2. These timescales are outside of those recommended in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which sets out complaint handling standards for landlords. This recommends 10 working days and 20 working days respectively.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord provided its complaint response in 13 working days. Whilst this was slightly outside of the timescales the Ombudsman recommends, this was inside of the 20-working day expectation the landlord’s complaint policy gave. Given the extent of the delay, this does not appear to have created any additional distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord took 58 working days to provide its complaint response. The landlord recognised this delay was outside of its policy timescales and provided the resident with £50 compensation for this. This is a reasonable offer of redress for the landlord’s delay.
  4. The landlord’s responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 were fair in content and tone. They provided the resident with the correct information and highlighted that the developer was the party he would need to contact to discuss the decant and repairs.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s apology and offer of £50 compensation for its complaint handling delays represented reasonable redress from the landlord. This amount recognised the distress and inconvenience its delay had caused to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the latent defects to the resident’s bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should reoffer the £250 compensation awarded in its stage 2 complaint response to the resident if it has not already paid this amount.