Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202232021)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232021

Clarion Housing Association Limited

1 November 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:
    1. Communication with the resident regarding an insurance claim.
    2. Handling of a request for information about her rent and service charges.
    3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. On 14 May 2020, the resident reported a leak into her property which caused damp. The landlord attended on the same date to make the electrics safe. It subsequently attended on 22 May 2020 and 1 June 2020 and noted that it needed to destroy a bath panel to investigate further. It is evident, however, that further inspections were delayed due to the impacts of COVID-19.
  3. The evidence provided shows that the resident raised a formal complaint on 15 June 2020. It is evident she repeated this complaint on 20 August 2020 and again on 1 October 2020.
  4. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 20 October 2020. It noted that the resident had declined a further inspection and was now seeking an insurance claim. It provided information about how to pursue the claim.
  5. On 15 March 2022, the landlord’s legal representative noted that the resident had previously had her own legal representation, but this was no longer the case. The resident replied on 19 April 2022, saying that she was pursuing the claim herself. She subsequently explained the impact the issues had on her and requested compensation.
  6. On 9 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and noted she had not received a response to her previous request for compensation made to the landlord’s legal representative. She reiterated her request and noted the impact the issues had on her health.
  7. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged this request and so the resident sought support from this service. This service subsequently asked the landlord to open a formal complaint. The landlord advised this service that a complaint had been logged on 7 March 2023.
  8. The landlord sent a further complaint acknowledgement on 11 July 2023 for the complaint relating to the insurance claim. It also noted the resident’s concerns about information provided relating to rent and service charge.
  9. It is evident that the landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident on 2 June 2023. However, this related to another of the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s approaches to non-payment of rent and antisocial behaviour.
  10. The landlord provided a further stage one complaint response on 22 August 2023. This response included the following:
    1. Regarding the insurance claim, the landlord acknowledged it had received the claim in January 2023. It advised, however, that it had not forwarded this claim to its insurer until March 2023. It apologised for this delay and explained this had been due to a cyber-attack.
    2. It advised that the claim was now being investigated as a legal liability claim and that all future correspondence should be made directly with its insurer.
    3. Regarding the rent and service charges, it provided the resident with information about how its charges were calculated. It acknowledged that the resident had previously made an enquiry about this in February 2023, but that it had failed to respond. It apologised and offered £100 compensation.
    4. It also acknowledged that its complaint response had been delayed, for which it apologised and offered £50 compensation.
  11. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 4 September 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 8 September 2023. It sent a further acknowledgement on 21 September 2023. In each acknowledgement, it advised it would provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  12. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 October 2023. It noted that the resident had previously been pursuing a disrepair claim, but this had not been progressed by her legal representatives. It advised that this should be pursued by both parties’ legal representatives and that it could not comment further. Regarding the rent and service charge information, the landlord provided a detailed breakdown of the charges and how they were calculated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has complained about how the landlord responded to her concerns about the communication with the insurers and the progress of her insurance claim. It is understandable that this would have likely caused frustration about the lack of communication regarding her insurance claim. However, while we can consider how the landlord communicated with the resident about her submission of a claim, the insurance claim itself is not something we can consider, as it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because, in line with paragraph 34.a. of the Scheme, complaints can only be considered by the Ombudsman if they relate to the actions or omissions of a member which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have affected the complainant in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.
  2. The Ombudsman can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a breakdown of her rent and service charges. We are aware, however, that the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord is because she considers that her rent and service charges had been wrongly increased. This is not something the Ombudsman can consider. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme says, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. For complaints about rent and service charge increases, there is a first-tier tribunal process that the resident can access. https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber.The remainder of this report therefore will focus on the resident’s complaint about her request for a breakdown of her rent and service charges. It will also consider the landlord’s communication and complaint handling throughout.

Policies and procedure

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. At the time of the complaint about the insurance claim and the rent inquiry however, the landlord said it had experienced a serious cyber security incident, and so it was operating an interim complaints policy. This says a complaint will be acknowledged within 10 working days and a stage one response provided within 20 working days. The stage one response should be issued within 20 working days from the date of the complaint. If the resident requests a peer review of their complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this escalation request within 10 working days and will issue its stage 2 final response within 40 working days. However, it is evident from its complaint acknowledgements sent to the resident referred to above, that in these, it was still referring to 20 working days at stage 2.

Insurance claim

  1. While the Ombudsman’s investigation cannot consider the acts and omissions of the landlord’s insurance company, we can consider the landlord’s communication with the resident about that claim. It is evident the landlord had received the resident’s claim in some form, as its solicitor had written to the resident about it on 15 March 2022, saying it understood she was no longer represented by her former solicitor, and it asked whether she still intended to pursue the claim. The resident responded on 18 April 2022, confirming that she was still pursuing the claim and would now be representing herself.
  2. We would expect the landlord to have responded to this letter in line with its service standards and explain the process going forward. Instead, there is no evidence that the landlord’s solicitor or any other representative of the landlord responded to the resident, so she had no assurance that her claim was still being processed. This lack of communication would likely have caused frustration for the resident. This is a failing on the part of the landlord.
  3. The resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord on 3 November 2022 asking how the resident should make an insurance claim in relation to the leak that had occurred in May 2020. The landlord responded the same day, saying the first step was to submit a claim to its insurance department, for which it provided the contact details. This was a prompt and helpful response on the landlord’s part.
  4. The resident then contacted the landlord in January 2023. She said she had still not heard anything further since the above exchange with the landlord’s solicitor in April 2022. She sought an update on the progress of her claim. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this communication. The landlord, in line with its service standards, should have raised a claim for the resident within 5 working days. Instead, the landlord failed to even acknowledge it. In this service’s view, the landlord missed an opportunity at this time to make sure the resident’s claim was being processed and to take steps to overcome the lack of communication by its insurance department. The landlord’s insurance team should have made enquiries to ascertain what had happened with this resident’s claim and ask the most appropriate staff member to contact the resident to explain. No apology or compensation was offered for its lack of communication.
  5. On 22 August 2023, the landlord said it had investigated the resident’s complaint, and that it had received the claim in January 2023, but due to an administrative error, it was not logged until March 2023, which is outside of its service agreement level of five working days. It did apologise for its delay, but did not offer any compensation to put right the impact of its delay on her insurance claim.
  6. Given that its formal response was in late August 2023, we would expect the landlord to have also explained what had happened with her insurance claim since March 2023, some five months previous. In our view, this was a missed opportunity to investigate with its internal insurance department, to establish what stage the claim was at, and what timeframes the resident should expect going forward. It should also have asked its insurance department to contact the resident about her claim. The landlord’s lack of understanding about the resident’s situation would have been worrying for her, as she would have been left with uncertainty and frustration about the progress of her claim.
  7. In relation to the insurance claim, while in its stage 2 response the landlord provided the resident with contact details of its insurance department, it again told the resident that all future communication about the claim should be through their mutual legal representatives. This is despite the resident having told the landlord in March 2022 that she no longer had legal representation. This does not indicate that its investigation into the matter was sufficiently thorough or robust.
  8. There has been a lack of appropriate redress in relation to the landlord’s delay in logging the resident’s insurance claim for three months, and then failing to thoroughly investigate why the resident was not receiving updates about her claim. The landlord should have taken further steps to recognise the impact this would have had on her, and to ensure the resident was provided with the reassurance she sought. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made. To put things right for the resident, we make an order for compensation below. We also recommend that the landlord ensures its most appropriate staff member contact the resident, to provide relevant contact details, and to provide her with an update about her claim.
  9. Our approach to financial compensation takes into account avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment or other unfair impact of the maladministration or service failure. In this case, the lack of communication would understandably have caused unnecessary concern and distress for the resident, as it may have left her feeling that without legal representation, her claim was not now being taken seriously. This lack of communication took place over an extended period. We make an order of compensation of £225 in relation to this. This is in line with our Guidance on Remedies, for findings of maladministration where there is evidence of a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right.

Rent and service charge

  1. In February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, requesting a breakdown of her rent and service charges. Although the landlord acknowledged this request, it then failed to provide the breakdown as requested until after the resident raised a complaint on 3 July 2023. This would understandably have been very frustrating for the resident, as we are aware she was considering challenging the increase in her rent and service charges, so it is understandable that she would want to be aware how they were being calculated.
  2. The landlord did acknowledge the delay it had caused at stage 1 of its complaints process. To reflect the delay and the inconvenience this had caused the resident, it apologised to the resident and offered her £100 compensation.
  3. In its final response, the landlord did provide another, more detailed breakdown of the rent for the resident, this time setting it out in line with the resident’s specific request. Having reviewed this response, we have not identified any failings in relation to the matter of the rent inquiry. We are also aware from our contact with the resident, that on reflection, she was not dissatisfied with the explanation itself; rather, her concern was about the rent being increased despite assurances from the landlord that it would not be. As discussed at paragraph 14 above, the level of rent and service charges is better suited to the tribunal process.

Complaint handling

  1. Following the resident referring her concerns about her insurance claim to this service in early 2023, we contacted the landlord on 3 July 2023 and noted the resident’s insurance claim made on 9 January 2023 had not been acknowledged. In response, the landlord told us that it had now logged a complaint about both the rent inquiry and the insurance claim. It acknowledged the complaint on 11 July 2023.
  2. The landlord’s interim complaints policy says that at stage one, a response will be provided within 20 working days. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 August 2023. This was 6 working days outside of the timeframe in its policy. While this is not a lengthy delay, we would expect the landlord to have explained its anticipated delays to the resident, to help avoid the frustration this delay would likely have caused. This service’s Complaint Handling Code says, where a response to a complaint will fall outside the timescales set out in this Code the landlord must agree with the resident suitable intervals for keeping them informed about their complaint. There is no evidence the landlord did this.
  3. It explained that to investigate the resident’s complaint, it had reviewed all its internal systems and liaised with its Insurance Manager and its Service Charge Team Leader. It apologised for its delay in providing its stage 1 response, which it said was due to a high level of customer contact at the time. The landlord also referred to the impact of a malicious cyber attack it had recently experienced, and how this was not restored until March 2023. It is understandable that a serious cyber attack could have compromised the landlord’s ability to provide services in line with its service level agreements. However, we would still expect in such situations, that a landlord would, at the earliest opportunity, send a message to all its residents, informing them of the issue, so as to manage their expectations at the time. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
  4. It is evident the landlord was in contact with the resident at the time, as on 2 June 2023,it wrote to her about a more recent complaint she had made. Its failure to prioritise the issue of her rent inquiry and insurance claim would have been frustrating for the resident at the time.
  5. In relation to the rent enquiry, the landlord also acknowledged that its complaint response had been issued outside its service agreement timeframe. It offered a further £50 to reflect this delay. While its delay may have been frustrating for the resident, the level of compensation offered for that delay is reasonable in our view, and it is in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 October 2023. This was 3 days outside of our Complaint Handling Code, which says a stage 2 response must be issued within 20 working days. While the response was nonetheless within the 40 working days as provided for in the landlord’s interim policy at the time, we would expect it to have acknowledged the escalation request and explain its anticipated delays. That said, it was a small number of days and there is no indication that this caused any significant detriment to the resident. Overall, it was reasonable, and we have not found a failing in relation to this part of the complaint handling process.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy says its principles include being fair; keeping its customers informed and managing expectations. Its promises include to take ownership of the issues raised by its customers and keep the customer informed. In this case the landlord’s failure to take ownership of the complaint about the resident’s insurance claim unfairly led to a lack of meaningful communication with the resident about her claim.
  8. In summary, we are satisfied that in relation to the rent inquiry, the landlord’s complaint handling has provided reasonable redress to the resident. Its offer of compensation for its initial delay at stage 1 is reasonable. However, in relation to the resident’s complaint about her insurance claim, a failing of maladministration has been made. To put things right for the resident, we make an order of £200 for the landlord’s failure to thoroughly investigate and respond appropriately to this aspect of her complaint. This reflects the accumulative impact of the landlord’s failure to engage on this aspect of her complaint over an extended period.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its communication with the resident about her: insurance claim.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its response concerning her rent inquiry.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation:
    1. £225 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to investigate and respond appropriately to her requests for an update about her insurance claim.
    2. £200 in respect of its associated complaint handling
  2. £425 must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord investigate what has happened with the resident’s insurance claim and have the most appropriate staff member contact her with an update about her claim.