Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202303330)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303330

Clarion Housing Association Limited

1 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about a lack of services charged for but not provided specifically for the lift, intercom and cleaning.
    2. Request for a managed move.
    3. Items outside her property.
    4. Related complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy for the property owned by the landlord, a housing association. The landlord recorded at the start of the tenancy that the resident was unable to work due to ‘long term sickness or disability’ and has referred in its complaint response to the resident suffering from various health issues and being particularly affected by the lift being out of service.
  2. The resident reported in April 2022 that services were charged for but not completed in relation to the caretaking and cleaning. The following month, the landlord removed personal decorative items left in communal areas outside the resident’s property.
  3. The resident complained on 2 January 2023 and said that maintenance of the lift, gates and intercom was not being done, nor was cleaning of communal areas, and the lift was out of order for 6 weeks at a time. She also felt it was unfair that she had been asked to move personal items from outside of her door.
  4. The landlord issued a complaint response on 5 January 2023 in relation to a previous unseen complaint from November 2022, regarding the lift and said that there was a worldwide shortage of the required circuit boards. It also said that the resident was not entitled to a management move. It offered £100 compensation in relation to the delay in the repair and the response.
  5. The landlord issued a response to the complaint regarding the services charged for and not carried out, and the personal items, on 20 February 2023.  It offered £150 for further response delays and the repair issues.  A final response was issued in respect of the lift and the management move on 27 February 2023. The landlord then issued a further final response relating to the lift, intercom, cleaning and personal items on 24 April 2023 when £50 was offered in respect of the delay in that response.
  6. The landlord said it was satisfied with the previous investigations and that there were no outstanding repairs, although it upheld the concerns about the gate and intercom failings. The resident wants the landlord to fix the outstanding communal repairs, allow her a managed move, improve the cleaning service and allow the planters and other decorative items outside her front door.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. There is some overlap in the complaint responses in this case. There were 2 stage 1 complaint responses in January and February 2023. The landlord said they related to complaints submitted in November 2022, but these have not been seen by this Service. The first response says it concerns the lift in the block and the resident’s request for a management transfer.  The second concerns the intercom and cleaning services, as well as the resident’s personal items that were removed by staff.
  2. There are 2 final complaint responses in February and April 2023. The first is described as relating to the lift and management move, the second covers the intercom, cleaning services, and personal items.
  3. The resident referred the complaint to this Service in April 2023 and the complaint issues have been amalgamated for the purposes of this investigation. As the issues overlap, the Ombudsman sees no benefit in separating them at this stage, and to do so would potentially cause further delay.
  4. The resident has recently supplied multiple photographs of what appear to be damaged guttering and water in communal areas. This issue is not part of the complaint under investigation here. The resident should complain formally to the landlord on this matter which, she may then escalate to this Service if appropriate. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme paragraph 42 (a) which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Assessment

Services charged for but not provided – lift, intercom and cleaning.

  1. The assured tenancy agreement effective 2013 refers to service charges which cover caretaking, door entry, lift maintenance and rubbish removal. The repairs and maintenance policy effective December 2022 section 6.1 says repairs to communal areas should be dependent on the nature of the work but must always be completed within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.

Lift

  1. The landlord’s passenger lift servicing and maintenance policy (October 2020) section 5 says the landlord will discharge its duty by “ensuring that our lift installations are repaired and maintained to approved standards and within the specified timescales” and “communicating with residents with regards to issues which may affect them directly”.
  2. The repairs logs supplied by the landlord indicate over 30 repair reports relating to the 1 passenger lift in the resident’s block between July 2021 and July 2023, averaging more than 1 each month. The majority of these repairs were attended to and left in service the same day, many found to be working by the engineers on arrival. Some of the faults were reported by the engineers as being caused by vandalism. This is related to the reports of the broken intercom/pedestrian gate, covered below, as allowing free access to the building reportedly had an impact on Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
  3. In January 2022, the lift was out of service for 11 days. The landlord has said it did not write to the residents during this time as it expected that the lift would be returned to service before it was. The lift was out of service for 2 days in May 2022, 10 days in August 2022 (when engineers said the lift was working but not for all floors), and for approximately 6 weeks in October 2022 when the landlord wrote to residents to advise a part was delayed and it was looking to source this elsewhere.
  4. The landlord said its contractors acknowledged the frequency of the lift breakdowns in its complaint response dated 5 January 2023. It said this was heightened by misuse and ASB with the lift being targeted and said there was a general issue with the availability of circuit boards. The landlord acknowledged the particular inconvenience this caused the resident and that it had arranged a meeting with the housing officer to discuss options to include a mutual exchange.
  5. Since the first response, there were further lift faults which were responded to promptly and the landlord’s final response dated 27 February 2023 did not identify further failures. There was a lift breakdown reported on 18 April 2023 which was not repaired until 21 April 2023, albeit the landlord wrote to residents and updated them on the repair on the second day. There were several further reports of lift faults in the following months which were repaired within 24 hours and estate inspection reports found the lifts to be ‘acceptable’.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £50 in respect of the lift breakdown. This appears to be on the low side given that the resident needed to use the lift and was unable to for a period of 6 weeks. The sum of £100 would better reflect the distress and inconvenience of the landlord failing to meet its published timescale of 28 days to resolve a communal repair.
  7. This is the starting point of the range of compensation recommended by the Ombudsman for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident in particular.
  8. It is evident that the lift at the property is frequently out of service, and that this impacts on the resident’s life as she is unable to easily manage the stairs. The landlord should approach the resident to discuss again her options for moving to a property on the ground floor, and support and signpost her as appropriate.

Intercom

  1. As above, repairs to the intercom/pedestrian gate would fall under communal repairs and should be resolved within 28 days. The landlord issued a letter to all residents on 17 March 2021 to invite them to a meeting to discuss the pedestrian gates, although it is not known what the outcome was. Estate inspections in January 2022 and July 2022 said that the door entry systems were checked, and no issues found.
  2. The landlord inspected the estate in October 2022 and the estate inspection form notes a hazard identified with the door entry system but does not specify which block this was. The resident raised the issue of the gates and intercom not being maintained in her email to the landlord of 2 January 2023 and an estate inspection report dated 6 February 2023 said that the gate was not functioning on the resident’s block. However, a fire risk assessment 2 days later recorded that the front entrance door was secure and a buzz/intercom system was installed where tenants could provide access to visitors. It is not clear if the intercom issue was resolved in the meantime, or not checked by the assessor.
  3. The landlord’s response of 20 February 2023 noted the resident had reported the intercom had not worked for 3 years, and that this allowed unauthorised people into the building. The landlord said that there were no outstanding repairs but due to a problem with parts availability, the repairs to the pedestrian gates had taken longer than the standard repairs times. The landlord offered £50 compensation in relation to the issues complained about.
  4. Following this, the estate inspection report of 3 April 2023 noted that the gate on the resident’s block was “still out of order”, which implies this was the case since the previous inspection in February 2023. The final response dated 24 April 2023 said that there were no outstanding repairs for the gate and intercom, but the complaint was upheld due to previous repairs falling outside of the timescales.
  5. The landlord said there was an issue with ongoing vandalism in respect of the gates and intercom and it was sorry as this would impact on the resident. It said that checks were regularly undertaken, and the landlord was satisfied that when repairs were reported the required work was carried out. It said it was meeting with contractors and looking to identify ways to reinforce components and make them less vulnerable to vandalism. The landlord did not make any further offer of compensation in respect of the intercom/gates despite upholding the complaint for being outside the repair timescales.
  6. Although the resident reported that the intercom was broken for several years, there is no evidence to support this and estate inspections found it working during this time. There was a period identified by the landlord however which it did not offer compensation for, despite upholding the complaint. A payment of a further £50, to make a total of £100 would better reflect the inconvenience caused by the landlord failing to meet its timescales for repair during the second period of the intercom/gate being broken.
  7. This would recognise, as with the lift above, that there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident in particular.

Cleaning

  1. The landlord’s Neighbourhood Management Policy effective July 2021 says at section 3.6 that the landlord will ensure housing teams conduct regular neighbourhood inspections to check that they are well maintained, tidy and free from graffiti. It will work closely with police and other services to keep estates free from ASB, regularly check and maintain shared facilities such as lifts, inspect blocks of flats regularly to ensure they are clean and well maintained and kept clear of rubbish.
  2. Section 5.1 says “Where we identify sites that have acute or long-term issues relating to refuse, recycling, dumped rubbish or fly-tipping and additional services or activities above our usual services are required, we will consider sites for a Local Offer to address the issues.”
  3. In this case, an estate inspection report dated 17 January 2022 noted the condition and cleanliness of lifts and internal bin stores as ‘acceptable’ but walls and floors as ‘poor’. Albeit the report is not just the resident’s block and no ASB issues were specified for the block. The landlord acknowledged an enquiry from the resident regarding service charges on 4 April 2022 although the response has not been provided at that time. We can see that a service charge breakdown was sent to the resident on 10 February 2022 but it is unclear if the landlord referred back to this following the resident’s request of April 2022.
  4. An internal landlord email said “As per the notes the resident is highlighting [ASB] issues. Should I just advise the resident the block is cleaned once a week and the caretaker can only clean/clear up what he comes across when on site and you’ve been inspecting the cleaning”. This does not imply that the landlord was asking for an objective report or sending its own staff to check on contractors. Rather that it was relying on the fact that the caretaking was due to be done, so that was enough to indicate that it was.
  5. The estate inspection report for the entire estate dated 26 July 2022 gave the condition and cleanliness of lifts and internal bin stores as acceptable and of walls/floors as poor and that there were signs of ASB, but again, does not specify a block. The report for 11 October 2022 describes the lifts and bins as acceptable but walls and floors as poor with signs of ASB. The resident complained in January 2023 that the smell of rubbish as you approached the property was embarrassing. ‘QA’ reports dated 19 December 2022 and 31 January 2023 graded the block as ‘acceptable’.
  6. The estate inspection report on 6 February 2023 found the lifts and walls/floors to be acceptable, but the bin areas poor and that there were signs of ASB. The landlord’s complaint response dated 20 February 2023 said that the cleaning had been investigated, there was a once-a-week service in the block, and it was inspected monthly and had been graded as acceptable in the last 2 monthly inspections.
  7. Whilst the QA reports were graded as acceptable, it is noted that the more detailed estate inspection reports were not provided to this Service for this period.  It is not clear who is conducting the QA reports, and whether this was a cleaning contractor rather than the landlord itself.
  8. The landlord said that the operations manager would be happy to meet with the resident. It said that the bin area was a concern as residents were disposing of items in front of the bin room rather than inside. This prevented access and caused spillages and smells.
  9. The landlord said it was working with the neighbourhood response officer to address this. In the interim, the caretaker had increased visits to at least twice weekly to clear the build-up of rubbish and improve access. The landlord said it cleaned the area with industry disinfectant to freshen but would look further to see what could be done regarding the smell. The complaint upheld was upheld and as above, £50 was offered for the lift and intercom issues.
  10. The estate inspection report for 3 April 2023 graded the lifts, bin areas, walls and floors as acceptable, but with signs of ASB and an ongoing issue with the bin stores at the resident’s block. The landlord’s final response dated 24 April 2023 said it did not uphold the complaint beyond the lift and intercom as there were no service failures identified.  The landlord said it was satisfied in respect of the cleaning and would be writing to all residents again about the bin area.
  11. The estate inspection report dated 21 June 2023 found the lifts acceptable but the internal bin stores poor. In relation to the resident’s block specifically it was noted that the bin store internal access door was closed off, the internal area was messy due to bags being left on the floor and there were issues with rats in the bin store. Again, a QA report 2 weeks later graded the block as acceptable.
  12. There is a disconnect between the QA reports for the resident’s block, and the estate inspection reports, which feedback generally but have singled the block out with concerns. It is understood that the landlord cannot always respond immediately when residents do not use the bin areas correctly, but this issue has not improved over the long period covered by its inspection reports. The resident has provided many photographs which are undated, but which show the extent of the problem around the cleanliness of the block.
  13. The landlord’s own policies point to action it can take where there are chronic issues with caretaking but there is no evidence that particular action has been successfully taken here.
  14. It would provide the resident with confidence in the landlord’s intention to resolve this issue if the landlord were to increase its inspections for a period and to provide its findings broken down by block, rather than by the whole estate as they do now. While there is no evidence to show the landlord is not reacting to issues as they arise, the ‘poor’ inspection findings over such an extended period do suggest a need to address the issue differently. The landlord should show the resident and other tenants that it seeks to ensure their service charge is providing the facilities paid for.
  15. The landlord should provide the resident with a report which includes a period of closer monitoring of the cleaning of her block, with inspections undertaken by individuals who do not work for the contractors if that is the case currently.

Summary of repair complaint

  1. The landlord has provided a letter dated 10 February 2022 that was sent to the resident regarding the reasons for the service charge due to be paid from 4 April 2022. This provided a breakdown of the service charge. Based on this evidence we can see that the landlord did issue a letter prior to April 2022 detailing the breakdown however it is unclear whether this was resent following the resident’s request.
  2. Whilst it is noted that the service charge is estimated based on previous years charges, it does not take away from the failings identified in the investigation report in line with the landlord’s obligations to complete communal repairs detailed within its own policy. It has been evidenced by the submissions from the landlord that cleaning and checks were being done weekly however, it is maintained that there was conflicting information as detailed in the inspection reports. Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged its failings with regards to the delays in repairing the lift and the intercom as per its complaint response.
  3. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £50 on top of what it previously offered, to make a total of £100 in respect of the lift issue. It should pay a further £50, to make a total of £100 in respect of the intercom/gate issue.
  4. It should provide a ‘block inspection report’ into cleaning/caretaking, as submitted by the landlord for the whole estate, but specifically for the resident’s block. These should cover a 3 monthly period and be done at 2 weekly intervals to be undertaken by landlord staff.

Managed move

  1. No information has been submitted by the landlord regarding management moves. Its ‘Allocations Policy’ section 10.2 refers to Management Transfer Policy & Procedure, but it was not provided or found via an internet search or its website. The Allocations Policy says that “Occasionally there are exceptional circumstances that result in a …tenant needing to move urgently and so we may agree to give the applicant priority. These types of transfers are called management transfers.”
  2. In this case, the resident has said that she is particularly inconvenienced by the lift failures as she needs to use the lift to access the property. The landlord has advised that the resident’s flat is on the ground floor, this may be an error as its responses do not dispute the problems the resident has experienced accessing her property when the lift is not working. The photographic evidence also suggest that the resident’s property was above the ground floor.
  3. On 8 August 2022 the resident reported that the last time the lifts were out of service, she had an asthma attack using the stairs. On 10 October 2022 the repair log notes that the tenant had health conditions. The landlord wrote to all residents on 13 October 2022, and several times after this, regarding delays getting parts to fix the lift and asked any residents likely to experience high levels of inconvenience to make contact. There is no evidence that the resident responded to this request specifically.
  4. However, the resident’s complaint of 14 November 2022, included a request for a management move and the landlord has acknowledged the disruption and inconvenience of the lift breakdown. It booked an ‘Advice and Support’ appointment for 23 November 2022 when a housing officer discussed housing options with the resident. The resident said she was unable to remain in the property and was advised that she did not qualify for a management move. Other options were given, including a mutual exchange and to apply via the local authority.
  5. The landlord did not identify any further failures in its final response on 27 February 2023. The full letter has not been seen to know what the landlord said in relation to the management move, although it is identified as a complaint issue.
  6. There is an undated letter from the landlord declining the management transfer on the grounds of the lift breaking down and the resident being unable to use the stairs. It said this would be covered under a medical transfer not a management transfer, which were for urgent transfers due to safety. The landlord urged the resident to make a rehousing application to the local authority and provide medical evidence.
  7. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to direct the landlord how to apply its own policy, but it must be fair in how it communicates with residents. In this case, it invited residents to make contact if the ongoing problems with the lift caused a particular problem, but it is not clear what it offered to resolve this for them, other than refer them to the local authority.
  8. It is not unreasonable that the landlord was unable to move the resident under its management transfer policy, if this was only for cases of safety, which would be usual for such policies. It is not clear when the letter was sent declining the transfer, but it does seem that the issue was considered, a response given, and the resident supported to consider other options.
  9. The landlord’s decision not to allow the resident a management transfer was not inappropriate, and no service failure has been identified in respect of this element of the complaint.

Items outside property

  1. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 covers blocks of flats and places legal duties on the landlord to maintain general fire precautions.  Information published by the relevant fire brigade for the resident’s building says that tenants storing belongings in communal areas can pose a real risk to safety. Items can be accidentally or deliberately set alight. In the event of fire items in hallways and on stairs can stop people escaping and stop firefighters doing their job. Landlords are responsible for ensuring that corridors, stairs and stairwells in blocks of flats are clear.
  2. Advice published by the landlord online says that tenants are not allowed to keep anything in communal areas and that keeping communal areas clear of personal items means you can escape quickly and safely in the event of a fire or emergency. It says that things left in communal areas can also help to spread a fire.
  3. In this instance, the landlord advised the resident in May 2022 and on several occasions since then that items outside her front door were being held by the landlord under the Tort Interference with Goods Act. The resident felt that the landlord should allow her items to stay as they made the area more pleasant.  She felt the landlord should not have a blanket rule but should judge each case individually, and that by not doing so, the landlord was not taking her particular circumstances into account. The landlord had issued several Tort notices to other residents in the block for similar decorative items/artificial plants/leafy screens in communal balcony areas.
  4. A Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) report on 8 February 2023 recommended that robust arrangements be made to ensure communal areas are maintained clear of storage.  In the complaint response of 20 February 2023, the landlord said that it operated a ‘sterile hall policy’ regarding health and safety so items did not present a fire risk or trip hazard. In event of a fire, items may be combustible and in emergency may impede access.
  5. A further FRA on 10 March 2023 noted that balconies were being used to store “what appears to be combustible material… potential source of rapid-fire spread on the external wall of residential buildings”. “Building owners should have existing policies in place as to what can and cannot be stored and used on balconies by residents…” The landlord’s final response on this issue dated 24 April 2023 said that the possessions were cleared as per its policy and not decided on a case-by-case basis. It felt this was fair as all residents were treated the same and no exceptions would be made.
  6. No evidence has been seen to suggest that the landlord’s rules regarding items left in communal areas should not be followed in this case. The landlord has taken appropriate and correct action in removing items in the past, and there are no grounds to indicate that an exception should be made in the case of the resident’s possessions.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy effective June 2022, says it aims to reply to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days, and stage 2 within 40 working days.
  2. The 2022 Complaint Handling Code, published by this Service, says that stage 1 complaints must be responded to within 10 working days and should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. Stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated and should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
  3. In this case, the complaint response dated 5 January 2023 says it relates to the complaint submitted on 14 November 2022 (unseen). This response exceeded the 20 working days indicated in the landlord’s policy and was considerably over the 10 working days allowed for in the 2022 Code.
  4. The landlord offered £50 for the delay, however. This is in line with compensation recommended by the Ombudsman for service failure of a short duration, which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.
  5. The landlord’s response dated 20 February 2023 says it referred to the resident’s complaint dated 8 November 2022 (unseen). It is noted that the landlord emailed the resident on 23 December 2022 to ask for clarification on which services she was being charged for which did not take place, and the resident replied on 2 January 2023. However, this request came after the 20 working days indicated in the landlord’s policy, and the 10 working days allowed for in the 2022 Code. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the additional delay in this case, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations and reflects the further delay in this response.
  6. The resident escalated the first complaint the same day, 20 February 2023 and the landlord issued an acknowledgment and said it aimed to respond within 10 working days. The response was issued on 27 February 2023, within the landlord’s stated timescale and those in the Code. Only the first page of this response has been seen by this Service, but the landlord says that it had not identified any further failures so it would not appear additional compensation was offered at this time. The response covered the lift repairs and the resident’s request for a management move.
  7. The landlord issued a further final response letter on 24 April 2023, which it said related to the resident’s escalation request dated 26 February 2023. It correctly said that the resident had a final response relating to the lift, so could now approach the Ombudsman. The landlord offered a further £50 in respect of the delay in the final response being issued. As before, this is an appropriate sum for this delay.
  8. The landlord has not been able to provide the November 2022 complaints, or a full copy of its response of 27 February 2023 and should ensure that in future it is able to show a complete complaint history when requested.
  9. The total remedy of £200 offered by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling is reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of services charged for but not provided specifically for the lift, intercom and cleaning.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. The decision not to allow a management transfer.
    2. Items left outside the resident’s property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the member has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue of complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident an additional £50, (to make £100 total, see below), in respect of lift repairs.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £50, (to make £100 total, see below) in respect of the intercom/gate repairs.
    3. Provide the first of 3 months’ of ‘inspections reports’ covering the resident’s block specifically.
    4. Contact the resident to offer support/signpost her in relation to a possible move to a ground floor property if accessibility remains a concern, including any occupational health referral.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that the above orders have been complied with, within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £100 previously offered in respect of the issues complained about (being £50 on 5 January 2023 and £50 2 February 2023).
    2. Review its complaints policy giving specific consideration to the 2024 updated Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in relation to timescales for responding to complaints.
    3. Remind salient complaints staff of the need to provide copies of all correspondence to include the resident’s complaints, and all responses issued, to this Service when requested.
    4. Pay the sum of £200 already offered in respect of complaint delays if not already paid (being £50 on 5 January 2023, £100 on 20 February 2023 and £50 on 24 April 2023).