Clarion Housing Association Limited (202307268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307268

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: –
1. The resident’s reports of repairs needed to the heating system at her property.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of a 1-bedroom flat and has lived in the property since December 2020. It is heated using three electric storage heaters.
On 19 January 2023 the landlord raised a repair for an electrician to attend the property, having received a report from the resident that the heating was not working. This was scheduled for 2 February 2023. Unfortunately, there was a disagreement between the resident and the operative as to what needed to be done, and the latter left without diagnosing or resolving any fault.
The resident raised an online complaint about the situation on 5 February 2023, and which was logged a second time on 9 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint, and a further repair was raised with an appointment scheduled for 6 March 2023.
The landlord’s contractor attended the appointment and reported back that the electrical installation to the heaters was working but they were very old and would benefit from being replaced. The resident had advised the operative that they did not heat up properly despite them being appropriately wired in.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed its understanding that the heaters were working but stated that a referral had been made to its Planned Investment Team to consider updating them in the future. It also confirmed its contractor was investigating whether its operative’s behaviour had been appropriate on 2 February 2023. However, it noted it would not be able to disclose the outcome of those enquiries due to data protection requirements. The landlord noted the resident’s position that she had first reported a fault in mid-December 2022 – although it could find no record of it. It apologised for the time taken to get the system inspected and accepted this was outside of its service levels. It therefore offered compensation of £465, made up of £265 for 53 days with no heating, £150 for service failing/delay and £50 for its late complaint response.
The resident responded the same day, contradicting the report that the heaters were in working order and requesting her complaint to be escalated for review. As a result, on 4 May 2023 the landlord visited the property again and confirmed that the three heaters did not offer adequate heat and needed to be replaced after all. This was completed in early June 2023.
In the meantime, on 16 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 review response. It confirmed that the heating was to be replaced and agreed there had been several service failings in dealing with the issue. It offered increased compensation due to the additional time the resident had been without heating namely a total of £945. This was broken down as £300 for delays and poor communications, £545 for 109 days without heating (up until 30 April 2023) and £100 for the fact that both of its complaint responses had been delayed. On 3 July 2023 the landlord agreed to increase this by a further £200 to reflect the lack of facilities from 1 May 2023 until the new heaters were in place.
However, the resident remained dissatisfied with this response. She considered the compensation was inadequate. Whilst the landlord agreed to pay the additional £200 to her direct, it had sought to set off the remaining £945 against her rent account. She stated this caused her difficulties because she had incurred additional costs travelling to a relative’s home to get warm and to use a launderette to dry washing. Pressure had been placed on her budget for other items as a result. The resident referred the matter to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

Within the records for this case and in the communications received from the resident, she has referred to the fact that the lack of heating affecting both her physical and mental health. Whilst this Service can offer compensation for distress and inconvenience following a landlord’s maladministration, it cannot award damages for injuries and illness arising from its actions and/or omissions. Such a claim is better dealt with by a court which has the expertise to assess such legal issues.

Repairs to the heating system at the resident’s property.

What is apparent from the records in this case is that there was a significant degree of miscommunication which caused confusion and delays. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s report had essentially been one that the heaters were completely ineffective at heating the property – rather than being a repair issue, such as a broken fuse or with faulty wiring. The landlord logged the report as a repair. It is also reasonable to conclude that this misunderstanding caused the difference of opinion at the first appointment on 2 February 2023.
As a result of that altercation, the repair was closed, and it was not until 3 March 2023 that it was reopened. However, the resident was in regular contact with the landlord in the meantime reporting a lack of heat and the landlord might reasonably have been expected to act with more urgency.
The appointment on 6 March 2023 represented another miscommunication. Whilst, technically, the heaters were capable of working, realistically, they were not providing heat. This was lost in translation between contractor and landlord although a referral to a Planned Investment Team for the long-term goal of replacing the heating was made.
The confusion therefore continued. The landlord’s stage 1 response reflected its understanding that the heating was working. The resident reported over the course of the following two months (with increasing exasperation) that it was not.
In the meantime, the contractor contacted the landlord on 30 March 2023 to ask what was happening about replacing the heating stating it had sent an email to this effect after the 6 March 2023 visit to the property. This, effectively, confirmed the resident’s report of the outcome of that appointment. However, it was not until the end of April 2023 that the landlord arranged to visit again to confirm what was required and that was only because the resident escalated her complaint and was tenacious in her contacts and her refusal to allow the matter to peter out. This represented an unacceptable delay on the landlord’s behalf. During this time, it had the opportunity to clarify with the resident the true nature of her report and did speak with her personally on occasions. It should have been reasonably apparent to the landlord what the nature of her dissatisfaction was.
Further, the landlord only offered the resident temporary heating two days before the 6 March 2023 appointment. When she refused 2 heaters because she could not afford to run them, the landlord failed to reoffer them even though it was prepared to fund the additional electricity costs which would be incurred. This represented a further failure in communication.
Finally, when the landlord did visit the property on 4 May 2023, it recognised that the heating was ineffective and needed replacing. It set about arranging this. However, it still took until early June 2023 for it to be completed. This timeframe was not as significant as the earlier ones as the weather was, of course, warmer by now. It, nevertheless, still represented a delay.
The landlord operates a Responsive Repairs and Maintenance Policy which sets out its timescales for repairs. It aims to deal with emergency issues within 24 hours and non-emergency ones within 28 days. It failed to achieve either target, irrespective of whichever category might reasonably have been applied to this situation. It did not comply with its own policy which was inappropriate.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake(s) or service failure(s). The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
In its complaints responses the landlord acknowledged that it could have handled the situation better. Specifically, it recognised (and apologised for) a number of service failings. These ranged from not keeping a proper record of the resident’s earlier reports, to delay, poor communications, a late offer of temporary heaters and the attitude of its operative. It was important that it made these admissions to the resident and that it took responsibility for the situation.
By way of remedy, the landlord was apologetic. It had instigated an investigation on its contractors’ behalf regarding the operative’s behaviour at the first appointment. The landlord also offered compensation of £845 (as set out above but excluding the figure for its complaint handling which is examined below). It had added a further £200 later when the heating had been replaced and the full extent of the delay was apparent.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out its approach to offering compensation. It provides for a daily payment of £5 for “no heating as a result of an outstanding repair”. By being ineffective the heating did need ‘repair’ in the sense that it needed remedial action to take place. The landlord’s total offer was £745 for this calculation equates to 149 days and given the lack of evidence of exactly when the report was first made, was a reasonable application of the policy.
The policy then provides for compensation of between £250 – £700 where there has been a considerable service failure but there is unlikely to be a permanent impact. This category includes the situation where the resident repeatedly chases to have mistakes corrected and also takes account of the length of time involved. The landlord offered £300 in this regard which was a reasonable application of its policy.
On the face of it, therefore, in addition to the apologetic tone and behaviour investigation, the landlord offered reasonable redress for this complaint.
However, the landlord’s compensation, as set out in the stage 2 response, was offered on the basis it would be set off against the resident’s rent account. Its policy allows this to happen. This Service’s Remedies Guidance suggests this approach may not be appropriate especially where any element of the compensation pays the resident back for expenditure incurred as a result of the service failing.
In this case, the resident had made it clear to the landlord on a number of occasions that she was having to fund travel expenses to visit a relative’s home to get warm. She was also having to use a launderette to dry clothes. Further, she needed to keep warm due to health issues – and was, therefore, vulnerable.
The landlord might reasonably have recognised that the compensation was needed by the resident to mitigate the lack of heating and therefore the effects of its service failings. Under these circumstances the landlord might reasonably have offered to pay the resident direct as part of a fair and reasonable dispute resolution – and not set it off against the rent account for which the resident was receiving housing benefit. The landlord’s resolution was not fair and reasonable.
After the landlord had concluded its internal complaints procedure and signposted this Service, it did recognise this point because it offered to pay the additional £200 direct to the resident noting she had incurred expenses. However, the landlord’s email suggests the remainder was applied to the rent account as proposed. The finding of maladministration remains even if this was not the case and the full amount was offered to be paid direct at this point, because the case was settled on the basis the rent account would be credited despite the resident’s protestations to the contrary.
For this reason, the landlord cannot be said to have offered reasonable redress, and a finding of maladministration has been made below. The landlord has been ordered to ensure all the compensation of £1,045 has been paid to the resident direct and if any part of it has been paid to the rent account that credit will need to be removed.

The resident’s complaint

Whilst the landlord completed its internal complaints procedure, the records show that the resident was left without responses to a number of her contacts asking for updates during the process – both about the complaint and about the repair itself. The landlord’s system was to send an acknowledgement to a contact, but the records demonstrate a number of occasions when a fuller response was warranted but was not forthcoming afterwards.
The landlord has acknowledged that its complaint handling could have been better. It could have been concluded more quickly. The landlord offered compensation of £100 for delays in its process. Its Compensation Policy allows for awards of £50 – £250 where it has failed to reply to letters (emails) and for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the matter. The award of £100 fell within this bracket which was fair.
The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its service failings. Given the resident did not experience out of pocket expenses in connection with making the complaint and was not put to the inconvenience the lack of heating created for her, the landlord’s approach of offsetting this part of its award against the rent account is considered reasonable here.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the heating system at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £1045 in total for its handling of the repairs to the heating system in her property. This figure is inclusive of any monies already paid direct to the resident and which can be deducted from it. Relevant credits to the rent account can then be removed.
The landlord should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the Order within 4 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should offer to the resident the compensation of £100 in respect of its handling of her complaint as it reflected failings in its service and the finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis this offer remains open for acceptance. The landlord might reasonably consider whether it wishes to offset this amount to the rent account (if it has not already done so) or whether it wishes to pay it to the resident direct after all.
The landlord to consider carrying out a review of this case from the point of view of lessons that can be learned with regards to its communications with its contractors.