Clarion Housing Association Limited (202322878)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a house. In December 2022, the resident reported repair issues with her windows.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to window repairs at the property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to window repairs at the property.
   2. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord replacing the rear bedroom window which was not compliant with building regulations. There was also lack of communication from the landlord to the resident about the window repairs and window replacement.
5. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in it providing its responses at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process and offered the resident sufficient compensation to recognise the delays.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

 Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. In December 2022, the resident reported repair issues with her windows. The landlord responded appropriately by arranging for its surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 17 January 2023 and then arranged a follow-up appointment for 14 February 2023 based on the resident’s availability. The landlord’s contractor identified during the follow-up appointment that scaffolding may be required to carry out the window repairs. Therefore, due to this, the landlord did not complete the window repairs within its repairs policy timescale of 28 calendar days for routine repairs. However, we recognise this would have been outside the landlord’s control due to the potential requirement for scaffolding which would have delayed the completion of the repairs.
7. The landlord failed to update the resident about when it would be completing the repairs to the windows. This resulted in the resident emailing the landlord several times for an update on the window repairs, which was unreasonable. The landlord booked an appointment for the window repairs in April 2023. However, this was cancelled by the landlord. Shortly after this, it booked an appointment during May 2023. However, the resident requested this to be rearranged as she was on holiday. This was a reasonable request.
8. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that it previously incorrectly said that scaffolding would be required to repair the windows and confirmed it could complete the repairs without scaffolding. It also apologised for the delay in completing the window repairs and offered the resident £215 compensation for this, which was reasonable.
9. After the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, there was a further delay in the landlord completing the window repairs. It eventually completed some repairs to the windows in August 2023. However, it said the resident declined the repairs because she wanted the windows to be inspected to check if they required replacement. The landlord also identified that the resident’s rear bedroom window did not meet the current building regulations for fire safety and required replacing. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request and agreed to check if the windows needed replacing and arrange a quote for the replacement of the rear bedroom window.
10. In September 2023, the landlord offered the resident an additional £100 for the further delays in completing the window repairs. This was reasonable to recognise the further delay.
11. The landlord also responded to the resident’s concern that its contractor damaged her front window, by kicking up a stone when they were using the ladder. It explained it had discussed this with its contractor, and they said they did not cause any damage to the window and mentioned the grass close to the window had recently been cut. Therefore, the contractor suggested it could have been a stone from the lawn mower. This was a reasonable response. There was no evidence to show that the landlord’s contractor damaged the resident’s front window, so it was reasonable for the landlord to reach this conclusion based on the information it had.
12. On 26 September 2023, the landlord’s surveyor confirmed they had recommended an early replacement of the windows. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states if a repair is not economical it can be referred to its regional maintenance team to decide if the repair can be added to the planned investment programme. However, from the information provided, it seems the landlord did not provide the resident with an approximate date for the works, which was unreasonable. Due to this, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on the window replacement. The landlord also failed to prioritise the replacement for the window which did not meet building regulations for fire safety. This was a failing.
13. The windows were replaced in May 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord agreed to carry out the window replacement as planned programme works. This was reasonable if they did not require immediate replacement. However, it was unreasonable not to prioritise the replacement of the rear bedroom window which did not meet building regulations for fire safety, and the landlord should have prioritised the replacement of this window.
14. The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of communication about an estimated date for the window replacement and its delay in replacing the rear bedroom window. The amount is in addition to £315 the landlord offered during its complaints process for the delays in repairing the windows. The amount of compensation awarded complies with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact.

15. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. It’s interim complaints policy explains it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 20 working days and a stage 2 complaint response within 40 working days. These timescales were not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints processes. However, the landlord’s recent complaints policy includes the same timescales referenced in the Code. The Code states a stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint response will be provided within 20 working days.
16. The resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on 13 April 2023. Following this, the landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 May 2023. The complaint response was late and outside the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the 20 working days referenced in its complaints policy.
17. On 7 July 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 5 September 2023. Overall, it took the landlord approximately 2 months to provide its response. This would have caused inconvenience for the resident, as she had to wait to receive her stage 2 complaint response before she could progress her complaint with us.
18. The landlord acknowledged in both its complaint responses that there were delays in it providing its stage 1 and 2 complaint response and offered the resident £100 compensation. The overall compensation offered for complaint handling-delays was sufficient to recognise the delays. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident and amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

20. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident about the window repairs and replacement was poor and the resident regularly had to chase the landlord for updates.