Clarion Housing Association Limited (202337325)

Background

1. The resident moved into the new build property in November 2021. In November 2022, she reported several repairs to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of new build defects.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of new build defect repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

5. We have found that:
   1. Throughout the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects, it caused unreasonable delays and communicated poorly. However, it apologised for the failures and offered compensation that was fair and in line with its compensation policy.
   2. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaint handling policy and did not acknowledge the resident’s initial stage 1 and stage 2 complaint. However, it apologised and offered an appropriate amount of compensation to put things right for the resident.

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.

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. Although we have not had sight of the relevant policy, the evidence suggests that the property developer is responsible for repairs during the first 12 months, following handover of a new‑build property. This is also known as the defect period and ends with a formal inspection, at which point residents are required to report any new or outstanding issues so the developer can address them.
7. As frequently seen in similar cases, landlords do not always have the power to investigate and resolve the defects in new build properties themselves. However, during the defect period, landlords should function as an intermediary, coordinating between the developer and the resident to ensure defects are resolved to a satisfactory standard within a reasonable timeframe.
8. Although we have not had sight of the resident’s email, which is indicative of poor record keeping, the evidence suggests that she reported some repairs to the landlord in November 2022. The landlord told the resident on 8 November 2022 that an end-of-defects inspection would be arranged “soon” by the developer, and any outstanding repairs should be raised directly with them during that appointment.
9. It is not clear if an end-of-defects inspection took place, which is further evidence of poor record keeping. However, on 29 November 2022, the resident sent the contractor a list of outstanding repairs, which included:
   1. Sealant that was peeling and not properly adhered to the woodwork.
   2. Missing sealant around the sinks and the bath.
   3. Foam that had been left behind the toilets and sinks.
   4. The bottom of the bath not being sealed, allowing water to leak beneath the vinyl flooring and cause water damage to the woodwork.
   5. A faulty shower clip.
   6. A tile behind the bathroom sink that had lifted.
   7. Sharp chips present in the bathtub.
   8. A toilet seat that was not correctly fitted to the WC and wobbled excessively.
   9. Faulty and stiff mechanisms on all door handles.
   10. An airing cupboard door that did not close properly and was binding against the frame.
   11. Extractor fan that worked intermittently and produced a persistent ticking noise.
   12. A gap behind a kitchen electrical socket.
10. Between 8 December 2022 and 4 August 2023, the landlord handled the resident’s defect reports inadequately, with excessive delays, poor communication and unclear ownership between the landlord’s internal teams and the developer. Despite the resident chasing updates and informing the landlord that the outstanding repairs had caused a leak in the bathroom, the evidence shows that the landlord raised only 1 repair on 5 June 2023—for electrical works—and it remains unclear whether or when this repair was attended to.
11. Given the limited progress in resolving the numerous repairs for over 9 months, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the identified failings and apologised to the resident. The landlords compensation policy states that it will make awards of £700 and above when there has been a failure that has had a severe, long-term impact on the complainant. It was therefore appropriate that it offered the resident £750 compensation at stage 1 for the handling of the repairs. We consider this to be a substantial offer, and at the higher end of the compensation levels we recommend for cases of maladministration under our compensation policy.
12. After the stage 1 response, the landlord appropriately took ownership of the repairs and arranged for its own contractor to complete the outstanding work. Between September 2023 and March 2024, the landlord arranged inspections, raised repair orders and chased the contractor regularly. However, the repairs were repeatedly incomplete or of poor standard, leading to recurring defects, further damage to the property and the resident’s belongings, and multiple follow-on visits. This caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident.
13. The evidence shows that the repairs were fully completed in late March 2024. Even allowing for factors outside the landlord’s control, such as waiting for confirmation of the resident’s availability in early 2024, this was still approximately 7 months after the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and 16 months after the resident first reported the repairs. In these circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer an additional £475 in compensation and an additional £52.50 reimbursement for damaged carpet thresholds.
14. When considering the landlord’s compensation policy, we find the total offer of compensation of £1,277.50 (excluding the amount awarded for complaint handling) was fair. Taking the full circumstances of the case into account, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

15. At the time of the complaint, the landlord was using an interim complaints policy following a cyber‑security incident. It required stage 1 complaints to be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Stage 2 complaints were to be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 40 working days. Although these timescales were not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), it was reasonable for the landlord to adjust its processes temporarily due to the impact of the cyber incident.
16. The landlord adopts our definition of a complaint which is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf”. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not act on the resident’s request to make a complaint on 17 April 2023.
17. The resident made a further complaint on 4 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 August 2023, within its target timescales.
18. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 September 2023. This was a response time of 18 calendar days. Although this exceeded the timescales set out in our Code, it was compliant with the timescales set out in the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
19. The landlord did not recognise the resident’s email of 31 January 2024 as an expression of dissatisfaction and therefore failed to acknowledge or escalate the complaint to stage 2. As a result, the resident had to seek our intervention to progress her complaint, causing unnecessary time and effort.
20. Following our intervention on 14 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 March 2024. While this was within 5 working days of our request, it was 37 working days from the date the resident made her request to escalate. Although this exceeded the timescales set out in our Code, it was compliant with the timescales set out in the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
21. Within its complaint responses, the landlord apologised to the resident for all the failings set out above and offered her a total of £225 compensation, set out as follows:
    1. £100 for failing to log the stage 1 complaint in April 2023.
    2. £50 for stage 1 delays.
    3. £75 for failing to raise stage 2 complaint until contact from Ombudsman.
22. The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out how much it will pay for complaint handling delays. However, we find this a fair and reasonable offer from the landlord and in accordance with the guidelines set out in our compensation policy.
23. For the reasons outlined above we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

24. The landlord should strengthen staff awareness and systems to promptly identify and act on all expressions of dissatisfaction, however they are made, so they are correctly logged and progressed as complaints at the earliest opportunity.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord’s record keeping was poor, which meant it could not evidence key actions. It should ensure it maintains accurate and timely records of all correspondence and repairs.

Communication

26. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the handling of the repairs, specifically between November 2022 and August 2023 was poor. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.