Clarion Housing Association Limited (202342861)

Background

1. The resident raised queries about the service charge for fire protection and an EWS1 survey. He complained the landlord had not responded and was sending letters to the wrong address.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Queries about his service charges and requests for information.
   2. Concerns it was sending letters to the wrong address.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries and information requests.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns it was sending letters to the wrong address.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord answered the resident’s queries and gave the survey he asked for through its complaint process. It also refunded the remaining survey charges and paid £250 compensation for its failings.
6. The landlord could have investigated the cause of it not sending letters to the resident’s correspondence address sooner. It did not acknowledge the impact of it not using his correspondence address. Its failures caused delay and meant the resident did not have the opportunity to take part in the section 20 consultation.
7. Through its complaint process, the landlord apologised for the failings it had identified and gave £250 compensation in total. However, it did not identify its failure to recognise the resident’s complaint from his emails of 1 and 12 October 2023 and did not address all parts of his escalation in its final response.

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.

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.

8. On 5 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord for a breakdown of the charge for fire protection explaining the charge was higher than expected. The landlord wrote to him on 5 May 2023 explaining the charges and giving a breakdown of costs. The landlord handled this query appropriately.
9. The resident raised further queries on 15 May 2023 asking where fire extinguishers were in the block and for a copy of an EWS1(external wall fire safety assessment) survey. There is no evidence the landlord replied despite the resident chasing it to do so multiple times between 29 June and 12 October 2023. He also told the landlord he wanted to withhold payment until it answered his queries.
10. On 16 November 2023 the landlord told the resident it had incorrectly charged for a EWS1 survey in 2021-22 and had given a refund. But its email did not respond to the resident’s query about the extinguishers or request for a copy of the survey. The resident continued to chase for a response.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 11 April 2024 acknowledged its failure to respond to his queries from 15 May 2023. It explained there was a fire extinguisher in the motor room and attached a copy of the EWS1 survey. It also explained why it had done a survey in 2021 and said it should not have told him it had incorrectly charged for the survey. It was reasonable it apologised for giving inaccurate information, offered compensation and said it would not ask him to pay for the survey again.
12. The resident challenged the accuracy of the stage 1 response in his escalation request. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained why the extinguisher was needed in the motor room. It also explained it had done 2 EWS1 surveys based on its understanding of requirements at the time. It said it should not have charged for them and would now refund the cost of the first survey too.
13. We understand the resident still feels there were inaccuracies in the landlord’s final response letter. However, the landlord answered his queries and gave the survey he asked for through its complaint process. It also refunded the remaining survey charges and paid £250 compensation for its failings. In our view, the landlord’s actions resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

14. The resident does not live at the flat he leases from the landlord and so had asked it to write to him using a different address (his home address). The evidence shows the landlord had used his home address when writing to him about his service charge queries on 5 May 2023.
15. On 12 October 2023, the resident told the landlord it had written to him using the flat address resulting in a 2 month delay in him receiving its letter. There is no evidence the landlord investigated at the time.
16. On 2 November 2023, the landlord sent a notice (under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) to the resident’s flat. It notified him of its intention to replace a lift and said he had until 7 December 2023 to make observations.
17. The landlord must make sure any legal notices are “properly served”. We understand it needs to send them to the flat, but it would have been reasonable for it to have also sent a copy to the address the resident has asked it to use for correspondence. The landlord did not send a copy of the section 20 notice to the resident’s home address and he did not know it had been served. This meant he did not have the opportunity to make observations.
18. Part of the resident’s complaint of 27 December 2023 was that the landlord was not using his home address when writing to him. The landlord did not take any steps to investigate or address the matter at the time.
19. Its stage 1 response of 11 April 2024 said it had sent a section 20 “letter” to the flat by mistake and should have sent it to the resident’s home address. It said it had rectified a “system error” to prevent the problem happening again. However, the landlord did not take this opportunity to re-send the resident a copy of the section 20 notice and any other letters it had sent only to the flat. This meant the resident remained unaware of the contents of the section 20 notice.
20. The landlord did not send him a copy of the section 20 notice until it gave its stage 2 response on 25 May 2024. By this time, over 6 months had passed since the landlord had issued the notice.
21. The landlord did not acknowledge the impact of it not using the resident’s home address consistently at any point. Its failure caused delays in the resident receiving its letters and, in the case of the section 20 notice, meant he did not have an opportunity to respond within the consultation timescale.

22. The resident’s emails of 1 and 12 October 2023 were expressions of dissatisfaction about the delay in the landlord responding to his queries and it writing to him at the flat. The landlord should have logged a complaint in line with the Code and its Complaints Policy. The landlord did not identify this failing through its later complaint investigation.
23. The complaint he made through the landlord’s website on 27 December 2023 made it clear he was not raising the issues for the first time. The landlord was wrong to treat it as a service request. It acknowledged this failing in its later complaint responses.
24. The landlord’s failure to deal with the complaints as it should have led the resident to contact the Ombudsman for help. This would have been inconvenient for him. It also delayed him in progressing his complaint through the landlord’s process and in being able to ask us to investigate.
25. Following our intervention, the landlord called the resident promptly. This was a good way for it to understand what he was complaining about and the resolutions he wanted. The landlord then gave its stage 1 response 2 days later.
26. The landlord’s escalation acknowledgement of 19 April 2024 caused confusion because it said the resident’s complaint had completed stage 2. It caused the resident to ask if a response should have been attached. The landlord clarified he should expect a response by 21 May 2024 but did not meet the timescale given which caused the resident to raise another complaint.
27. The landlord could have extended the response timescale which may have avoided the resident’s further complaint. It was reasonable it did not log a separate complaint about its failure to give a stage 2 response within the timescale given. However, it should have considered logging a separate complaint in response to the resident’s dissatisfaction about the call handler he had spoken to earlier. It logged a separate complaint after the events in this case and gave a stage 1 response on 17 July 2024. We have not assessed the handling of the separate complaint because it did not complete the landlord’s complaint process.
28. The landlord’s complaint responses in this case were reasonable in respect of its handling of his service charge queries and use of his correspondence address. However, its stage 2 response did not adequately address other parts of his complaint escalation.
29. Regarding its communication, the landlord did not address the resident’s points that he had used an email address given to him by a staff member and that he had received acknowledgements promising a response. Its responses regarding the payments taken from his bank account and its complaint handling suggest its investigation had not taken account of his emails of 1 and 12 October 2023.
30. The resident told us he was unhappy the landlord used the flat address on its stage 2 response. He felt this showed it had not listened to his concerns about it not using his home address for letters. We understand the resident’s point. But we do not consider this a failing because the landlord had emailed its stage 2 response so the address used did not cause disadvantage.
31. Through its complaint process, the landlord apologised for the failings it had identified and gave £250 compensation in total. However, it did not identify its failure to recognise the resident’s complaint from his emails of 1 and 12 October 2023 and did not address all parts of his escalation in its final response. This amounts to service failure in its complaint handling.

Learning

32. The landlord sends a summary of rights and obligations with its service charge demands. The document is clear and informative and explains the role of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). This is positive practice and makes sure residents know their rights and options.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The resident sent us copies of relevant emails which the landlord did not consider during its complaint process and did not send us in its evidence submission. It had sent the emails to the resident following a subject access request (SAR) he made which shows the emails were available to it. The landlord should make sure it considers all relevant information during its complaints process and includes it in its evidence submissions in future.

Communication

34. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s emails led to the complaint. Through its complaint responses it told the resident he should use its customer service email address as emails to other teams and individuals may be missed. We can understand the landlord wanting to direct contacts through its central team so they are logged and can be monitored. However, it should make sure that other contacts are also logged and monitored to avoid similar complaints in future.