Clarion Housing Association Limited (202408708)

Background

1. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom house at the time of the complaint. The resident assigned to the tenancy in April 2012 by mutual exchange. The resident is no longer the tenant of the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to address:
      1. A banging noise in the loft.
      2. Damage to the front door.
      3. A leak from the kitchen tap.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
      1. Faulty / missing smoke alarms.
      2. A carbon monoxide leak.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to address a leak from the kitchen tap.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about faulty / missing smoke alarms.
   3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
5. There was reasonable redress in:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to address a banging noise in the loft.
   2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to address damage to the front door.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a carbon monoxide leak.
7. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

8. There were multiple delays in the landlord’s handling of repairs to address the banging noise in the loft, to the front door, and to the kitchen tap. Although the landlord admitted to these delays, it failed to address a further report in its stage 2 complaint response. And failed to compensate for a missed appointment.
9. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude in the stage 2 complaint response that the issue with the banging noise in the loft was resolved in April 2024, based on the information available to it at the time of the stage 2 complaint investigation.
10. The landlord committed to completing repairs to the front door in the stage 2 complaint response. The repair was completed within a reasonable timeframe of the stage 2 complaint response being issued.
11. There was minor delay in the landlord attending to fix the leak on the kitchen tap. The landlord did not act on the resident’s report that its attempts to repair the leak had been unsuccessful, which left the matter unresolved. The landlord fixed the leak, after the resident reported this again some months later.
12. The landlord did not proactively act on concerns raised by the resident that she did not have a smoke alarm.
13. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about a possible carbon monoxide leak. The landlord satisfied itself that there was no cause for concern and them offered reassurance to the resident.
14. The landlord did not manage the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in line with the Code. While the landlord apologised and made an offer of redress, which it later increased after we accepted the complaint for investigation.
15. The landlord provided appropriate redress in relation to its handling of repairs to address a banging noise in the loft and to address damage to the front door.

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.

16. For context, the resident states there had been in a banging noise in the loft since 2017, when the landlord changed the boiler. The landlord initially thought the banging was due to a redundant water tank cover lifting in the wind. The landlord applied some tape to hold the cover in place. But this did not resolve the issue.
17. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe or complete a temporary repair. It will attend to non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
18. The resident put the landlord on notice that there was still a banging noise in the loft on 17 March 2023. The landlord raised various works orders to investigate and carry out works to address the cause of the banging. However, it was 13 months before it diagnosed, what it thought was the cause of the noise, and complete a repair to address this.
19. There were a number of reasons for the delay, including:
    1. The landlord’s roofer did not attend the property at the agreed time on 11 April 2023. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be awarded for missed appointments or where it has not given the resident 24 hours’ notice. The landlord compensated the resident at the time (£15 compensation), in line with its compensation policy.
    2. The landlord did not attend the rescheduled repairs appointment on 14 April 2023. The landlord paid another £15 compensation at the time, in line with its compensation policy.
    3. The landlord attended on 5 June 2023 to reinspect the loft. The landlord determined that a roofer was required and arranged a repairs appointment for 16 June 2023. But the landlord later changed this appointment to 22 June 2023.
    4. The landlord was unable to complete any works on 22 June 2023 as it was waiting for materials. We cannot say if the landlord ought to have compensated the resident for this as a missed appointment, as it is unclear when the landlord contacted the resident to advise her of this.
    5. A job was raised on 28 June 2023 for the landlord to remove a redundant outlet pipe (thought to be the cause of the banging noise) and then replace the roof tiles. However, no works were progressed. The landlord closed the job on 3 July 2023 without completing any works. There are no repairs notes to explain why.
    6. The landlord raised an inspection of the loft in February 2024 after the resident reported works were still outstanding, which it arranged for March 2024. It was during this inspection, the landlord diagnosed the noise to be hydraulic shock.
20. The landlord fitted a hydraulic shock arrestor on 30 April 2024. The landlord believed at the time it issued the stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2024 that this had resolved the issue. The landlord does not dispute that it ought to have resolved the matter in a timelier manner.
21. It is evident that the resident was adversely impacted by the banging noise in the loft and the delays that arose in diagnosing the cause. The resident said she was unable to sleep in the bedroom due to the noise and had to sleep on the sofa, causing her back pain. The landlord recognised there had been failings in its handling of repairs to address this matter, for which it apologised. And offered £650 compensation in recognition of its delay to resolve the matter in a timelier manner, in line with its “high impact schedule”.
22. It was unfortunate that the action taken by the landlord on 30 April 2024 did not fully resolve the noise in the loft. We note the resident mentioned this in an email to the local councillor on 17 July 2024, however, the landlord was not copied into this email. The resident did not notify the landlord that the matter was unresolved until 14 January 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude, at the point it issued the stage 2 complaint response, that the matter had been resolved. We note the landlord has considered its handling of the resident’s subsequent reports about banging noises in the loft, as part of a new complaint raised by the resident. The landlord had recently issued its final stage 2 complaint response in regard to this, at the time of our investigation.
23. The landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the repair and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, based on the landlord’s understanding of the situation at the time it issued the stage 2 complaint response. And was in line with our remedies guidance (published on our website).
24. On balance, we find reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to address a noise in the loft.

25. For context, the resident emailed the landlord on 3 October 2023 explaining that eggs had been thrown at her front door and attached some photographs. The email was forwarded onto its antisocial behaviour team and the repairs team. There was no suggestion at this stage, that any action was required from its repairs team.
26. The resident told the landlord on 30 November 2023 that she was struggling to remove the egg stains and asked the landlord if it could assist. The landlord responded by raising a works order to inspect the front door, which shows it was being supportive. It carried out an inspection in a timely manner on 8 December 2024. And then raised a works order (1 working day later), to sand and stain the door.
27. Our investigation identified multiple delays in the landlord completing this work, as follows:
    1. The landlord made an appointment to sand and stain the door on 22 January 2024. The resident maintains that it failed to attend within the timeslot she was given and no works were completed. The landlord’s repairs records are silent.
    2. The landlord raised a new works order on 5 February 2024 to sand and stain the door on 26 February 2024. The resident states the landlord contacted her on the day of the appointment (towards the end of the prearranged timeslot), rescheduling the appointment for 5 March 2024. The reason for this is unclear.
    3. The landlord attended the property on 5 March 2024 as it committed. While it sanded the door and applied some stain, it was unable to complete the job. The resident states the landlord’s operative said it had brought the wrong paint.
    4. A new job was raised on 11 June 2024 to rub down and stain the door. This job was closed by the landlord in error on 26 June 2024. This left the work unfinished.
28. The landlord accepted in the stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2024 that there were failings in its handling of repairs to the front door. It tried to put things right by apologising, by committing to complete the job, and by offering £150 compensation. The resident told us on 18 July 2024 that the works agreed to the front door had been completed.
29. The landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to failings we identified in the landlord’s handling of the issue and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. And was in line with our remedies guidance.
30. Therefore, we find reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door.

31. The resident put the landlord on notice, that the kitchen tap was leaking on 26 March 2024. The landlord made an appointment to fix the tap on 23 April 2024, within the expected repair timescale. But the landlord had to cancel this appointment on the day, as its operative was off sick. It is understandable that the landlord may not have been able to arrange for another operative to attend at short notice. The landlord rearranged the repairs appointment to 30 April 2024.
32. The landlord attended on 30 April 2024 as it committed and completed a repair. This was just outside the landlord’s expected timescale for completing non-emergency repairs. It was unfortunate that the repair did not fully resolve the leak.
33. The resident told the landlord in the stage 2 complaint on 24 May 2024 that the tap was still leaking slightly. And asked it to return to fix the leak and pay compensation. The landlord failed to recognise this in the stage 2 complaint response, maintaining that the kitchen tap had been repaired on 30 April 2024. However, it did recognise there had been delay in the repair being attended to in April 2024, for which it apologised.
34. The landlord might have considered offering compensation for the missed appointment on 23 April 2024, as it did not give the resident 24 notice of the cancellation. It ought to have recognised that the resident had reported there was still a leak on the tap and made a commitment to address this. However, it did not, which left the matter unresolved. This was a failing.
35. We note the resident mentioned the leaking kitchen tap in an email to the local councillor on 17 July 2024. The landlord was not copied into this email. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have expected the resident to have challenged its understanding about the repair in a timely manner, if it had misunderstood.
36. We note the landlord raised a works order on 6 September 2024 to repair the kitchen tap. It is reasonable to conclude this was in response to a further report from the resident. However, we note the tap was repaired on 4 October 2024, which was within the expected repair timescale for that job.
37. On balance, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen tap. To put things right, the landlord must pay £15 compensation in recognition of the cancelled appointment on 23 April 2024. It must also apologise to the resident for not acting on the report she made on 24 May 2024 about the repair being unsuccessful. And pay £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused, in line with our remedies guidance.

38. The resident explained in the stage 2 complaint on 24 May 2024 that the landlord removed the smoke alarm in 2022 after identifying it was faulty. But said this was never replaced. She said the landlord raised a job in April 2023 to address this and scheduled a repairs appointment for 31 May 2023, which we note it did. But the resident stated in the stage 2 complaint on 24 May 2024 that it had still not replaced the smoke alarm. She included a photograph of the wall, showing an empty space where she said the smoke alarm was once positioned.
39. The landlord noted during its own complaint investigation, that both the annual gas safety certificates for 2022 and 2023 indicated there were working smoke alarms in the property. We have seen the October 2023 gas safety certificate, which documented 2 working smoke alarms and 1 carbon monoxide alarm in the property, along with their dates of expiry.
40. Although the landlord concluded that smoke alarms were installed 12 months prior to the resident’s report, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to haver raised a job to install or inspect the property to assure itself there were working smoke alarms in the property. It was unreasonable that the landlord instructed the resident to report the issue to another department. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have raised the inspection / repair at this stage, given its duties under the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022. We note the landlord fitted 2 new smoke alarms on 16 September 2024 after the resident reported missing smoke alarms on 6 September 2024.
41. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about this issue was inadequate and unduly prolonged resolution of the matter for the resident.
42. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about faulty / missing smoke alarms. To put things right, the landlord must pay £50 compensation for the continued distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from the landlord not proactively acting on reports (made on 24 May 2024) that there was no smoke alarm. This compensation is in line with our remedies guidance.

43. We note for background, that a warning notice was placed on the boiler at the time of the October 2023 gas service because of “low carbon dioxide readings / emissions”, resulting in the appliance being turned off. The landlord renewed the gas valve shortly after this, which resolved the issue. However, no concerns were raised at that time about levels of carbon monoxide.
44. The resident explained in the stage 2 complaint on 24 May 2024 that its operative suggested to her on 30 April 2024, when fitting the shock arrester, that the rattling pipe on the boiler could have created a problem with carbon monoxide, which was fatal. She added that she had felt breathless at night, ever since the boiler was fitted in 2017.
45. The landlord did consult with its mechanical and engineering team and its gas contractor, which was a reasonable course of action in the circumstances. The landlord was able to conclude from the responses given, that the rattling pipe would not have caused an issue with carbon monoxide, or caused the symptoms that she was reporting. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord reassured the resident in the stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2024, that there was no cause for concern.
46. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a carbon monoxide leak.

47. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) set out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). The landlord has a published complaints policy, which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of response timescales.
48. The did not recognise the resident’s communication dated 6 March 2024 as an expression of dissatisfaction and then open a complaint. This would have been in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code.
49. The landlord did recognise the resident’s subsequent communication of 26 March 2024 as a complaint. It sent the stage 1 acknowledgement on 2 April 2024, which was within the expected 5 working day timeline. It issued the full stage 1 complaint response on 26 April 2024, which was 8 working days outside of the expected 10 working day complaint response timescale. The landlord did not recognise this delay during its own internal complaint process.
50. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 24 May 2024. The landlord sent an informal acknowledgement on 29 May 2024 and the formal acknowledgment on 5 June 2024. The formal acknowledge was issued 3 working days outside of the expected 5 working day timescale.
51. The landlord sent the resident a letter of extension on 28 June 2024 explaining that it would provide the stage 2 complaint response by 26 July 2024. While extensions are permitted under the Code, the landlord should have proactively agreed this extension with the resident, given this would have taken its response timescale beyond the 10 additional working days allowed. However, the resident was unlikely to have been significantly disadvantaged by this, as it did inform the resident that she could contact us for advice.
52. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 16 July 2024, which was earlier than the timescale the landlord had committed to. It apologised for its delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response. And offered £75 compensation in recognition of this, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
53. The landlord took the opportunity to review its handling of the complaint after we accepted the complaint for investigation, which was positive. The landlord did itself recognise, that the stage 1 complaint response was poor, incomplete, and failed to provide a full and thorough response. It accepted this created added time and inconvenience for the resident, having to escalate the matter to stage 2. It tried to put this right on 13 January 2025, by apologising to the resident and offering an additional £100 compensation.
54. The landlord’s combined offer of compensation amounting to £175, was proportionate to distress and inconvenience to the resident by the failings identified in this case, in line with our remedies guidance. But we cannot find reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling because it did not recognise all of its failings and increase its offer of compensation until after we accepted the complaint for investigation.
55. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the £175 compensation it previously offered, if it has not done so already, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

56. The landlord’s internal communication from 15 July 2024 suggest that it considered whether there were any learnings to be taken from the complaint. But decided there was no learning. However, there were opportunities for learning. For example, the landlord might have explored, why there was no commentary on its repairs records related to appointments marked as non-access.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

57. The outcome of repairs appointments was not always clear from the landlord’s repairs records. This contributed to the landlord being unable to fully respond to the resident’s concerns about missed / mishandled appointments. The landlord needs to understand why this happened and consider whether there is a need for additional staff training.