Clarion Housing Association Limited (202413477)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat. The landlord replaced a ventilation unit in the resident’s hallway, as part of planned work to replace the communal ventilation system to the block. The landlord redecorated part of the hallway after the work was complete. The resident was unhappy with the standard of redecoration and complained to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Remedial redecoration works to the hallway.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of remedial redecoration works to the hallway.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of remedial redecoration works to the hallway

4. The landlord offered to redecorate the hallway in full, which was an appropriate resolution. It identified communication failures, apologised and offered compensation. The resident told the landlord after it issued its final response that contractor had not repainted the hallway in full. While the landlord did not know this when it issued its final response, our investigation showed a failure to make adequate checks during the complaint’s procedure. Its communication could have been improved.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. While the landlord’s complaint handling could have been improved, it made a reasonable offer of redress.

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.

6. The landlord has supplied a copy of the resident’s lease, which sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities. The resident is normally responsible for interior decoration. The landlord is responsible for some repairs to the building and is allowed to enter the resident’s property with 7 days notice to carry out any repairs it is responsible for. The lease says that if the landlord carries out any repairs inside the property, it must make good or provide reasonable compensation for any damage caused.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will aim to complete routine non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
8. The landlord employed an external contractor to carry out works to the block to replace a communal ventilation system. It replaced a ventilation unit in the resident’s hallway in April 2024 as part of these planned works. It told its contractor to make good and decorate areas that were disturbed by the ventilation works. The hallway of the flat includes stairs leading up to a door to a private roof terrace.
9. The resident told the landlord on 23 April 2024 that he was unhappy with the standard of redecoration after the works. Positively, the landlord inspected the work on 24 April 2024. It said that the contractor had redecorated affected areas as instructed, and the standard of the work was satisfactory. However, it agreed that the colour of the new paint did not match the existing paint. It asked its contractor to re-attend to redecorate the hallway in full. This was an appropriate resolution to the resident’s concerns.
10. The resident reported having difficulty communicating with the contractor. He said the contractor did not return his calls. The landlord said that its contractor had reported having difficulty contacting the resident due to his working hours. In any event, it arranged to re-attend on either 16 May or 17 May 2024 to repaint the hallway. The landlord’s records showed that the contractor attended on 17 May 2024. The resident was unhappy that it had not attended on 16 May 2024 as he had arranged to work from home that day. While this may have caused frustration, the contractor did attend on one of the 2 dates indicated, so this was not a failing. However, it would have been reasonable for the contractor to have given one specific date to the resident to avoid the resident spending a day at home waiting unnecessarily.
11. Positively, although the remedial redecoration was not a routine repair, the landlord still inspected and reattended in a timely manner. It attended within the timescale set out in its repairs policy for responsive repairs, which would be a reasonable expectation.
12. The resident said in his escalation request that the landlord failed to contact him with an update by 3 May 2024, following its inspection. The landlord agreed in its final response that it had failed to do so. It also identified other instances that it had failed to contact the resident. While the landlord’s communication was poor in this case, it apologised and offered £50 compensation for its communication failures.
13. The resident asked the landlord in his escalation request what it had meant when it said it had instructed its contractor to redecorate the whole hallway. The landlord tried to telephone the resident on 19 June 2024 to discuss this, but was unable to reach him. There is no evidence that they tried to contact him another way, for example by email, which would have been reasonable.
14. The landlord’s complaints team then emailed the planned works team and asked them to confirm with the contractor that it had redecorated the whole hallway when it reattended. The planned works team responded that the hallway had been fully repainted, but there is no evidence they checked with the contractor. The landlord issued its final response and confirmed that it had told its contractor to apply a coat of paint to all the walls in the hall, the passage to the kitchen / lounge area and the stairwell leading up to the roof terrace. It said this was completed on 17 May 2024.
15. The resident responded to the landlord on 1 July 2024 and said the contractor had not painted the whole hallway as instructed. There is no evidence that the resident reported this before this date, and it was not clear from his escalation request. It was reasonable that the landlord tried to telephone the resident, then issued its stage 2 response based on the complaint as it understood it at the time. However, it could have emailed the resident when it was unable to reach him by telephone. Had the planned works team made the checks with the contractor on 19 June 2024, it may have established that the contractor had not repainted the hallway in full. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint while it was still within the landlord’s complaints procedure.
16. There is also no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident after his email on 1 July 2024. Given the resident’s concerns about the work, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted him to discuss this further. However, there is no evidence that it did so. It would also have been appropriate for it to have contacted the contractor to clarify the situation further. Its failure to do so caused the resident to redecorate the full area at his own expense.
17. In summary, the landlord initially handled the resident’s reports well. Its proposed resolution of repainting the hallway in full would have restored the resident to the situation he was in had the issue not occurred. This was an appropriate resolution. The landlord identified communication failures and apologised. Its offer at stage 2 of £50 compensation was made on the understanding that the hallway had been repainted in full. The resident agreed that the contractor reattended but told us and the landlord that it still failed to repaint the walls in full. He has since had the work done himself. While it made some attempts to understand the resident’s escalation, its checks were inadequate and its communication could have been improved. There was therefore service failure in the landlord’s handling of remedial redecoration works to the hallway. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and fully put it right.
18. The resident told us that the total cost of the decorating was higher than £50. Our remedies guidance says that for cases with a quantifiable financial loss, we can consider if the landlord should compensate the resident for all or part of this loss, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of that case. We must consider whether prior notice was given to the landlord. There is no evidence that the resident told the landlord he would go ahead and pay for a decorator, or how quickly he intended to do this. As such, we would not expect the landlord to reimburse the resident’s decorating costs in full. If the resident still wished to seek reimbursement for their costs then they could seek reimbursement through an insurance claim or liability claim.

19. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
20. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 response in line with its policy and the code. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request within the set timescale. It issued its response 2 days outside of its published timescale. While a delay is not appropriate, the delay here was minimal and likely caused no detriment to the resident. line with its policy at both stages.
21. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it had previously given incorrect information about the date of the complaint. It appropriately apologised and offered £50 compensation for this failing.
22. In summary, the landlord’s handling of the complaint could have been improved. It apologised for the failings and offered compensation which amounts to a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. We identified inconsistencies with 2 different contractors being named in responses as having completed the work, but this would appear to be a mistake given they were 2 similar names. The landlord’s repair logs lacked a completion report from the external contractor. A completion report would have helped the landlord to verify the resident’s account that not all walls had been repainted. The landlord should consider completing a self assessment against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).

Communication

24. The landlord accepted that there were failures in its communication. Better communication with the resident during the complaint process could have avoided the need for an escalation. The landlord should ensure it communicates effectively with residents, both during and after the complaint process.