Clarion Housing Association Limited (202416211)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats. She was concerned that the automatic opening vents (AOV) in the communal areas were faulty. She said some AOV’s were open, and some were turned off. She felt this compromised the building’s fire safety, as residents would not know if there was a fire. The landlord is the leaseholder of the property and was liaising with a managing agent (MA) about the concerns raised by the resident.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns.
   2. Reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of fire safety concerns

5. The landlord managed the repairs effectively. However, it failed to address the resident’s wider concerns with the fire alarm. It also did not evidence that it updated her as promised after the repair in November 2024.

Handling of the complaint

6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its delayed response at stage 2. It also acknowledged the resident’s effort and the inconvenience caused to her in escalating the AOV repair issues. It offered a proportionate amount of compensation to put this right.

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.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that mechanical and electrical works, including fire safety equipment, fall under a separate property services policy. It has not provided that policy. Nevertheless, evidence shows the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
8. Our spotlight report on managing agents outlines our expectations for landlords where MAs manage repairs. Landlords must ensure MAs provide evidence and clear information about repairs. The evidence shows the landlord managed both its relationship with the MA and the repairs effectively. It acted appropriately by requesting regular updates and the next steps to inspect and repair the issue. Its actions showed its commitment to resolving the resident’s concerns, especially given the potential fire safety concerns highlighted.
9. Between 10 May 2024 and 21 May 2024, the MA arranged 3 inspections of the AOV’s, before repairing this on 17 July 2024. The time taken was overall reasonable, given it required involvement of the original installers and specialist contractors. The landlord remained proactive in chasing updates and providing information to support the MA in resolving this. This was appropriate.
10. After the resident raised further concerns with the AOVs, the landlord escalated this to the MA. While inconvenient for the resident to raise the issue again, we understand the repair was complicated and that there was an element elimination required. The MA completed 3 further inspections before repairing the identified fault on 7 November 2024. Again, the time taken was proportionate given the need to find availability of specialist contractors and the scope of works required.
11. Although the landlord appropriately acted on the resident’s concerns, it failed to provide timely updates to her. As a result, she was left to chase the matter at times. This was a failing, however, the landlord later appropriately acknowledged its poor communication in its complaint responses.
12. In the final response, the landlord said it would update the resident after the appointment on 7 November 2024. We have not seen evidence that it did so. This was a failing.
13. Aside from the AOV repair, the resident felt the outstanding fault could stop the fire alarm from sounding in the event of a fire. The landlord appropriately satisfied itself that both the AOVs and all other fire safety equipment would work if there was a fire. It also checked with the fire service that the property remained safe while awaiting the AOV repair. This was good practice, showing it was proactive in ensuring the safety of all residents within the block.
14. From this, there is no evidence that the AOV issues impacted the use of the fire alarms. However, the landlord did not communicate this to the resident. As such, it missed opportunities to reassure the resident about all of her fire safety concerns. This would have understandably caused her considerable worry and distress. When escalating her complaint, the resident referred to a major fire within another block and feared the same for her property. The landlord’s failure to respond or reassure her after this was unreasonable.
15. Overall, the landlord managed the repairs and its relationship with the MA appropriately, acting to ensure the safety of residents within the block. It was right to reflect on its poor communication and lack of updates to the resident to try to put this right. However, it failed to address the missed opportunities to reassure the resident about her fire alarm concerns or follow through on its promised update. As a result, it cannot show it fully learned from its mistakes or put things right. Given this, we have found service failure.
16. The landlord offered £300 compensation within its complaint responses for the delayed repair to the AOVs. This also included the effort and inconvenience caused to the resident by chasing the repairs. While this was appropriate for the failings the landlord identified, it does not consider the further failings identified within this investigation. As such, we have made a separate compensation order to put this right.
17. After the complaints process ended, a separate fault was identified with an automatic transfer switch. The landlord acted appropriately by ensuring this did not impact the functionality of the AOVs. We understand this repair is outstanding at the time of our investigation. As such, we recommend that the landlord updates the resident on the status of this repair.

18. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The landlord took 52 working days to respond at stage 2. This was 27 working days late, considering it must acknowledge and respond within 25 working days. It acted in line with its policy and the Code by updating the resident about a delay in responding. However, it then failed to respond by the revised date, causing her time and trouble in chasing for updates. The overall delay was also impacted by its delayed acknowledgement of the complaint.
20. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by its delayed response. Its offer of £75 compensation was proportionate to reflect the impact caused to the resident by chasing updates during this time.
21. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged it would not have identified the fault with the AOVs without the resident’s involvement. It also appropriately explained that it based its original response on information available at the time. It was good practice for it to reflect on its handling of the matter. This showed transparency and that it took accountability of its failings. It offered £50 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by not upholding the original complaint at stage 1. This was an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident.
22. Overall, the landlord appropriately acknowledged failings in its complaint handling. It then offered a total of £125 compensation for this which was proportionate to reflect the impact caused by the failings identified. We have therefore found it made a reasonable offer of redress to put things right.

Learning

23. Positively, the landlord:
    1. Managed the repairs effectively, despite the complexity of the matter and the challenge of managing third party involvement with the MA and specialist contractors.
    2. Proactively chased updates and acted appropriately in ensuring the safety of residents within the block.
    3. Acknowledged the impact caused by its delayed complaint response and the resident’s persistence in reporting the AOV issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord proactively sought information from the MA to monitor the repair effectively.

Communication

25. The landlord failed to learn from its poor communication by not evidencing it provided an update after the repair in November 2024, as promised.
26. The landlord also missed opportunities to reassure the resident about her wider fire safety concerns.