Clarion Housing Association Limited (202429796)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat in a block.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repair issues.
   2. How the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal repair issues.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of reports of communal repair issues

4. The landlord failed to complete repairs within its timelines. It had poor oversight of the works and was unable to give the resident clear updates on its progress. Its record keeping was poor and added to already significant delays. It did not manage expectations reasonably, setting deadlines for works which it regularly missed. Its communication was poor throughout. Most repairs the resident reported remain incomplete at time of writing.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord missed its interim response deadlines substantially. It had experienced a cyber-attack which impacted its record keeping. However, the length of delays were unreasonable even with this issue. It failed to respond to multiple chasing emails the resident sent.

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.

6. The landlord faced a cyber-attack on 17 June 2022. Following the incident, its record systems were compromised, and it lost data. It told the resident that it lost information related to his reports, such as repair logs. We accept it is reasonable that an organisation may need to pause its normal processes while it puts plans in place to deal with the aftereffects of a cyber-attack. However, the length of time it has taken the landlord to address the repairs is not reasonable.
7. The resident raised his complaint on 27 June 2022, asking what the landlord was doing about outstanding communal repairs at the property. He chased this further on 26 September 2022. It sent a surveyor to inspect the property on 29 September 2022 and identified issues with the gutters, flashing, roof tiles and brickwork. There is no evidence that it responded to the reports before this. It failed to address the communal repairs within 28 days of a report as its repairs and maintenance policy says it will.
8. The landlord said it would begin works on the communal repairs on 9 November 2022. There is no evidence this happened. Its logs show work on the roofing and guttering was rescheduled on 17 November 2022, though there is no evidence the resident was told. In its stage 2 and peer review responses, the landlord continued to apologise for missed appointments and set new target dates for the works, none of which it met. It did not manage his expectations reasonably. It failed to keep him updated as its responsive repairs and maintenance policy says it will.
9. The landlord did complete the replacement of the resident’s heating and insulation within the schedule set out in the stage 1 response. This was positive and showed it recognised the inconvenience he had faced as a result of the delay.
10. The landlord agreed to communicate with the resident through a third-party representative from a charity who wrote on his behalf. This was also positive and showed it was considering adjustments it could make to support the resident in line with its vulnerability policy.
11. However, the landlord’s communication was poor throughout. It failed to keep the resident updated regularly on the progress of the communal repairs as its responsive repairs and maintenance policy says it will. He regularly chased for replies to emails or updates on repairs and was frequently left without a reply, putting him to time and trouble throughout the process. The landlord acknowledged this failing in each of its responses and offered an appropriate level of compensation for the inconvenience caused.
12. In its stage 2 response it said it had not responded to the resident’s emails because it had failed to follow its procedure for processing them. It said it was under additional pressure because of a sudden increase in customer contact. We accept it was establishing new systems following the cyber-attack. However, the stage 2 escalation was made 6 months after the attack. It should have been able to provide a more robust system of record keeping at this stage.
13. The landlord paid a total of £1,600 in compensation to the resident over the course of the complaint process. This recognised failings in communication, delays in repair and the inconvenience he faced as a result. We think this is an appropriate amount that reflects the severity of the failings. We will not be ordering further compensation.
14. However, it is not appropriate that the communal repairs remain incomplete over 3 years since the original complaint was made. The landlord’s own notes on the external condition of the building from 14 December 2023 show it considered the long-standing maintenance defects presented a picture of neglect. Despite this, and despite telling the resident that all works would be dealt with as a single project by its Reactive Major Works Team, issues remain outstanding beyond the time frames it set out in its stage 2 and peer review responses. It told us that it plans to complete all works by the end of the financial year 2025/26. The resident has faced ongoing distress, inconvenience, time and trouble as a result of its failings.

15. The landlord’s interim complaints policy from the period is not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”). However, we have considered the impact of the cyber-attack on its systems and acknowledge it would have needed more time to deal with new complaints. We have assessed its performance against its interim policy rather than the Code.
16. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 89 working days (27 June 2022 to 31 October 2022) which was not compliant with its policy, which allows 20 working days
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 77 working days (5 December 2022 to 27 March 2023) which was not compliant with its policy, which allows 40 working days
17. The landlord did not respond within its policy timelines. It said issues with its internal system was the reason for the delay in both responses. There is no evidence that it contacted the resident at any other point to tell him its responses would be delayed. While we know it faced challenges after the cyber-attack, the resident’s complaint was made after its interim policy came into effect on 17 June 2022. It was unreasonable that it took so long to progress the complaint.
18. The landlord did not keep the resident informed or set out an action plan and timeline for the complaint process as its policy says it will when a complaint is unresolved. Its communication was frequently delayed, and he chased for a response to his complaints at both stages. Many chasing emails were not responded to at all, putting him to further time and trouble. It failed to show it had sufficient oversight of the complaints process.
19. The landlord chose to review the complaint at a peer review and provide a further update to the resident on 17 November 2023, 8 months after its stage 2 response. This was appropriate and recognised there were repairs still unresolved. It used its update to explain challenges it had faced with its systems as well as how it would progress the repairs. It showed it was looking for opportunities to learn from the complaint.
20. However, the landlord’s peer review response set further expectations that repairs would be completed within 6 months of November 2023, which it failed to do. It did not manage the resident’s expectations or keep him informed as its interim complaints policy says it will. The resident was put to significant inconvenience. His referral to us nearly a year later said it had not honoured its promises, showing his trust had been impacted.

Learning

21. The landlord’s approach to the scheduling of repairs has been inconsistent. It could consider whether it has adequate systems in place to prioritise work on buildings showing signs of neglect.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord identified faults with its records. Some related to the cyber-attack it faced, while others were within its control. It could reflect on whether its current record keeping processes are robust.

Communication

23. The landlord’s overall communication was poor, which it acknowledged. It could take the opportunity to identify where it missed the chance to communicate regularly and clearly with the resident in line with its policies.