Clarion Housing Association Limited (202432223)

Background

1. The resident reported to the landlord that some of his kitchen cupboard doors were damaged. The landlord inspected them and agreed to their replacement, but it was unable to source identical doors to the existing ones, offering the nearest match it could find instead. The resident was not satisfied and asked for all the doors to be replaced to ensure they did match. When the landlord refused, the resident declined the repair and complained about the situation. The landlord maintained its position in its complaint responses but offered £50 compensation for the time taken to supply its stage 2 reply.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs to his kitchen cupboard doors.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of it’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs to his kitchen cupboard doors.
   2. His associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord offered a repair which met the standard set out in its policy.
5. The landlord’s complaint handling was also appropriate to its policy.

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’s repairs policy sets out the standard it applies when carrying out repairs. It states that it aims to keep properties “in a safe state, fit for habitation and with all components safe and serviceable for day-to-day use by residents”. The landlord’s decision was to change damaged doors for new ones, which would meet its standard. No evidence has been provided to show this would not be the case. Ideally, the landlord would be able match the doors or find the nearest fit in terms of colour and design, but its policy only requires that its repairs are safe and useable. Its decision to only replace the doors that were damaged was reasonable as its proposed solution met the standard set out in its policy.
7. The landlord’s decision was appropriate to its policy and there was no failing in its service.

8. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales align with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
9. The landlord’s complaint responses met the timescale set out in its policy and were appropriate. They covered the issue raised. Whilst this report has not found any failings, the landlord felt it could have done better in terms of the time taken to provide its stage 2 reply. It used its discretion to offer £50 in compensation.
10. There was no service failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

11. The landlord’s records provided an adequate history of this complaint.

Communication

12. The landlord’s communications were reasonable in terms of content and tone.