Clarion Housing Association Limited (202307668)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307668

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 September 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs to her roof following a leak.
2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat with the landlord. There are no known vulnerabilities.
On 4 January 2023, the resident reported the need for roof repairs to the landlord in order to resolve a small damp patch on her ceiling. She complained about the outstanding repairs on 27 March 2023, saying no one had attended or contacted her about this. She chased multiple times for an update on the repairs and a response to her complaint. She raised a further complaint on 1 June 2023 about the complaints team’s refusal to speak to her.
In its stage 1 letter dated 7 July 2023, the landlord:
1. Apologised for the delay in providing its response.
2. Explained that there was some confusion over the works required to repair the roof and its contractor had erroneously marked the job as complete.
3. Accepted that it had not updated the resident in response to her numerous calls and emails.
4. Said its contractor would contact her within 14 days to arrange an appointment and complete the necessary repairs.
5. Apologised and awarded compensation totalling £450 for any distress and inconvenience resulting from the delays, poor communication and complaint handling.
The resident replied on 25 July 2023, saying that the stage 1 response did not address her concerns about the landlord’s poor handling of her complaints and the complaint handling team refusing to speak to her. In an email the following day, she asked for her complaint about the outstanding roof repairs to be escalated.
A further stage 1 response was sent to the resident on 1 August 2023, but the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of this letter. In reply, the resident said she was prepared to accept the additional compensation of £150 offered, although this was insufficient to reflect “the amount of time, energy, anxiety, emails, chasing, waiting on hold… and eventually [being] fobbed off by your complaints team.” In any case, she said she wanted her complaint escalated to stage 2 in order to bring about improvements in the landlord’s service.
The stage 2 response dated 2 October 2023 stated that:
1. The contractor had told the landlord that the repairs were completed on 15 September 2023.
2. An appointment was booked for 6 October 2023 to inspect the roofing works and check the loft space for any damage, and it confirmed it would make good the resident’s stained ceiling.
3. Other than 2 “carded” attendances, its repairs history did not show any issue with several missed/rescheduled appointments, as the resident alleged.
4. It apologised for the area manager’s lack of contact following their attendance at her property and assured her they were taking the lead on managing the repairs and resolving matters for her.
5. No more compensation was due, other than a further £50 for the delayed stage 2 response.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman, saying that the roof was not fixed. She submitted a further complaint to the landlord on 16 February 2024 about its poor communication in relation to the outstanding repairs. She said she wanted her roof fixed, the damage to her property to be rectified, including the black mould in the loft, and for its area manager to keep her informed as to what was happening.
The landlord’s further stage 1 letter of 4 April 2024 apologised for the delay in responding, explaining that there was a misunderstanding due to her previous complaint about the roof repair having been referred to the Ombudsman. It accepted failings against its 5-day service level agreement for returning calls, acknowledging that her many requests, and those of other residents in the block, regarding the communal roof repairs since January 2023 received little or no response. It said it was awaiting its contractor’s report to assess the extent of works required. It awarded additional compensation totalling £300 in recognition of its lack of communication (£250) and late complaint response (£50). Up to this point, compensation totalling £600 had been awarded in respect of the outstanding repairs and £350 for its complaint handling.
In her reply on 10 April 2024, the resident pointed out that, despite the landlord’s response, she had still not received a phone call from the area manager or any update on when the roof issue would be addressed. She requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 24 April 2024.
A further and final stage 2 response was issued on 21 May 2024 in which the landlord explained that it could not review her complaint about the roof repair as this had already been addressed in an earlier stage 2 response. It noted that, following an inspection by the new area manager on 8 May 2024, an appointment had been arranged for 22 May 2024 to install 2 new slate vents above the resident’s bedroom window. Acknowledging the communication failures identified in its stage 1 response, it accepted further delays in contacting her after its operative was unable to gain access on 8 April 2024. It apologised for the poor communication from its area management team, in recognition of which it awarded a further £50 in compensation.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the roof repairs were completed in May 2024. However, she also said that works to make good the inside of her property are still outstanding and that there is loft panelling that is black with mould and marks on her living room ceiling, which have got worse over time.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of repairs to her roof following a leak

The landlord’s repairs policy provides that communal repairs “must always be completed within 28 days.” In this case, the resident first reported the need for roof repairs to the landlord on 4 January 2023. Despite multiple contractor attendances and the resident repeatedly chasing the outstanding repairs, works were not completed until 22 May 2024, over 16 months after the initial report. This was an excessive delay and a significant failing on the landlord’s part.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
Accordingly, the landlord should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. In this instance, there is no evidence of the actions taken by the landlord to manage the roof repairs, from the initial report and throughout. For example, despite the landlord confirming an appointment for 17 March 2023 via webchat, in her complaint of 27 March 2023, the resident noted that no one had attended to carry out the repairs.
It is not clear from the evidence when appointments were scheduled, when contractors attended or the outcomes of visits. This is reflected in the landlord’s internal email of 20 April 2023 and its email to the contractor on 10 May 2023 in which it sought to ascertain the current position in respect of the roof repairs. This contributed to the overall delays in completing the repairs.
Poor record keeping also resulted in the landlord providing the resident with incomplete and/or inaccurate information. For example, on 4 May 2023, the landlord told the resident that it was still within its expected timescales to complete the roof repairs. The resident replied, pointing out that it had been 5 months since she first reported the issue in January. This represents a missed opportunity by the landlord to grasp the fact that it had failed to handle the roof repairs in line with its policy and within reasonable timescales.
The landlord failed to properly manage and progress the roof repairs, and there were delays in scheduling the works. For example, on 26 May 2023, the contractor told the landlord that they had been on site but could not find the exact location for repair. They asked which part of the communal area was affected as they could return that afternoon to complete the works. They chased a response on 14 June 2023 and the landlord replied, saying that the sloping roof was leaking into the resident’s flat. The contractor asked for the resident’s details so they could make contact, but the landlord did not reply. Furthermore, an internal email dated 10 August 2023 stated that a works order for the roof repairs raised on 12 June 2023 was cancelled as a duplicate job, but there were no other open jobs on its system.
Contrary to this evidence of the landlord’s omissions, in an email to the resident on 4 July 2023, it attributed the delays to ongoing issues with the contractor. It assured the resident that the repairs would be completed in 1-2 weeks and the plastering works to rectify her stained ceiling would follow thereafter. This promise was reiterated in its stage 1 response of 7 July 2023, but there is no evidence of the steps taken by the landlord to address the repairs at the time.
The landlord failed to keep the resident reasonably updated about the repairs. This caused her a significant amount of frustration, distress and inconvenience in chasing the outstanding repairs and for information and updates. In reply, it repeatedly told her that its area manager would respond to her directly within 5 working days, but this did not happen. Her desperation is evident from her email of 21 August 2023 in which she was “literally begging” for the repair to be completed to avoid the situation getting worse as they moved into autumn. Her email exchanges with the landlord in September demonstrate that she was not kept updated. For example, on 8 September 2023, she noted that scaffolding had been erected without informing her.
Multiple appointments were needed due to ineffective attendances and repairs not being completed properly, such as on 26 May 2023 when the contractor could not locate the part of the roof needing repair. On 21 September 2023, the contractor told the landlord they had attended the week before and fixed a leak on the pitched roof and sealed up the joints on the box gutter. There is no evidence of any continued reports of issues relating to the leak and roof repairs immediately following the works done in September 2023. However, in her email to the Ombudsman on 1 November 2023, the resident said the issue had not been fixed.
There is no evidence that the landlord took reasonable and timely steps to inspect the resident’s loft, which she had reported was black with mould on 24 August 2023. Her email of 26 September 2023 noted that someone had attended on Monday “to look at the inside of the room (which is black)… and said a surveyor needs to come out.” There are no records relating to this visit or appointments for 6 October 2023 to inspect the roof and loft or 20 December 2023 to assess the resident’s flat and the loft area. This was unreasonable and compounded the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s failure to keep accurate records and provide the same to the Ombudsman for our investigation means it is unclear what steps it took to address the resident’s ongoing concerns about the outstanding repairs. Further to the stage 1 response dated 4 April 2024, it is not clear when the contractor’s reports were received, but an internal email on 8 May 2024 requested that a works order be raised to install 2 new slate vents above the resident’s bedroom window. The resident has confirmed that these works were completed in May 2024, which is consistent with the stage 2 response of 21 May 2024.
However, the resident has told this Service that works to rectify plastering to her ceiling and address the mould in the loft are still outstanding. The landlord accepted responsibility for making good the resident’s stained ceiling, which is appropriate given that it is not disputed this was caused by its delays in repairing the leaking roof. Similarly, it agreed to inspect the roof repairs and check the loft area, but there is no evidence it did. It is inappropriate that these works were not promptly scheduled following on from the roof repairs completed in May 2024. This has compounded the impact of the outstanding repairs on the resident.
As part of its internal complaints procedure, the landlord acknowledged its failings in the handling of the roof repairs and awarded compensation totalling £650 for this element of the complaint, which the resident has confirmed was paid to her. Whilst this was proportionate at the time offered, there were further delays and works to rectify the resident’s stained ceiling and address the mould in the loft remain outstanding. Given the ongoing, cumulative impact of its multiple failings, it is appropriate to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. In all the circumstances, the landlord should pay additional compensation in recognition of the further avoidable frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of roof repairs following a leak amounts to maladministration because:
1. It took over 9 months from the initial report to carry out works to the roof, but this did not resolve matters for the resident, and it took a further 7 months to complete the repairs.
2. It did not carry out an inspection, as it said it would do, following the initial responsive repairs in September 2023 to check the works carried out and the resident’s loft space.
3. Works to rectify the resident’s stained ceiling and address her reports of mould in the loft space are still outstanding.
4. It failed to properly and effectively manage the repairs, resulting in multiple ineffective contractor appointments that did not progress or resolve the repairs.
5. It failed to keep accurate records of contractor attendances and the works carried out to address the resident’s concerns, which contributed to the delays.
6. It did not keep the resident updated about the roof repairs and its communication was repetitive, unhelpful and untimely.

The resident’s associated complaint

The landlord has provided multiple responses to the various complaints raised by the resident. Whilst it has tried to address her concerns on an ongoing basis, this has caused confusion and, in any case, was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable at the time.
The Ombudsman notes that, at the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord had an interim complaints policy dated June 2022 in place. This provided for acknowledgement of complaints and escalation requests within 10 working days of receipt.
The resident’s complaint of 27 March 2023 (‘the first complaint’) was not acknowledged until 2 June 2023, 45 working days from receipt and after several emails in which she repeatedly expressed her dissatisfaction with its handling of her roof repairs. The stage 1 response was issued 26 working days from the date of acknowledgement, which was beyond the 20 working days stated in its interim complaints policy.
The resident says she did not receive the stage 1 response dated 7 July 2023 directly from the landlord and only received this via the Ombudsman on 25 July 2023. In the absence of conclusive evidence that the landlord did not send its stage 1 response to the resident, the Ombudsman cannot place fault with the landlord for the fact that it was not received. Similarly, without evidence of the resident chasing a response in the period from 8 to 24 July 2023, we cannot determine that the landlord ought reasonably to have known that she had not received its response.
The stage 1 response itself dealt fairly and objectively with the resident’s complaint about the time it was taking to complete the roof repairs. However, it failed to address her concerns about the complaints team’s refusal to speak to her on 1 June 2023 (‘the second complaint’). This was inappropriate in light of the landlord’s promise in its interim complaints policy to “ensure we understand your complaint… [and] address all points raised.” It caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident as she had to spend further time bringing this to the landlord’s attention and clarifying the confusion over which of her complaints had not been addressed.
The issuing of a second stage 1 response unnecessarily complicated and prolonged the complaints procedure for the resident. She requested escalation of the first complaint on 25 July 2023 and the second complaint on 1 August 2023. The landlord promptly acknowledged the latter but mis-managed her expectations by incorrectly stating its complaints team would respond in 10 working days. When she chased the outstanding response on 21 August 2023, the landlord apologised and provided the correct timescale of 20 working days.
The stage 2 response dated 2 October 2023 – which only addressed the first complaint – was outside this timeframe, being 44 working days from the acknowledgement date. At the time, the landlord believed it had resolved the roof repairs, so its response was broadly reasonable in the circumstances. The Ombudsman cannot assess the landlord’s responses to the second complaint against our Dispute Resolution Principles as we have not been provided with copies of these.
A further complaint was submitted by the resident on 16 February 2024 (‘the third complaint’). The landlord’s initial reply of 22 February 2024 explained that her concerns had already been presented and addressed twice through its complaints procedure. It said the matter was now with the Ombudsman, so all it could do was raise the outstanding repairs with its repairs team. This was the correct approach. However, upon the resident’s insistence, a further stage 1 acknowledgement was sent on 5 March 2024, 7 working days after it agreed to log the third complaint.
The stage 1 response followed 21 working days later. This provided a fair and open assessment of the landlord’s communication failures throughout its handling of the roof repairs and assured her it would learn from her feedback. Thereafter, in compliance with its updated complaints policy and the Code, the stage 2 response was provided within 18 working days of the resident’s escalation request of 24 April 2024. This was a clear improvement in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and demonstrates that it had taken away learning, as it had committed to do in its stage 1 response of 4 April 2024.
Overall, there were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s 3 complaints in this case and the resident repeatedly chased for acknowledgements and responses. However, in each of the responses that have been provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord has dealt with the issues raised in a fair and open way, which was consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles. At each stage, it has acknowledged and apologised for its failings, including its delayed responses, and it has sought to put things right by way of its compensation awards.
The resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord has paid the compensation awarded in its multiple responses, meaning she has received compensation payments totalling £350 for its complaint handling failures. This is fair and proportionate to reflect the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its failings. Furthermore, it has demonstrated that it took away learning from the resident’s complaints and implemented changes to provide a timely final response. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to make a finding of reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her roof following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s Apologies guidance | Housing Ombudsman Service (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
2. Pay the resident additional compensation of £150 for the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of its maladministration in the handling of repairs to the roof and internally at her property following a leak. This is in addition to the £650 it has already paid following its multiple complaint responses. It should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
3. Have the resident’s stained ceiling and loft space inspected in order to ascertain the works required. The particulars of the proposed works should be provided to the Ombudsman and the resident.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Complete the works to make good the resident’s stained ceiling and any works required to the loft as per the landlord’s repair obligations.
2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, carry out a senior management review of its handling of repairs in this case in order to:
  1. Identify improvements it can make to its processes and practices for raising, tracking and monitoring works orders to ensure accurate recordkeeping, appropriate oversight and to avoid delays in its handling of repairs.
  2. Identify any staff training needs and/or changes to its procedures to improve communications with residents, including (but not limited to) cases involving long-outstanding repairs and multiple contacts from residents.
  3. Provide a report to the Ombudsman setting out its findings and proposed improvements.