Clarion Housing Association Limited (201810771)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 201810771
Clarion Housing Association Limited
12 January 2021
Our approach
1. 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.
2. 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
3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
3.1 the resident’s concerns about the installation of a new boiler at her property;
3.2 the annual gas safety check at her property;
3.3 the associated formal complaint.
Summary
4. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in November 2018 concerning an outstanding complaint she had arising from a boiler installation in 2017. She wanted the work to be completed and for exposed pipes to be boxed off. She also said that, as the workmen had removed a kitchen cupboard, she required the kitchen to be redecorated at the landlord’s expense and the missing storage to be replaced by either a cupboard or shelves. She stated that, in total, she had taken six days off work to facilitate the installation and requested compensation for this and for appointments missed during the installation process.
5. The landlord confirmed that this complaint had been verbally closed with the resident on 19 July 2018 as its contractor would contact her directly concerning remedial works. It therefore arranged for a Stage 2 peer-review of the complaint.
6. On 20 February 2019 the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that its contractors would take action to resolve the complaint. It would arrange for: replacement of boxing where the previous boxing had been removed; ‘tidying up’ of wiring; a new electrical safety certificate to be provided; and the removal of any protruding screws. It denied the resident’s compensation request.
7. In the resident’s response, she raised concerns about the likely quality of the work and reiterating her request for compensation. She pointed out that, had she not followed the issue up, it would likely not have been addressed and requested that the contractor contact her directly to make arrangements for finishing the works.
8. On 1 May 2019 the landlord’s gas contractor wrote to the resident advising that it had been asked to carry out the annual gas safety check and informing her that an appointment had been booked for 13 May 2019 between 12:00 and 17:00. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 5 May 2019 stating that, despite the February 2019 correspondence about finishing off the boiler installation works, she had still heard nothing about when this would take place.
9. In the landlord’s letter of 12 June 2019, it advised that its gas contractor had been unable to gain access to the property to service the gas appliances. It said that failure to allow access to the property was a breach of the tenancy conditions and, should the resident fail to provide access, it would start legal action and she would be recharged any legal costs. The resident contacted the landlord the same day stating that she had booked an appointment for 20 June 2019 via its website and was awaiting confirmation of this. The landlord’s records show that the appointment was booked for 20 June 2019 between 12:00 and 17:00 but its staff had been unable to confirm that day by telephone with the resident.
10. The landlord’s records show that its neighbourhood response officer visited the property on 14 June 2019, but the resident was not present and a card was left asking her to call.
11. The resident then contacted the landlord at 17:03 on 20 June 2019 noting that she had taken the day off work and had been in all day, but nobody had arrived for the appointment. She explained that she had called the gas contractors but, having been on hold for 10 minutes, she hung up. She requested a specific time for the appointment rather than just a morning or afternoon time slot.
12. In the landlord’s letter of 21 June 2019, it confirmed that, as the resident had still not allowed access to her home, it would apply to the court to gain access and carry out the servicing. The same day, the gas contractor wrote to the resident to apologise for the engineer’s failure to attend the booked appointment and confirmed that the appointment had been rebooked for a first call (08:00 to 09:30) on 5 July 2019. The resident responded that she could be available from 08:00 to 08:30 but would need to leave after that and requested either 1 or 4 July 2019. An appointment was subsequently arranged for 15 July 2019.
13. On 24 June 2019 the landlord’s contractor authorised payment of £15 compensation to the resident for the missed appointment in accordance with its policy.
14. On 15 July 2019 the resident complained to the landlord that she had again waited for an engineer to attend but they did not arrive at the specified time and so she had left to go to work. She stated that she had made herself available for the appointment, but nobody had arrived by 09:10 when she sent her email. The contractor left a card indicating that they had attended the property at 10.05, which was outside of the scheduled appointment time.
15. The landlord responded the same day, advising the resident that, as a result of her failure to provide access to carry out the gas check it had applied to the court for an injunction. It stated that, if the gas safety check was completed before the court date the resident would still need to attend the hearing if she wished to dispute the costs and she was advised to seek independent legal advice.
16. On 16 July 2019 the landlord’s contractors emailed the resident to apologise for missing the appointment the previous day and confirmed that she would receive compensation for this failure.
17. The landlord’s customer support staff telephoned the resident on 22 July 2019 to re-arrange the gas safety check appointment. The resident explained that she had tried to have this done but the gas contractors had not turned up to scheduled appointments and, because she had a 1 hour and 30-minute commute, appointment times needed to be kept to. The customer service team indicated that its records showed the contractors had tried to access the property four times, but the resident disputed this. The resident was advised that she would need to attend court and inform the judge of anything she had to dispute. The resident confirmed that she would be available for an appointment either the mornings of 26 July or 1 August 2019 and requested the first available slot, reiterating that she would need to leave around 09:00 in order to get to work. The same day the customer support administrator telephoned the resident to confirm her gas safety check was booked for the first call of the morning on 1 August 2019 as requested.
18. The landlord’s internal correspondence of 26 July 2019 confirms that the resident was paid compensation for two missed appointments by its contractors and that the contractors closed the complaint about missed appointments on 18 July 2019 when it issued the compensation cheque.
19. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 August 2019 to confirm that the gas check had been completed. However, she was unhappy with the letter she received about court action as it did not include any reference to the details she provided when the contractors did not turn up to scheduled appointments. She indicated that, although the letter was dated 15 July 2019 it was pushed through her door on 12 August 2019. She acknowledged that, as she received the notification after the gas safety check had been completed on 1 August 2019, she had ignored it. She then raised a formal complaint stating that she would not be paying any court costs.
20. In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 17 September 2019, it concluded that the court action was justified. The initial investigation was closed and the resident should contact the landlord if she remained dissatisfied. The landlord’s internal records acknowledge the delay in dealing with the Stage 1 complaint.
21. On 18 October 2019 the resident requested an escalation of her complaint about the gas safety check and the associated court case. In the landlord’s Stage 2 response of 29 November 2019, it explained that, allowing access for servicing was an essential part of the tenancy and, whilst it had been flexible in trying to make appointments with the resident, engineers had not been provided access. As this happened several times its Customer Support Team applied to court on 19 July 2019 as the gas service was due to lapse on 26 July 2019. It explained that it was open to the resident to dispute the accuracy of any appointment information at the court hearing. A new appointment had been arranged for 1 August 2019 and the service was completed at 07:35 that day. It confirmed that its position remained the same and that the court charge applied would remain on her account. She was informed that she had reached the final stage of the complaints procedure.
22. In the resident’s response of 29 November 2019, she set out her record of the appointments, noting where she had received apologies and compensation from the contractors for missed appointments. She stated that she disagreed with the landlord’s response and requested further escalation of her complaint.
23. On 15 May 2020 the resident again confirmed to the Ombudsman that remedial works relating to her boiler repair had still not been completed.
Policies and procedures
24. The landlord’s repairs policy classifies repairs as Emergency and Non-emergency repairs.
24.1 Emergency repairs are those classified as presenting an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or that would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. These should be attended, and repairs completed within 24 hours. Repairs may include temporary repairs or works to make safe with a further repair completed subsequently;
24.2 Non-emergency repairs will be dealt with within 28 calendar days. The landlord also offers repairs to communal areas and these should also be completed within 28 days.
25. The landlord operates a two–stage complaints process. Its target for providing a full response to Stage 1 response is 10 working days. At the conclusion of Stage 1 if a customer remains dissatisfied there is a right of review at Stage 2. The landlord’s target for a full response at Stage 2 is 20 working days.
26. The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
26.1 a compensation payment may be made to maintain good relations between the landlord and a resident where any inconvenience has been caused by the landlord’s actions or failure to act;
26.2 the following factors may result in a compensation payment: the time taken to resolve the complaint; any inconvenience suffered or a degree of disruption to the household; recognition of any failure to follow process; repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem;
26.3 in assessing the level of compensation staff should work toward £100 on each point of action or failure to act for every year the issue has taken to resolve;
26.4 for repairs that have gone over time, compensation payments will be paid to residents if repairs are not carried out within the agreed time limits. A standard payment of £10 for the first day over the time limit will be paid, plus £2 per day for each further day the repair(s) remain outstanding subject to a maximum of £50;
26.5 compensation may not be paid in certain circumstances, including but not limited to: instances where the problem or service failure has caused little or no problem to the resident; where the fault was caused by a third party or is something the landlord has no control over; where the landlord’s staff or contractors have not been able to gain access to carry out work.
Assessment
Boiler Repair
27. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord was required to carry out certain repairs including to ensure the supply of heating and hot water. While the landlord accepted this responsibility and the boiler repair was completed accordingly, there was delay in doing so and, following the installation, works to finish and restore the kitchen were not completed. This caused the resident anxiety and frustration as well as inconvenience.
28. Having regard to the landlord’s repairs policy, these repairs should have been completed within 28 calendar days. Instead, the resident raised the outstanding works in November 2018 and they had still not been completed in May 2020, some 18 months later. Whilst it is accepted that the resident did not actively pursue the matter throughout this period (with the focus shifting to the gas safety check) the landlord’s records should have been clear that the work remained outstanding and required completion.
29. Having reviewed the information supplied by both parties the Ombudsman concludes that there was a lack of clarity in the landlord’s communications with the resident over the complaint and a failure to fully address complaints concerning completion of these works. When making her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident stated that she was unaware that her complaint about finishing off the repairs had been formally closed until she had chased the landlord. While the landlord had identified a possible solution to the resident it was premature to close the complaint until this had been clearly communicated as a resolution, with appropriate timescales confirmed.
30. The resident was also unable to pursue her complaint to the Stage 2 peer-review process until after she complained to the Ombudsman and the landlord’s Customer Service Team made contact with her again. As part of good complaint handling practice the verbal closure of the complaint should have been followed up with a written notification that also provided the resident with details of what action she might take if she remained dissatisfied and whether her complaint could be escalated to a further stage. The failure to do so prevented the resident from pursuing her complaint through to Stage 2 and progressing its resolution.
31. The landlord’s proposal that its contractors should complete the finishing and re-boxing was a reasonable resolution to the complaint and is what the resident identified as her desired resolution. While she indicated that she might prefer to make alternate arrangements it is appropriate that the landlord’s contractor complete the works and that it meets the costs of remedial works. The considerable delay in it completing this work even after the resident progressed her complaint through to the Ombudsman has added to her anxiety and frustration. Given the length of time involved it would have been appropriate to consider whether compensation might be applicable in line with the landlord’s compensation policy (see paragraph 26 above).
32. The compensation policy is clear that payments can be made where any inconvenience has been caused by the landlord’s failure to act, and it details the factors that will be taken into account when assessing an appropriate amount. This includes the time taken to resolve the complaint, which was significant in this case, and any failure to follow process. It is noted that the substantive issue of boxing in and reduced kitchen storage may not have had a serious detrimental impact on the resident’s use of her home. However, it is also accepted that the prolonged nature of the complaint and the landlord’s failure to act, would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and this should be reflected in the compensation. Overall, this Service considers that a sum of £150 compensation would have been appropriate, and in line with the compensation policy (see paragraph 26.3 above).
Gas Safety Check
33. Under regulation 36 of the Gas Safety Regulations 1998 the landlord is required to ensure that any gas fitting at the premises is maintained in a safe condition and checked for safety at intervals of not more than 12 months. This meant that the landlord was under an obligation to carry out the annual gas safety check and that it was entitled to take a robust approach in the event of the resident’s non-engagement, in the interests of ensuring the safety of the resident, neighbours and staff.
34. However, the correspondence between the parties shows that there was a lack of clarity over the safety check appointments and the extent to which the resident failed to provide access. The resident acknowledges that she did not take action following receipt of the court letter which resulted in a missed opportunity to contest the information relied on by the landlord in proceedings. However, the letter stated that court action could continue even after the safety check had taken place and it remains open to her to take legal advice on how to pursue a claim in respect of the court fees.
35. With that in mind, it is important to note that the Ombudsman cannot comment on the validity or outcome of the legal proceedings as this is a separate matter which falls outside of this Service’s jurisdiction. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings. As the court case was in process, any questions around the outcome or associated costs would need to be pursued via the relevant directions of the court.
36. However, the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s administration of the gas safety check and the reasonableness of its actions in that regard. The landlord indicates that the resident’s failure to provide access prevented the safety check from taking place. In contrast, the resident submits that the landlord’s contractor repeatedly contributed to the delays and, as this was beyond her control, she should not be held solely responsible for the consequences.
37. The contractor’s evidence confirms that appointments were missed on at least two occasions, this was openly acknowledged by the contractor, apologies were offered, and the resident was compensated for this failure. This clearly demonstrates that the contractor’s failure to attend these appointments was a key factor in the delay in arranging the gas safety check and this, in itself, would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Coupled with the subsequent threat of legal proceedings as a result of the delay, the resident was caused considerable frustration and anxiety by the actions of the contractor/landlord on this issue.
38. The evidence suggests that there were ineffective lines of communication between the landlord and its contractor, in terms of the reasons for the no access appointments. Further, the landlord failed to properly investigate the resident’s concerns, when she highlighted that the delays were not due to a failure to act on her part. As a result, there were clearly failings in the landlord’s service and a compensation payment would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
39. The resident has advised that she lost annual leave days when she took time off work for repairs to be completed. Whilst the Ombudsman can consider direct financial losses to some extent, in terms of how the landlord’s actions might have impacted upon the resident, this Service is unable to determine matters of causation and liability in relation to indirect costs. Such issues would be better dealt with as an insurance claim or via legal proceedings. As a result, the Ombudsman does not generally consider claims for loss of income or leave days as part of an assessment of financial redress.
40. Instead, regard has been given to the terms of the landlord’s Compensation Policy (detailed at paragraph 26 above) and the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies. As stated above, this Service does not seek to resolve the issue of court costs but to consider the impact of the landlord’s service delivery on the resident at the time of the complaint. Therefore, an award of £75 compensation is made in recognition of the poor communication in relation to the safety check and the associated distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Complaints handling
41. The evidence indicates that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s original complaint regarding the boiler and these are addressed at paragraphs 29 and 30 above.
42. There were then further failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint about the gas safety check. The Stage 1 response was issued considerably outside of the required 10-day timescale and so the resident was caused delay and anxiety in the resolution of her complaint.
43. The Stage 2 response was also outside of the 20–working days specified in the policy which caused the resident further anxiety, distress and uncertainty over whether her complaint could be resolved. The Stage 2 response reiterated the landlord’s position concerning the gas safety check and advised the resident that she could have queried some issues through the court process. However, the response failed to consider the evidence of the contractors that they had missed appointments and had paid compensation as a result. The apparent conclusion that the failure to provide access was entirely down to the resident becomes difficult to sustain in the light of this information. The resident has been caused anxiety and frustration in having to repeatedly point out the failures in making appointments and staff arriving after the agreed appointment times.
44. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution principles indicate that landlords’ complaints handling procedures should be user focused and demonstrate that their purpose is to resolve disputes and restore the residents’ position in the event of anything going wrong. The landlord’s complaint investigation and response failed to consider all of the relevant information and instead risks simply reiterating the previous position without reviewing its accuracy. Given the acknowledged failures in keeping appointments it would have been appropriate to consider additional compensation for the resident to recognise the time and trouble and distress that she was put to in pursuing her complaint and to review whether some compensation may also be due in respect of the court charges given that the documented failures by the contractor in attending appointments were a clear factor in the lack of access.
45. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
45.1 complaints about the boiler repairs;
45.2 the gas safety check;
45.3 the associated formal complaint.
Orders
46. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
46.1 pay the resident £300 compensation (£150 for the delay and failure to address the boiler repair issues; £75 in respect of the failures in the gas safety check in addition to the compensation for missed appointments already paid, and £75 for the poor handling of the formal complaint);
46.2 if it has not done so already, complete the remedial works in respect of the boiler repairs.