Clarion Housing Association Limited (201910091)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910091

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 March 2021

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 response to the report of a fire in the resident’s property
The landlord’s handling of a temporary decant
The condition of the temporary decant accommodation
The landlord’s complaint-handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a tenancy at the property since 4 June 2001. The property is a mid terrace cottage where the resident lives with her daughter.
On 30 April 2019 a fire occurred at the resident’s property caused by a malfunction with the tumble dryer. The fire brigade attended the property to put out the fire and no injuries were sustained. The resident telephoned the landlord and was advised that staff could not attend to secure her windows after the fire. The resident’s son and neighbours undertook this work at the time. The landlord advised the resident that she and her daughter would be put in a hotel whilst assessments were carried out on the property.
On 1 May 2019 the landlord’s records establish that the property was uninhabitable having been assessed by the fire brigade, with damage having been caused to décor, fixtures and fittings on the entire ground floor and significant smoke damage over the ground and first floor. The resident was decanted to a hotel room, and on the same day raised a verbal complaint about the landlord’s response to the reports of the fire. A loss adjuster attended the property that week to assess the condition of the property following the fire.
On 7 May 2019 the initial decant hotel booking was extended until 22 May 2019 to allow the landlord to undertake a full decant check, finalise repairs and source a temporary property for the resident.
On 20 May 2019 the hotel booking was extended until 5 June 2019 to allow for void works to be undertaken at the temporary property. It was initially understood that the hotel did not have availability for the night of 25 May 2019 so it was agreed that the resident and her family would stay with extended family that night with the landlord to pay her a disturbance payment of £50 for the night. However it was later established that the hotel had a room available, and therefore the resident continued to stay at the hotel.
On 24 May 2019 the hotel booking was extended until 14 June 2019 to allow for further void work completion, the resident viewing and sign-up at the temporary property. On the same day, 24 May 2019, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in which she set out the following:
1. Since the fire on 30 April 2019 she had been unable to live at the property due to outstanding repair works. She had not had a point of contact at the landlord during that time to provide her with updates when she sought them. The night of the fire she was spoken to “atrociously” by a member of staff who told her that “no one can do anything” because the issue had occurred out of hours. No-one had attended to board up the windows that had broken as a result of the fire. As a result her son and neighbours had to fortify the window with a cupboard door.
2. The hotel booking had been unorganised. There had been a day when she was told she had been booked into the hotel, but upon arrival she was told by staff that there was no booking. That weekend her daughter and she were having to stay elsewhere due to what she considered disappointing inattention.
3. Regarding the offer to move into a void property, she did not consider it reasonable to expect her to move into a new home without furniture. The hotel allowed her and her daughter to continue living their day to day lives. The loss adjuster from the manufacturer had advised that it would be reimbursing the landlord for the hotel costs, so she didn’t understand why she could not continue to stay in the hotel.
4. The resident had stayed with friends for two nights, and she believed that according to the landlord’s policy she should have been offered £50 per night for this. She wanted to know what the long–term plan was to resolve the issues, noting that she was not currently in a settled home or booked long enough in a hotel.
On 12 June 2019 the hotel booking was extended until 15 June 2019 to allow time for the resident to liaise with energy providers to reinstate gas and electricity services following the sign-up to go ahead on 14 June 2019 at the temporary property. On 14 June 2019 the resident moved into the temporary property. As per the landlord’s decant policy, the property was initially unfurnished but given the resident had no contents insurance the landlord’s insurance company arranged for temporary furniture to be delivered, new carpeting put down and vouchers provided for blinds, curtains and other elements. The resident was advised that the uncapping of gas and electricity was the resident’s responsibility as a property cannot be uncapped in advance due to health and safety regulations.
On 18 June 2019 the landlord called the resident’s representative to advise that the resident and her daughter were given clear instructions on how to zero the [FP1]gas card. It apologised for the gaps in providing the service, but noted it was closing the complaint due to having fulfilled its obligations to the resident by arranging for the move to the hotel and then the decant property. It also noted it had gone beyond the requirements of its policy by providing furniture and vouchers to the resident for use in the decant property.
On 4 July 2019 the contractors attended the property [FP2]and established that the boiler was fully operational. The resident stated that she was reluctant to turn the heating up due to the debt already inherited on the gas card. On 16, 19 and 22 July 2019 the landlord’s contractors attended the property to fix new reported issues with the boiler which had left the resident with problems with the heating.
On 24 July 2019 raised a complaint regarding the gas card for the property not being zeroed and not having heating or hot water. The landlord’s internal notes of this time recorded that the resident had been in the decant property for 4 weeks without heating or hot water. An appointment had been booked for contractors to attend but the resident was dissatisfied with how long this took to be organised. The contractors had then failed to attend the property on two occasions when appointments were booked. It also noted that part of the complaint was about the gas card given the resident was not “zeroing off”, meaning she had to pay extra money towards the gas without having used any of [FP3]it.
On 29 July 2019 the contractor attended the property and finalised the boiler repair.
On 27 August 2019 the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident’s complaint that the property’s gas card had not been zeroed and she did not have heating or hot water in which it set out the following:
1. It apologised that she had cause to complain. It had investigated the matter by speaking to its contractors who advised that the resident needed to contact the gas company that dealt with her electrics to get her card zeroed.
2. Regarding the lack of hot water, it noted the resident had contacted the contractors on 4 July 2019 to advise of the lack of hot water and an error code on the boiler. Contractors had attended the property out of hours that day and found that the boiler was working upon arrival, but that the resident didn’t want to turn on the boiler due to the previous tenant’s debt.
3. On 16 July 2019, the resident reported a breakdown with low pressure. A contractor attended the following day and found a fault with the cold water storage tank in the loft which was filling up slowly. The contractors attended on 19 July 2019 out of hours, but the resident did not answer their attendance. The appointment was rebooked for 22 July 2019, at which point the contractors advised a separate team was required to fix a fault on the cold water storage tank. On 29 July 2019 the resident reported having no hot water. Contractors attended the following day at which time it was established that the gate valve on the cylinder was shut but left with all parts working.
4. It stated that because the repairs resolution was in motion, it considered the complaint to be concluded.
On 6 September 2019 the resident wrote to her local councillor setting out the elements of her 24 May 2019 complaint and requesting assistance. In addition to the original points raised she stated:
1. She had explained her preference would be to remain in the hotel rather than a decant property and provided medical evidence to support this. The resident was advised that she would need to move into a temporary decant, and that they would contact the manufacturers who were paying for this stay to give their recommendation for the decant arrangement. She stated that the landlord had failed to do this.
2. The landlord’s communication had been poor regarding the necessary void repair works, which had negatively impacted her mental health and that of her daughter. The landlord failed to keep records of previous communications she had with it. She had no hot water for almost a month.
3. She had been advised that the complaint could or would not be escalated to stage two and requested the councillor’s help to progress the case.
On 8 September 2019 the resident’s local councillor wrote to the landlord raising concerns that the resident had communicated to them about the decant. On 4 October 2019 the landlord responded to the counsellor, setting out the following:
1. It had explained to the resident that in line with its policy any decant that was longer than six weeks would require it to find a suitable temporary property for a resident, noting that a hotel was only a short term option to allow it time to locate a suitable property. It was aware of one incident where the hotel was not aware of the booking when the resident had turned up, however this had been booked by its contractor who resolved the situation by contacting the hotel and confirmed a booking was in place.
2. Carpets and some furniture had been fitted throughout the temporary property before the resident moved in and vouchers had been sent to pay for other furnishing.
3. It stated that to date it had not received a request to escalate the complaint. However it noted it would undertake the review at this point.
On 16 September 2019 the resident contacted the landlord stating that she had found staff to be unhelpful and unprofessional in their communication and handling of the decant. She stated that the landlord’s instructions regarding the gas card and meter were incorrect, but that she had been unable to contact staff to discuss this. She felt the energy supplier and landlord were both refusing to take responsibility for the issue [FP4].
On 24 September 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised again for the distress she had experienced as a result of the issues she had faced. It stated that it had acted quickly to secure a decant property, and though this required some minor repairs it was adequate to house the resident due to the urgency of her housing needs. It acknowledged that it would have been better if the works were all completed prior to her moving in, but the works were addressed quickly and it followed its process. It stated that there was no evidence available to support a complaint that its staff had acted inappropriately in their communications with the resident.
On 9 October 2019 the resident’s local councillor wrote again to the landlord requesting clarification on some points in the earlier letter. On 24 October 2019 the landlord replied to the councillor and provided a copy of the response to the resident. In this it set out the following:
1. It had secured a property quickly following the resident’s stay at a hotel. This property had some minor works outstanding due to the urgency of housing the resident. Some minor repairs were carried out on the day the resident moved in including to the window and the removal of rubbish from previous works. The landlord agreed that it would have been better to complete the works prior to the resident moving in, however it noted it had addressed all concerns quickly to try and ensure the property was comfortable for her.
2. Its surveyor had confirmed that it followed procedure with regards to the decant process and the reinstatement of the resident’s original property was running to the anticipated timescale. It felt the time it took to locate a temporary property was more than acceptable and that its teams had acted accordingly in sourcing the property and getting the repairs addressed on the same day as sign up. It had contacted the resident to discuss some of the decorations she would like in the property once the repairs were completed.
3. It felt that its staff had acted appropriately in all instances, and that there was no evidence to suggest they had done anything other than attempt to assist the resident following the unexpected fire. She was offered accommodation quickly and the concerns she raised were addressed promptly. It also offered her tenancy support from the offset despite the fact it wasn’t taking on any new referrals due to high demand. The repairs were being actioned efficiently and it was in regular contact with the resident so that she could choose the finishing touches.
4. It had made it clear that it could not help with the debt on her gas meter. It did not provide gas to the property and this needed to be dealt with by the energy supplier.
On 20 February 2020 the resident moved back to her original property.
On 4 March 2020 the representative requested that the complaint be escalated on the following grounds:
1. The landlord had been frustrating and difficult to worth with throughout the process. It had failed to attend the property and secure the resident’s windows after the fire or provide any further advice.
2. The landlord had refused to “block book” the hotel resulting in a number of occasions where the resident and her daughter turned up to the hotel under the landlord’s instruction and weren’t booked in. There were also issues when dinner and breakfast were advised to have been paid for but weren’t. The resident and her daughter spent six weeks in the hostel constantly having to re-check in and out, leaving them with no stability.
3. After six weeks the landlord had advised the resident would need to either stay in the hotel whilst works were done, or the former would arrange for a decant property. The resident expressed the desire to remain in the hotel due to its proximity to the family’s places of work. The resident contacted the dryer manufacturer who advised that the resident could remain in the hotel. The landlord was then advised of this, but action was not taken which resulted in the resident moving into a decant property which had not been her preference.
4. Upon viewing the decant property the day before moving in, the resident noted there were outstanding repair issues including graffiti on an internal door and an insecure window on an exposed part of the property. The resident considered that the property was not up to the landlord’s void standard. While it was acknowledged that the landlord did take steps to address these quickly, she felt she should not have been put into a property with the issues outstanding at the time of her moving in.
5. There was an outstanding debt on the gas meter when the resident was moved into the temporary property which should have been dealt with prior to her moving in. Staff said they had given the resident clear instructions to take the gars card to the shop below to ask them to “zero the meter”. She did this up to twenty times and the debt still remained. The landlord had advised the resident it would request a council tax refund for the amount she was overcharged, but it had not undertaken this task and this had caused distress to the resident who had incurred debt as a result.
6. The landlord had given very few updates to the resident, requiring her and her son/representative to chase up the matter on multiple occasions.
7. The complaints process had been unsatisfactory, with the landlord failing to escalate the complaint to stage two as it should have, requiring multiple back and forth interactions and intervention from the Ombudsman before the request was acknowledged and acted upon.
On 9 March 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
On 2 April 2020 the landlord telephoned the resident to confirm that the cost of a van hire and other moving costs totalling £298.86 had been reimbursed to the resident’s rent account in light of outstanding arrears.
On 5 June 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident on the telephone, with the latter noting that the escalation request had not been progressed.
On 8 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging its failure to respond and apologised for this. It noted that following the discussion of the outstanding issues in February 2020, the request was overlooked and therefore not actioned as required. It noted it was aiming to provide a response within twenty working days. The landlord’s internal notes stated that it would need to address the three month delay to reviewing the case before providing the final complaint response.
On 29 June 2020 the landlord’s internal emails noted that:
1. The temporary property would have met the void standards requirement at the time of being handed back from the contractor. Given the urgent nature of the case, the property would have been deemed suitable even if there were some issues which still remained to be fixed. It considered this was appropriate given the requirements of the resident and the fact that the repairs were carried out promptly.
2. Regarding the gas/electricity accounts in the decant property, its procedure was not to change the accounts into the landlord’s name during the void period unless there was a meter debt preventing the necessary safety works. The resident was advised at the time of viewing and signing up that she would need to contact the supplier to clear the meter debt, who would then instruct her on how to do so at no cost to her.
On 7 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that the twenty working day time limit for providing the complaint response had passed. It stated that due to the complaint being multi-faceted, it would require further time to provide a full response. It noted it was aiming to provide this within ten working days.
On 20 July 2020 the landlord provided its final complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in providing the final complaint response, noting that this was due to the complicated nature of the case.
2. Regarding the actions taken on the night of the fire, it had been unable to review the phone call given the call recording was no longer available having been deleted after 12 weeks in line with its data retention policy. It did however believe that the call was made and that the resident notified the landlord about the broken windowpanes. Its policy details this as an emergency repair and as such it should have been attended within 24 hours. It failed to do so which caused further inconvenience to the household. It apologised for this, noted that feedback had been passed to the relevant team and offered £100 compensation as redress.
3. Regarding the temporary stay in the hotel, it noted the challenge of balancing the immediate needs of a household and the ability to provide a more permanent settled home either as a new void property or returning residents to their previous home. Hotel rooms are therefore booked for a particular timescale to try and align with the possibility of returning residents to the previous property.

As a result, there would be times when the landlord would try to extend the hotel stay but this would not be possible, and it was the landlord’s responsibility to coordinate and manage this internally. In retrospect, given the manufacturer of the dryer had offered to extend the resident’s stay at the hotel, it should have explored this possibility if it improved the family’s experience and enable them to remain settled in one hotel. It apologised for this and offered £50 compensation as redress. It also agreed to the resident’s request that she be paid £50 for each of the two nights she stayed with friends, which was in line with its decant policy.

Regarding the temporary decant property, the resident had stated the property was not at a lettable standard and there was an outstanding debt on the meter preventing her from accessing heating and hot water. It had investigated this and was satisfied the property would have met the standard to be let. The priority was to provide appropriate accommodation given the urgent nature of the case, and there were only minor repairs which could be completed while the resident was staying there.

The resident was advised at the time of viewing and signing up that she would need to contact the utility supplier to clear the meter debt, which she would receive instructions on how to do at no cost. Any issues regarding heating and hot water as a result of failing to take this step would not be the landlord’s responsibility. Regarding the particular repair issue with the boiler, it noted that its contractor had attended appropriately but acknowledged that it took several visits for the issue to be resolved. On this basis it awarded £50 as a goodwill gesture.

Regarding its complaint-handling, it noted that it had failed to:
1. Investigate all aspects of the complaints, in particular the concerns raised about certain members of staff
2. Follow its complaint policy regarding the escalation request, as this was requested in June 2019 and on two further occasions but not undertaken until June 2020. This was due to poor communication between various departments.
3. Provide clarity on the events described in the complaint and a rationale for the decisions it had made.
4. Investigate the complaints thoroughly, resulting in the responses sometimes being vague in confirming what failures and lessons had been identified.
5. Keep the resident updated and manage her expectations.
As a result it had taken steps to improve its service delivery by:
1. Having managers and teams who had been involved in the case be made aware of their failings via internal investigation which would provide feedback as appropriate.
2. Updating its complaints handling system to ensure proper recording and reporting of customer enquiries.
3. Implementing a centralised and dedicated customer solutions team to resolve complaints promptly and keep residents updated.
4. All staff undergoing customer service refresher training several times a year, including in response to issues identified in quality monitoring such as auditing of calls and letters to residents.
It concluded that it had coordinated the decant arrangements and subsequent actions adequately, though its complaint-handling was not up to its expected standards. On this basis it awarded £400 discretionary compensation in recognition of the failures identified, being the failure to follow its policy, delay in escalating the complaint, lack of communication and the time taken to resolve the complaint. This brought the total compensation offered to £700.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s decant policy sets out that it will seek to minimise the disruption to residents caused by decanting. When an unplanned event such as a fire occurs that results in a resident having to be moved straight away because the property is unsafe or uninhabitable, temporary accommodation will be arranged until the situation can be fully assessed. Various options including a hotel stay or staying with family and friends will be considered and will depend on the availability and suitability of accommodation and the relative costs. Residents will be reimbursed £50 per day per household if they stay with family and friends for the first week, with the amount to be paid per day reducing over time.
Once the situation has been assessed, the decant will be classed as either an unplanned non-emergency temporary decant or an unplanned permanent decant in a case where the resident would be unable to move back to the property in future.
At the point the decant becomes a non-emergency temporary decant, the following options will be considered in addition to the accommodation options for unplanned emergency decants:
1. Hotel accommodation up to a maximum of two weeks
2. The landlord’s own vacant properties
3. Private rented accommodation.
The policy states that it is ultimately the landlord’s decision as to whether a resident can remain in a property. It will apply its discretion in making any further offers of accommodation. The landlord will meet all reasonable costs that residents incur as a direct consequence of being required to move. It may also make disturbance payments at its discretion to provide financial assistance to the resident for the cost of removal and storage, carpets and curtains.
The landlord’s voids procedure sets out the principle of arranging for an empty property to be inspected, repaired, cleaned and left it a safe and suitable state for re-letting as quickly as possible.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that an emergency repair is one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. Any emergency repair should be attended and repairs completed within 24 hours, including temporary repairs or works to make safe with a further repair completed subsequently.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out a maximum of £50 for a repair that has gone over the target time for resolution. It also notes that the resident is entitled to £5 per day after 7 days from an initial report of no hot water or heating as a result of an outstanding repair.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint includes a principle of “putting things right within reasonable timescales” but does not include set timescales for acknowledgement of a complaint or formal responses. The policy has since been amended to include formal timescales.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of the fire

On the night of the fire the resident received poor communication from the landlord, which failed to provide her with clear instructions on what to do to secure the property following the fire brigade’s attendance. The landlord’s son and her neighbours had to secure a window themselves by using a cupboard door as a makeshift resolution with minimal input from the landlord. The landlord was aware of the repair issue which constituted an ‘emergency’ repair under its policy given it affected the health, safety and security of the resident. It was obligated to resolve the repair issue by at least carrying out a temporary repair within 24 hours, however failed to do so.
The landlord acknowledged this failing and offered £100 to the resident, as well as noting that it had taken steps to prevent a recurrence of this issue by passing feedback to the appropriate team. Considering the impact of this failing on the resident. these steps were appropriate ones to take as they acknowledged the distress caused to the resident and demonstrated an attempt to ensure the issue did not recur in future.

The landlord’s handling of the temporary decant

The landlord’s decant policy sets out the steps it is obliged to take following an emergency such as the one that occurred in this instance. While the policy allows it to give consideration to various options for temporary accommodation, it can ultimately decide how to handle these so long as it gives due consideration to the availability, suitability and cost of each. It also sets out that the situation following damage to a property needs to be assessed as a starting point, with decisions being made on the appropriate accommodation options to arrange following this assessment.
During this initial period, the policy was followed as the resident stayed in a hotel while the necessary works were assessed and investigations were being undertaken to find a decant property. The policy states that hotel accommodation will be provided for a maximum of up to two weeks in addition to the original unplanned emergency decant period during which the assessment is taking place. The evidence indicates that the landlord was taking steps throughout the time of the resident’s stay at the hotel to organise the temporary decant, with this always being the ultimate goal rather than having the resident in an open-ended stay at the hotel.
Though the resident and her family expressed their desire to stay in the hotel for the entirety of the period they were decanted, the landlord was not obligated to fulfil this request, even if the manufacturer of the dryer which had caused the fire was open or willing to covering the cost. The landlord undertook an investigation to provide a suitable decant property and carried out the necessary void works to bring it up to standard. These were reasonable steps to take following the initial move of the family to the hotel, given the policy requirements and the fact that the property served the needs of the resident and her family as well as being safe and secure.
Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged that it could have further explored the option of a longer hotel stay given the manufacturer’s willingness to pay for this and the fact that it was the resident’s desired course of action. On this basis, its offer of £50 to the resident was appropriate: while it did not specifically fail to meet the requirements of its decant policy, it could have done more to engage with the alternative option available to it which the resident had requested her preference for.
Additionally, the resident request requested compensation for the two nights she stayed at a friend’s home. The landlord acted appropriately in offering payment of £100 to the resident in accordance with its policy for these two nights.

The condition of the temporary decant property

The landlord’s voids policy notes that a temporary property must be left in a “safe and suitable” condition. Its position regarding the condition of the temporary decant policy was that it had some minor works outstanding due to the urgency of housing the resident which were addressed promptly on the day the resident moved in. It stated that it had acted quickly to secure a decant property, and though this required some minor repairs it was adequate to house the resident due to the urgency of her housing needs. It acknowledged that it would have been better if the works were all completed prior to her moving in, but the works were addressed quickly and it followed its process. The resident has acknowledged that the repairs were resolved promptly.
Part of the resident’s frustration that led to this complaint has been stated to stem from the fact that she was required to move from a hotel where she had felt secure and comfortable to a decant property which had outstanding repair issues at the time she moved in. Given the landlord’s decision to move the resident from the hotel to a decant property has been justified, the condition of the property must be considered on its own merits.
The steps taken by the landlord that it had adhered to its decant policy was a reasonable position for it to take given the problems such as graffiti and rubbish were promptly dealt with. It also considered the need to promptly move the resident into the temporary property given the hotel booking had been extended on a number of occasions which had caused a lack of security for the resident. This was compounded by instances where the landlord’s outsourced contractor for arranging the hotel stay had failed to provide updated information regarding the bookings, causing confusion and disruption to the resident who was required to contact the landlord on a number of occasions believing the booking had not been made. It was a reasonable position therefore to move the resident to the property promptly, even if there were minor repairs outstanding, given this would resolve each of the issues that were being had with the hotel.
Additionally, the landlord made a goodwill gesture to the resident in light of her concerns about the state of the property and lack of contents insurance by arranging for temporary furniture to be delivered to the property. It also followed its policy by reimbursing the resident for moving costs. Considering each of these factors, the landlord acted appropriately in providing a suitable decant property to the resident given the urgency of the need to move and the minor nature of the outstanding repairs.
The landlord acknowledged that there were problems with the repair process following reports of issues with the temporary property’s boiler. Though it took steps to address these, and the repair was at times hampered by an inaccurate report by the resident of the problem or a ‘no access’ attendance, there were delays in carrying out the repair that were caused by the landlord. It acted appropriately in acknowledging these, apologising and offering compensation of £50 to the resident.
The landlord followed the correct process in stating to the resident that it was her responsibility to uncap the gas and electricity, given safety regulations meant these could not be done in advance. Though the resident experienced difficulties in having the issue resolved, the landlord consistently communicated with her the process for doing so, and is not responsible for the failings of the energy supplier. It clarified the process repeatedly to the resident which was an appropriate step to take in an attempt to assist her.

Complaints-handling

There were various failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, largely stemming from failures of communication both internally and with the resident, which led to a failure to adhere to its policy in terms of deadlines for responses. The resident was required to repeatedly request that the complaint be escalated and question the progress of this request by contacting the landlord for an update and then the Ombudsman for further assistance. The length of time taken to provide the stage two complaint response was significant, amounting to approximately a year which would have caused distress and frustration to the resident. Though the policy at the time did not set out formal timescales for the landlord to respond, this was clearly an unacceptable delay.
The landlord has acknowledged its failings in this regard and offered compensation to the resident totalling £400, consisting of compensation for:
1. Failure to follow policy and procedure (£100)
2. The delay in escalating the stage one request (£100)
3. Lack of communication (£100)
4. The time taken to resolve the complaint (£100)
It also set out a number of steps it had taken to improve its complaint-handling process, based around improvements to systems of internal investigation and feedback, proper recording and reporting, communications with residents and regular staff training that reflects issues identified as a result of quality monitoring processes. Given the significant number of failings in the complaints process, these were necessary steps to take to ensure that similar difficulties do not re-occur in the landlord’s complaints processes.
The complaints policy has also been amended to include formal timescales for response to complaints, which is an appropriate step to have taken given this would have contributed to the lack of clarity and frustration for the resident, as well as the delays. Considering these steps and the amount of compensation offered to the resident, the landlord has recognised its failings and provided reasonable redress to the resident.
The landlord acted appropriately in setting out the process for an insurance claim in its complaints response, directing the resident on how to make a personal injury claim for alleged damage to her health caused by its action.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about the landlord’s response to the report of a fire in the resident’s property.

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the temporary decant.

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about the condition of the temporary decant property.

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about the landlord’s [FP5]complaint-handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to adhere to its repairs policy on the night of the fire, leaving an emergency priority repair unresolved which required the resident to take steps to make it safe herself. It acknowledged this failing, apologised and provided compensation to the resident which was an appropriate step to take.

The landlord was entitled to move the resident to a temporary decant property after the initial hotel stay, in line with its policy as it gave consideration to the various necessary factors in making the decision. In saying this, it acknowledged that it could have engaged further with the possibility of extending the resident’s hotel stay even though this was outside its usual procedure, given the manufacturer of the faulty appliance that led to the fire had offered to pay for the hotel. It acted appropriately in offering compensation to the resident on this basis.

The condition of the temporary property was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s decant policy. Though there were some outstanding repair issues identified when the resident moved in, these were minor and the landlord dealt with them the same day. It acknowledged its failure regarding the repair to the boiler and provided compensation to the resident for this.

There were significant failings in the landlord’s complaint-handling process, stemming largely from a failure to escalate the complaint and a lack of communication. It has recognised these, apologised, offered compensation to the resident and implemented various steps including training and improved systems for complaint-handling to ensure the problems do not recur. However, the length of time the final response was outstanding was significant, causing major distress and frustration to the resident, and the offer on this point does not go far enough to provide redress.[FP6]

Orders

That the landlord, within the next four weeks, pay to the resident the sum of £100 for the failures in its complaint-handling process. This is in addition to the following recommendations.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendation:

That the landlord, within the next four weeks, pay to the resident its original compensation offer of £700, consisting of:

£100 for its failure to respond appropriately to the repair issue on the night of the fire
£150 for its failure to engage with the manufacturer regarding the possibility of allowing the resident to stay longer in the hotel and the resident’s costs in staying at a friends house for two nights
£50 for its repair failures in addressing the boiler issue at the decant property
£400 for failures in its complaints-handling

[FP1]Meaning? Did the R raise a query about this?

Is this the response to the 24 May comms?

[FP2]You need to ensure it is clear which property you are talking about

[FP3]You need to make this clear earlier in the report – what are the arrangements for the payment of gas what is the issue here? Why is this the LL’s responsibility?

[FP4]Not clear yet what the actual issue is

[FP5]See my earlier comments

[FP6]No £400 is enough here – this is reasonable redress