Clarion Housing Association Limited (202015561)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015561

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 April 2022

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 resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, and its handling of the subsequent repairs.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Tenancy Agreement:

This states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the systems for supplying water, heating and electricity in good working order.

Voids process:

This states that the landlord’s repairs partner will complete the void works and undertake a post-void inspection. The property is then confirmed as ready to let.

Voids Procedure:

The aim of the voids procedure is stated as ‘to ensure that an empty property is inspected, repaired, cleaned and left in safe and suitable state for re-letting as quickly as possible’.

Repairs and Maintenance Guide:

This states that the tenant is responsible for issues such as internal decorating and ‘minor defects or imperfections in plaster’.

Compensation policy:

This provides guidance on the suggested range of compensation levels that the landlord can consider to recognise a particular adverse effect and impact on a complainant. It states that the Housing Ombudsman Service case studies should be considered for guidance. It sets out what factors the landlord can take into account when considering discretionary compensation awards.
The policy states the following:
1. Awards of £250 to £700 – remedies in this range may be for cases where we find considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact.
2. Awards of £700 and above – remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that on 30 September 2020 a post-void inspection was carried out which confirmed the void works that were completed. The records also show that the property was signed off on 2 October 2020 as being ready to let.
On 5 October 2020 the tenancy was signed by the resident and started from this date. However, the resident did not move into the property as she was having carpets fitted and carrying out decorating works.
The landlord’s records show that on 15 October 2020 a job was logged for ‘rear entry door is badly worn and hanging from hinges, please assess and repair’.
On 22 October 2020 the landlord’s surveyor attended the property. The landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection report for this visit. However, the repair records and correspondence show that repairs were raised for overhauling the stop tap and boxing, renewing the rubber gasket to the front door, refixing the rear door frame, fitting a light pendant and checking a socket, as well as ‘numerous plastering repairs’ which included PVA to be applied to all the ceilings to stabilise the existing paint finish and a mist coat to all the walls.
On 23 October 2020 the resident logged a formal complaint. The key issues were as follows:
1. Parts of the floor needed screeding and some floorboards needed replacing.
2. The landlord’s surveyor agreed that plasterboard needed replacing in the front room and other walls need skimming, and all ceilings needed a pva coating due to distemper.
3. The resident had been told that the property had an oil-fired heating system and so she purchased 750 litres of oil at a cost of £226 in preparation for moving in. However, she later found out that the existing oil system was in the process of being replaced with an air source heating pump.
4. The resident was advised that rent would not be charged until the new heating system had been installed. However, the resident was unhappy with the repairs that were needed to the property and she was seeking reimbursement for the oil plus compensation for being given a property that was not ready for letting. The resident confirmed that she would be remaining in her private-rented property until all the works had been completed.
On 28 October 2020 the landlord’s repair records show that the above repairs referred to in the complaint were logged.
On 2 November 2020 the records show that a plasterer attended to inspect the walls and to measure up for materials.
On 9 November 2020 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint. The landlord’s internal records show it made enquires with its internal teams about when the repairs would be completed; when the new heating system would be in operation and a decision on the reimbursement for the oil.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 November 2020 and confirmed that it would not charge rent until the new heating system had been installed and the property was ready to move in.
The records show that the plastering works were marked as completed on 26 November and the new heating system was installed on 30 November 2020. The correspondence around this time shows that the resident did not move into the property at this time due to her concerns about outstanding remedial works.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 15 December 2020 the job for ‘pva to be applied to all the ceilings to stabilise the existing paint finish, mist coat all the walls’ was marked as completed.
The landlord updated the resident on 29 December 2020 and the notes show that they discussed the completion of the new heating installation and that there were still outstanding repairs related to the plastering and that the skirting boards had not yet been fitted. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it made further enquiries with its internal teams for updates on when the plastering and final remedial works would be completed.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 5 January 2021 with its surveyor shows that the property was inspected with the resident and it was concluded that the walls could be decorated. The correspondence from the surveyor confirmed that the property was ready to be occupied and met its standards.
The landlord has said that around this time further additional repairs were logged e.g. renewing the outside path, which were not part of the original complaint and which did not render the property uninhabitable.
The landlord agreed on 13 January 2021 that a small area of wall on the landing needed further work; it agreed to sugar-soap wash the affected area and apply plaster primer to rectify the distemper in that area, and the remaining areas would be the resident’s responsibility as per the tenancy agreement. The repair records show that on 20 January 2021 a job was logged for ‘sugar soap the walls to the upstairs landing and then seal the walls using a plaster sealant’.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 22 January 2021:
1. It apologised for the complaint response delay and for inconvenience caused.
2. It confirmed that the property had passed the void inspection checks, which was inspected with the wallpaper present. After the tenancy sign-up the resident removed the wallpaper and found that the plasterwork underneath was defective and had ‘distemper’ on it and could not be painted over.
3. The landlord confirmed that various routine repairs were carried out between 22 October and 2 November 2020.
4. As for the distemper issue, it maintained that it would usually be the tenant’s responsibility to decorate the walls, however on this occasion it had used its discretion and had approved further investigation of this issue and consulted a decoration specialist for advice. The specialist provided guidance on how to resolve the distemper issue and recommended the use of sugar soap to wash affected areas, and to apply plaster primer to the stairway and landing area.
5. The new heating system was installed in November 2020 and the landlord considered the property to be habitable at this point. However, as a discretionary gesture, it agreed not to charge any rent from the sign-up date of 5 October 2020 until 11 January 2021.
6. The landlord offered the resident a total amount of £526.41 compensation, in recognition of the issues that were involved with the complaint. This amount was made up of:
  1. Delay in resolving complaint – £50
  2. The impact experienced by the complainant for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence and delays in getting matters resolved – £100.
  3. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by complainant – £50.
  4. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses – £100.
  5. Reimbursement for oil purchased – £226.41
Whilst the landlord’s correspondence showed that the resident had accepted the compensation offer, she still requested that her complaint be escalated on 22 January 2021.
The repair records show that on 28 January 2021 the landing works (‘sugar soap the walls to the upstairs landing and then seal the walls using a plaster sealant’) were marked as completed.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord received further advice from its decorator about the distemper. He confirmed that in November 2020 works were completed to prepare the walls by using sugar soap and sealing the plaster with a recommended product, and mist coating all the ceilings and walls within the property ‘as we have done with all the other time we have encountered distemper’. Whilst the resident had raised concerns about this work, it had been inspected and confirmed as being satisfactory by a surveyor. It was agreed that some further stain blocking would be applied, which was done in December. It was noted that the resident had carried out some decorating herself but had not properly prepared the walls first and this had caused further issues with the finish.
On 3 February 2021 the landlord agreed to skim a small part of the wall at the top of the stairs. It was satisfied that this was the only area now requiring further action, and that all the other areas where the tenants had started decorating themselves was due to the areas not having been prepped correctly with pva, and as such, the landlord would not be carrying out works in those areas.
The records show that a job was logged on 4 February 2021 ‘to skim the landing walls’ and that this was completed on 11 February 2021.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request and apologised for the delay and discussed the outcome the resident was seeking. It was noted that the resident had obtained a quote of her own for redecorating the property which came to £6000.
On 23 February 2021 the complaint was reviewed and it was concluded that the property was habitable by 11 January 2021 so no further rent rebate would be considered after this date. As for the distemper issue, it maintained that no further works were necessary regarding decorating of the walls.
The resident continued to raise concerns about the new heating system at the property. The landlord arranged for a heating contractor to inspect the new system and his report dated 23 February 2021 noted that there were ‘minor issues’ with the system but these did not impact on the functioning of the system.
The heating contractor carried out Heat Loss Calculations and confirmed that overall the new radiators provided sufficient heating for the whole property but the tenant would need to live in the property to see if any radiators in particular rooms would need to be increased/decreased in size.
The report concluded that the new system was running correctly and was energy efficient and providing the right amount of heat. However, in terms of aesthetics it could have been installed with more thought e.g. a slimline cylinder could have been used to save space. The landlord sent the report to the heating system installer for their review.
On 24 February 2021 the landlord’s internal correspondence showed that a professional decorator had inspected the walls the day before and he was of the opinion that they were now ‘fit for decorating’. The landlord reviewed the decorating quote provided by the resident and confirmed that the product recommended in the resident’s quote had already been applied by the landlord’s decorator to treat the distemper. The landlord’s contractor was of the view that the resident was trying to achieve a ‘new build finish’ and that this was not going to be possible without re-plastering the whole property. As the property was originally wallpapered in most areas, the contractor suggested using lining paper and then using emulsion paint on the walls/ceiling.
On 26 February 2021 the landlord received a report from the new heating installer in response to the earlier report. It maintained that the system had been installed correctly and in accordance with the relevant regulations and standards and that the heating contractor’s report used an incorrect analysis method. It confirmed that the installation was designed, installed and completed to a good standard, with a few minor aesthetic issues which it would rectify. It said it was clear from the performance data that the heat pump had been set up correctly and that it had recently visited the resident who was happy with the installation, apart from a few minor issues which were being resolved.
On 1 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP with an update. It reiterated its position as stated in its Stage 1 complaint response and said that the distemper repair had been completed by 11 February 2021. The complaint had now been escalated to Stage 2 of its process. With regards to the heating issue, it had investigated the matter and was satisfied that the system was working correctly. It maintained that the rent had only been charged from 11 January 2021 as this is when the property was deemed to be habitable. It would also consider if any further compensation was due.
The landlord issued its Stage 2 final complaint response on 8 March 2021:
1. Decorating – it explained that its decoration specialist had advised it to use sugar soap on the walls and apply plaster primer to affected areas, which was completed. In addition, it also completed additional plastering works to the areas where this treatment was not working. It was satisfied that the property was ready for decorating and was in a reasonable condition and in keeping with its void standard. Therefore, no further decoration works would be carried out by the landlord, and any remaining decorating would be the resident’s responsibility. The resident was also given a ‘paint pack’ to the value of approximately £100 to assist with decorating the property.
2. Rent – it had already agreed to not charge rent from the start of the tenancy on 5 October 2020, until 11 January 2021. It remained of the view that the property had been habitable to live in from this date. The landlord confirmed that additional repairs had been reported but these were not part of the original complaint and they did not render the property uninhabitable. As such, the rent would be chargeable from 11 January 2021.
3. Compensation – it was not willing to increase the compensation and reiterated its previous offer of £250 compensation for service failures (plus a further £276.41 for delays in responding to the complaint and reimbursement for oil purchased). It was of the view that the amount offered was in keeping with its Compensation Policy. However, as there had been a delay in sending the Stage 2 response, it offered a further £50 compensation in recognition of this service failure.
This Service understands that at the time of the final complaint response above, the resident had still not moved into the property.
Following the referral to this Service, the landlord carried out its own review and issued the resident with a further response on 21 March 2022. It explained that it had been conducting a review of old complaints and as a result it had reconsidered its position on this complaint.
It acknowledged that when the resident moved into the property it was discovered that the heating was not working and was in fact due for replacement with a new Air Source Heat Pump. This work was completed on 30 November 2020. It accepted that this timescale was longer than it should have been and this was due to ‘shortages with supply at that particular time’. It said that it was not acceptable that it had signed the resident up to a tenancy with no working heating system. On reflection it said it was clear that it had not properly explained why this error had occurred. It said that that there was some miscommunication between teams, which meant that its lettings team were not made aware that the new system had not been installed at the time of the sign-up. It confirmed that it had now changed its process ‘so lessons have been learned’.
Although it had acknowledged this error and it had offered some compensation for this service failure, its review showed that its offer was not in line with its compensation policy. As a result, it offered the resident a further £400.00 compensation ‘to reflect that you were offered a property without heating and/or made aware that the heating was about to be replaced’.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports and this includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman is guided by its Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
Looking at the facts of this case, the first point to note is that the aim of the landlord’s voids policy is to ensure that an empty property is inspected, repaired, cleaned and left in a safe and suitable state for re-letting as quickly as possible. The main concerns raised by the resident in this case is that the property was not in a condition to be let when she signed the tenancy agreement and further works were needed in order to get the property ready. The issues that were preventing her from moving in were, in the main, that the property did not have a functioning heating system, and the walls and/or ceilings could not be painted over due to old distemper paint on the walls which needed treating and/or removing.
With regards to the heating issue, the landlord did not realise that the existing heating system in the property had been decommissioned prior to the void works, and that a new type of heating system was going to be installed. It is not clear from the records how/why this was not picked up during the void works and the post-void inspection. The landlord has however acknowledged belatedly in its review in March 2022 that this had not been picked up due to miscommunication between its teams. The failure to identify that the property did not have a functioning heating system, and the failure to carry out a proper check prior to signing up the tenancy would constitute maladministration.
Similarly, it is not clear from the available evidence why this was not communicated to the resident, and it appears that it was the resident who identified that the boiler had been decommissioned and was to be replaced. The resident had purchased oil for the heating system and then found out that this could not be used.
Once it had been identified on or around 19 October 2020 that the property did not have a functioning heating system, the landlord acted reasonably by confirming that the rent would not be charged until the new heating system was fully functional, which was an appropriate response.
With regards to the installation of the new heating system, this was not installed until 30 November 2020, some six weeks later. The landlord has acknowledged that this was longer than its usual timeframe, and it apologised for this and its compensation offer took this into account. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident was not yet living at the property at the time and therefore the impact of the lack of heating was not an immediate concern at that time.
The landlord has rightly acknowledged that there had been several service failures regarding the heating issue, and it has recognised this during its complaint investigations and subsequent review. It has apologised for its failures and has offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It has also offered to reimburse the resident the cost of the oil purchased. In addition, it has also confirmed that the rent would not be chargeable until 11 January 2021, which is when it deemed the property to be habitable. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable response, and there is no evidence to show that the property was uninhabitable after this date.
The available evidence shows that the landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns about the new heating system and sought expert advice and guidance on this. The expert findings confirmed that the new system was functioning correctly.
With regards to the various other minor repairs that were logged at this time, the landlord’s records and correspondence demonstrate that these were, on the whole, completed within a reasonable time.
The other key issue in dispute is regarding the internal decorating of the walls in the property. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Guide shows that the tenant is responsible for issues such as internal decorating finishes and ‘minor defects or imperfections in plaster’. In this case, the issue is that at the time of the void inspection the walls had been wallpapered, however, the resident removed the wallpaper to paint the walls and she discovered that the walls had old distemper paint residue on them which made it difficult to paint the walls.
Looking at the landlord’s response to this issue, it is noted that whilst internal decorating was the resident’s responsibility, it acted reasonably by acknowledging the resident’s concerns and using its discretion to try and assist the resident. The available evidence shows that the landlord sought appropriate expert advice on how to tackle the distemper issue, and it carried out additional works in line with those recommendations. It inspected the walls several times and also carried out further plastering works, and its decorating expert has confirmed that the walls were ready to be decorated following the remedial works in February 2021.
Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it responded to this issue in a reasonable manner and it has tried to help the resident as best it could in the circumstances, and ultimately the landlord is not responsible for the internal decorating of the property. The resident has suggested that the property remained uninhabitable due to the distemper issue. The Ombudsman takes the view that, in light of all the above, the plaster defects/imperfections would not have rendered the property uninhabitable. As such, the landlord is not being unreasonable in saying that the property was habitable from 11 January 2021 onwards and the rent would therefore be charged from this date.
Taking an overall view on the landlord’s handling of this matter, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has acknowledged its service failures identified above and it has apologised for this, offered compensation and reimbursement, waived the rent until the property was deemed habitable, and it also emphasised that it had implemented learning from the complaint so as to avoid similar issues in future.
The Ombudsman understands that the total compensation package offered by the landlord as at the final (review) response in March 2022 was:
1. £300 for delays and service failures (Stage 1)
2. £226.41 reimbursement for oil purchased (Stage 1)
3. £50 for complaint-handling delay (Stage 2)
4. £400 for service failures (additional review in March 2022)
5. Total = £976.41 (including £750 for service failures).
6. Plus waiver of rent from 5 October 2020 till 11 January 2021.
The landlord has provided a copy of its compensation policy, which has been considered, in assessing what an appropriate level of compensation for the maladministration would be. In addition, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including the inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It also considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident.
In considering whether or not the landlord’s total offer of compensation is reasonable, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s compensation policy, and this Services’ own Dispute Resolution Principles and our published Remedies Guidance.
In particular, the ‘Remedies Guidance’ explains that where there have been service failures by the landlord, if the landlord has recognised the failures itself and has taken appropriate action to put this right, including offering reasonable compensation, then the Ombudsman will not necessarily require that the landlord do anything more.
Looking at the severity of the service failures in this case, and without wishing to diminish the resident’s experiences in any way, which would no doubt have been frustrating and greatly inconvenient, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s total offer is reasonable and commensurate with both the landlord’s own policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance.
Taking an overall view on the matter, the landlord is to be commended for its admission of service failure and that it needs to do better in future. The landlord has acted appropriately by not only recognising its failures but has also offered the resident an apology and compensation. In the Ombudsman’s view, the offer of compensation recognises the impact of the service failures and the offer represents proportionate and reasonable redress for this.
The landlord is reminded that the finding of the reasonable redress determination outcome set out below, is dependent upon the landlord making the requisite compensation payment to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendation below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy, and its handling of the subsequent repairs.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns and has accepted that there were delays and service failures with regards to the heating. It has demonstrated that its response to the distemper issue was reasonable. The landlord has apologised for the identified service failures and has offered a compensation package which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable and proportionate redress for the maladministration.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident, within four weeks of the date of the report, the total award of compensation it offered in its final complaint response (as noted above as being a total of £976.41).