Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202108504)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108504

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property’s back door and the landlord’s handling of the associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 23 December 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that she was having trouble keeping warm and her door kept no heat in the house. The landlord noted that the resident referred to having medical issues. It attended on the same day and adjusted the front door so that it sealed properly. The landlord did not identify that any repairs were needed to the rear door but said that the resident requested a new door.
  3. The landlord attended again on 29 January 2020 and “replaced broken door handles and lock to wooden back door and sealed windows”.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 February 2021. She said she was told that the door was suitable and did not need to be replaced but she disagreed and asked that the door was replaced “with a proper exterior and secure door”. The resident said the door:
    1. let in water when it rained, was draughty and not energy efficient.
    2. was damaged by a previous tenant.
    3. was insecure and could be breached easily, as it was made of thin wood and had one small lock.
  5. On 2 February 2021 the landlord checked the seals on the rear door and confirmed the door was locking and closing correctly, but the resident wanted the door to be upgraded to a PVC door.
  6. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 12 April 2021, it noted that the resident said there was a constant draught coming through the door and the installation of draught excluders had not helped. It also noted that the resident said that where she lived had a high crime rate and she was concerned that the door could be easily pushed in.
  7. The landlord confirmed that it attended on several occasions to inspect and repair the door and, on its last visit, confirmed that the door was locking correctly, and the seals were all in good working order. The landlord confirmed that the door did not need to be replaced and it would only do this if it was unrepairable or non-operational. It confirmed that the door was not due for replacement until 2025. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered to pay the resident £25 compensation in view of this.
  8. On 20 April 2021 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said that the seals on the door could not be in good condition because, when there was heavy rain, water came in and there was a draught. The resident said there were no seals to the inside and gaps to the edge of the door. She said that an operative who attended said the door could not be improved and it needed replacing. The resident said the door was not energy efficient, had a crack in it due to damage from a previous tenant, and did not provide adequate security. Finally, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord did not address her needs as a vulnerable person.
  9. The landlord’s internal records for 13 May 2021 say that it could see (it is not clear if this was in photos) the crack referred to by the resident and it booked a repair for 24 May 2021 for this, noting that it was unable to get in touch with the resident to arrange an appointment.
  10. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, dated 17 May 2021, it confirmed that the wooden back door may not be an upgraded UPVC style door but was manufactured for external use. It confirmed it inspected all seals on the door frame and found the door to be locking and closing correctly. The landlord advised that it did not find that the door could be pushed open and was unsafe when it was inspected.  It also confirmed the door had a standard lock for that particular type of door.
  11. The landlord explained that because the door was wooden it would move/ expand and shrink in different temperatures and would not be airtight but it would not replace a door for these reasons. It confirmed an existing door that was old would only be replaced if it was no longer operational i.e. locks and or handles cannot be repaired sufficiently, the resident had a third party request for a different type of door, for example due to a disability or when entry had been forced and the resident provided with a crime reference number. The landlord concluded that it followed its repairs and maintenance policy and procedure, and the door did not require replacement. 
  12. The landlord confirmed it could see a small crack in the wooden door panel and scheduled a repair appointment for this on 24 May 2021. It confirmed it was unable to contact the resident to confirm the appointment and asked the resident to contact its repairs team if she needed to change the date. 
  13. The landlord later advised this Service that the resident said she was not available for the appointment to fix the crack. She was unavailable through no fault of her own, as she was required to undergo a major surgical operation during this time period.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

  1. In line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, an emergency repair (one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety, or security of the resident) should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Non-emergency repairs are appointed ‘at resident’s convenience’ offering the next available appointment that suits the resident and will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported
  2. Major component replacement (kitchens, bathrooms, roofs, etc.) are not responsive repairs and the repairs and maintenance policy says these items should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes.
  3. The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy says that the repair team will assess vulnerability at the first point of contact by confirming if the resident is over 75, if they receive support from another organisation, and if they receive a personal budget for care, support or health.  It will confirm if there are any disabilities or support needs which should be considered.
  4. The complaints policy does not stipulate its timeframes for responses. The landlord’s compensation policy is similar to that of this Service’s remedies guidance, which is published on our website.

 

 

Assessment

  1. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord is obliged to repair and maintain the property’s rear door in the property. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports of faults to the door and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the landlord first attended within 24 hours of the resident’s report of concerns about the rear door on 23 December 2019. Although this type of repair would not generally be regarded as an emergency, which should be attended within 24 hours, the landlord noted the resident’s vulnerabilities and appears to have taken them into account when scheduling the repair. The landlord also attended and inspected the door on two further occasions (on 29 January 2020 and 2 February 2021). These appointments were carried out within the landlord’s timescales for non-emergency repairs as after the initial emergency repair visits, any follow up appointments would not be regarded as an emergency. Therefore the landlord responded to the resident’s repair request in line with the timescales given in its repairs policy.
  3. When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. The landlord’s operative concluded that the door and its seals were in good condition and did not require replacing and did not agree with the resident’s comments that it was insecure and not fit for purpose. Accordingly, the decision to not install a new door earlier was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord has also provided the resident a detailed explanation for this conclusion, in line with industry best practice.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the resident disagrees with the landlord’s decision as she believes the door needs to be replaced with a PVC door which would be more secure and less likely to cause draughts. It is acknowledged that a replacement door may be secure and more effective at keeping heat in the property. However, this does not mean that the current door is not fit for purpose or that the landlord should replace it. The landlord is expected to maintain the property but it is not obliged to make improvements and fitting a PVC door would be an improvement.
  5. Although it did not agree that the door required replacement, the landlord acknowledge that there was a crack in the door, as reported by the resident and booked a repair for this, however it was unable to contact the resident to confirm the appointment. This issue would not constitute an emergency repair and the landlord acted appropriately by offering a repair for 11 days later, in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.
  6. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s decision to refuse this repair on the basis that she thinks the door should be replaced instead. However, as explained above, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to repair the door and it would not be obliged to replace it.
  7. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website), it is recommended that a landlord’s complaints procedure shall include the following maximum timescales for response:
    1. Logging and acknowledgement of complaint – five working days.  
    2. Stage one decision – 10 working days from receipt of complaint – if this is not possible, an explanation and a date by when the stage one response should be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
    3. Stage two response – 20 working days from request to escalate – if this is not possible an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
  8. The landlord delayed in responding at stage one of its internal complaints process, in line with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code, with it issuing its response 48 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord has acted reasonably by acknowledged this delay, apologising and offering £25 compensation for this. Taking into consideration that the landlord responded within 20 working days at stage two of its process, and that the delay had no overall bearing on the outcome of the complaint, the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the impact that the delay had on the resident and therefore reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property’s back door
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns but ultimately found that the door did not require replacement, and the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors in this regard. It did identify a small crack to the door, and offered a repair in line with its timescales. The landlord has also offered appropriate redress, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, for a delay in its stage one complaint response.