Clarion Housing Association Limited (202107451)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107451

Clarion Housing Association Limited

09 June 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to the main entrance door/intercom and the request for compensation for this, and;
2. the formal complaint.

Background

The property is a third floor one bedroom flat. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in reasonable repair and fit for use the common parts of the building.
The landlord’s repair policy as was in place at the time set out that mechanical and electrical maintenance issues (such as intercom systems) are maintained by specialist teams with specialist contractors and so excluded from the responsive repairs service (and therefore the target dates set for such repairs).
The compensation policy as was in place at the time stated that the landlord may make a payment of recompense for loss of service at a quantifiable rate as a direct result of the landlord’s actions or failure to act. It would not pay compensation if it had acted reasonably.

Summary of events

On 10 March 2021 the resident reported a fault with the intercom system where visitors could not hear them when calling the flat from the main entrance door. The landlord’s contractor attended on 12 March 2021, noting that other flats were also affected. The contractor’s email to the landlord of the same date states, ‘The fault is with the comelit camera speaker module. These parts are obsolete we will have to quote to change the system out…Please can you advise on how you would like to proceed.’ Following this the landlord asked the contractor whether alternative parts could be used.
The landlord reports that on 25 March 2021 the contractor replaced the video monitor, however the fault was still present. That same day the landlord asked for a quotation from the contractor for the intercom system to be upgraded. The contractor replied that same day via email with the quote.
The landlord wrote to all residents on 26 March 2021 saying that the works had been passed to the landlord’s Planned Investment Team for the intercom system upgrade works to be added to its programme. No estimated date was available for this.
On 29 March 2021 the resident’s local councillor (the Cllr) emailed the landlord with concerns about a delay in repairing the intercom, reporting that the resident could not see anyone on the screen or hear/speak to visitors, meaning they had to go downstairs to see who was there, which caused difficulties due to mobility issues. The resident had now received a letter saying that the system needed upgrading but that the Planned Investment Team needed to make a decision on when that took place. The Cllr asked for an update and an estimated date for the works to be completed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 April 2021 to report that they had spoken with the contractor which had said that it had sent a quote to the landlord for the replacement intercom system, but had not had a response. Internal emails from this same date show that the landlord noted that the quote had been passed to the Planned Investment Team, and that the resident had already been advised of this. The contractor would not have been advised on the decision on the quote as yet, as it was still awaiting approval.
Further internal emails dated 13 April 2021 show the landlord assessing the urgency of the matter and whether it could carry out the works as a priority, outside of its usual process. The landlord noted that the repair would not usually be classed as urgent, but residents were complaining that they were unable to give access for deliveries/medication. The Planned Investment Team were running a procurement exercise for door entry systems, but it would be some time before this would be done. It was therefore agreed that the repair would be carried out by contractors so that the work could go ahead sooner. An email dated 14 April 2021 shows the landlord requesting a purchase order was raised to the contractors. The landlord wrote to residents on 16 April 2021 saying that it would be upgrading the intercom system although had no estimated date for this (the resident reports that they did not receive this letter).
On 4 May 2021 the Cllr emailed the landlord noting that the repair remained outstanding, and the resident wanted the matter investigated as a formal stage one complaint, stating, ‘She is extremely unhappy that Clarion Housing Group has already taken nearly two months to resolve what really should be classified as an urgent repair and that it is not properly keeping her and her neighbours informed.’
The landlord spoke with the resident on 7 May 2021, and the resident advised that they had not received any written communication regarding the intercom. The resident understood that the replacement intercom was going to be completed by the landlord’s contractor, and that the initial works had been refused by the landlord. The resident wanted to know the date the intercom would be replaced.
The landlord chased the manufacturer of the new intercom system on 25 May 2021.
On 14 June 2021 the Cllr emailed the landlord noting that the stage one response had not been provided, although a date for the works had been (29 June 2021). The Cllr stated that the resident was extremely frustrated that it would take nearly four months for this work to be done, and the landlord had not provided an explanation for this delay.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 14 June 2021, in which it set out the following timeline:
1. 10 March 2021 – the resident contacted the landlord to report the intercom to their property connected to the communal front entrance door was not working
2. 12 March 2021 – the landlord’s contractor attended and carried out testing that found that there was a fault. Parts were obsolete and so a quote was required to change the system. Following this the landlord asked a contractor whether alternative parts could be used.
3. 25 March 2021 – an operative attended and replaced the video monitor, however the fault was still present. That same day the landlord asked for a quotation from a contractor for the intercom system to be upgraded.
4. 26 March 2021 – a letter was sent to all residents explaining that the works had been passed to the landlord’s Planned Investment Team for the intercom system upgrade works to be completed.
5. 16 April 2021 – the Planned Investment Team approved the works with a further letter sent to residents confirming that the intercom system would be replaced.
The landlord concluded that it had attended within two days for the initial repair and that the delays on completing the repair had been due to the parts required being obsolete. This meant that the matter had to be referred to the Planned Investment Team which then confirmed that the works could be funded using the landlord’s own contactors, which would ensure that the works were completed quicker. This was agreed and the contractor had been instructed to replace the intercom system. The parts had been ordered and could take between eight and 12 weeks to be available ‘due to the pre-programming and engraving that is required to the new system.’ The contractor had booked the installation for end of June 2021. The landlord found that there had been no service failure in relation to the repairs but awarded £50 for the delay in providing the stage one response.
On 24 June the resident’s Cllr emailed the landlord explaining that the resident was dissatisfied with the response. They remained unhappy with the time it had taken to fix the intercom, and stated that the landlord had refused quotes submitted by the contractor in March 2021. The resident felt that the compensation offered did not reflect the inconvenience caused, and noted that service charges were being applied when the service was not being provided. As an outcome the resident sought an explanation for the delays and confirmation as to whether the landlord refused quotes from the contractor, and if so, why. They also sought a reduction in service charges and increased compensation.
On 14 July 2021 the resident spoke with the landlord about their complaint. They confirmed that the works had now been completed but they were unhappy this had taken 16 weeks. The resident said that they had to constantly chase for an update and had been told by the contractor that the landlord refused a quote provided on 30 March 2021, only to later approve the works. The resident explained that they were disabled and had to delay deliveries due to the non-functioning intercom. The resident wanted a further explanation for the delays, why the quote from 30 March 2021 was refused, reduction in service charges, and increased compensation.
On 23 July 2021 the landlord sent a stage two response, noting that the stage one letter had already provided a ‘thorough timeline’ setting out the reasons for the delay in repairing the intercom system. It provided further detail on this, explaining that when the replacement of the video monitor did not resolve the issues, the works were referred to the Planned Investment Team to assist with upgrading the intercom system ‘as per our internal procedure.’ The landlord explained that as referrals to the Planned Investment Team were added to their tracker to be scheduled at anytime over the financial year, in order to expedite works it was agreed that if the contractor was able to carry out the works quickly, the Planned Investment Team would to provide the funding for this. The contractor provided a quote on 29 March 2021. This was approved on 16 April 2021, but parts would take between 8-12 weeks to become available. Throughout the process letters had been sent to all residents keeping them updated. The upgrade was completed on 29 June 2021.
The landlord concluded that no quotes were refused, and when changing parts in an attempt to complete a repair did not resolve the fault, it progressed quickly to the upgrade of the intercom. It stated, ‘While I appreciate that due to your disability, the lack of intercom presented a particular challenge for you, the position of our stage one response would remain the same and in this instance we have been unable to identify that a service failure has occurred. Therefore, we would not consider a review of compensation nor reduction in your service charges’. It did award £25 for the delay in the stage two response.

Assessment and findings

When considering complaints the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
In their complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that despite the landlord’s position that it did not reject the contractor’s quote, the contractor told them that this is what happened. The resident feels that the landlord failed to treat the matter as an urgent repair, despite being aware that they were vulnerable and disabled. The resident believes that the matter should be treated as a delayed repair and seeks £250 compensation for loss of amenity for four months, explaining that she was unable to receive deliveries while the intercom was not working. The resident would also like an explanation on what the landlord will doto ensure that service is improved.
Regarding the complaint handling, the resident is unhappy that the £50 offered at stage one of the complaint process was reduced to £25 at stage two.
The evidence shows that the landlord attended within two days of the resident reporting the repair, which was a reasonable timeframe. The contractor reported that the parts needed were obsolete and it would need to replace the whole system. The landlord attempted to make the repair with alternative parts before obtaining a quote to replace the system. While this did add an additional two weeks on to the timeframe, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to try to repair before committing to the expensive of a full replacement. When the alternative parts did not resolve the issue, the landlord asked for a received a quote that same day (25 March 2021). The resident then received a letter updating them, explaining that the works had been passed to the Planned Investment Team. There was no failing on the part of the landlord here.
Regarding the resident’s concern that the landlord refused a quote, the evidence available shows that on 9 April 2021, when the resident first reported that they had spoken with the contractor, they stated that the contractor had told them that it had submitted a quote to the landlord but had not yet heard back (it is not clear what date this conversation between the resident and contractor took place, but it was presumably sometime between the 25 March and 9 April 2021). This accords with the evidence available that shows the landlord requesting a quote at the end of March 2021, and the contractor responding with this via email on 25 March 2021, which was then forwarded on to the relevant landlord team on 29 March 2021.
The quote was approved a week after the resident’s 9 April 2021 contact. A month later the resident reported that the contractor had told her that the landlord had refused the quote. The landlord explained in its stage two response that it did not refuse the quote. The quote was received on 29 March 2021 and approved on 16 April 2021. This explanation accords with the information available. There is no evidence that the landlord refused the quote, and the quote was approved in a reasonable timeframe.
The evidence available shows that the landlord took into account the concerns of the residents and expedited the repair by arranging to have this carried out by its contractor, rather than via the Planned Investment Team. It then placed a purchase order with the contractors swiftly. It wrote to residents to update them that same day, explaining that that the system was to be replaced, but that there were no ‘firm dates’ for this work as yet and the contractors would be in touch once this was confirmed. There was no failing on the part of the landlord here in terms of the handling of the repair itself, but it would have been better had the letter explained that here was going to be a lengthy wait for the new installation due to waiting for parts as this would have better kept the resident informed. There is no evidence of a further update letter after this, but it seems that at some point between mid-April and 14 June 2021 (as this is when the Cllr referred to it) the resident was told that the works would be carried out on 29 June 2021. It would have been better had updates been provided more regularly.
The resident complains that they paid a service charge for the intercom during the 16 week period it was not functioning, and feels this should be reimbursed. The resident did not know what percentage of their service charge was attributable to the intercom, but explained to the Ombudsman that they pay £16 per week in total for all services.
The compensation policy as was in place at the time stated that the landlord may pay compensation where its actions or failure to act had led to financial loss. It would not pay compensation if it had acted reasonably. In this case, as described in this report, there was no failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair, and it acted reasonably. As such, not offering compensation for the loss of service was in line with this policy.
It perhaps would have been reasonable for the landlord to have exercised its discretion and offered a nominal sum to cover the intercom service charge for the period (if this does in fact form a percentage of the service charge): This would have been an acknowledgement on the part of the landlord that, while it had acted reasonably, nevertheless the situation had adversely impacted on the resident, especially in light of their mobility issues. The Ombudsman makes a recommendation below in this regard.
Finally, in relation to the complaint handling, the landlord took too long to respond at both stage one and stage two of the complaint process. However, it acknowledged and apologised for this, offering compensation. The landlord took reasonable action to ‘put right’ the frustration caused to the resident by the delayed responses. As such, no failing is found here.
Regarding the resident’s concerns that the landlord lowered its compensation offer from £50 to £25 in its stage two response for the delayed repair, this was not the case. The initial £50 was offered for the delay in providing the stage one response, the £25 was an additional amount offered for the delay in providing the stage two response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of repairs to the main entrance door/intercom and the request for compensation for this,
In accordance with section paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to the complaint handling.

Reasons

While the Ombudsman understands that the lack of intercom was inconvenient and frustrating for the resident, and recognises that the landlord could have provided better updates, overall it took appropriate and timely action to try and resolve the issue. The majority of the delay in completing the works was due to the fact that the parts had become obsolete and the wait time for the replacement system to arrive, which was not something that the landlord had control over. The decision not to pay compensation was in line with policy.
While there were delays in the complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for these, and offered reasonable compensation.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the total of £75 offered via its stage one and two responses.
The landlord should consider making a nominal payment to the resident to reimburse any element of the service charge that related to the intercom for the period that it was non-functioning.
The landlord should consider how it may better keep residents updated in similar scenarios in the future.
The landlord should inform the Ombudsman within the next two weeks if it intends to follow these recommendations.