Clarion Housing Association Limited (202121454)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121454

Clarion Housing Association Limited

4 May 2023

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 reports about disrepair issues with:
1. the windows in his property;
2. the communal area.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 25 February 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The property is a flat within a block of flats. The block contains a communal area, with a communal main door and stairwell.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that compensation between £50-£250 may be awarded in instances such as where the landlord repeatedly fails to respond to communications. It may award compensation of £250-£700 where a resident repeatedly has to chase responses, or where there has been a failure over a “considerable” period of time to address repairs. It will also offer up to £50 for repairs that have exceeded the target time.
The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy notes the landlord will aim to address non-emergency repairs and repairs to communal areas within 28 calendar days.
The landlord operates a planned investment policy. This policy notes that the landlord will regularly assess stock condition and consider whether improvements should be included in its cyclical major works programme.

Summary of events

In or around November 2020, the resident reported a number of disrepair issues to the landlord, including:
1. An ongoing leak into the communal area which the resident suspected to be a sewerage leak.
2. That the flooring in the communal area and stairwell was very worn and had been further damaged by the leak.
3. That in or around September 2020, a contractor had indicated the communal front door should be replaced.
4. That the windows in his property were in a poor state of repair, and that they didn’t open or close fully. He expressed his concern that the windows could therefore not be used as a means of escape in a fire.
The landlord did not acknowledge these reports or note they were being treated as a formal complaint.
On 15 and 23 of February 2021, the resident noted he was still yet to receive a response to his reports and chased an update. On 3 March 2021, he noted that the landlord’s contractors had carried out various inspections, but that the leak was still ongoing.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 30 March 2021 which included the following:
1. It apologised for the delay to its stage one response, for which it offered £50 compensation.
2. Regarding the leak, it advised that it had made a number of attempts to trace the leak in neighbouring properties. It identified a leak in a neighbouring property’s roof, and so organised a cherry picker in order to carry out a repair on 5 March 2021. This had been unsuccessful at solving the leak in the communal area, so it attended again on 15 March 2021, before then solving the leak on 26 March 2021. It subsequently carried out plastering and painting works in the communal area on 29 March 2021.
3. It noted that during a call with the resident, he had raised concerns that the communal area required further redecoration. It advised it had therefore raised works for the area to be fully repainted. It also provided him with the relevant job number.
4. It acknowledged that the repairs had not been attended to within 28 days of the resident’s reports, and so offered £50 compensation. It also acknowledged that the number of visits would have caused inconvenience for the resident and so offered a further £50 compensation.
5. Regarding the resident’s concerns that he would be unable to use his windows as a means of escape in a fire, it advised it had discussed the fire safety measures for the building with its Fire Safety Manager. The Fire Safety Manager confirmed the main entrance is the means of escape for fire purposes, and this had been approved by fire safety assessors and routine fire authority audits.
6. Regarding the state of repair of the windows in the resident’s property, the landlord noted that a repair job had been attended on 12 March 2021, which the resident had acknowledged. It did not elaborate on what repairs, if any, had been carried out.
7. Finally, regarding the resident’s concerns about general cleanliness in the communal area, the landlord confirmed there was no regular cleaning service currently in place. This could be introduced, but given it would incur a service charge, it would require the approval of all residents. The landlord signposted the resident to the relevant team who could begin this process.
On 20 April 2021, the resident reiterated concerns that the flooring in the communal area and stairwell was in a poor state of repair and was a slip hazard. On the same date, the landlord acknowledged his concerns and advised it had also escalated his complaint. On 28 April 2021, the landlord advised it would provide its stage two response within 20 days.
The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the property on or around 21 May 2021. The surveyor identified immediate works to add anti-slip coverings to the communal stairs, and that the windows at the resident’s property should be overhauled. The surveyor also highlighted that the communal door to the building should be updated, that the communal area should be redecorated, and that the flooring should be renewed. However, the surveyor specifically confirmed that while the existing flooring had suffered from wear and tear and would benefit from renewal, it was nevertheless safe and secure.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 28 May 2021, which included the following:
1. It confirmed it had carried out an inspection of the communal area, and that anti-slip stair coverings would be installed on 11 June 2021.
2. It advised there was a difference between a responsive repair, and cyclical upgrades. It advised that redecoration of the communal area, upgrades to the communal door, and the renewal of the flooring were not considered responsive repairs and had been submitted for approval in its next cyclical works. It noted that should these works be approved, its team would advise all tenants of the works.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had expended time and trouble in chasing this information, and offered a further £100 compensation.
4. Regarding the windows in his property, the landlord noted that its surveyor had “identified the following repairs as appropriate to be completed under responsive repairs to resolve the concerns you have raised: [resident’s property] – overhaul five window (until upgrade works arranged by our Planned Investment team). These repairs have been arranged to take place on 11 June 2021.”
It is evident that the landlord installed the anti-slip stair coverings in June 2021. However, it did not carry out any works to the resident’s windows.
Following concerns from the resident in November 2021, the landlord provided a further formal response on 14 December 2021, which included the following:
1. It noted that the resident had reported that the anti-slip stair coverings repeatedly came loose, but that the resident had glued them back on himself each time. It advised its operative had inspected them on 3 December 2021 and confirmed they were currently secure. It encouraged the resident to report any repair issues going forward.
2. It confirmed some renewal works to the communal area were currently underway and due to be completed by 22 December 2021.
3. Specifically regarding the windows in his property, it advised these had been reinspected and it had been determined they did not need to be renewed at this time. It acknowledged the resident should have been informed of this outcome sooner. It therefore offered £150 compensation for its poor communication.
4. It also acknowledged there had been a delay to its earlier stage two response which had not been addressed at the time, for which it offered £25 compensation.
The landlord’s internal records indicate that the resident’s windows had been inspected in October 2021, and that the assessment had taken place externally from ground level. The landlord’s records also note that the cyclical works to the door and internal redecoration were due to have been completed in or around March 2022.

Assessment and findings

Windows

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for keeping the resident’s windows in good repair.
The resident initially reported in November 2020 that his windows did not fully open or close. He also expressed concern that the windows could not be used as a means of escape in a fire.
The landlord’s repairs policy notes it will address non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days. Following the resident’s reports the landlord did not attend the property to inspect the windows until 12 March 2021. This was well outside of the target dates in its repairs policy. This would have caused frustration for the resident and led him to chase up the issue on two occasions throughout February 2021.
Based on the evidence provided to this service, it is not clear what repair works were completed during the landlord’s 12 March 2021 visit, if any. The landlord noted this visit in its formal response, but it missed the opportunity to fully articulate what it had done to resolve the resident’s issues with the windows not closing.
Regarding the resident’s concerns about the use of the windows as a fire exit, the landlord appropriately investigated this concern by consulting its Fire Safety Manager, and providing the resident with information about the correct fire exits for the building. It also reassured him by advising this had been approved by third party fire audits. Given, however, that the resident’s concern also included that the windows did not open fully, the landlord missed the opportunity to set out the functionality of the windows and explain if this was part of the design, or a defect in need of repair.
Given that the state of repair of the windows remained a concern for the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord instructed its surveyor to assess the windows in May 2021. The conclusion of this assessment was that the landlord should overhaul all five windows in the resident’s property as a responsive repair.
In its stage two response, the landlord directly quoted the surveyor’s report. The report noted the windows should be “overhauled” as a responsive repair, but also “upgraded” as part of the cyclical works. The landlord did not further articulate what an “overhaul” would include, which was a missed opportunity to measure the resident’s expectations about what works would be completed. It nevertheless assured the resident these works had been booked for 11 June 2021.
These works did not take place on this date, nor did the landlord provide any communication regarding the window repairs until its further formal response in December 2021. The landlord’s internal communications note that the windows were inspected from ground level in October 2021, and it was determined that no works were necessary. Given that the resident had expressed concerns about the ability to open and close the windows, the landlord should have realised this could not be thoroughly investigated from the ground outside. It is not evident that the landlord made any attempt to gain access to the property to carry out a full inspection.
In summary, the landlord’s investigation into the disrepair of the windows was unreasonable and amounted to maladministration in the circumstances. The landlord raised the resident’s expectations that repair works to the windows would be undertaken on 11 June 2021. It then failed to complete these works, or communicate why this was the case. It subsequently carried out a further investigation outside of the 28 calendar day timeframe in its repairs policy. Its further investigation was inadequate, without a reasonable explanation. It also failed to update the resident with the decision of its further investigation until two months later, and only after further concerns from the resident. Given that this decision was the exact opposite of its surveyor’s earlier assessment, the Ombudsman would expect a reasonable level of detail as to why its position had changed, which it did not provide.
In its stage one response, the landlord £50 compensation for its delays to attend to all the outstanding repairs, including the communal repairs discussed below. It also offered a further £100 in its stage two response for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing up all the outstanding repairs. Given that there is no breakdown of the compensation across the issues, it is not clear how much compensation was intended for the concerns about the windows. Additionally, in its further formal response, it offered a further £150 compensation for its failure to keep him informed about the further inspection and decision that the windows would not be reviewed.
On the basis that its initial offer was split evenly between the complaints about windows and the communal areas, the landlord’s offer of compensation for the windows was £225. While it was appropriate that the landlord recognised there had been an impact on the resident, its offer does not fully reflect the failings identified above. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered compensation of £550, which is broken down as follows:
1. £50 for its failure to investigate the windows within the correct timeframes following the initial reports in November 2020;
2. £100 for its failure to articulate what works it had undertaken in March 2021, and its failure to address the resident’s concerns regarding the windows not opening fully;
3. £150 for its failure to complete the renewal of the windows as promised in its stage two response, without reasonable explanation or further communication;
4. £50 for its failure to carry out a further inspection of the windows until October 2021, having originally identified the works in May 2021;
5. £150 for its failure to communicate its decision regarding the windows until a further complaint was raised by the resident;
6. £100 for its poor investigation of the windows, being that the inspection was carried out visually from ground level, despite the issue being to do with their ability to open and close.
This replaces the landlord’s offer of £225.
An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out a further ‘hands on’ investigation of the windows and provide an updated position on whether they should be overhauled as a responsive repair.

Communal area disrepair issues

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for keeping the communal area in a state of good repair. As with above, following the resident’s reports in November 2020, it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged the reports or undertook any investigations within 28 days, contrary to its policy. It was appropriate, therefore, that it acknowledged this delay in its formal responses.
While it is evident that the landlord undertook some inspections in the early part of 2021, it failed to keep the resident informed of the outcomes of these inspections, despite him requesting updates twice in February 2021. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide reasonable updates to the resident, and indeed to other residents in the building given the issues affected the communal area; however, it failed to do so. This would have caused frustration for the resident.
In its stage one response, the landlord outlined that it had initially made several unsuccessful attempts to resolve the leak into the communal area. The Ombudsman understands that it can take several attempts to source and solve a leak and this would not necessarily represent service failure. In this case, following the initial delay, it is evident that the landlord made a reasonable attempt to resolve the leak through works to the neighbour’s roof, and that it carried out reasonable further investigations and repairs once it became evident the leak was ongoing. It also appropriately used its formal response to clarify what works it had done and when.
While the amount of visits would not necessarily amount to service failure, it was nevertheless appropriate for the landlord to identify that the number of visits would have caused inconvenience for the resident, and for it to have used its discretion to offer £50 compensation to reflect this.
The landlord also appropriately explained that it had carried out some redecoration works, but given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it was appropriate that it arranged for further works and provided a job number to allow the resident to get updates if needed. It also appropriately responded to his query about ongoing cleanliness, and given that the introduction of a regular cleaning service would incur a cost for all residents, it was reasonable that it signposted the resident to the relevant team for more information.
The resident’s initial reports had raised concerns about the flooring and the replacement of the communal door, which the landlord did not directly address in its stage one response. This led to inconvenience for the resident, who had to pursue these concerns as part of his complaint escalation.
The issues with the flooring and the door should have been investigated following the resident’s reports in November 2020, or at least within a reasonable time following the solution to the leak. The landlord’s inspection did not occur until May 2021, which was well outside the landlord’s 28 day timeframe.
The surveyor’s report from this inspection notes that the floors should be renewed. Given that the resident expressed concerns about the safety of the current floors, it was appropriate that the landlord sought additional assurance from the surveyor, who specifically stated that the floors in the current state were worn but safe. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to approach the renewal of the floors as a planned improvement, rather than a responsive repair, which it advised in its stage two response.
While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments that a previous contractor had indicated the communal door needed replacing, there is no evidence to suggest this was an urgent requirement. It was also therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on its surveyor’s most recent assessment that the replacement could be completed as a future planned improvement, which it informed the resident of in its formal response.
The landlord also appropriately measured the resident’s expectation about the timeframe for these works and noted that the works would require approval prior to commencing. The Ombudsman understands that landlord’s have finite resources and must manage its finances responsibly. Where an improvement is not urgent, it is reasonable for a landlord to prioritise other works first, and it was reasonable that the landlord only committed to providing a timeframe for the works subject to approval.
The surveyor’s report also identified that anti-slip coverings should be added to the stairs as a responsive repairs. The landlord completed these works by 11 June 2021, which was within the timeframes of its repairs policy. The resident has since advised that these coverings repeatedly came unstuck, and that he stuck them down himself each time. It is not evident this was reported to the landlord prior to November 2021, following which it carried out an inspection. While it would have been frustrating for the resident that the anti-slip coverings continually came unstuck, given that the landlord did not have the opportunity to address this, it was reasonable that it did not find service failure in its further response in December 2021. It was also appropriate that it confirmed the outcome of its most recent inspection, and that it encouraged the resident to report any future repair issues.
It is evident that the landlord carried out a further inspection to determine what cyclical works would be approved in October 2021. Given that it determined some works to the communal area should be undertaken in December 2021, the landlord should have informed the residents as per its promise in its stage two response. It did not do this, however, which caused the resident to expend time and trouble chasing this information.
While the landlord confirmed some works would be completed in its further formal response, it did not specify which works, and referred to external works which were separate to the resident’s concerns. This was a missed opportunity to keep the resident fully informed, as per its earlier promise. It is evident that works to the communal door and for redecoration of the communal area were not arranged until March 2022, and so its allusion to works in December 2021 would have been all the more confusing for the resident.
Throughout its complaint responses, the landlord recognised issues with its communication and service delivery, and offered some compensation. In total, it offered £125, being £25 (half of £50 offered at stage one) for its initial delays, £50 for the number of visits to solve the leak, and £50 (half of £100 offered at stage two) for the residents time and trouble in chasing updates regarding the communal works.
While it was appropriate to acknowledge the impact of its failures on the resident and to offer some compensation, this offer does not fully reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and the failures identified amount to maladministration in this case. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered compensation of £300, which is broken down as follows:
1. £50 for the delays to investigating the repair issues in the communal area;
2. £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by the multiple visits, as identified by the landlord;
3. £100 for its failure to adequately respond to the resident’s concerns about the door and flooring in its stage one response, leading to him expending time and trouble chasing this information;
4. £100 for its failure to keep the resident informed of the communal works it had approved, contrary to its promise to do so.
This replaces the landlord’s offer of £125.
An order has also been made for the landlord to confirm in writing to the resident what works it has completed to the communal area and the dates of those works. It is also to enquire with the resident as to whether there are any outstanding works, and to provide its position, or otherwise carry out a further inspection, for any further issues raised by the resident.

Complaints handling

The Ombudsman notes that landlord’s may consider concerns about repair issues as ‘reports’ rather than formal complaints. Where a communication is considered a formal complaint, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint and confirm when it will provide its formal response, in accordance with its complaints policy.
As noted above, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s initial reports, nor did it confirm if they would be treated as a complaint, despite several requests for updates.
It is evident these concerns, or perhaps one of the update requests were subsequently considered to be a formal complaint; however, this is unclear given no acknowledgment was provided. It nevertheless provided a stage one response, where it appropriately recognised that its complaint response had been delayed. It appropriately apologised and offered compensation to reflect the impact of this delay.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s further concerns as a complaint escalation, and it provided a reasonable timeframe for its stage two response. It provided this response one month later. While this was beyond the 20 day timeframe it had stipulated, the Ombudsman notes this was not greatly in excess of this timeframe, and it had been waiting on its surveyor’s report in order to provide an accurate response. While it did not identify this delay in its stage two response, it appropriately revisited this in its further formal response, and offered £25 compensation.
While the delays would have been frustrating for the resident, the amount of compensation offered reflects the impact these delays would have caused. Therefore, the landlord’s offer amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning disrepair issues with:
1. the windows in his property;
2. the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Windows

The landlord initially failed to fully address the resident’s concerns about his windows. It further raised his expectations they would be overhauled, only to reverse this decision without informing him. While it offered some compensation in recognition of this, it did not fully reflect the impact this would have had on the resident.

Communal area disrepair issues

While the landlord acknowledged there had been failings in its service delivery and communications and it offered some compensation, this did not reflect the impact to the resident, given the multiple delays to works and lack of updates, and the resultant time and trouble he expended chasing information.

Complaints handling

While the landlord failed to initially acknowledge the resident’s reports as a complaint, it appropriately apologised and offered reasonable compensation. It also appropriately acknowledged and offered compensation for the delay to its stage two response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £850, comprising:
1. £550 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays and poor communication in relation to his windows;
2. £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays and poor communication in relation to disrepair in the communal area.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £350. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. carry out a further ‘hands on’ investigation of the resident’s windows and provide an updated position on whether they should be overhauled as a responsive repair;
2. confirm in writing to the resident what works it has completed to the communal area and the dates of those works;
3. enquire with the resident as to whether there are any outstanding works, and to provide its position, or otherwise carry out a further inspection, for any further issues raised by the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £75 for its poor complaints handling.