Clarion Housing Association Limited (202110192)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110192

Clarion Housing Association Limited

4 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 handling of a kitchen unit replacement.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 23 September 2020 the resident reported an issue with her kitchen units (the exact nature of the issue is unknown). The landlord attended on 28 September 2020 to collect measurements. It raised a work order to replace them in November, and reattended in December to measure. The landlord cancelled an appointment for 12 March 2021 on the day. It rearranged the appointment for 1 April 2021, but the resident advised the date was not convenient. The landlord attended on 4 May 2021, but it is understood that the resident refused the work as it had not sourced matching units.
  3. The resident raised a complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of the kitchen unit replacement. The landlord offered her £150 compensation for repair delays, and £50 for its delayed stage one complaint response. It said it was not always possible to source exact matches. It said the units it had found were of good quality and fit for purpose.
  4. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, she explained that she wanted the landlord to find matching units. The landlord advised this Service that the resident did not wish to proceed with the work until it found an exact match. It also said it had increased its offer of compensation for repair delays to £250.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will attend to non-emergency repairs (ones which do not present an immediate danger) within 28 calendar days. It also says “repairs will be completed to an acceptable standard which comply with current statutory standards, and to a specification which does not make the item less serviceable or of an inferior quality”. The landlord’s website states that it is responsible for the repair of kitchen units.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to issue stage one complaint responses within ten workings days, and stage two responses within 20. The landlord’s compensation policy is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The guidance sets out that awards in the region of £50-£250 are suitable when the landlord’s failings have had some impact on the resident. The impact may be distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, or delays in getting matters resolved. Awards of £250-£700 are suitable when there have been considerable failings by the landlord, but no permanent impact on the resident.
  3. The resident reported an issue with her kitchen units in September 2020. Although the landlord initially attended within a reasonable time period to measure (five days),it then took two months to raise a work order, and another month to reattend for further measurements. There was then a three-month delay until the next appointment which was cancelled on the day. The landlord then attended in early May 2021 ready to complete the replacement. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the delays, and offered £150 compensation for the inconvenience. It said the delays were due to it not having the supply materials. The landlord has since increased its offer to £250.
  4. It is not disputed that there were significant delays on the landlord’s behalf in terms of its stage one complaint response and attending to complete the replacement. Nevertheless, its offer of compensation, apology and its explanations were reasonable attempts to respond to the complaint.
  5. When the resident escalated her complaint, she set out her dissatisfaction that the landlord had not sourced matching kitchen units. Whilst it is understandable that this would have been frustrating and inconvenient for her, the landlord is only obliged to ensure the work it carries out leaves the property fit for occupation. As such, providing the replacements were in working order, the landlord would not be expected to ensure they were an exact match. This is in accordance with its repairs policy, which it explained to the resident. It apologised for not being able to source a match, and explained that her particular units had been discontinued. It therefore demonstrated that it had attempted to resolve her complaint, but there are limited steps it could be expected to take if that specific unit was no longer available. Also, although it is understood that the replacement remains outstanding, the evidence shows that this is due to the resident’s refusal of the units offered, and not as a result of further delays from the landlord. Therefore, the fact that the replacement remains outstanding would not be considered a further failing on the landlord’s behalf.
  6. There is no evidence of the resident’s stage one complaint. However, the landlord has advised this Service that she raised it on 27 January 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 22 April 2021. It exceeded its target response timeframe of ten working days as it took 60 working days to respond. The landlord acknowledged its delay and offered the resident £50 compensation. Although there was a considerable delay, the evidence shows the landlord was taking steps to resolve the resident’s complaint by organising the outstanding work and was communicating with her.

Determination

  1. 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 complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £300 it said it would as this was the basis of our finding of reasonable redress.