Clarion Housing Association Limited (202120650)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120650

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove a sofa from her garden.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy agreement specific to the resident has not been seen by this service. However, there is a flag on the tenancy file from 2006 that the resident and her husband are disabled.
3. According to the evidence provided by the landlord in this case, on 2 November 2022, it received a letter from the resident requesting a removal of an old sofa from her garden. On 8 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord about her request and was advised that she would receive a response to this within 10 working days. However, the landlord stated at a later stage that the resident mistakenly had taken this to mean, it would remove the sofa within 10 working days.
4. On 15 November 2021 the resident further chased the landlord for a response. She explained that that two weeks ago, her son-in-law had left the sofa in her front garden as they assumed it would be removed by the council. She contacted the council and was quoted £50 for removing the sofa. The resident stated that she could not afford it and asked the landlord for assistance. Seeing as she suffers from Arthritis, she was unable to do it herself and feared children will get hurt playing on it. On 16 November 2022, the landlord raised a formal complaint.
5. On 24 November 2021, the landlord responded at stage 1. It stated that the resident’s complaint would not be deemed a formal complaint, but a service request. It advised that it was the resident’s responsibility to have the sofa removed. On the same date, the landlord contacted the resident to explain the outcome to her. The resident stated that she had been advised previously that the landlord would remove the sofa. The landlord then spoke to one of its representatives who advised that the information in the letter was correct, and the outcome remained the same.
6. On 26 November 2021, the landlord reiterated to the resident that it would not usually dispose of residents’ bulky items, and it was the resident’s responsibility. However, the resident stated that the landlord had a duty of care as she was an elderly disabled resident and on a protected tenancy, so the landlord should remove the sofa. The landlord’s housing officer who had spoken with the resident advised her that would request a one-off clearance for the resident. In internal correspondence, the landlord concluded that the resident’s tenancy agreement did not include special collection of waste and the resident should keep the sofa inside her property if it was dangerous to others. There is no evidence this was explained to the resident.
7. On 29 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord, requesting that the landlord remove the sofa, as it was dangerous. She was worried that children would hurt themselves playing on it. She stated that the landlord had previously told her, it would remove the sofa. On 2 December 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, reiterating that it would not remove the sofa. On 12 December 2021, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint.
8. On 10 January 2022, the landlord gave its final response and upheld the stage one response. It stated the removal of the sofa was the resident’s responsibility. Again, in its letters to the resident dated 14 April 2022 and 1 June 2022, it reiterated its position on the issue.
9. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman’s formal investigation on 22 March 2022.

Assessment and findings

The Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to remove a sofa from her garden.

10. The resident’s specific tenancy agreement has not been provided. However, the general tenancy agreement provided by the landlord states that residents are not to store furniture in gardens and will incur costs if they do so.
11. The landlord’s tenancy management policy (TMP) states that residents are not to dump items in gardens.
12. The TMP also states that at the discretion of the relevant Head of service, the landlord will undertake or arrange necessary one-off works such as dealing with garden clearances, and exempt the vulnerable tenant from any re-charges.
13. In its formal responses the landlord had been consistent from in advising the resident that according to her tenancy it was her responsibility to remove the sofa. However, in its internal correspondence of 26 November 2021, the landlord discussed that its housing officer had previously mentioned to the resident it could possibly arrange a one off clearance. However, when raised with a senior member of staff, it was concluded that “if the resident had a special need” she should contact the local authority’s waste disposal or take the sofa back inside if dangerous. As such, the landlord did not demonstrate that it was fully aware or had taken into account the resident’s vulnerabilities.
14. The evidence shows that on a few occasions, the resident raised her disability and financial constraints. Her and her husband’s disability was also flagged in the resident’s tenancy file. Given her circumstances and the provision of the landlord’s TMP, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to exercise its discretion power and consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in taking a decision of whether it can remove the sofa. The landlord however failed to evidence consideration of this approach at any stage of its complaints procedure. While she was informally told that a one-off clearance could be performed, its formal responses did not demonstrate that at any stage her vulnerability or its discretionary powers were considered. It rather based its decision on the clauses of the tenancy agreement.
15. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to take discretionary powers available to it under relevant policies and procedures seriously and to enact them wherever possible. In this instance, the landlord’s failure to act on its discretionary powers, or at least confirm that it had least considered these options, evidences an overall service failure on this case.
16. Additionally, the landlord’s complaint response at stage 1 from 24 November 2021 was delayed. Additionally, it was unclear of whether it was formally responding to the complaint or considering it as service request as it had advised the resident. Considering the resident raised the service request on 2 November 2021 and the complaint on 16 November 2021, it is reasonable for the complaint to be considered as a formal expression of dissatisfaction.
17. In all the circumstances of the case, a finding of service failure has been identified here. The landlord responded appropriately when it informed the resident that she was ultimately responsible for the removal of the sofa. However, the landlord has not evidenced that it acted in accordance with its discretionary powers under its tenancy management policy in its consideration as to whether it could remove the sofa. Additionally, it has caused further confusion in its stage 1 response stating that the matter was a service request rather than a complaint. Considering the length of time between the issue and the  outcome of this investigation, a compensation order has been ordered to reflect the landlord’s failures.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request  for an old sofa removal.

Orders

19. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £50 for the distress and inconvenience its failures caused to the resident.
20. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this investigation report.