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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202223313)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223313

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 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 freeholder 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 freeholder 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 freeholder’s handling of:
    1. repairs to the patio doors.
    2. reported heating issues in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and lives in a flat. The resident’s landlord sublets the property from the freeholder which owns the building. The freeholder has confirmed it is responsible for repairs at the property.
  2. On 14 January 2022 the resident raised a complaint about the on-going problems with the patio doors and heating issues in the property to the freeholder. The complaint stated the issue with the patio doors had been present since 2011.
  3. The freeholder provided a stage one complaint response on 26 January 2022. The freeholder advised that because of a change in property management it had not been able to identify any actions regarding the patio doors prior to November 2021. It confirmed that a repair job was raised on 11 November 2021 regarding the patio doors and an order for the relevant parts was submitted on 29 November 2021. Due to the Christmas period and problems caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the parts did not arrive until 19 January 2022. The work was then completed on 22 January 2022.
  4. The freeholder referred to previously attending the property in March 2021 to assess the radiator in the living room. After the assessment, it failed to raise follow on works. It advised a heat loss survey would be carried out on 1 February 2022 to assess the viability of replacing the radiator.
  5. The resident was offered £250 in recognition of the freeholder identifying service failure with delays to resolving the outstanding repairs and its lack of communication.
  6. A stage two complaint response was provided on 24 March 2022 because the resident remained unhappy that the patio doors were not locking and she felt that the radiators were too small for the property. The resident felt that the issues were simple to resolve but the freeholder had failed to follow through with any work. The resident also felt the £250 offer of compensation was not adequate.
  7. The freeholder noted the numerous repairs concerning various issues with the patio doors. It apologised that the length of time the repairs had been reported for had not been fully considered in its stage one complaint response. The complaint response stated the majority of responsive repairs reported had been attended to and completed within the freeholder’s agreed timescales. The freeholder acknowledged there had been a failure to undertake specialised work in a timely manner, in order to permanently address the repeated issues reported by the resident and a failure to properly secure the patio doors.
  8. The freeholder had also reviewed it’s handling of the resident’s decking repair. It confirmed the repair was completed. The freeholder recognised the repair had taken longer than it would have liked. In order to put things right, it offered discretionary compensation of £800 for inconvenience and delays to the repair being completed.
  9. The freeholder advised it had put a plan in place to achieve a final resolution for the resident and it’s contractors were due to attend to measure for replacement patio doors. It would then schedule an appointment with the resident to carry out installation works. The freeholder advised it was undergoing a service review with a particular area of focus to improve its communication between the different speciality areas. The objective of the review was to deliver a more seamless service to its residents.
  10. The results from the heat loss survey concluded that although it was not essential, the living room would benefit from a larger radiator. The work to install a larger radiator was completed on 9 March 2022.
  11. The freeholder advised it had not previously taken into consideration the long history of repairs and outstanding requests for service relating to the resident’s complaint. It offered a total of £2,400 compensation in recognition of the number of appointments it had attended, the inconvenience caused to the resident and the delay with fulfilling a service request for the resident.
  12. The resident contacted the freeholder on 28 March 2022 to advise she was still waiting for the outstanding repairs to be completed, including the replacement of windows and patio doors and the replacement radiators in the remaining rooms. The resident stated the freeholder failed to acknowledge the various missed appointments and incomplete work from its previous contractor and asked for the compensation offer to be re-evaluated. The resident felt the freeholder had been negligent and her property had been put at risk on various occasions.
  13. The resident contacted the Ombudsman because she was unhappy that the patio doors and windows had not been replaced. The resident advised she had suffered with chilblains, anxiety attacks and insomnia because of the lack of security at the property. She stated the freeholder had failed to act on the security concerns she had raised. The resident advised the freeholder had left her at risk and had not addressed her previous complaints. As a resolution the resident wanted the freeholder to replace the patio doors and windows and to recalculate its compensation offer. The resident felt the freeholder’s final compensation offer seemed too low for the amount of time the repairs were outstanding.
  14. The resident told the Ombudsman the patio doors and windows were replaced in April 2023 as part of a pilot project. The resident advised the doors are still unable to close securely.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the outstanding repairs to the patio doors and windows had caused chilblains, anxiety attacks and insomnia. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about the impacts on her health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the freeholders handling of reported repairs to the patio doors and problems with the resident’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or liability insurance. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. The Services’ decision not to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint is within accordance of paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), which says “the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. The Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident as well as the freeholder’s response to the concerns she raised about her health.
  2. The resident explained the repairs to the patio doors had been outstanding over a substantial period of time, dating back to 2011.Whilst the historic issues give context to the complaint, this investigation has only considered the events which took up to six months prior to the complaint being raised to the freeholder in January 2022. As per paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
  3. The resident advised she had raised a number of complaints about the repairs to the patio doors with the freeholder over the years, which it had not addressed. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s word, but we have not been provided with evidence of the resident consistently actively pursuing complaints about the patio door repairs. The Ombudsman will therefore not be investigating this issue as part of this complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the freeholder occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect the investigation will then consider whether the freeholder has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Policies and procedures

  1. The freeholder’s repairs and maintenance policy states it aims to ensure that repairs to properties are carried out in a timely and efficient manner, ensuring that the repairs service represents value for money. The policy states emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours and carry out works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed during this visit. Appointments for non-emergency repairs will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
  2. The freeholder’s compensation policy sets out its approach to dealing with compensation and discretionary compensation payments. The freeholder awards up to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant, including distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. It awards up to £700 for cases where the freeholder finds considerable failure but no permanent impact on the complainant and over £700 in cases where there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.

The freeholder’s handling of repairs to the patio doors

  1. The freeholder’s repair records show a number of jobs being raised in relation to the patio doors. The freeholder’s records also detail the numerous times the resident had corresponded with it about the patio doors and her concerns regarding the safety of herself and her family over the lack of security in the property because the doors were not secure.
  2. The freeholder’s internal records state the decision to replace the patio doors had been made after they had been repaired 48 times. It was reasonable for the freeholder to try and repair the doors in the first instance rather than replacing them. However, given the high number of repairs recorded in relation to the patio doors and the security concerns expressed by the resident, it is concerning the freeholder failed to take action to replace the patio doors at an earlier stage. The high number of repairs clearly showed the repairs that were being carried out were not sufficient or able to resolve the continuously reported issue. The Ombudsman would have expected the number of repeated repairs to alert the freeholder into carrying out a replacement at a much earlier stage. This should have been essential given the safety concerns expressed by the resident about the insecurity of the patio doors. The freeholder’s failure to take alternative action left the resident feeling vulnerable and distressed. The records show the freeholder had many opportunities to resolve this and prevent these issues from continuing for a sustained period of time.
  3. The Ombudsman notes the freeholder had taken learnings from the resident’s complaint and the identified delays in progressing on-going outstanding repairs that required specialised works. The freeholder advised it had undertaken a service review with a focus of improving communication between different speciality areas.
  4. In its stage two complaint response the freeholder acknowledged it had not fully considered the long repairs history concerning the patio doors and the level of inconvenience caused to the resident over this period of time. The freeholder awarded the resident £1,500 discretionary compensation for time and trouble, inconvenience and delays to repairs within accordance of its compensation policy. Considering the time period the Ombudsman would have expected the freeholder to have reviewed as part of it’s complaint investigation. The amount awarded by the freeholder is reasonable for the identified failures and delays. The Ombudsman would not have expected the freeholder to conduct a full review of all of the historical repairs concerning the patio doors since 2011, but given the number of repeated repairs, an overview of the more recent history should be considered. The level of compensation the freeholder offered is reasonable, taking into account the fact that the issue had been ongoing for several years.
  5. The freeholder advised the resident in the stage two complaint response that it had a plan in place to achieve a final resolution and the patio doors would be replaced after they were measured. The freeholder stated it would monitor the installation of the replacement doors and the Ombudsman understands measurements had been taken for the replacement doors. The freeholder’s records in June and July 2022 state the works to replace the patio doors were put on hold and then subsequently closed. The freeholder advised it now had a programme for the replacement of doors and windows in the block as part of a pilot replacement project that investigated issues with glazing on the estate. The freeholder stated it was not able to replace the patio doors at the property as a one off and the outstanding repair job was closed.
  6. It appears the resident was advised the doors were not going to be immediately replaced around 15 June 2022. The freeholder has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had acted in line with its obligations in advising when the doors and windows would be replaced. This is likely to have caused further inconvenience and frustration to the resident, given that the patio doors had been measured and she had been told there was works underway to replace them as soon as possible.
  7. It is understandable why the freeholder made the decision to replace the doors and windows as part of a wider estate replacement project. This was a reasonable decision in order to manage the costs of a large project effectively, in an effort to reduce the charges which would ultimately be passed on to residents through their service charge. However, in order to prevent frustrations and confusion to the resident, the freeholder should have identified this project as part of its complaint resolution and provided the resident with timeframes of when the works were likely to take place. Instead, the resident was advised the doors were going to be replaced straight away, which did not happen. The planned works would not have been a legitimate reason to significantly delay the doors being replaced. The freeholder has also not provided any evidence that indicated the property was prioritised in the planned works as it should have been in view of the longstanding issues with the doors which the freeholder was aware of.
  8. As explained above, the freeholder failed to follow the actions set out in its stage two complaint response and caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. This has not been put right by the freeholder. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance states the Ombudsman may award up to £600 in cases where the landlord has made errors which caused significant distress and/or inconvenience to the resident but there may be no permanent impact from these errors. The compensation offered by the freeholder was reasonable for the period up to its final response to the complaint but more compensation is due to reflect the added inconvenience caused by the doors still not being fixed afterwards.
  9. The freeholder should pay the resident an additional £500 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional delays with replacing the patio doors following the freeholder’s stage two complaint response. The freeholder should also take action to repair the doors so that they function correctly.

The freeholder’s handling of reported heating issues

  1. The freeholder has acknowledged that it had failed to carry out follow on works after it had conducted a heating assessment at the property in March 2021. However, it has not explained why further works were not conducted. Whilst it is positive that the freeholder acknowledged this error, the lack of an explanation would have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident. The freeholder has not shown that it has learnt from its errors or taken any action to prevent a similar issue occurring again.
  2. The freeholder made the decision to fit a larger radiator in the living room in March 2022, after the heat loss survey determined the requirement for a larger radiator was not mandatory but would be beneficial to the room. The freeholder was not strictly obliged to fit a larger radiator as the heat survey suggested that this was not mandatory However, it was reasonable for the freeholder to offer to do this in view of the resident’s concerns about the heating. The freeholder acknowledged its delay in carrying out a heat loss survey and offered £100 in compensation in recognition of this failure and to put the issue right. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds the compensation offered by the freeholder is reasonable for the identified service failure. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which recommends compensation of up to £100 is awarded in recognition delays in getting matters resolved that may have caused some distress and inconvenience to the resident where the delay was of short duration and there was no permanent impact from the error.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the freeholder in respect of its handling of repairs to the patio doors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the freeholder has offered redress to the resident in relation to the reported heating issues in the living room prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. The freeholder is to pay the resident £500 in compensation for the additional failures identified with the replacement of the patio doors. This is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord previously through its complaints process which should now be paid as well, unless it has already been paid.
  2. The freeholder should investigate the resident’s concerns about the doors not closing properly and carry out repairs as needed to resolve this issue.
  3. The freeholder should carry out an internal review to identify the cause of the delay to the heat loss survey. The freeholder should share the results of this review with the resident and the Ombudsman.
  4. The freeholder is to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this decision.