Clarion Housing Association Limited (202202320)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202320

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 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 reports of issues with the communal lighting and garden.
2. This Service has also considered the handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord.
4. The resident first reported an issue with lighting in communal areas at the property in October 2021. The resident stated that their neighbour had adjusted the sensor-controlled lighting, which was connected to their neighbour’s electric supply. The resident said this was causing a health and safety risk as the lighting did not come on until they were halfway down the stairs.
5. The resident has stated a formal complaint was made around the time of the first reported issue in October 2021, however this Service has not seen evidence of a complaint being made. However, evidence shows a complaint was raised with the landlord on 31 January 2022. The resident said that a repair appointment had been scheduled for that morning, but the landlord had not attended. They requested the lighting to be returned to the previous setting and made suggestion that the changes had been made by their neighbour.
6. The landlord responded to the complaint and said it had attended on 31 January 2022 and identified that the lighting was not sufficient. The landlord said it would be raising the lighting issue with the relevant department and the resident should refer any neighbour issues to the “housing” department.
7. The resident contacted this Service in May 2022, saying that they had not received a formal response to their complaint, despite having made two complaints in October 2021 and January 2022. The resident said that the landlord had suggested it would be in touch via telephone call, but not call or correspondence had been received. The resident confirmed their complaint to related to:
   1. The communal lighting had been adjusted by their neighbour.
   2. The landlord had suggested that the resident call its ‘repairs’ team and the lighting would be returned to the previous setting.
   3. The issue had remained for some time, so the resident had called the landlord and was told that the light was functional and therefore would not be changed.
   4. There had been no formal solution or response to the complaint.
8. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 8 June 2022. It acknowledged the issues that had been raised by the resident said the efficiency of the lighting had not been checked when it was installed. The landlord confirmed that an electrician had been booked to attend the property on 14 June 2022, who will install more lighting. To resolve the resident’s concerns, the landlord offered £150 compensation.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and requested the complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaint process. On 16 August 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to explain that its computer system had encountered issues and it required the reasons for escalation to be resent. The resident provided this information the following day.
10. The available evidence shows that the neighbour had not agreed to allow additional lighting to be connected to their electric supply. The landlord has also provided evidence to show the resident had not agreed to use their own electric supply. These were the only two options available to the landlord as it did not have access to a communal/landlord supply. The landlord had been compensating the neighbour to cover costs incurred for communal lighting.
11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 16 September 2022. It apologised for the delays in handling the complaint, which it attributed to the system issues. The landlord referred to the new lighting which had been installed in October 2021 and how it should have been checked at the time, to ensure it was sufficient. The landlord also mentioned the appointment in June 2022 which was to install additional lighting. It explained that the lighting was connected to the neighbour’s electric supply, and it had no “legal recourse” to request them to connect more lighting. The landlord suggested that conversations to resolve the issue were ongoing with the neighbour, but it also recommended the resident consider connecting lighting to their electric supply as a solution. The landlord offered to reimburse the resident at a rate of £1.53 per week and reaffirmed the £150 compensation for inconvenience, service failure and disruption.
12. The resident responded to the landlord to say that they did not agree to connecting communal lighting to their own electric supply. The resident suggested the landlord connect any additional lighting to the existing supply.
13. The resident contacted this Service in October 2022 to state that the landlord had failed to put things right and they disagreed with its suggested solution. The resident requested that the landlord should connect the lighting to the “main light” or return to the previous lighting setup, prior to October 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with communal lighting and garden

14. The tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident outlines the commitments for both parties. The agreement states that the landlord will “…take reasonable care to keep common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and any other common parts, including their electrical lighting, in reasonable repair and fit for use by the tenant and other occupiers and visitors to the premises.”
15. The tenancy agreement shows the landlord was responsible for any issues that occurred relating to electrical lighting in the communal areas of the resident’s property. This meant that when then resident raised a concern about whether the lighting was sufficient, the landlord had an obligation to take appropriate action.
16. The landlord has provided evidence to suggest it attended the property for an inspection on 22 November 2021. During the inspection, it was determined the lighting was “insufficient”. There does not appear to have been any further action by the landlord until another inspection on 31 January 2022 where the same determination of “insufficient” lighting was made.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines the associated timescales for completion. For non-emergency and communal repairs, the policy states “repairs to communal areas should be appointed dependent upon the nature of the work but must always be completed within 28 days.” Therefore, upon identifying the communal lighting at the resident’s property as insufficient, the landlord was obliged to find a solution within 28 days. The lighting remained in that state until a temporary solution was found by installing battery-powered lighting. However, the resident has confirmed this has not been effective due to the lights “falling off the wall”.
18. The failure to complete a permanent repair within the relevant policy’s deadline meant the landlord left the resident living with a potential health and safety risk. The insufficient lighting meant the resident was unable to see the stairs, which they would use on a daily basis and would need to access in an emergency, being on the first floor of the building.
19. This Service acknowledges that the landlord had attempted to resolve the issue by having additional lighting installed, but it had come up against some challenges in providing a supply of electricity. However, following these challenges the landlord should have taken appropriate steps to install sufficient lighting without the need for a resident to supply the electricity. As it has since referred to, the landlord could have looked into installing a “landlord supply” at the property sooner.
20. The resident also raised concerns that the garden area had become overgrown through negligence of their neighbour. The resident said the overgrown trees were impacting natural light to the resident’s property. The tenancy agreement explains the landlord should keep “common parts” and “passageways” in “reasonable repair” and “fit for use”. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have demonstrated taking appropriate action by investigating the concerns raised by the resident and taking action as required to keep the communal grounds in a reasonable state. There is no evidence to show that an investigation into the condition of the garden took place throughout the ongoing complaint. This was unreasonable and the landlord should inspect the garden now and take action as required to bring it back to an acceptable level of tidiness.
21. The failures identified mean the landlord must take action to put things right for the resident. Importantly, it must take action to repair the lighting and ensure it is fit-for-purpose, sufficient and permanent.
22. The Ombudsman has acknowledged the landlord’s willingness to offer compensation for the service failure and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, this Service has found the offer of £150 to not be proportionate to the failings.
23. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. This suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident, and it has acknowledged failings, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
24. Given the resident is still waiting for the lighting issue to be permanently resolved, the ongoing inconvenience and potential safety risk, and the failure to address their concerns about the garden, this Service has found £400 to be appropriate.

The associated complaint handling

25. The landlord’s complaint handling policy outlines its approach to complaints and confirms it has a two-stage approach. These stages are explained as:
    1. “Stage one. If an initial attempt to resolve the query is not achieved, a formal complaint will be recorded and will be investigated. We do all we can to resolve customers issues and put things right.”
    2. “Stage two (peer review). At the conclusion of the complaint process, a customer may request a review of their case. They will need to be clear on what they wish to be considered as their desired outcome and what specifically they are not accepting.”
26. It is important to note the landlord’s complaint policy used for this investigation is the one relevant at the time of the resident’s complaint. This policy does not include timescales for responding to complaints. Therefore, this Service has used the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code to determine what is a reasonable amount of time for a landlord to take in issuing a complaint response.
27. The Code sets out the following timescales for handling a complaint:
    1. Five working days to acknowledge a complaint.
    2. 10 working days to issue a stage one decision.
    3. 20 working days to issue a stage two decision.
    4. If stage three is absolutely necessary, 20 working days to issue a decision.
28. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 January 2022 to explain they were unhappy with the lighting in the communal area of the property. This had been reported from as early as October 2021.
29. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “dissatisfaction expressed by a customer regarding a service, action or lack of action by [the landlord] or one of our contractors”. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the resident to assume their email of 31 January 2022 would be treated as a complaint, particularly given the issue had been ongoing for three months at the time.
30. The landlord took a total of 91 working days to issue a stage one response after the resident expressed their dissatisfaction with the lighting. It took an additional 65 working days to issue a stage two response following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
31. While this Service acknowledges the landlord experienced IT issues during the handling of the resident’s complaint, the substantial delays experienced by the resident were not reasonable. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint and took an unreasonable amount of time to respond at both stages of its complaint process.
32. Given the length of delays experienced in handling the resident’s complaint, this Service has determined the landlord must put things right. In line with the remedies guidance as referenced above, this Service has found £150 to be an amount proportionate to the failings.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the communal lighting and garden.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

35. The landlord is ordered to review and schedule work to provide a permanent solution to the insufficient communal lighting.
36. The landlord is ordered to investigate the concerns raised about the garden area and provide the resident with a response to their concerns, carrying out remedial work if necessary to maintain the garden.
37. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £400, in addition to the £150 offered during the complaint process. This is made up of:
    1. £400 for failure to resolve the lighting issue and address the resident’s concerns with the garden.
    2. £150 for the substantial delays during the handling of the resident’s complaint.
38. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

39. The landlord should review its process of updating residents regarding ongoing repair work to ensure they are kept informed, particularly when there are delays or a permanent solution is not found within the repair policy timescales.
40. The landlord should run refresher training with all relevant staff on complaint handling, particularly identifying all issues raised during a complaint.