Clarion Housing Association Limited (202200988)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200988

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 July 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 response to:
   1. The resident’s reports about communal lighting.
   2. The resident’s reports about the intercom system.
   3. The resident’s reports about the CCTV system.
   4. The formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom first floor flat. The resident has reported vulnerabilities.
3. In April 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that communal lighting on the estate was not working. He was also unhappy that the CCTV cameras were not monitored in real-time for ASB purposes. Finally, the resident said his intercom was not working properly, and so he could not answer the door remotely.
4. In the landlord’s first complaint response, it said the intercom system had a planned upgrade in progress and it was estimated this would be complete by the end of June 2022. In respect of the CCTV, it said that the resident should report any incidents of ASB. Finally, the landlord said it had raised a repair for the communal lights, and had also asked its operations team to carry out an inspection of all external lights.
5. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two. He said the landlord did not check the light in the evening to see if they were working. He was still unhappy that the CCTV cameras did not report in real time, and thought this meant the landlord would be prevented from obtaining relevant evidence of ASB.
6. In its stage two response, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding and explained this was due to a cyber-security incident. The landlord also apologised for the length of time taken for the intercom repair to be completed, and said this was due to a planned works programme. It said it had arranged for all external lights to be inspected and necessary repairs raised with a contractor. It confirmed it had asked the contractor to attend again to make sure they were all working.
7. The landlord also explained the CCTV was for parking enforcement reasons and was monitored by the parking contractor. It said the contractor was the data controller, and if there was an ASB report of criminal behaviour, it would normally ask the police to liaise with the contractor directly. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation, this was broken down as £50 for its delay in responding to his complaint, and £100 for the time taken to resolve the intercom issue.
8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to this Service. He said he was unhappy that the landlord’s inspections of the communal lighting only took place during the day. He accepted the intercom had been replaced, but thought the landlord should have renewed it with a metal design rather than wood. Finally, the resident thought the current CCTV cameras did not provide enough coverage to capture ASB. He wanted the landlord to pay him £500 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. A representative for the resident advised this Service that the resident wanted to add two further issues from December 2022 to the complaint. It is not known what those two issues are, and so they have not been addressed in this report. It is also the case that the landlord must have the opportunity to respond through its complaints process, and so if the resident has not already done so, he should raise his concerns about any new issues directly with the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s response to repairs needed to communal lighting

10. The landlord’s repairs policy says that communal repairs will be completed within 28 days. The landlord’s repairs log confirms the repair was raised on 17 March 2022, and was repaired on 1 April 2022. This was within 28 days and therefore the repair was completed in line within the landlord’s repairs policy.
11. When the resident brought it to the landlord’s attention that there were lights not working, it raised a further repair and also requested an inspection of all external lights. That was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord explained in its stage two response that, due to the cyber-security incident, it could not establish what repair jobs had been raised following the inspection. However, it said it would arrange for a contractor to do another inspection a few weeks later, to ensure all the lights were working.
12. The landlord’s response here was appropriate. However, the resident says the landlord’s inspections only happen during the day, and the problem with the lights happen at night-time. It is therefore recommended that the landlord arrange for a further inspection to take place at night.

The landlord’s response to repairs needed to the intercom system

13. The information provided to this Service by the landlord confirms that a repair was raised in April 2022, but the repair was not done at this time because of the planned upgrade. The upgrade took place around two months later, in June 2022. It is accepted that this delay caused the resident inconvenience, but it is considered that the landlord’s offer of compensation of £100 for this was reasonable in the circumstances.
14. The resident is unhappy that the landlord chose to renew the intercom system with a wood rather than metal finish. The landlord’s repairs policy says that repairs will be completed to an acceptable standard, and to a specification which does not make the item less serviceable or of an inferior quality. There is no evidence to suggest that the replaced intercom system is less serviceable or of an inferior quality compared to the previous system. Ultimately, it was up to the landlord which intercom system it chose to replace the previous one, so long as this complied with its repair policy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about CCTV

15. The landlord has explained that the primary purpose of the CCTV is for parking enforcement, not to monitor ASB. Also, the landlord is not the data controller for the CCTV, as this responsibility lies with the parking contractor.
16. The landlord advised the resident what hours the CCTV was monitored by the parking contractor. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain that if access was needed to CCTV recordings outside of those hours, this could be requested from the contractor by the relevant authorities. It is noted that the parking contractor advised the landlord that it has received two requests from the police to access CCTV footage where alleged criminal behaviour had been reported.
17. Although the resident has expressed concerns about ASB on the estate, the landlord noted that he had not raised an ASB complaint since 2020. The landlord has an ASB policy in place, and if the resident has concerns about ASB, he should raise those with the landlord so that it can consider the matter in accordance with its policy.
18. Whilst the resident would clearly prefer that the CCTV system in place be used in a different manner, there is no evidence that the landlord is obliged to use it in ‘real time’ to monitor potential ASB, as he would prefer. This would require significant additional resources and would also amount to a use of the system that was not originally intended. The landlord has explained this to the resident and also confirmed that there is scope (through referral through the police) for relevant CCTV evidence to be requested, something that has occurred on at least two occasions. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has offered fair and reasonable explanation throughout to this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

19. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It aims to respond to new complaints within 20 working days. It says a request to escalate a complaint to stage two will be acknowledged within ten working days, and it aims to resolve the matter within 40 working days, though if it cannot do so, it will explain why.
20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation to stage two on 15 June 2022, but did not provide its stage two response until 6 September 2022. This delay was due to a cyber-security incident that affected the landlord. Whilst it is noted that the resident chased the landlord’s response a number of times, he had received an explanation from the landlord and this Service and so was aware that the reason for the delay was outside the landlord’s control.
21. Nonetheless, the delay meant that the resident was prevented from bringing his complaint to this Service until the stage two response was received, so it accepted that he was caused inconvenience by the matter. The landlord recognised this and offered him £50 compensation for this. This amount is considered reasonable in the circumstances as a remedy for the resident’s inconvenience.

Determination

22. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to:
    1. repairs needed to communal lighting; and;
    2. the use of CCTV for monitoring ASB.
23. In accordance with Paragraph 53b of the Scheme, reasonable redress has been offered by the landlord in respect of its response to:
    1. repairs needed to the intercom system; and;
    2. the formal complaint.

Recommendations

24. The landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation if it has not already done so, as the finding of reasonable redress has been made on that basis.
25. The landlord to arrange for an inspection of the communal lighting to take place at night.