Clarion Housing Association Limited (202111355)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111355

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 April 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:
   1. the resident’s reports for repairs to the window handles and balcony door, and;
   2. the associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a three bed flat in a block.
3. On the 30 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about issues with the window handles, doors and locks, raising a complaint. The resident was experiencing difficulties getting a response from the landlord so complained to this Service on the 16 August 2021. This Service then asked the landlord to respond to the resident on the 18 August 2021. On the 20 August 2021 the landlord confirmed to this Service that it had raised the complaint and would investigate the resident’s concerns.
4. The landlord reviewed the resident’s shared ownership lease on the 13 September 2021, but remained unsure whether the repair was the resident’s responsibility or its own. Despite this the landlord carried out an inspection on 20 September 2021 at the resident’s property, ascertaining that repairs were required and a window had started to pull away from its hinges. The landlord then arranged for a specialist contractor to attend the resident’s property on 29 and 30 September 2021, in order to determine the cost of the repairs. The landlord promised that when it received the quotation from the contractor, it would accept this, and then contact and update the resident about the completion of the repairs.
5. The landlord provided a stage one response on 22 September 2021, setting out the actions it was taking to complete the repair.
6. The contractor did attend as promised, however, the remedial works were not carried out. The resident requested an update from the landlord on the 20 October 2021 and the landlord responded to say that it would chase the contractor and arrange an appointment date for the repair. The resident further chased the landlord and contractor regarding the repair job on             1 November and 10 November 2021, but received no response. The resident was dissatisfied because of the delay in resolving the issue and the landlord’s communications throughout.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on the 18 February 2022, stating that the landlord had ceased to help them with the repairs, even though it had agreed to this before. Internal records from this period show the landlord determining that in the fact the repair was the responsibility of the leaseholder, in accordance with the terms of the lease.
8. The landlord sent its stage two final response on the 5 May 2022. In this response it clarified that the resident had responsibility for the repairs to doors and windows. The landlord apologised for not making this clear previously and offered £300 compensation for its oversight and miscommunication, and £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint. It also said that it could not assist the resident in finding a contractor but could send the resident a quote that it had received from its external contractor.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with this final response and emailed this Service on the 25 May 2022. The resident’s desired outcomes are for the landlord to complete the repairs as initially promised, and to increase the compensation offer to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.
10. On the 6 January 2023, the landlord sent another letter to the resident following its contact with this Service. It stated that it reviewed the case at both stages of its complaints process, and acknowledged that the level of compensation should have been higher. The landlord made a final offer of a further £325 to the resident (£250 towards the cost of the repairs, and £75 for complaint handling delays). This brings the total amount of compensation offered to £650.

Assessment and findings

11.  When considering complaints this Service will apply its Dispute Resolution Principles, which are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes. The three principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes

The resident’s reports for repairs to the window handles and balcony door

12. The head lease sets out the ‘demised premises’ as including ‘the doors and windows’. The underlease (section 3(4)) makes it clear that shared ownership leaseholders are responsible to keep in repair the demised premises. The landlord’s website echoes this.
13. When responding to repair issues, a landlord should verify the type of tenure a resident has and the relevant rights and responsibilities that accompany this, so that it can provide clear and accurate advice.
14. The evidence shows that despite being unsure of its obligations and responsibilities, the landlord agreed to carry out the repairs when the resident raised them. The terms of the lease however, set out that the window and door repairs were the responsibility of the resident. The landlord’s stage one response stated that it would make arrangements for the repair works to be carried out. There was a failure by the landlord to ascertain prior to this, who was responsible for the repairs, leading to confusion in how it initially dealt with these. Its position was not clarified properly until 5 May 2022. This constituted an unreasonable delay for the resident. This prolonged the length of time taken to establish who was responsible for any outstanding repair that may be deemed necessary to resolve the issues. The resident experienced uncertainty due to the landlord’s failure to clarify, and distress and frustration due to having to chase up responses.
15. The resident has explained to this Service that they were treated unfairly, with a lack of dignity and respect. They said that they felt mentally exhausted because they were assured that the works would be done but this did not happen. Also, the resident said that the landlord told them that the parts necessary to complete the repairs were unavailable in the United Kingdom. The resident was frustrated by this, because they were unsure of how to proceed to resolve the repair.
16. In its stage two complaint response the landlord apologised for not making the division of responsibility clear to the resident when they had initially made contact. It said that its surveyor should have advised the resident that windows and doors were not the landlord’s responsibility, rather than inspecting the windows and arranging for contractors to attend. It provided the resident with a quote relating to the works from its own contractor, should the resident want to follow this up themselves. The landlord also offered the resident £300 discretionary compensation in recognition of the service failure.
17. It was appropriate and reasonable that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its fallings, and also made an offer of compensation. This demonstrates that the landlord took action to ‘put thigs right’ for the resident. This Service is satisfied that the landlord’s albeit delayed clarification of whose responsibility it was for the repair, was appropriate and reflected both its obligations and those of the resident, as set out in the lease. The landlord is not responsible for these repairs.
18. However the compensation amount was insufficient to recognise the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord’s complaint policy states that awards of £250 to £700 would be offered where there was a considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. The evidence clearly shows that the resident experienced time and trouble, as well as frustration, over an extended period of a year. The landlord’s delays also meant that the resident was left with ill-functioning windows for this extended period.
19. Since the involvement of this Service, the landlord has offered a further £250 bringing the total offer to £550 for the repair issue. This is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which advises amounts of up to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, but there was permanent impact.
20. However, the landlord failed to offer this amount during the complaints process and the resident was obliged to approach this Service before the landlord conducted a review of this complaint and identified its error, resulting in additional time, trouble and inconvenience.
21. As the initial £300 offered fell short of the compensation that was reasonable to offer in this case, the landlord did not do enough to ‘put things right’ for the resident. Further, landlord has not demonstrated how it has ‘learned from outcomes’ from its failings and/or how it will improve its services in the future. It is good practice, and in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, for landlord’s to communicate how services to residents will be improved in complaint responses so that the resident is reassured and landlord’s learn from mistakes.
22. In light of the above, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of this matter.

Complaint handling

23. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling, especially the delays in responding. The landlord has supplied its complaints policy that was in effect at the time. This policy was last reviewed in March 2020. The complaint policy does not state any timescales for responses. However, this Service had introduced its Complaint Handling Code in July 2020, which sets out good practice to allow landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. In section 3.11 it states that a landlord’s stage one decision should be sent to a resident within 10 working days and the stage two response within 20 working days from receipt of complaint. If this is not possible at either stage, then the landlord should send an explanation and a date by when the response should be received, which should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
24. The landlord sent the stage one response roughly five months after the complaint was made and the stage two response, two and a half months after the resident requested the escalation. These were unreasonably long times to respond to the resident. By not issuing responses in a fair and timely manner the landlord did not follow this Service’s Code., and caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
25. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling and awarded £25 compensation at stage two, which was insufficient given the delays. After the case was referred to this Service the landlord offered another apology and further compensation of £75, making a combined total of £100 for the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint.
26. However, the amount does not fully recognise the time and trouble the resident has taken to chase a response on several occasions over an extended period, or the misdirection of the landlord at stage one in saying that it would complete the repairs, leading to disappointment to the resident. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance sets out amounts of £50 to £100 for minimal failings of short duration: In this case, in addition to the misinformation in the stage one response, the delays in the complaint handling spanned over seven months. Further, the landlord has not set out what learning it has taking from the complaint handling failures in this case.
27. As such, orders for remedy are made below.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports for repairs to the window handles and balcony door.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints.

Orders 

30. Within one month of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £900 (comprised of £550 for the failures in the handling of reports for repairs, and £350 for the failings in complaint handling). This is in replacement of the £650 the landlord has offered. If this amount has already been paid to the resident, it should be deducted from the total.
    2. Undertake staff training, to ensure all relevant staff are aware of the different types of tenures, how to recognise these, and how this affects responsibilities with regards to repairs. The landlord should advise the Ombudsman when this has been completed.
    3. Review the handling of this complaint, to determine the reasons for the failings and what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these in the future.