Clarion Housing Association Limited (202207384)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207384

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 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 handing of:

  1. the resident’s request for information concerning his service charge.
  2. Associated complaint.

Background

2.     The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property.

3.     The resident raised a Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) request to the landlord. This request was made in writing, on 9 March 2022. The resident asked for a summary of the two most complete years of service charge accounts for his property. On 12 April 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint as the landlord had failed to respond to his Section 21 request. The resident then posted a one-star review on Trustpilot, stating that the landlord had failed to respond to his request. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 April 2022. Then on 29 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s Section 21 request.

4.     The landlord called the resident in May 2022. The resident confirmed he still required the landlord to provide the information he had requested. He highlighted that the landlord was under a legal obligation to action his Section 21 request within a month.

5.     On 20 May 2022, the landlord updated the resident that it had compiled the resident’s Section 21 request. However, the first accountants it approached to complete the certification of the Section 21, advised they could not start the works until the end of June 2022. The landlord approached two further accountants and the third agreed to commence the works for a fee of £900 excluding VAT. The resident disputed he was responsible for the fees of the accountants, as he already pays for this through his service charge. The landlord confirmed it would not be requesting any payment from the resident for the accountants’ fees. The landlord provided the Section 21 report to the resident on 20 June 2022.

6.     On 4 July 2022, the resident requested an update about his complaint. He then contacted this service to explain the landlord had not responded to his complaint, originally raised on 12 April 2022. The landlord provided its stage one response on 24 August 2022. It apologised for the delays to the resident and awarded him £250 compensation. The resident requested the escalation of his complaint as he did not believe the amount offered reflected the impact caused through his wasted time and inconvenience.

7.     At the final stage of the landlord’s complaints process, it offered a further £350 compensation. It provided a breakdown for all of the compensation as follows:

  1. £150 for the time taken to resolve the resident’s complaint, the distress and inconvenience caused and because the resident repeatedly had to chase the requested information.
  2. £100 as the landlord’s stage one complaint response was provided outside of its service level agreement.
  3. £150 because the landlord closed the resident’s original complaint on 3 May 2022, without providing a response.
  4. £50 for the delays in the landlord replying to the resident’s contact on 12 April 2022.
  5. £100 increase for the further inconvenience caused to the resident at stage two of its complaints process.
  6. £50 increase to reflect the landlord’s failure to follow its processes at stage one of the complaints process and the resident having to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates to his request and subsequent complaint.

8.     The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. His complaint was accepted by the Ombudsman on 17 November 2022. His desired outcome was that additional compensation be paid to him the inconvenience caused and time wasted in him chasing the landlord to comply with his requests.

Assessment and findings

9.     When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

10. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord 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 consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policies and Procedures

11. The landlord has told this service that it does not currently have a policy for its response to Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) requests.

12. The landlord’s interim complaints policy states it will apologise to all residents who complain after 17 June 2022, about service delays due to a cyber-security incident which destroyed records and affected the landlord’s internal communication services.

13. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. The landlord aims to resolve complaints within 20 working days at stage one for complaints made after 17 June 2022. It does not provide a timescale for complaints made before 17 June 2022. It states it will try and progress these complaints before 17 June 2022 through to a resolution. At stage two, it aims to acknowledge the complaint within ten working days and provide it stage-two response within 40 working days.

14. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will provide awards between £250 and £700 where there has been a considerable failure, but where the failure has resulted in no permanent impact on the resident. It provides examples of this as being where a resident has had to repeatedly chase the landlord for information or where it has significantly failed to follow its complaint procedure. This policy states that compensation above this amount must be as a result of the landlord’s failings, that then cause a significant and serious long-term effect on the resident.

The resident’s request for information regarding his service charge

15. The resident raised his Section 21 request to the landlord on 9 March 2022. The landlord had a statutory responsibility to provide only the one accounting year to the resident, within one month. The landlord did not comply and therefore it did not act in accordance with the law. It took 51 days for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s request. During this period, the Ombudsman recognises the resident was frustrated. He said that the landlord had not responded to his requests. The landlord has stated that the trust pilot review was the first time it identified the resident’s Section 21 request. In its response to the resident, the landlord later apologised for this delay. It explained that it had a cyber-security issue at that time which had meant that the record of the resident’s original request would have been destroyed. The Ombudsman is aware of the cyber-security incident at the landlord and that this resulted in it being unable to access some of its data records. This was an acceptable response by the landlord. It explained why there had been an initial delay in its response to the resident’s initial request.

16. The timeline shows that there were several further delays in the respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s Section 21 request. The landlord’s initial acknowledgement of the resident’s request was on 29 April 2022. It compiled the relevant information by 20 May 2022. This information is required to be certified by a qualified professional, an accountant. The information was shared with such a professional on 9 June 2022. This is 41 days after the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request. This was a further unacceptable delay. The landlord did keep the resident updated that it was unable to find an accountant to carry at the work. The landlord approached three accountants and the third accountant accepted the works for a fee of £950 plus VAT. The landlord initially sought to pass this fee on to the resident. This was inappropriate under the circumstances, but the landlord acted reasonably by later waiving this fee. The resident was provided his service charge information on 20 June 2022. It took the landlord 103 days in total to provide a response which it had a statutory response to provide within 30 days. Even when taking into consideration the landlord’s initial IT issues, the collective delays are not an acceptable response by the landlord.

17. The landlord has accepted it was responsible for delays and failures in processing the resident’s Section 21 request. In its final complaint response on 29 September 2022, it awarded the resident £600 compensation in total, as redress for both this aspect of the complaint, as well as its complaint handling. The role of this service is to consider whether this redress offered by the landlord, has put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. The Ombudsman has also considered whether the redress was in line with its own remedies guidance. These are available to review on the Housing Ombudsman Service website. This service has recognised the resident’s frustrations and his comments that this has not been the first time he has had cause to complain about his landlord. However, this service must also take into consideration the level of compensation offered, which in the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance is at the higher end of a finding of maladministration. Examples of this level of award is provided where the landlords failing has had a significantly adverse effect on the resident or where the landlord has failed to put things right. Therefore, this service finds that the landlord has provided reasonable redress in the handling of resident’s complaint about its response to his request for further information regarding his service charge.

The associated complaint

18. The resident first raised his complaint on 12 April 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 April 2022. It took a further 82 working days for the landlord to provide it stage one complaint response. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay. It made reference to its cyber-security incident, as part of the cause for its initial lack of response. The Ombudsman has taken this into account in its investigation of this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy has not provided a timescale for when it will respond complaints made before June 2022. However, the Ombudsman expects landlord to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s own complaints handling code, which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. This states that the landlord should provide a response within ten working days at stage one of their internal complaints process.

19. The landlord has not provided any reasonable evidence as to why it waited for such a long period to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint. It is understandable that the cyber-attack may have impacted the landlord’s abilities to consult its records in order to investigate the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord could have explained this to the resident and set a revised timescale for a complaint response in order to manage the resident’s expectations. This is evidence of poor communication. The service provided to the resident was far below what residents should expect from their landlord. This service also acknowledges the significant frustration and inconvenience these delays must have caused the resident. As well as the time wasted in chasing the landlord for a response.

20. The landlord provided its final response on 29 September 2022. It stated it initially closed the resident’s complaint on 3 May 2022, without providing any response due to confusion. It apologised and increased its compensation to the resident to reflect this. It also acknowledged that the resident had a number of previous complaints. It responded that it had previously apologised to the resident and awarded compensation in these separate complaints. This service has considered these other complaints, but its role is to review the landlord’s response to the handling of this particular complaint. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration the time taken by the resident to follow up his complaint, including this service. This landlord awarded compensation to the resident totalling £600, as documented above in this report. The Ombudsman finds that this level of compensation provides reasonable redress in these circumstances for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for findings of maladministration and as already explained above, is the higher end of compensation that this service awards for cases of maladministration. This is where there has been a significant adverse impact on a resident. The amount of redress thereby, reflects this significant impact caused by the delays in the handling of the resident’s complaint, as well as the landlord’s other errors in responding to the service charge enquiry as referenced above.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the time taken for the landlord to action the resident’s request for information about his service charge.

22. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

23. The Ombudsman’s determination that there has been reasonable redress by the landlord is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £600 is paid to resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.

24. The landlord should review its complaint handling policy and make such amendments so that it carries out its handling of complaints in line with the Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code. (available to view on the Housing Ombudsman Service website). 

25. The landlord should put in place a Section 21 request policy, if not already done so and make such amendments so that it carries out such requests within the statutory time period of one month as required.