The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202302046)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302046

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 April 2024

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal door.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat within a block of flats. The flats share a communal entrance door and stairwell. The resident has autism, ADHD, and mental health problems. He lives at the property with his son who has autism.
  2. On 16 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. He reported that the communal entrance door was broken and would not shut. The landlord asked its contractor to attend.
  3. The contractor inspected the door on 9 February 2023. It noted that the door had been vandalised and the lock required replacement. It was unable to carry out the work immediately as it had to order several parts. The contractor also advised the landlord that carpentry repairs were required to the doorframe. The landlord said its repairs team would carry out the carpentry work.
  4. On 13 February 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the length of time it was taking to fix the door. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 March 2023. It said that the door had been repaired the day before but acknowledged that this was outside the timescale for repairs set out in its policy. It offered the resident £50 compensation for inconvenience caused by the delay.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 March 2023. He was unhappy that the work to repair the door had not yet been carried out, and that he had been incorrectly advised in the stage 1 response that it had been fixed. The contractor inspected the door on 2 March 2023, but this was only to gather more information about the parts to be ordered so that the lock could be fixed. No work had been carried out to fix any part of the door.
  6. On 27 March 2023, the landlord’s repairs team carried out the carpentry repairs to the doorframe.
  7. The landlord reviewed the complaint and issued a stage 2 response on 29 March 2023. It identified that there had been several policy failures in its dealings with the repair and in its complaint handling. It said the reason the resident had been wrongly informed in the stage 1 response that the repair had been carried out was due to a miscommunication between teams. It offered the resident £200 compensation on account of this, broken down as follows:
    1. Compensation offered at stage 1 – £50
    2. Repeated visits by contractors and delays in replacing the lock – £50
    3. Delay in repairing the doorframe – £50
    4. Incorrect information and failure to follow policy at stage 1 – £50
  8. The landlord said that the contractor would return to the flats on 31 March 2023 to fix the lock on the door, and that a process had been set up to ensure this was tracked to completion.
  9. The contractor fixed the lock on the door on 31 March 2023. However, it advised the landlord that the power to the lock was intermittent and that further investigation was needed to fix this. This meant that while the door could now be securely closed as the lock was fixed, and residents were able to open it with their key, the intercom and buzzer system to allow guests into the building was not working.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2023 to report that he was not satisfied with the outcome of the stage 2 response given the door was still not fully fixed. He referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.
  11. Over the course of the next 4 months the resident continued to contact the landlord to seek updates on the repair of the door. The landlord was advised by its contractor on 6 June 2023 that the existing door entry system was obsolete, so to repair it, a full system replacement was required. The new system was installed on 4 August 2023, although it was not until October 2023 that the intercom system within the resident’s property was fully functioning.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal door

  1. It is the landlord’s statutory responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property, including the communal entrance door, in good repair. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that if a communal area needs repaired, the work must always be completed within 28 days. If it is an emergency repair, then works to make safe or carry out a temporary repair must take place within 24 hours.
  2. The resident first reported that the door was damaged on 16 January 2023. The records show that when instructing its contractor to attend to this, the landlord advised a lock was broken, the door was open, a trade button was broken and the buttons on the intercom system were not working properly. The contractor then inspected the door on 9 February and identified that in addition to the lock being broken, carpentry repairs were required around the doorframe as the door had been vandalised. Therefore, it was known to the landlord that there were in effect 3 repair issues: the doorframe, the lock, and the electronic door system.
  3. In relation to the doorframe repair, there was a delay in the landlord raising a works order for this. The repair was not carried out until 27 March 2023. This was 70 days after the resident first reported the damage to the door and considerably in excess of the 28 day time limit set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 complaint response that it had failed to adhere to its policy given the delay in carrying out the repair. It apologised and offered the resident compensation of £50 in line with its compensation policy which sets the maximum award for repairs exceeding the target time as being £50. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which encourages landlords to acknowledge their mistakes, explain why they happened, and to offer a financial remedy where appropriate.
  4. The second repair issue was the lock. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response for the delay in carrying out the repair to the lock. It recognised that there had been multiple visits from contractors to the building. It apologised for this and the delay, offered compensation of £50, and said an appointment had been booked for the lock to be fixed on 31 March 2023. While this provided some redress, in the Ombudsman’s view the response did not go far enough in identifying all the landlord’s failings in relation to the repair of the lock.
  5. When the landlord first received the resident’s report that the door was damaged, there is no evidence that it considered whether the lock should be classed as an emergency repair given it meant the door could not be securely closed. The landlord’s repairs policy defines emergency repairs as being anything that jeopardises the health, safety, or security of any resident. The resident advised the landlord in an email on 23 February 2023, that due to the door being broken, drug users were sitting in the stairwell to smoke cannabis or shield from the weather. He also advised that they were “spitting everywhere.” The resident explained that he had autism as did his son, then aged 4. He said his son was “very anxious and overwhelmed” at having to pass these people when going in and out of their first floor flat, and that it affected the resident’s ADHD and mental health. The resident stated, “I don’t feel safe and secure.” Even after receiving this email, it was a further week before the landlord’s contractor returned to the building to double check the parts it needed to order, and a further 4 weeks after that before the repair to the lock was complete. In total, it took 74 days from when the resident first reported the damage to the door until the landlord fixed the lock. This was unreasonable and while the landlord acknowledged there had been a delay in its stage 2 response, it did not offer an explanation for this. The landlord’s response to the resident, particularly in relation to his vulnerabilities, was also lacking. This is considered further below.
  6. The third repair issue was the electronic door entry system. It is not clear why it was only at the visit on 31 March 2023 that the contractor reported to the landlord that the power to the door was intermittent and required further investigation. The contractor had already inspected the door on 3 other occasions by this point, and the landlord’s initial instructions to the contractor clearly referred to the buzzer system not functioning properly. The landlord’s stage 1 response also referred to buttons on the electronic door entry system not working. It seems however that the focus up until 31 March was on fixing the doorframe and the lock itself, rather than the entry system. This is evident from the stage 2 response which also only refers to the lock being fixed. This response therefore did not provide a resolution to the substantive complaint as it did not result in a full repair of the door.
  7. The resident advised that due to the door entry system not being fixed, he was unable to allow his guests into the building. Postal workers and the caretaker experienced access difficulties. This meant that deliveries were delayed and the communal areas remained uncleaned for many weeks. As a result, some residents propped the door open, which then enabled the uninvited guests the resident previously complained of to congregate in the stairwell and behave in an antisocial manner The resident continued to report this to the landlord. The landlord was advised by the contractor on 6 June 2023 that a full upgrade was required to the door system. The landlord approved this as a priority repair and the upgrade took place on 4 August 2023. However, the intercom in the resident’s flat was not connected to the new system and fully functioning until October 2023.
  8. The timeframe for the investigation into the fault and subsequent repair of the electronic door system significantly exceeds the 28 day timeframe set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord has offered no explanation as to why it took from 16 January to 31 March before the contractor identified that further investigation was required into the door system, and why it then took until 6 June before it was identified a full system upgrade was required. After 6 June, the landlord appropriately categorised the installation of the new system as a priority repair. However, it was not reasonable that the repair had not been prioritised months sooner given there had already been significant delays and a resident who was feeling deeply impacted as a result.
  9. The Ombudsman has identified two thematic issues running throughout the landlord’s dealings with the resident in relation to the door. The first relates to vulnerabilities, and the second relates to communications.
  10. Landlords are required under the Equality Act 2010 and the Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard to demonstrate that they understand the different needs of their tenants, including additional support needs, and respond to them appropriately. In this case, the landlord did not at any stage acknowledge the vulnerabilities of the resident or his son. It did not discuss with the resident any measures it could put in place, pending the full repair of the door, to make him feel safer. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether the antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the stairwell should be dealt with in line with its ASB policy; if it did, this was not communicated to the resident. It was unfair that the landlord left the resident to handle the consequences of the broken door himself, without considering the impact this was having on him and without offering him support. Given this, it is recommended that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on ‘Attitudes, Respect and Rights’ which contains best practice guidance on recognising, recording, and supporting residents with vulnerabilities.
  11. The landlord was not proactive in its communications with the resident in relation to the repair of the door. While it would be a reasonable expectation in normal circumstances that a landlord would keep a resident updated on a repair issue they have reported, it was even more important in this case given the resident is autistic. The resident has explained to this Service that uncertainty can make him anxious. He said he understood that sometimes there may be a delay in a repair being carried out, but it was the lack of communication from the landlord about the delays and its failure to set out a clear timeframe for the works that added to his stress.
  12. The resident was advised that the original appointment to inspect the door would be on 8 February 2023. This was cancelled and the inspection took place on 9 February instead. The resident said the contractor told him he would be advised of the new appointment date, but he was not. The stage 1 response simply stated that repairs to communal repairs would not usually be booked with residents. This was dismissive and ignored the fact that regardless of what usually happened, the resident had been told in this case that he would be notified of the revised appointment date. It was therefore reasonable that the resident expected this would happen. Additionally, had the landlord taken into account the resident’s vulnerabilities, it may have realised that regardless of usual process, it would have been fair in this situation to keep the resident informed as to when the contractor would be attending to the repair.
  13. The landlord did not recognise this in its stage 2 response. It said that it would oversee the repair to the lock was carried out, but it gave no commitment that it would keep the resident updated. This meant that when the contractor found at the inspection on 31 March 2023 that further investigation was required to fix the door entry system, this was not communicated to the resident. Given the stage 2 response gave a commitment that the door repair would be fully resolved on 31 March, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not then revert to the resident and keep him updated on the subsequent developments. This lack of proactive communication continued for the remainder of the time the landlord was resolving the door repair. The onus was on the resident, and at times his mental health support worker on his behalf, to contact the landlord and the contractor for updates. This was unfair in the circumstances. When reviewing the findings of this report, the landlord should reflect on its communications and consider whether its repairs policy should be updated to include guidance on keeping residents updated where there are delays to carrying out repairs.
  14. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the communal door. It took multiple visits from contractors over a protracted period before there was a full and lasting repair. The landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation to the resident or to the Ombudsman as to why the full repair considerably exceeded the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. The landlord’s communications with the resident were poor, and it failed to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities and to offer support accordingly. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident compensation of £600. This is at the top end of the maladministration scale as per the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance given the multiple failings and impact on the resident.
  15. The £600 compensation replaces £150 of the £200 offered by the landlord in the stage 2 complaint response as that is how much of the previous offer related to the handling of the repairs. The other £50 offered at stage 2 related to complaint handling and is dealt with separately below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. At the time of the complaint, the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy that extended the response time at stage 1 to 20 working days. The interim policy was put in place following a data breach. The landlord issued the stage 1 response, 14 working days after the resident complained. While this was in accordance with the interim policy timescales, it was outside of the 10 working days timescales as set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and the landlord’s previous complaints policy. Nonetheless, the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing the response. The landlord appropriately identified that there had been a delay in repairing the door, apologised for this, and offered the resident £50 compensation which was in line with its compensation policy. However, the landlord incorrectly advised the resident that the repair to the door had been carried out when it had not. The stage 1 response therefore failed to address or provide a resolution to the substantive complaint.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 16 working days after the resident requested the complaint be reviewed. This was in keeping with the 20 working day timeframe for a stage 2 response set out in the Code and the 40 working day timeframe provided for by the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
  3. In the stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it was wrong to advise the resident in the stage 1 response that the repair was complete. It explained the reason for this error was a miscommunication between teams about why the contractor attended to the door on 2 March 2023. It identified this as a failure to comply with its complaints policy, apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation. It also apologised for the time taken to repair the door, which it recognised was not in compliance with its repairs policy, and offered the resident additional compensation. In line with the Code, the landlord could have gone further and explained why the delays had occurred, and identified ways in which it would learn from its failings in this case. However, the response overall was appropriate as it acknowledged mistakes and attempted to put things right. Although the resolution proposed, i.e. that the lock would be fixed and the landlord would track this happened, did not resolve the substantive complaint, this has been dealt with above as a failing in relation to the handling of the repair, rather than a complaint handling issue.
  4. Overall, although the landlord provided the resident with incorrect advice in the stage 1 response, it appropriately acknowledged its error. The landlord also offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by its failing. This was in line with its compensation policy and proportionate in the circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman findings that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress, prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint handling issues in this case.
  5. As outlined above, the landlord’s interim complaints policy extended the usual 10 working day timeframe for a stage 1 response and 20 working day timeframe for a stage 2 response, to 20 and 40 working days respectively. However, it is noted that the landlord has recently reissued its complaints policy and reinstated the 10 and 20 working day timeframes in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to a communal door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance. It should be made by a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £650. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £600 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord in its handling of the door repair. This replaces the £150 the landlord previously offered the resident on account of delays to the door repair.
      2. £50 being the amount the landlord previously offered to the resident for its complaint handling failure at stage 1 of the complaints process.
    1. Any compensation already paid to the resident may be deducted from the £650 ordered.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Review its handling of the door repair from start to finish. It should particularly reflect on its communications, both internally amongst the landlord’s staff and contractors, and with the resident.
    2. Consider whether its repairs policy should be updated to include guidance on keeping residents updated where there are delays to completing repairs.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on ‘Attitudes, Respect and Rights’ which contains best practice guidance on recognising, recording, and supporting residents with vulnerabilities.