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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202214815)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214815

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 March 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 the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Repairs to:
      1. Windows.
      2. Back door.
    2. Noise.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a ground floor flat, within a converted house.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 6 October 2022 about the landlord’s handling of her reports of required repairs and noise transference from the upstairs property. She stated that she had initially reported defects to her kitchen and bathroom windows and rear garden access door in December 2020. The resident said that numerous people had been to measure up for replacements, but that the repairs had not been done. In regard to the noise, the resident stated that there was no sound proofing between her flat and the flat above. The resident said that the noise had affected her physical and mental health and caused extreme anxiety.
  3. The stage 1 response was issued on 26 January 2023. The landlord identified that there had been a service failure regarding how long it had taken to replace the windows. It stated that new windows had been ordered on 10 January 2023 and that it could take around 1 month for them to be manufactured. The landlord highlighted that the property was in a conservation area, which had made replacing the windows challenging as they must be replaced with like-for-like windows. The landlord said that a repairs appointment had been scheduled for 16 January 2023 for the back door to be inspected.
  4. Regarding the resident’s reports of noise, the landlord stated that a visit on 31 March 2022 identified that the noise was caused due to a lack of sound insulation. Carpet and underlay were fitted in the upstairs property on 14 June 2022. However, the resident reported that this had not resolved the problem. The landlord stated that recordings the resident submitted via the Noise App supported that she was experiencing the same noise as before the carpet was fitted. The landlord stated that consideration would be given to funding further soundproofing. The landlord concluded that it had followed its processes and procedures when dealing with the noise complaint. It offered the resident a total of £700 compensation which was comprised of £100 for the delayed complaint response and £600 for failures in relation to the window repairs.
  5. The resident requested her complaint to be escalated on 8 February 2023. She stated that there were various issues with the back door, including gaps that were letting in cold draughts. The resident also raised an issue regarding the amount of steam generated by the shower due to the absence of a vent in the window and because the extractor fan was insufficient. In terms of the noise, the resident said that she had been dealing with this issue for 2 years.
  6. The stage 2 response was issued on 27 April 2023. The landlord stated that an appointment had been scheduled for 14 March 2023 for the back door to be inspected, but that this did not take place due to staff sickness. The landlord found that the resident was informed of this on the morning of the appointment, and it therefore did not adhere to its 24-hour notice period. It stated that its sub-contractor had initially measured the door with the aim to replace it however, after a further inspection by the landlord, it was identified that the door could be repaired and did not require a replacement. The landlord found that it did not communicate its resolution clearly to the resident which caused confusion.
  7. The landlord also identified that there had been further delays in replacing the kitchen and bathroom windows since the stage 1 response. The landlord said that the window replacement and repairs to the back door would take place over 3 days on 25, 26 and 27 April 2023.
  8. In relation to the noise, the landlord confirmed that funding for measures to reduce the noise had been approved and that it would arrange for a specialist to undertake a survey and make a plan for the required works.
  9. In order to address the condensation issue, the landlord stated that once the windows had been replaced, it would drill a hole in the wall of the bathroom to install an air vent. The landlord stated that the condensation issue was not raised within the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and it was therefore unable to review this at stage 2 of the complaints process.
  10. The landlord offered the resident £965 compensation, which was in addition to the £700 offered at stage 1. This amount was made up as follows:
    1. £150 in relation to repairs to the windows.
    2. £800 in relation to repairs to the back door.
    3. £15 for the missed appointment.
  11. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 July 2023. She stated that the windows were installed in April 2023, but she had to chase the landlord for 2 months to get a date for the ‘making good’ works. The resident said that she had heard nothing regarding the soundproofing despite sending emails to request updates. The resident stated that the issues had impacted her mental and physical health.
  12. On 2 January 2024 the landlord informed the Ombudsman that the soundproofing work had commenced and was scheduled for completion on 12 January 2024. It said that plastering and re-decorating would take place following this.
  13. On 14 March 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman that the soundproofing works had concluded but had been unsuccessful. She stated that the quality of the work was poor and that damage had been caused to her belongings when the works were being carried out. The resident stated that the issues with the back door and condensation in the bathroom remained the same. She confirmed that the windows had been replaced, but that she had been required to chase the landlord to complete the making good works which were completed in September 2023. The resident stated due to the ongoing issues, she wanted to move properties.

Assessment and findings

Window repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that when dealing with non-emergency repairs it will offer the resident an appointment within 28 days of a repair being reported.
  2. The evidence provided shows that the resident reported that the window frames in her property were rotting in December 2020. In its stage 1 response, the landlord identified that the windows had been measured on multiple occasions and quotes for replacing the windows had been provided. The landlord accurately identified that there had been a failure regarding the delays in replacing the windows. The repairs history shows that the resident was required to follow up with the landlord on several occasions to request updates on the window replacements. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging this failing and offering the resident compensation to remedy this. However, it did not state what action it would take to prevent the same issue occurring again. Given the excessive delays in replacing the windows, it ought to have identified learning.
  3. The landlord informed the resident that the windows had been ordered on 10 January 2023 and would take approximately a month to manufacture. The windows were fitted in the resident’s property on 25 April 2023, more than 3 months after they had been ordered. This reflects a further delay which the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response.
  4. It is unreasonable that almost 2 and a half years elapsed between the resident’s initial report to the landlord and the repairs taking place. Despite arranging for the windows to be measured and quotes to be obtained on several occasions, the landlord did not progress the repairs in line with its repairs policy. It is noted that the resident’s property is in a conservation area and the windows needed to be replaced with like-for-like windows. While this could have reasonably led to some delay, the amount of time taken to replace the windows was excessive. This was a clear failing by the landlord.
  5. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord did not complete the making good works in a timely manner following the window installation in April 2023. She stated that she was required to chase the landlord for an appointment to be arranged for this work to take place. She said that operatives attended in July and again in September 2023 to complete the work.
  6. The repairs log reflects that on 27 April 2023, the operative who had replaced the windows noted that they would need to return to complete decorative paint work. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 May 2023 and stated she had not yet been contacted about the making good works. She also requested that rubbish from the window repairs be removed from her back garden. The evidence indicates that an operative returned on 19 July 2023 and completed pointing works around the windows. Further appointments took place on 18 and 26 September 2023 to paint the window frames, which completed the works.
  7. Landlords should proactively complete any remedial works within a reasonable timeframe of the initial works being completed. The evidence indicates that the making good works were not completed until approximately 5 months after the windows were replaced, which reflects a further failing.
  8. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether suitable remedies have been offered in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  9. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s delays in completing the window replacements. She incurred time and trouble in continuing to report the matter and chasing the landlord up to request for the works to be completed.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the delays in replacing the windows in both its stage 1 and 2 responses and offered a total of £750 compensation in recognition of the failings identified. The £750 already offered is reasonable redress for the failings identified up until stage 2. However, an order has been made to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation in recognition of the further delays in completing the making good repairs. The overall compensation amount of £900 is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a failure which has had a significant impact on the resident.
  11. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord has learned from the outcome of the complaint. This amounts to a failing by the landlord to suitably remedy the complaint. An order has been made below for the landlord to conduct a review of its handling of the repairs and identify any measures that should be put in place to ensure timely handling of such repairs.

Back door repairs

  1. The resident reported that there were gaps around the back door which caused draughts into her property. The repairs history indicates that the resident initially reported this issue on 16 April 2021 and an inspection was carried out on 13 May 2021 which found that draught excluders were already fitted around the door.
  2. The repairs records reflect that on 19 October 2021, the resident reported that the door frame was rotting. The repair report also states that the front entrance door needed replacing. It is unclear from the notes which door the resident had reported was rotting however, the landlord’s stage 2 response confirms that this related to the rear door. An operative attended on 4 March 2022 and it was concluded that the rear kitchen door and door frame should be replaced. It is unreasonable that more than 4 months had elapsed before the door frame was inspected. It is unclear why this delay occurred or whether any attempts prior to this had been made to schedule an appointment. It is noted that an operative had attended on 21 January 2022 however, the evidence indicates that this visit was to inspect the front entrance door, rather than the rear door in the resident’s property.
  3. The evidence indicates that the resident further reported that the back door was stiff on 13 January 2023 and a repairs appointment was attended on 16 January 2023. In the stage 1 response, the landlord stated that the resident had confirmed that a repair had been completed which allowed the front and rear doors to close. However, the landlord did not comment on the contractor’s March 2022 recommendation that the door should be replaced.
  4. In the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that several jobs had been raised in an attempt to carry out the door replacement, and that an initial appointment was scheduled for 14 March 2023. This was a further significant delay. Landlords should complete repairs in a timely manner, and it is unreasonable that it took more than a year for an appointment to be made for the work to take place. Again, it is unclear why such a delay occurred.
  5. The landlord stated that the 14 March 2023 appointment was cancelled on the day due to staff sickness and weather conditions. It offered the resident £15 for the missed appointment. This was appropriate as it did not adhere to its 24-hour cancellation policy. It is unclear whether the resident was provided with an alternative date when this appointment was cancelled.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that after the door had been assessed in-house, it found that the door could be repaired and a replacement was not required. It is not clear when this inspection took place. The landlord said that it would repair the door frame where it was rotten at the bottom, splice 2 new legs with hardwood door seal and install draught excluders around the door. It said that these repairs would be carried out at the same time as the window repairs on 25, 26 and 27 April 2023.
  7. While it may have been reasonable to repair the door, the landlord should have completed its inspections as soon as possible so that it could provide clarity on the work that would take place. This inconsistency is likely to have caused frustration to the resident as her expectations were not met regarding the work that would be carried out.
  8. Repairs notes dated 27 April 2023 state that all major works had been completed over the 3 days, and decorative work was required, which was completed in September 2023.
  9. The repairs history indicates that the resident made a further report about the gaps around the top and bottom of her door in November 2023. She reported that the door was difficult to open and close and that black mould was growing on the inside of the wood. The evidence indicates that an operative attended on 17 November 2023. The notes of this visit state that the operative had eased and adjusted the door and fitted draught proofing. In March 2024, the resident informed the Ombudsman that, despite the November 2023 repair, there was still an issue with gaps and mould around the door.
  10. There were clear failings by the landlord to repair the door in line with its repairs policy and to communicate with the resident effectively about the repairs that would take place. The landlord acknowledged the poor communication and the ongoing delay and offered the resident £800 compensation in recognition of this at stage 2.
  11. The amount of compensation offered is reasonable redress for the failings identified and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a significant impact on the resident. However, there was a service failure by the landlord as there is no indication that it learned from the complaint. The landlord did not properly explain why such a delay had occurred or how it would avoid the identified failings from happening again. An order has been made below for the landlord to conduct a review and identify learning.
  12. Given that the resident has reported issues with the remedial works to the door and made further reports of draughts and mould, the landlord should contact the resident about the ongoing issues with the door and carry out a further inspection. An order has made in this regard below.

Noise

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy states that household noise caused by everyday living is not generally considered as ASB.
  2. It is unclear what date the resident initially reported a noise issue to the landlord. However, the evidence indicates that she was provided with incident sheets on 30 December 2021 to make records of the noise, and a ASB case was opened on 3 January 2022. The landlord noted that the diary sheets were returned on 21 February 2022.
  3. The landlord attended the property on 31 March 2022 to inspect the noise levels. While this was an appropriate action, the landlord ought to have arranged this visit sooner to ensure a timely response to the resident’s report. The landlord found that the there was a lack of sound insulation in the upstairs property, and it provided the resident with access to the Noise App. This was also an appropriate step so that evidence could be gathered in relation to the noise.
  4. The landlord documented that by 27 April 2022, the resident had submitted over 30 recordings via the Noise app and thumping, talking and slamming of doors could be heard. The landlord further visited the resident’s property on 5 May 2022 and a noise test was carried out, which identified that walking normally in the above flat sounded like deliberate thumping noises. As such, while it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the issue as ASB initially, the evidence indicates that the noise was everyday living noise, and therefore not deliberate.
  5. Following this visit, the landlord funded carpet and underlay in the upstairs property which was fitted on 14 June 2022. However, the resident reported that this made no difference to the noise levels. While it is regrettable that this had no impact on the noise, the landlord acted appropriately by conducting tests and installing the carpet in the first instance, as this could have resolved the noise transference issue.
  6. The evidence indicates that no action was taken for approximately 5 months due to a cyber incident which affected the landlord’s communication with residents. While the Ombudsman recognises that this was outside of the landlord’s control, the lack of communication and ongoing noise issue would have had a detrimental impact on the resident as she continued to live with the excessive noise.
  7. The landlord stated that on 1 November 2022, it was able to review 45 recordings submitted by the resident from June 2022 which evidenced that the same levels of noise could be heard as prior to the carpet being fitted.
  8. The landlord sought advice from a surveyor who stated that the property was constructed in line with building regulations at the time. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 30 November 2022 and conducted a further noise test. The landlord again found that walking normally in the flat above sounded like thumping noises in the resident’s flat. Following this visit, the landlord emailed the resident and explained that there was no scope to make adjustments to the property because it met building regulations at the time. The resident was advised that she could report the issue to Environmental Health, and that she may be considered for a priority move from the property.
  9. The landlord acted appropriately by seeking advice from a surveyor, conducting a further inspection of the noise, and offering the resident a possible priority move. However, it is recognised that these actions were significantly delayed due to the impact of the cyber incident.
  10. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it was exploring whether it would undertake soundproofing in the resident’s property. In January 2023 a referral was made to the landlord’s planned investment team regarding funding for soundproofing. This is in contrast to the information that had previously been provided that the landlord would not soundproof the property. Given the levels of noise transference, this was a reasonable outcome to the stage 1. However, it is noted that the landlord provided no timescales as to when it was likely to receive the outcome of the referral.
  11. In its stage 2 response dated 27 April 2023, the landlord stated that approval had been given at the start of April to fund soundproofing and that a specialist survey would be undertaken. It is unclear whether the landlord provided the resident with updates about the funding following the stage 1 response. Although the evidence suggests that it took more than 2 months for the funding to be approved, it would have been good customer service to update the resident about any ongoing delays. The landlord did not provide any proposed timescales for when the specialist survey would take place.
  12. There is no evidence to indicate that any action was taken in the months following the stage 2 response. The resident contacted her MP on 11 October 2023 and raised that nothing had been done to soundproof the property since the stage 2 response. Internal emails sent by the landlord state that the resident had declined a further inspection of the property because she was waiting to be moved to a new property. The landlord stated it had no record of when the resident had confirmed this, and no contemporaneous notes of such a discussion have been provided. As such, there is no clear record to support that the resident refused the inspection. If works are refused by a resident, this should be documented so that the audit trail of events is clear.
  13. The landlord contacted the resident in November 2023 and she confirmed that she wanted the property to be soundproofed. The evidence indicates that the survey took place in December 2023, which was approximately 7 months after the stage 2 response. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the soundproofing works were carried out in January 2024.
  14. The landlord is expected to take any actions set out in complaint responses within reasonable timeframes and proactively communicate with residents about work that will be undertaken. This was not done in this case, and the resident’s expectations were therefore not properly met. This amounts to a failing by the landlord.
  15. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  16. The resident raised that the noise transference had a significant detrimental impact on her mental and physical health. The resident was caused further distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failure to undertake action that it stated it would within the stage 2 response. The landlord’s communication with the resident following the stage 2 was poor, and the survey was only arranged once she had raised the matter with her MP.
  17. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of the delays in carrying out soundproofing in the property. This amount is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which has adversely affected the resident.
  18. The resident reported that the soundproofing works were unsuccessful as she can still hear noise from the upstairs property. She stated that the work was not carried out properly in the kitchen and the living room, and that her belongings were damaged as a result of the works.
  19. An order has been made below for the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to attend and inspect the soundproofing to establish whether it has had an impact on the noise transference issue. It should identify any additional works that can be carried out to improve this, if necessary.
  20. The Ombudsman cannot consider the issue raised regarding damage to the resident’s belongings. This is because we are unable to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she can complain to the landlord about the damage to her belongings. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The Ombudsman may then consider the landlord’s response to the matter, however it may be more appropriate for the resident to make a claim on her contents insurance or the landlord’s liability insurance.
  21. The resident informed the Ombudsman that she would like to move from the property. It is noted that a priority transfer had previously been suggested to the resident as a possible option. The landlord should seek to support the resident and provide advice on moving properties. An order has been made below in this regard.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s interim complaints policy states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged and logged within 10 working days of receipt and complaint responses will be provided within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. It states that the resident can request a peer review, which is the second stage of the complaints process. Requests will be acknowledged in 10 working days and responded to within 40 working days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These timeframes should not be exceeded without good reason. It is acknowledged that the interim policy was put in place after the cyber-attack. The landlord’s website indicates that from 1 April 2024, a new complaints policy will be implemented in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s code.
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 6 October 2022 and the landlord contacted her on 25 November 2022 to inform her that it had been allocated to a complaint handler. The stage 1 response was issued on 26 January 2023, which was approximately 78 days after the resident had raised her complaint. The landlord therefore did not adhere the timeframes set out within its complaints policy. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its stage 1 response and offered the resident £100 compensation.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 February 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on 14 February 2023. On 20 March 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and stated that a formal response would be provided within 20 working days. The stage 2 response was issued on 27 April 2023, which was approximately 54 working days after the resident escalated her complaint and 14 days outside of the timescales in the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
  5. The compensation offered is sufficient to remedy the delays at stage 1. However, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation in recognition of the further delay at stage 2.
  6. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it could not consider the resident’s complaint about condensation in the bathroom because she had not raised this as part of the stage 1 complaint. However, the landlord did not provide advice to the resident about raising a new complaint and there is no evidence that a new complaint about this matter was logged. This amounts to a further failing by the landlord. The resident informed the Ombudsman that she is still experiencing issues with the amount of condensation in the bathroom. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss this matter and establish whether the resident would like to raise this as a stage 1 complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the back door in the resident’s property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £2,265, comprised as follows:
    1. £900 for delays in completing the window repairs,
    2. £800 for delays in completing back door repairs,
    3. £400 for delays in soundproofing the property,
    4. £15 for the missed appointment,
    5. £150 for complaint handling.
  2. The above figures are inclusive of the £1,665 already offered by the landlord in its stage 1 and 2 responses, and the landlord should pay this directly to the resident if it has not already done so. An additional £600 compensation has been ordered by the Ombudsman.
  3. The landlord should conduct a review of its handling of the repairs to the windows in the resident’s property. It should identify any measures that can be put in place to ensure that repairs are progressed in a timely manner once quotes for works have been received. The landlord should inform the Ombudsman of the outcome of this review.
  4. The landlord should conduct a review of its handling of the repairs to the back door in the resident’s property. It should implement any measures to ensure timely repairs and that it is clear on what repairs it will undertake. The landlord should inform the Ombudsman of the outcome of this review.
  5. The landlord should conduct a further inspection of the back door in the resident’s property and identify any required repairs, which should then be completed within 8 weeks of the inspection. The outcome of this inspection and plan for any works should be provided to both the Ombudsman and the resident.
  6. The landlord should arrange for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property and conduct a follow-up inspection of the soundproofing to establish whether it has had an impact on the noise transference issue. If the landlord identifies that further work is required to soundproof the property, an action plan should be made and the identified work should then be completed within 8 weeks. The outcome of the surveyor’s inspection and the action plan should be provided to both the Ombudsman and the resident.
  7. The landlord should contact the resident to discuss the ongoing issue regarding excessive condensation in the bathroom and establish whether the resident would like to raise a stage 1 complaint about this matter.
  8. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.