Clarion Housing Association Limited (202111768)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111768

Clarion Housing Association Limited

06 January 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:

    a. the resident’s request for an inspection of her heating system;

    b. the associated complaint. 

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a first floor flat in a 19 storey block. She has lived there since 2010.
  2. The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s responsibilities to:

    a. annually inspect all gas-related appliances provided by the landlord as required by the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.

    b. keep in repair and working order any installations provided by the landlord for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity.

  3. The landlord’s complaints policy shows it operates a two-stage complaints process. A complaint progresses to a stage two peer review should the resident not accept the outcome of the stage one investigation. The policy does not specify the timeframes these two stages should be completed in. It says its principles are to keep the resident informed, put things right in reasonable timescales, and use the lessons learnt to improve its service and prevent future complaints.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy contains a framework for the provision of compensation, with reference to the impact on the resident. It gives the following relevant examples:

    a. £15 should be paid for each failure to keep an appointment without giving 24 hours’ notice.

    b. £50 to £250 should be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. It gives a calculation of £50 per failure per quarter.

    c. £250 to £700 should be used for cases with significant failure but no permanent impact on the resident.

  5. The Ombudsman recently published the findings of a systemic review carried out under paragraph 49 of the Ombudsman’s scheme, examining the landlord’s handling of various issues including repairs and complaints. The following observations and recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report are relevant to consider alongside the events in this case:

    a. The Ombudsman drew attention to cases where significant compensation had been offered at the end of a lengthy complaint process. The Ombudsman’s view is that whilst offering compensation may be appropriate in some cases, its use should not become routine and should be used as a last resort. The priority on the part of the landlord should be swift, effective complaint handling that enables learning to prevent future complaints.

    b. It was recommended that to enable effective service delivery, the landlord should ensure that a resident has a clear point of contact when dealing with ongoing issues or pursuing a formal complaint.

    c. The Ombudsman noted that the landlord has engaged positively and actively with the review and it has committed to implementing change and improving the service it delivers in future. It has asked the landlord to revise its complaints policy and publish this as soon as is practicable. The Ombudsman has recommended that residents are involved in the landlord’s development of an action plan aimed at improving its complaint handling.

  6. The resident told the Ombudsman she has experienced gas leaks on seven occasions during her time in the flat, and is therefore wary about gas safety. The Ombudsman has seen evidence relating to an incident that left her without gas for 15 days in June 2018, for which she was paid compensation by the landlord, and an incident in December 2019 which required an urgent repair. Historic leaks do not form part of this complaint, and this information is included to provide context.
  7. The landlord’s gas safety management policy does not specify what should happen following a leak being confirmed by the distributor. In its online guidance for residents in the event they smell gas or suspect a leak, the landlord specifies that after contacting the National Gas Emergency Helpline, the resident should arrange a safety inspection with their local gas contractor. Contact details for the gas contractor covering the resident’s postcode were not available when the Ombudsman checked the landlord’s website.

Summary of events

  1. The resident says she smelt gas on 15 December 2020, and contacted the distributor. The distributor manages the National Gas Emergency Service, and is independent of the landlord. The distributor’s engineer identified a leaking pipe and completed a repair without shutting down the boiler. The resident says she took her family to hospital to be checked, as they did not feel well.
  2. The landlord’s records show that on her return from hospital, on the morning of 16 December 2020, the resident reported the gas leak to the landlord and asked for her boiler to be checked to make sure it did not require any further repairs. The resident says she was told by the call handler to contact the distributor and that there was nothing more the landlord could do. The landlord confirms that no further action was taken at this point.
  3. On 30 December 2020, the resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord on her behalf. He repeated the resident’s request for an inspection of her heating system, and asked for the landlord to confirm whether the correct process had been followed during the resident’s initial call on 16 December 2020.
  4. The landlord’s contractor subsequently arranged an inspection for 8 January 2021, but mistakenly attended the wrong property. The landlord has explained this was not picked up at the time, and the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the contractor told the landlord the resident had not answered her door when it tried attending. The mistake was discovered by the landlord during its complaint investigation, when the landlord examined a photo the contractor had provided of the property it attended.
  5. The landlord responded to the councillor on 13 January 2021, advising that:

    a. the call handler did not need to book in an inspection during the resident’s call on 16 December 2020, because the distributor had made the heating system safe, left the gas on, and there were no further works recommended by the distributor.

    b. the resident’s gas appliances and pipework are inspected annually by its contractor. The last inspection was completed in June 2020 and the paperwork showed no leaks in the pipework were identified.

c. the landlord had now asked its contractor to contact the resident and book in an appointment to inspect the heating system, including pipework.

  1. Another appointment was made for 14 January 2021, and again the contractor mistakenly attended the wrong address. The landlord’s records show that as with the first visit, a photo of the property attended was supplied to the landlord and the mistake was only discovered during its complaint investigation. The records of communication between the landlord and contractor show that, at the time, they assumed the resident had not allowed access when there was no answer at the door they tried.
  2. The resident says she called the contractor on 14 January 2021 when that day’s appointment was missed, and it told her it had tried to attend but could not complete the visit for safety reasons. The resident has explained that she felt the contractor was not telling her the truth about this, which added to her upset.
  3. There is disagreement about the further arrangement of appointments, with both the resident and contractor alleging each cancelled and missed subsequent appointments. From the evidence seen, it has not been possible to reconcile these accounts. It is, however, agreed that the inspection remained outstanding. The contractor’s notes say that on 15 January 2021, it reported to the landlord its difficulty in gaining access to the property. Its notes say that, in response, the landlord advised it to close the job down if the resident refused works on 18 January 2021.
  4. The resident says she contacted the landlord on 17 January 2021 to advise it of the difficulty she was having in getting the inspection appointment sorted, and asked for one of the landlord’s managers to respond to her. The resident says she instead received a call from a manager at the contractor on 19 January 2021, and at that point she told the contractor she had lost confidence in it attending, and in the quality of the work it would carry out if it did. The resident says the contractor told her she would need to submit a formal complaint if she wanted the landlord to arrange for someone else to attend.
  5. On 10 February 2021 the resident’s councillor submitted a stage one complaint on her behalf. Her concerns were outlined as below:

    a. the casual approach by the contractor to appointments, and its failure to let her and other residents know when it won’t be attending

    b. the contractor was lying to her and trying to cover up its service failures, citing phone calls and conversations that she says never happened

    c. she had been left to deal with the contractor, and wanted the landlord to take more responsibility to ensure the inspection it had requested was carried out

    d. she wanted the landlord’s gas auditor to carry out the inspection of her boiler, which she said would give her confidence that it was done correctly

    e. she wanted a written apology from a senior staff member at the landlord’s contractor, for the way it had treated her

    f. she wanted clarity on whether the landlord’s call handler should have booked in an inspection when she called on 16 December 2021.

  6. On 15 February 2021 the councillor chased an acknowledgement from the landlord, and asked that the resident be contacted to confirm her complaint was being looked into. The landlord responded to the councillor the next day and said it had asked its gas auditor to contact the resident to arrange an inspection.
  7. On 17 February 2021 the landlord’s gas auditor attended the resident’s home and carried out an inspection of the system. The landlord’s records show the auditor identified the following issues requiring remedial works:

    a. the condense pipe under the sink was leaking

    b. the left hand circuit board bracket board had split

    c. the hot water dial was broken, which meant the temperature couldn’t be changed

  8. The landlord referred these works to its gas contractor, and an appointment was made for 22 February 2021. The contractor says it attended and there was no access given, and the resident says no-one turned up. It has not been possible to confirm which account is correct, from the evidence seen by the Ombudsman. The landlord says the contractor has shown it a photo of the resident’s door and that it accepts this as proof of the contractor’s attendance. This is disputed by the resident and the local councillor, who say the photo is of the communal entry door to the block. The records provided by the landlord show that the councillor contacted it on 24 February 2021, to express concern at this further missed appointment.
  9. The contractor attended the resident’s home on 4 March 2021 and completed the repairs that had been identified by the auditor. It also noted a fuse spur switch would need replacement.
  10. The contractor attended to replace the switch on 9 March 2021 and reported no access was given. In its later complaint response, the landlord recognised there is no record of the resident being notified of the appointment ahead of the contractor’s visit. The repair to the switch was completed on 11 March 2021.
  11. On 30 March 2021, 34 working days after the stage one complaint was submitted, the resident’s councillor chased the landlord for a written response. No information has been to seen to show the landlord responded in the subsequent 58 working days. On 24 June 2021 it contacted the resident to ask whether she still wanted an investigation of the points that had been raised on her behalf by the councillor. The resident confirmed on 2 July 2021 that she did.
  12. On 21 July 2021 the landlord’s contractor sent the resident a letter which apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the missed appointments, and offered £30 in compensation. The letter did not specify how many missed appointments the contractor had identified, but it said that additional training had been provided to all involved. 
  13. On 30 July 2021 the landlord issued a final stage two written response to the resident. It said:

    a. it had progressed the case straight to stage two because it had not previously raised a stage one complaint. It apologised for the delay in registering the complaint and offered £50 compensation for this. It offered a further £50 compensation for the time taken to complete the stage two complaint.

    b. it did not find failure in the decision by the call handler not to book an inspection during the resident’s call on 16 December 2020. It expects residents to contact the distributor directly if they suspect a gas leak, and would expect the distributor to notify its gas contractor if any follow-on work was required.

    c. it recognised that two appointments, on 8 and 14 January 2021, were missed due to the contractor attending the incorrect address, and apologised for the confusion this caused. Regarding other appointments, it said the resident had cancelled an appointment for 15 January 2021 and it was satisfied the contractor had attended on 22 February 2021. It did not reference 13 January 2021. To put things right, it had asked the contractor to apologise in writing for the missed appointments and it offered the resident a total of £30 compensation for two missed appointments (at £15 each). It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by the time it had taken to complete the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s request for an inspection of her heating system

  1. It is recognised that the resident had concerns about the safety of her heating system and it is reasonable to conclude she was seeking reassurance as soon as possible. The resident’s concerns about other residents are acknowledged, but the complaint she has brought to the Ombudsman is an individual one and that is what is focussed on in this investigation. 
  2. In addition to the resident’s own concerns, the landlord’s guidance to residents encourages the arrangement of an inspection by its gas contractor after the national gas emergency line is contacted.  Whilst it is reasonable for the landlord to expect the distributor to notify it of any recommendations or follow up work needed after it attends a callout, the guidance does not make this clear. A reasonable course of action would therefore have been for the landlord to advise the resident of this in its call with her on 16 December 2020, and to explain why it decided not to book in an inspection on that occasion. In the event, this was not done clearly and it was inappropriate for the call handler to direct the resident to contact the distributor with her request for a follow-up inspection. This service failure resulted in confusion for the resident and added to her distress.
  3. When the first appointment was missed, the resident asked the landlord for help to make sure the inspection was completed. The resident went on to experience further distress and inconvenience when additional appointments were missed, and it was understandable that this caused her frustration. Despite repeated requests from the resident and her local councillor for the landlord to step in and ensure the inspection was carried out, the evidence provided by the landlord shows it accepted the contractor’s assertion that it was the resident who was preventing the inspection from being completed. There was a lack of customer focus evident in the landlord’s failure to contact the resident directly once she asked for help, and this amounted to a significant failure in service.
  4. The resident specified there were four missed appointments on 8, 13, 14 and 16 January 2021, and that she had experienced the inconvenience of waiting in for each one. Furthermore, the resident raised concerns that on 14 January 2021, the contractor had not told her the truth about why it did not attend, and that it continued to portray its subsequent communication inaccurately to the landlord. In its response, the landlord accepted that appointments had been missed on 8 and 14 January, but it did not address the points regarding missed appointments on 13 and 16 January, or the resident’s wider concerns regarding the statements made by the contractor. The result is that the resident considers she is owed compensation for two appointments left unaddressed by the complaint response, and has been left with little confidence that lessons have been learned from her experience.
  5. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  6. The landlord has not provided evidence to suggest the correct procedures were followed on 13 or 16 January 2021, and reasonable redress for these service failures would therefore be for it to compensate the resident for the inconvenience she experienced. The landlord’s policy sets this at £15 per missed appointment, however that amount does not satisfactorily address the compounded impact of several missed appointments and the associated communication that added to the resident’s distress in this case. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to offer additional compensation. It is recognised that the landlord offered £50 for inconvenience caused by the time taken to complete the repairs.

Handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy when it did not register the resident’s complaint on receipt, resulting in a delay of approximately four months. This caused the resident additional time and trouble, both in having to chase a response and waiting for things to be put right, and so it is appropriate that the landlord recognised this failure in its stage two response and offered compensation for this. The total compensation offered for the delays in handling the complaint totalled £100 and is considered satisfactory redress for these failings.
  2. The landlord failed to fully identify, and therefore respond to, all points raised by the resident, which left her dissatisfied with its response. This included the failure to address two missed appointments and a request from the resident that learning was identified from her experience, so that she could be confident she would not have the same experience in future. The landlord did not address the serious allegation that its contractor was not telling the truth to the resident or the landlord, which caused the resident particular concern. 
  3. It is not clear why the landlord bypassed the first stage of its complaints process, exhausting its internal complaints process when it first responded to the resident and identifying her only recourse for review as the Ombudsman. This was a missed opportunity to allow the resident to ask for the gaps in the response to be addressed by the landlord, and therefore reduced the possibility for the complaint to be resolved internally.
  4. The failure of the landlord to fully identify and respond to all points raised by the resident in her complaint therefore constitutes maladministration. It caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble, and prevented the identification of ways to put things right and implement learning. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for an inspection of her heating system. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The lack of customer focus in both the call with the resident on 16 December 2020, and the subsequent failure of the landlord to speak to the resident when she requested help, was inappropriate and caused the resident time and trouble. 
  2. As identified in the Ombudsman’s systemic review, failure to register and then progress a complaint in a timely way causes unnecessary distress to residents. That was the case here, and the landlord offered no explanation in its complaint response as to why there had been a delay, or how it would take any learnings from this failure.
  3. The landlord did not fully identify the issues raised by the customer in her complaint, and the response was therefore incomplete. This added to the customer’s concern that the appropriate learning had not taken place.
  4. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy, progressing the complaint straight to stage two. It did not explain its rationale for this. In this instance, it is fair to expect that a peer review may have allowed the resident to raise her concerns regarding the outstanding elements of her complaint, saving her time and trouble.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident a total of £410 compensation within four weeks from the date of this report. This is to be comprised of:

    a. the £180 it previously offered, if it has not already been paid

    b. £30 for the missed appointments on 13 and 16 January 2021

    c. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its failure to fully identify and respond to the points raised by the resident, and for its failure to provide a two-stage internal complaint process.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord implement the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s systemic review in full, providing the Ombudsman with evidence of the changes it has made, where it has been requested.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its gas safety management policy to ensure it contains clear information about who is responsible for liaison with the national gas emergency service and distributor, and what should happen when a gas leak is confirmed. Training on this should be provided to the staff in its call centre and the communications on its website should be updated to reflect its current position.