Clarion Housing Association Limited (202302704)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302704

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of window defects.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of noise from building works.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a shared owner of the landlord, a housing association, since 2015. The property is a 2 bedroom, first floor flat.
In 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord, which included that the window frames were bubbling, peeling and leaking. The landlord replied that the manufacturer of the windows was responsible for resolving these issues.
In early 2021, the landlord agreed with the developer that it would fit replacement beading to the windows as an interim measure to prevent further leaks. The resident confirmed in April 2021 that this had been completed, but there were still issues with the window frames which needed resolving.

Summary of events

In December 2021, the landlord set up a ‘task and finish group’ to monitor the progress of defects at the block, including the windows. The group was made up of landlord staff from various departments and residents. It met with the resident that month and told her its development team were leading on the window issue.
The following month the landlord confirmed that the developer had accepted responsibility to resolve the window defects. It had asked for updates from the developer and its contractor. The following month, the landlord advised that a painting solution that had been trialed was not satisfactory. It subsequently inspected windows in the block (not the resident’s) with the developer and their contractor to consider alternative solutions.
On 20 May 2022, the landlord confirmed that its developer had suggested 2 options it would like to investigate to resolve the window defects. It explained what these were and that it would carry out a pilot of both options and then assess the results and recommendations with the residents. If both were successful, it was happy to give residents a choice about which one they wanted. It asked for volunteer properties to allow the pilot works to be trialed.
The following month, the resident raised concerns about the level of noise from the builders at the block. She said their cabin was outside her property and they were using a stereo to play music. She worked from home and asked for more consideration of this. The landlord replied that it would speak with the site manager to ensure that noise levels were kept to a minimum.
In July 2022, pilot works to 2 properties (not the resident’s) were carried out. Residents agreed their preferred option and the developer carried out surveys of affected properties in August 2022. It booked works to start in October 2022, but this did not go ahead due to the operative being unavailable for personal reasons.
On 13 October 2022, the resident reported that noise from building works was making it impossible for her to work from home. The noise meant she was having to travel into her place of work on a regular basis to be able to do her job. This was inconvenient and impacting her financially as she was incurring additional travel costs. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for the additional expenses incurred.
A week later, the resident reiterated that request and the landlord replied the same day that it would not reimburse travel expenses as the works being carried out were in line with building regulations. These allowed contractors to work Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm and Saturdays 8am to 1pm. It explained that it had taken steps to minimise the impact of the works by:
1. Limiting the working hours. It would not carry out noisy works before 8am or after 5pm and would only work on a Saturday when necessary.
2. Placing a weekly report on the noticeboard in the communal area to tell residents if works were expected to be noisier than usual. This would help residents to make plans around the works.
3. Carrying out works level by level, which would help to minimise the noise to the whole block at any one time.
4. It could also trial placing works on a temporary hold for 30 to 60 minutes if she needed to take an important call. It would need advance notice of this and how long she required. It would closely monitor the number of requests received as too many could affect the project completion deadline.
The next day, the resident replied that the works were required because the building had failed a fire safety inspection, in relation to the cladding. When she purchased the property she expected it to be constructed to a high standard and in line with building safety regulations at the time, but it was not. She accepted that works needed to be carried out but the impact of this had been significant. She had to turn down work because she had been unable to do it from home because of the noise. The measures suggested were insufficient to address the level of disruption caused by the noise.
The resident elaborated that she was a voice over artist, which meant she needed to record using a microphone and needed quiet to allow her to work. When she was working in her home studio, which was sound-proofed, the noise was still audible. This had resulted in her having to travel to another location to record, which was costing her £14 a day. She asked to escalate this to the appropriate person or to raise it as a formal complaint, if required. The landlord replied on 24 October 2022 that it had referred the matter to its complaints department.
In early November 2022, the landlord apologised for the continued delay to the window works. It was following up with the developer for a new plan and potential start date for these to go ahead. Two days later it confirmed that the developer had escalated the issue and was chasing the contractor urgently. Due to personal circumstances, the operative from the contractor was isolating and could not visit numerous properties. It would rather not use another company and was trying to arrange another operative to take on the work. The new operative would be attending to carry out another pilot to ensure their work was to the required standard.
On 9 November 2022, the resident made a complaint about the window defects. She said she had reported this more than 2 years ago but the landlord was no further forward in resolving the matter. She had been let down by contractors and disappointed on numerous occasions. Her windows were peeling with damaged frames and mismatched beading. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response regarding the building work noise on 15 November 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding. A senior member of staff had reviewed the resident’s request for compensation to cover travel expenses and declined this. It was able to place works on a temporary hold for around 30 minutes if needed. The noise levels had dropped significantly over the last few weeks as they had progressed and only required intermittent drilling for short periods.
Later that month, the landlord advised the resident that an alternative company was being used for the window works and would be carrying out pilot works that week. These went ahead but subsequently feedback was given that they were to a poor standard.
On 24 November 2022, the resident asked if the landlord could reduce the noise from the building works for 20 to 30 minutes. She needed to do some last minute emergency recordings and could not travel to the office. The landlord spoke to the resident and agreed to this but subsequently called back and told her that the builders had refused to stop working.
Six days later, the resident asked to escalate her complaint about the noise from building works to stage 2. She said that the suggested measures had not resolved the issues. When the builders had refused to pause the works the previous week, the landlord was unable to provide an alternative solution. This meant she had to continue going to a studio once a week and incur travel costs.
On 13 December 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response regarding the window defects. It apologised for the delayed response and summarised the actions taken to date. The developer had given feedback to the contractor regarding the second, unsuccessful pilot. It was trying to engage the contractor that carried out the original pilot and was waiting for a response, including a start date. It would continue to provide monthly updates via email and meetings.
In December 2022 and January 2023, the resident asked for updates on the window works on 4 occasions.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint regarding the window defects to stage 2 on 4 January 2023. She said the stage 1 complaint was not properly investigated. These issues had been ongoing for 3 years, with little or no progress being made. She asked for compensation for the stress and inconvenience and for a start date for the works, by the end of the month.
The same month, the landlord acknowledged that it should have supported residents in seeking a resolution to the defect issues earlier. It offered £1,200 compensation for the 3 years the defect issues had taken to resolve. This was calculated at £200 per household per year for the delays and a further £200 per household for the inconvenience these issues caused. If the works were delayed further, it would consider awarding additional compensation.
Three days later, pilot works scheduled to start that day in another property were cancelled due to staff sickness.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response regarding the window defects, which said:
1. It apologised for the delayed response and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this.
2. The problems with the windows had been ongoing for some time, and the works to address them had been delayed. It was satisfied that regular updates had been provided but understood the resident’s frustration at the time taken to resolve this matter. The works to the windows were being carried out by a specialist contractor. The scope of works required had been recommended by a specialist window company in line with the warranty.
3. It summarised the actions taken to date, including the various pilot works. The upcoming pilot had been delayed due to unexpected sickness. These works had been provisionally booked for week commencing 6 March 2023 and it anticipated these would be completed in 5 days. Once this work had been approved by residents, it would schedule an appointment with her to complete the works in her property.
4. It had offered £1,200 compensation to all affected residents in previous communication. This was in line with its compensation policy and appropriate redress at that stage. As repairs were still outstanding, it would contact her by April 2023 to offer further compensation, if there were further delays in completing the works.
Five days later, the resident asked for additional compensation in relation to the landlord’s handling of the window defects. She said that 3 years on she was still chasing a resolution to the issue. There had been many delays and excuses made and she was exhausted and frustrated. The windows looked terrible and this would cause problems when she tried to sell the property, which she wanted to do as soon as possible. She had spent a lot of time and effort in liaising with the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this and her request to escalate her complaint about the noise issues the following day. It said that, due to the complexities of the case, it could take up to 40 working days to respond.
In early March 2023, further pilot works were completed (not in the property) and subsequently agreed to be an acceptable standard. The landlord updated the resident via newsletter that month and advised it would be in touch shortly to arrange appointments.
On 14 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response regarding the noise from building works. Its decision regarding payment of compensation for travel expenses remained the same. It had offered to place the works on temporary hold if the resident needed to make an important call or meeting. It had reviewed her other complaint about window defects in light of the additional information provided in her email the previous month. It had concluded that the outcome remained the same, including the compensation offer of £1,200, which was for its handling of all the defects, including the windows.
The resident replied 3 days later and said that the stage 2 response regarding the noise repeated what was said at stage 1, despite her raising additional issues. One of the suggested solutions was unsuccessful as the builders declined to pause the works when requested. She waited 105 days for the stage 2 response but was only awarded £50 compensation. She was aware another resident had been awarded £250 for delays in complaint handling and felt this was unfair. She had been refused additional compensation regarding the windows but another resident had been awarded £600. She was being treated differently and concluded she was being discriminated against.
The landlord replied later that month that its decision in respect of her complaint remained the same. It would investigate the compensation award for the other resident and confirmed its action plan was to be consistent in its approach. This was its final response regarding her complaints as they had exhausted its complaints procedure. The next step for her to escalate her complaint was to this Service. Three days later it told her that it would increase the compensation offer regarding the delay in complaint handling to £250.
During a residents’ meeting the following month, which the resident attended, concerns were raised about beading which had been replaced by the developer, but was not an exact match. This would be an issue when selling the properties and would impact the value. The landlord said it had tried to challenge this with the developer but had been advised that as close a match as possible had been found. Residents asked the landlord to take legal action against the developer on their behalf. The landlord said it would not do this as the remaining issue was an aesthetic one and not structural.
On 21 April 2023, the resident escalated her complaints to this Service. She explained her concerns about the building noise and the impact on her work. She said the landlord submitted that noise levels had reduced but this was not true and she provided recordings showing that the noise was still loud. She explained that the long outstanding works had caused her stress and anxiety and taken up a huge amount of her time and effort. The resident reiterated her concerns about the condition of the windows and the impact on the value of the property, as well as concerns about the landlord’s inconsistent and unfair response to different residents’ complaints. She wanted the windows repaired and the beading replaced. When this was originally replaced the landlord said it was temporary as it did not match but had since changed its position on this and said the beading would remain.
On unknown dates, but no later than 31 August 2023, the landlord completed the defect works to the resident’s windows. In December 2023, the landlord noted that there had been further delays to the defect works, which meant they had continued into a fourth year. Therefore, it processed additional compensation payments of £400 per household, including the resident, in recognition of the additional delays and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the window defects were first reported in 2020. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
While the resident did raise a complaint about the windows in 2020, this did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. It was not until November 2022, when a further complaint was raised, that it exhausted that process. Therefore, the scope of this investigation is limited to events occurring 12 months prior to the complaint made in November 2022. Events prior to November 2021 are considered for context, but not formally assessed or determined as part of this investigation.

Handling of window defects

As the window issues were identified as defects, it was reasonable that the developer was responsible for resolving them. While the landlord was not responsible for carrying out works to resolve the issue, it was responsible for ensuring the developer took action, in a timely manner, to address and resolve it.
The Ombudsman recognises that this was a challenging situation for the landlord to manage. The issues affected more than 20 households and were not straight forward to resolve, due to the specialist nature of the works. The records provided show that the landlord was dealing with the developer, the manufacturer, contractors and sub-contractors and that there were a number of issues outside of its control that delayed the works.
The landlord has acknowledged that there were delays in the works being carried out and the Ombudsman recognises that this was frustrating for the resident. The delays were due to unforeseen and unexpected circumstances and from the records provided, the landlord took reasonable steps to chase the developer, manufacturer and contractors for progress to be made, during the period under investigation here. It is acknowledged that there may have been poor handling of this issue prior to November 2021, but this falls outside the scope of this investigation and so has not been assessed.
It was sensible of the landlord to set up a ‘task and action group’ to monitor the progress of the works, which was made up of landlord staff and residents. The notes from a meeting in January 2022 indicate there was some initial resistance from its development team regarding attending the meetings and taking on actions to progress this matter. The landlord should have ensured that it had the required staff members to attend meetings before starting these with residents. Its failure to do this was upsetting for the resident and made her feel the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
The notes indicate that this issue was escalated and following this, progress was made, which was reassuring for the resident. The records provided confirm that this group, including residents, met regularly between December 2021 and August 2023. This was appropriate to ensure the matter was closely monitored. Similarly, the landlord provided updates to residents via group meetings, estate walkabouts and newsletters, all of which were sensible considering the issue affected a number of households in the block.
While reasonable steps were taken to update residents as a collective, the landlord was not responsive to the resident’s individual contacts in late 2022 and early 2023. During that period, she made contact on at least 5 occasions, asking for updates, before a full response was provided. This was frustrating for her and caused her to lose faith in the landlord.
When residents raised concerns about mis-matched beading, the landlord challenged this with the developer. This was reasonable and showed that it took the concerns seriously. Ultimately, the developer refused to change this and, while frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s decision not to progress legal action against the developer in respect of this was reasonable for the reasons it gave.
The period assessed by this investigation is November 2021 to the completion of the window works in the resident’s property. In that time, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the issue, mainly in relation to its communication. Therefore, in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, compensation of £300 is considered fair and reasonable for the service failures identified during the period of investigation.
The landlord has offered a total of £1,600 compensation in respect of its handling of the window, and other defects. As the amount required to address its handling of the window defects during the period of this investigation is less than the total amount offered; the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident in that regard. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident the £300 compensation already offered, if not done so already, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure.

Response to the resident’s reports of noise from building works

The resident has said that the works that caused the noise were required because of faults in how the block was built. The circumstances that led to these works being required have not been investigated by the Ombudsman. However, regardless of the reason, as they were essential fire safety works, it was necessary for the landlord to carry them out.
When the resident first reported noise from the building works, the landlord raised this with the site manager. This was reasonable and showed that it took her concerns seriously.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that noisy building works can be disruptive for residents, particularly those that work from home. Where extensive building works are required, it is important that landlords take practical steps to minimise the noise where possible and provide as much detail as it can about the works. However, landlords also have to balance this with the need to ensure that works are completed in a timely manner.
In this case, the landlord told the resident the steps it had taken to minimise the impact of the works, which were reasonable. It offered the option to pause works for short periods, which was very accommodating; but when the resident asked it to do this, it declined. When the landlord initially offered this option, it was on the basis that any requests were made in advance. Therefore, while frustrating for the resident that it declined her request, this was reasonable as it was made with no advance warning.
The resident has told this Service that the landlord never provided the weekly reports it committed, but there is no record that she raised this issue with the landlord. This meant the landlord had no opportunity to put this right or to consider this issue as part of its response to her formal complaint.
The nature of the resident’s job meant that she needed quiet conditions for hours at a time in order to make recordings. In this unique circumstance, it was not the landlord’s responsibility to provide the specific workplace requirements for the resident to be able to carry out her job in the property. As this is a residential property, the expectation of prolonged quiet conditions cannot always be guaranteed.
Where residents work from home and require very specific conditions in order to carry out their job, this is the responsibility of their employer to provide. In this case, the resident confirmed she had a sound-proof studio, but said the noise from the building works could still be heard. While frustrating for her, this was not the responsibility of the landlord to address or resolve. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to compensate the resident for her travel expenses was reasonable.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from building works.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint said that it would log and acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being logged and stage 2 within 40 working days.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged the complaint about noise in 2 working days and provided the stage 1 response 17 working days later. This was in line with the committed timescales set out in its complaints policy at the time.
When the resident asked to escalate her complaint in November 2022, the landlord did not acknowledge this until 52 working days later and provided the response in a total of 72 working days. Both of these timescales were significantly over the commitments set out in its complaints policy at the time.
When the resident complained about the window defects, the landlord acknowledged this in 1 working day, which was in line with the committed timescale set out in its complaints policy at the time. The stage 1 response was provided 24 working days later, which was slightly over the committed response time and so only a minor delay.
When the resident asked to escalate the complaint about the window defects in January 2023, there is no record that the landlord acknowledged this, which is not in line with its policy commitments. However, it provided the stage 2 response in 26 working days, which was within the committed response time set out in its complaints policy at the time.
The resident raised concerns about inconsistencies in the landlord’s approach to compensation in respect of the window defects and complaint handling. The Ombudsman will not investigate the circumstances of the neighbour to make a comparison, but will assess the landlord’s response to the resident in relation to her concern.
It is understandable that, in some circumstances, different amounts of compensation are required for residents who have experienced the same service failures. This is because service failure can impact people differently, depending on their individual circumstances. Ultimately, the landlord must ensure that its approach is fair and consistent, and where possible, explain the reasons for any differences to residents.
In this case, the landlord has not explained to the resident why an increased amount of compensation was offered to the neighbour in respect of the window defects. This amounts to maladministration and has caused the resident to feel that the landlord has discriminated against her.
The landlord has told this Service that the increased amount was paid to the neighbour in error. Considering the complexities of this matter and the length of time the issues went on, it is understandable that this error occurred. While frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord declined to increase the amount of compensation offered to her, as the additional amount offered to the neighbour was done so in error, rather than in recognition of service failure or detriment.
While the landlord’s decision was reasonable, it should have explained how it reached this decision to provide reassurance to the resident that it was not discriminating against her or treating her unfairly. An order has been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident for this communication failure.
The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation in respect of its complaint handling. Considering the full circumstances of the case and the impact on the resident, this amount is considered insufficient. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made and a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
In consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation for its complaint handling, inclusive of the £250 already offered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of window defects.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise from building works.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the communication failure in its complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident £350 compensation for its complaint handling (including the £250 already offered, if not done so already).
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the resident the £300 compensation already offered in respect of its handling of the window defects, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of these sums being paid to the resident, as they recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
The landlord to update this Service on its intentions regarding the above recommendation within 4 weeks.