Clarion Housing Association Limited (201901347)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201901347

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 February 2021

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 response to reports of:
1. broken paving slabs;
2. defective street lighting; and
3. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that started in 2008. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a block. The resident has learning disabilities.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that residents can report repairs to it by telephone, email or via its website. Repairs to communal areas should be dealt with dependent upon the nature of the work (emergency or non‑emergency) but must always be completed within 28 days. The landlord’s website sets out what it has repair responsibilities for and this includes paved areas.
Due to the pandemic, the landlord introduced a critical repairs service from 24 March 2020.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a two-stage formal complaints procedure. The procedure said that a customer may request escalation to stage two. No timescales were specified in the policy for responding at either stage.

Summary of events

On 21 January 2019 the resident told the landlord that three streetlights on the estate and some perimeter lights were not working. He also said two lights also came on in daylight.
On 12 February 2019 the landlord responded to an enquiry from a local councillor on behalf of the resident saying it had completed repairs to the faulty streetlights on 6 February 2019.
On 8 April 2019 the landlord responded to an enquiry from a councillor acting on behalf of the resident (the councillor). It said that no further problems with lighting had been made to its repairs team since the repairs on 6 February 2019. With regards to broken paving slabs, the landlord said its neighbourhood officer carried out regular estate inspections; they would continue to monitor the area and ensure repairs were made to paving slabs where they posed a health and safety risk.
On 28 May 2019 the landlord responded to a further enquiry from the councillor. It said that it had carried out several repairs to the lights, lamp posts and the lighting circuit on the estate and had ensured that all available lights were functional. Since then it was continuing to monitor the lights on the estate. The landlord added it had had no other concerns raised about the street lighting and said it would be helpful if the resident could clarify which area he considered did not have adequate lighting. The landlord added that, before the councillor’s enquiry, it had identified flagstones that needed to be re-laid and work on those should be completed by 31 May 2019.
On 1 July 2019 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about broken street lighting and paving stones on the estate. In a call with the landlord that day, the resident discussed these matters and identified one streetlight (LA31) that was out of order.
On 9 July 2019, following reports of streetlights being out of order by the landlord and a different resident, the contractor noted that it had fitted three new lamps to streetlights LA15, LA29 and LA31, reset the timers and all three lights were working correctly.
On 11 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident thanking him for speaking with it on 1 July 2019 (this letter was incorrectly dated 11 June 2019). It confirmed it had carried out repairs to three streetlights and had completed works to the alleyway light column which was left in working order. With regards to paving slabs it said it had identified flagstones that needed to be re‑laid and had completed that work. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident.
On 19 July 2019 the resident told the landlord that the uneven paving slab he had identified had not been repaired. The landlord raised a new job and a repair was carried out on 1 August 2019. On 5 August 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to tell him about that repair.
On 19 August 2019 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one of its formal complaints procedure in respect of his complaint about paving and street lighting. It gave details of the action it had taken in respect of the damaged paving slabs and faulty streetlighting. The landlord explained how the resident could escalate his complaint.
On 16 September 2019, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two of its formal complaints procedure. The landlord contacted the resident on 19 September 2019 asking for details of why he was dissatisfied with the stage one response and what outcome he was seeking to his complaint. It asked him to respond by 24 September 2019. As the landlord did not hear anything further from the resident, it closed the complaint.
On 10 October 2019 the resident made a new complaint which included his concerns about the poor level of lighting in a street on the estate (Street A).
Following further contact from this Service, on 21 October 2019 the landlord said it had not heard from the resident when it had tried to escalate the complaint previously (paragraph 15) but would do so.
On 8 November 2019 the landlord responded to the resident’s new complaint at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. It explained that Street A was adopted by the local council and therefore it did not have any jurisdiction. It said it had contacted the council about this matter through their web page and gave the reference but had not had a response. The landlord said it suggested the resident also contact the council as more reports might persuade them to take action.
On 25 November 2019 the resident’s representative asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
On 4 May 2020 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to clarify the status of the resident’s complaint with him.
On 18 May 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident who identified where he considered paving slabs required repair. The landlord explained it was only carrying out emergency repairs at that time (paragraph 4).
On 20 May 2020 a street lighting engineer who works for the local authority told the resident that a footpath between Street A and another road was owned and maintained by the landlord.
On 10 June 2020 the landlord issued its final response under its formal complaints procedures. It said:
1. the resident had indicated where on the estate he believed there were broken paving slabs and it would inspect the area to identify repairs which would be carried out when it was permitted to carry out such work again.
2. In respect of Street A, the local authority had advised that they had adopted Street A under their Highways Scheme and therefore were responsible for lighting issues. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said issues relating to paving and street lighting were still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The evidence provided by the landlord showed that the resident has reported repairs required to street paving and lighting since at least 2017. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme limits the Ombudsman’s consideration of a case to issues that have been raised with both the landlord and the Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe. As such, this investigation has focussed on events that occurred from the start of 2019 which is when the resident’s recent reports of repairs commenced.
The Ombudsman can only consider matters included in the formal complaint to the landlord; therefore, the recent paving issues that the resident raised with this Service cannot be considered as part of this complaint. It is open to the resident to report these issues as repairs in the usual way (paragraph 3) and raise a formal complaint if he is unhappy about how the landlord dealt with this.

Broken paving slabs

Following a call with the resident on 1 July 2019 (paragraph 10, the landlord identified and repaired broken paving slabs (paragraph 12). When the resident expressed his concern that the landlord had not repaired the broken slab he had identified, the landlord carried out a further repair (paragraph 13). The action taken by the landlord was appropriate as it carried out these repairs within 28 days in line with its repair procedure (paragraph 3).
The landlord acted reasonably by giving assurances to the resident, by way of its response to an enquiry from the councillor, of how it identified broken paving slabs on the estate in need of repair (paragraph 8).
When the resident reported further repairs in May 2020, the landlord acted reasonably by undertaking to inspect and carry out the repairs as soon as it could, given the restriction to its service because of the pandemic (paragraph 21). There was no service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of broken paving slabs.

Streetlighting

The resident reported out of order streetlights on 21 January 2019 (paragraph 6) which the landlord repaired by 6 February 2019 (paragraph 7). The resident’s report of a further broken streetlight on 1 July 2019 was repaired on 9 July 2019 (paragraph 11). The action taken by the landlord was appropriate because it carried out the repair within the timescales set out in its repairs policy (paragraph 3).
When the resident reported poor visibility on Street A, the landlord acted appropriately by looking into whether streetlighting on this road was its responsibility or that of the local authority. Having established it was not its responsibility, the landlord wrote to the resident about that. It also acted reasonably by reporting these concerns to the local authority itself and encouraging the resident to do the same (paragraph 18). There was no service failure by the landlord in its response to repairs or concerns the resident raised about streetlighting.
The statement from the street engineer refers to a pathway from Street A, not Street A itself. It appears there may be some confusion as to the area the resident is concerned about. I have made a recommendation about this, below.

Complaint handling

The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the resident’s formal complaint of 1 July 2019 (paragraph 10) on 19 August 2019 (paragraph 14) because it had written to him on two occasions about the issues raised in the meantime on 11 July and 5 August 2019 (paragraphs 12 and 13).
The resident approached this Service at that stage and the Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. When the resident did not respond to an enquiry from the landlord (paragraph 15), its decision to close the complaint at that stage was reasonable because it had no information on why he was dissatisfied with the stage one response.
Following further contact from this Service, the landlord agreed to issue a stage two response (paragraph 17). However, it did not do so. Given its assurance that it would issue a stage two response, this was not reasonable because the complainant was expecting a further complaint response that would have enabled him to approach the Ombudsman. This meant that any complaint to this Service was delayed and led to inconvenience and frustration to the resident.
The resident made a further complaint at about this time (paragraph 16). The landlord acted appropriately by responding to it the following month (paragraph 18). However, following the resident’s request for escalation (paragraph 19), the landlord took no action until after the intervention of this Service in May 2020 (paragraph 20). It then issued the stage two response more than six months after the escalation request. While acknowledging the difficulties in maintaining an effective service in all areas during the pandemic, that delay was not appropriate.
The landlord failed to progress the complaint and resolve matters at the earliest opportunity and therefore missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/tenant relationship. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints. This caused evident inconvenience and frustration to the resident and meant that he had to engage a representative and approach this Service to try to resolve matters.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports about:
1. broken paving slabs;
2. defective street lighting.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of broken paving slabs and defective streetlighting in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord failed to provide a stage two response to the resident’s first complaint; there was a delay of over six months in providing a stage two response to his second complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the inconvenience and frustration caused by these complaint handling failures.

The landlord shall provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Clarify if the resident is concerned about the lighting on Street A or the footpath from it and, if this is within its responsibility, take appropriate action if it considers there to be poor visibility.
2. In view of the resident’s learning disabilities, consider if it would be helpful to have a single point of contact by telephone for the resident where he can make reports of repairs required around the estate.
3. Consider if staff training is required to identify and action when complaint escalation requests are received.