Clarion Housing Association Limited (201915302)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915302

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 December 2020


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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to resident’s reports of noise and heating issues;
    2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation, following his reports about the condition of the second property and his termination of the tenancy.

Background and summary of events

  1. In February 2020 the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service about his complaint. The resident expressed that he was vulnerable and had qualified for sheltered housing. The resident complained about the noise from the heating and the heating in the first property before being moved to a second property. The resident subsequently complained about the condition of the bathroom within the second property. The landlord offered compensation for the first complaint and declined to uphold the second one. The resident and landlord are no longer in a landlord – tenant relationship. The resident has sought compensation for the historic service which the landlord provided.
  2. The timeline of the events according to the complaint correspondence from the resident and landlord, and a selection of internal emails from the landlord is as follows:
    1. The resident moved in on 4 March 2019 and subsequently reported issues from the boiler room and reported no heating in the flat
    2. Operatives attended on 8 March 2019 to repair the heating. The resident subsequently reported the issues as outstanding
    3. On 1 April 2019 the operative attended and reported internally the actions necessary to resolve the issues. This was booked in for 5 April 2019
    4. On 8 April 2019 the resident reported that the heating was not heating the whole unit and there was a “vibrating, buzzing noise” from the bathroom radiator. At the same time, the landlord’s records show that it chased a response on the communal repair (12 April) and said that parts were on order to repair the plant room and repairs were booked for the 24 April
    5. The landlord’s records say that it attended the resident’s property on 11 April 2019 and turned off the 4 radiators to reduce the noise as a temporary measure, and hoped that anti-vibration measures taken at the same time would reduce noise throughout the building. The landlord’s records indicate the anti-vibration parts were ordered. The resident reported that the noise persisted (12 April)
    6. On 15 April 2019 the landlord’s records show its internal enquiry on updates into the matter, noting that the resident was vulnerable
    7. The landlord’s operatives (engineers) attended on 16 April 2019 and established that the boiler room emitted a noise; they recommended anti-vibration plates to be installed which was carried out (17 April and completed on 2 May)
    8. The resident said the boiler was switched off from 17 April 2019 – 6 May 2019; once it was turned on again the noise resumed and he offered audio recordings as evidence to the landlord. The records indicate the resident confirmed he had temporary heating, while the radiators were off.
    9. The landlord visited the property on 8 May 2019 and confirmed that:
      1. The bathroom radiator made a rattling noise
      2. The bedroom radiator was not working
      3. The resident said he had ‘had enough’, he was depressed and felt neglected, he had to move, he said this was affecting his mental health, he expressed that he was feeling suicidal and the landlord’s staff expressed their concern for his wellbeing
      4. The landlord offered him to use the ‘guest room’, but at that time the pump which made the noise was set to turn off between 10pm – 7am. The resident said he would consider using the guest room, if the pump was not turned off and stayed on for 24 hours
      5. The resident said he was happy for the radiators to be isolated and pipes capped, he did not mind having no heating.
  3. On 9 May 2019 the resident complained to the landlord who issued a response on 22 May 2019.
  4. In the stage one response, it referred to actions it took to reduce the noise from the communal heating and restoring the heating to the property. It said the resident “confirmed that your radiators were repaired and functioning in your flat on 10 May 2019” before it offered compensation for loss of heating from 12 March – 10 May (£265).
  5. The resident said that the noise issue continued and due to his personal circumstances, he sought to move. The landlord contacted him towards the end of May to offer a different property. The resident served a letter of disrepair (pre-action protocol) which the landlord then sought to respond to in line with legal advice. Subsequently, in September 2019 the resident escalated his complaints.
  6. The landlord deliberated over how to progress the matter following receipt of a pre-action protocol letter. It considered that the resident could elect to take legal action or raise a stage two complaint. It then confirmed that where legal proceedings had not commenced and under its policy it could progress the complaint to stage two.
  7. On 6 September 2019 the landlord’s records show that it considered the resident had requested escalation to stage two, from the resident’s previous emails. It requested that the matter be escalated with its customer solution team on 10 September. The customer solution team then confirmed on 27 September that it spoke to the resident and confirmed he wished to escalate the complaint. The landlord confirmed the outcome sought was additional compensation, as the resident felt that the landlord did not resolve the heating issue and the noise from the communal boiler was not addressed or taken seriously.
  8. The landlord provided its final response to the complaint about the heat and noise in the first property on 21 October 2019. The letter said that:
    1. It could not find evidence that it had failed to take the noise issue seriously
    2. It arranged for the gas contractor to investigate the issue, so they visited the property on several occasions
    3. It adjusted the water pressure flow from the communal pumps, installed anti-vibration plates beneath the pumps, and its operative confirmed the noise was “minimal” and following works no noise could be heard “at all”
    4. The landlord offered an amount of compensation that exceeded its compensation policy (£265); this was accepted by the resident
    5. The landlord also said in its final response that the heating was isolated 23 April 2019 – 10 May 2019 at the resident’s request so the landlord would have paid £85 as a gesture of goodwill and £50 for the noise issue, instead of the amount offered at stage one. The landlord said that it should have paid £135 not £265. The landlord said due to this it would not increase its compensation.

Complaint about the second property

  1. Following the resident’s dissatisfaction about the noise levels in the property, the landlord contacted the resident towards the end of May 2019 and offered to move him to another property. The resident complained about the condition of the second property. As part of his complaint, the resident said the landlord said it did not come with carpet installed and needed refurbishment; the resident arranged a carpet fitting at his own expense which he did not then benefit from. The resident said that he was told the flat was cleaned and ready on 28 May 2019 which was when he signed up for the tenancy.
  2. The records indicate that tenancy was to commence on 10 June 2019. The resident arranged for removals earlier on 1 June 2019. On 3 June 2019 he contacted the landlord to say he would not take possession of it and wished to end his relationship with the landlord. The resident said upon arrival to the second property, he noticed the shower area was not clean, “there was a pan, which I immediately disposed of, with excrement on it. I also noticed that there was dried excrement around the tray covering the drain of the shower”. He said he tried to clean this but found the smell “so strong and repulsive” that he “could not remain in the flat”. He said he contacted the landlord on the same day as he moved in, explaining his concerns and expressing his wish to end the tenancies.
  3. The landlord and resident spoke, though they dispute the details of the conversation. The landlord said it had offered to rectify the bathroom issue with the voids team, while the resident said that the landlord only discussed the returning of the keys. The landlord said the keys could be returned on 4 June 2019 and the tenancy would not commence; the resident gave back the keys. The resident signed the termination of the tenancy on 4 June 2019.
  4. The landlord considered the complaint about the second property at stage one and responded on 8 October 2019. It did so in between responding to the initial complaint (about noise) at stage two of its complaint procedure. The landlord said that the resident was not interested in having this addressed by the voids team, “there is no evidence of excrement and it is likely a build-up of dirt as it is common that previous tenants do not lift up the tray from floor unit and clean thoroughly”. It held that the resident had not given it enough time to rectify the issues before ending the tenancy and that it had allowed the tenancy to end without the required notice period, nor had the tenant paid rent during the period he had signed for it.
  5. The resident said he did not receive further communication from the landlord after its responses of October 2019. The resident subsequently contacted his designed person. There is limited evidence to show the correspondence from the resident to the landlord after October 2019. The issue appears to have been picked up again in February – March 2020. The designated person contacted the landlord, who responded to request for the matter to be reconsidered. It confirmed on 12 March 2020 that the matter had been concluded and it would not agree to reconsider.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s obligations under the tenancy agreement were to keep in good repair and working order any installations for space and water heating and the supply of water, including water heaters and central heating obligations. Its obligations over common parts were to take reasonable care to keep the common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use by residents.
  2. The landlord carried out its repair obligations to the heating system, as seen in its correspondence to the resident where it confirmed that this was repaired before it was turned off. The resident remained dissatisfied with the persisting reported noise.
  3. The landlord’s actions in respect of the noise from the heating were discretionary, it was not under an obligation to adjust the communal boiler to improve the noise quality or to transfer the resident to another property as a result of the distress or discomfort.
  4. The landlord took reasonable steps to assess the communal boiler and carry out works to improve the noise which the machinery emitted. The landlord also considered the further steps it could take, such as using noise monitoring equipment, when faced with the resident’s reports that the noise persisted. However, this did not materialise as the landlord and resident took steps to have the resident transferred. Subsequently, the landlord also took reasonable steps to meet the resident’s request to be transferred, as a solution to the distress he reported from the noise. 
  5. The landlord’s investigation into the second complaint about the second property was limited; the evidence shows that the resident moved in, made his reports, and then moved out between 1 – 3 June 2019. The resident’s own records indicate that he moved his belongings in and out of the property on the same day, before subsequently raising his complaint. The landlord’s response was reasonable as the evidence suggests it did not have the opportunity to investigate this with its voids team or put measures in place to rectify it. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord acted inappropriately.
  6. As there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of the second complaint, it is reasonable that the landlord did not offer compensation. Though it is acknowledged that the resident incurred expenses and set these out to the landlord, there is no evidence of a failing by the landlord which would otherwise result in the expectation that it would offer redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the resident’s reports of noise and heating issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the resident’s request for compensation, following his reports about the condition of the second property and his termination of the tenancy.

Reasons

  1. The evidence suggests that the landlord was resolution focussed; it carried out the repair to the heating before adjusting this (turning it off) and adding anti-vibration plates to the communal boiler to mitigate the noise issue, it offered redress and transferred the resident. It carried out its repair obligations under the tenancy agreement and also took actions to reduce the noise under its discretion.
  2. The landlord did not have the chance to investigate the resident’s concerns about the second property once it was notified of the issues by the resident. Therefore, there is no evidence of maladministration in its investigation.