Clarion Housing Association Limited (202000218)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000218

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 January 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 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 adaptations to the property;
  • handling of repairs when the resident first moved into the property, in particular with regard to the smoke alarms;
  • response to the incident of a burning light in the bathroom;
  • response to the resident’s request to reimburse the cost of a TV aerial; and
  • complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord and moved into the property in October 2019. The property is a terraced house.
  2. Following recommendations by an Occupational Therapist (the OT), in early 2020 the local authority’s “Staying Put Agency” installed a stairlift and wet room in the property to enable the resident to live independently. The resident has mobility problems as well as longstanding back and pelvic pain and she uses a wheelchair.
  3. The tenancy agreement sets out the repair responsibilities of the landlord and resident. By signing the tenancy agreement, the resident agreed to report to the landlord promptly any repair or defect for which it is responsible in the property. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep the system for supplying electricity in working order.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repairs summary guide says it is responsible for hard‑wired smoke including the renewal of batteries in these detectors. It says that residents are responsible for TV aerials.
  5. The landlord’s void procedures say that the principles of the void process are, among other things, to:
  • To ensure that an empty property is inspected, repaired, cleaned and left in safe and suitable state for re-letting as quickly as possible.
  • To ensure that all tests, inspections and works are completed in line with relevant legislation and best practice.
  1. The landlord’s void standards include the following:
  • All void properties to receive a full NICEIC[1] inspection, with a “clean” certificate to be issued before the void is handed back as ready to let.
  • Clean any existing smoke alarm and leave in working order – battery or mains operated.
  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that responsive repairs fall under two categories: emergency and non-emergency. An emergency repair is one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. It should be attended and repairs completed within 24 hours. An appointment for a non-emergency repair will be given within 28 days.
  2. The landlord’s website gives fire safety tips. These say that residents should check that their smoke detectors work once a month by pressing the test button. If it does not make any sound when they test it, they should contact it.
  3. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a two-stage formal complaints procedure. No timescales were specified in the policy for responding at either stage.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it can make a discretionary payment to maintain good relations with a resident where any inconvenience has been caused by its actions or failure to act. Examples include, among other things: time taken to resolve a complaint; inconvenience; consideration of any household vulnerabilities including age and disability; and repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem.

Summary of events

  1. As part of the voids process, on 4 October 2019 a NICEIC electrical contractor completed a domestic electrical installation condition report of the property. The property was deemed “satisfactory”.
  2. On 15 October the OT told the resident that the adaptations process was not quick which is why she advised temporary downstairs–living until the stairlift could be installed.
  3. In mid-October 2019 the resident and her family moved into the property. She lived downstairs in the living room until the local authority installed the stairlift at the end of January 2020.
  4. The landlord carried out several repairs after the resident moved into the property including electrical repair in relation to the washing machine (7 November 2019); front doorbell repair (20 November 2019); damage to an arch (18 November 2019); and a carbon monoxide detector replaced (12 December 2019).
  5. Meanwhile, on 18 November 2019 the local authority had told the landlord they were in the process of preparing an application for the resident for Disabled Facilities grant funding for adaptations to the property. It said it required the landlord’s consent to do this work.
  6. On 20 November 2019 the landlord instructed its surveyor to inspect the property to find out if the proposed works were feasible. The local authority chased the landlord on 25 November 2019 saying they wanted to make its application as soon as possible. The landlord responded saying it had instructed its surveyor.
  7.  Following further contact from the local authority chasing consent on 5 December 2019, the landlord contacted its surveyor on 10 December 2019. In his response the following day, he apologised for not having visited the property noting it had “totally slipped my mind”.
  8. On 13 December 2019 the surveyor inspected the property. He told the landlord the same day that the proposed works were both reasonable and practical. On 16 December 2019 the landlord gave consent to the local authority. At that point the local authority applied for a Disability Facilities Grant.
  9. In mid-December 2019 the resident reported problems with the aerial to the landlord. The evidence suggests that the landlord told the resident that this was her responsibility as set out in the tenancy agreement (paragraph 5) and that she was unhappy with that as she had been led to believe that the landlord would fix this issue. The resident paid £264 for a contractor to remedy the aerial problem on 17 January 2020.
  10. Meanwhile on 22 December 2019, the landlord had generated a repair request for the hard-wired smoke alarm in the kitchen which would not stop beeping. The landlord replaced the smoke alarm the following day. It replaced a second smoke alarm on 28 January 2020 as it kept beeping. (The evidence does not show when the resident reported that smoke alarm.)
  11. On 31 January 2020 the local authority installed the stairlift in the property.
  12. On 3 February 2020 the resident complained to the landlord that the property was not ready when she moved in; she also said that the landlord had delayed the adaptations which meant she had been unable to have a bath or shower since she moved into the property over three months’ previously. This Service understands that the resident also provided evidence of the cost of installing the TV aerial and asked the landlord to reimburse her. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 February 2020 and said it would respond in ten working days.
  13. On 16 February 2020 the resident reported a third faulty smoke alarm that kept bleeping. On 20 February 2020 the landlord said it would attend within five working days. It did so the following day and replaced the smoke alarm.
  14. On 19 February 2020 the resident reported a faulty light in the bathroom. On the following day the landlord arranged to visit the property on 28 February 2020 to carry out appropriate repairs.
  15. On 23 February 2020 the resident told the landlord that that morning she had been woken up by an “electrical burning smell” and that her husband had discovered the bathroom light “had started burning”. She said the smoke alarm did not go off. She said there had been many electrical issues since she had moved into the property and she wanted a full electrical survey carried out as well as compensation for the stress this had caused her and her family. The resident said that she was “so annoyed and upset that it looks like we have been moved into a death trap”. The landlord attended the property that day and made it safe.
  16. On 16 March 2020 the resident chased the landlord for a complaint response. The landlord responded the following day apologising for its delay in responding.
  17. On 17 March 2020 the local authority installed the wet room in the property.
  18. On 26 March 2020 the landlord issued a response at stage one of its formal complaints procedures. The main points were:
  • It had received the referral from her Occupational Therapist on 18 November 2019 which it had forwarded to its surveyor on 20 November 2019 to carry out a feasibility visit. The surveyor had undertaken an inspection on 13 December 2019 and confirmed that the works were feasible.
  • An electrical test was carried out on 4 November 2019 (this should read 4 October 2019) and the void inspection test included testing various fixed wired sockets, light fittings and switches. They also carried out a functional test and date check on smoke alarms and the wired doorbell.
  • Three smoke detectors were replaced on 21 February 2020 and the bathroom light had been repaired.
  • Compensation of £100 had offered for the inconvenience caused by repeat visits to resolve issues which the landlord said was in line with its policy.

The landlord said that its response concluded her complaint.

  1. On 27 March 2020 the resident asked the landlord to review her complaint. She said she was unhappy that it had not considered her full complaint in particular the incident of 23 February 2020 and the reimbursement for the TV aerial costs.
  2. On 8 April 2020 the resident asked the landlord when she would receive a further complaint response. The landlord acknowledged this correspondence and said it had been referred to the customer support team who would contact her.
  3. On the following day the resident approached the Ombudsman. Following contact from this Service the landlord said it would review the complaint. On 20 May 2020 the resident told the landlord that, as an outcome to her complaint, she wanted a full electrical test of the property, reimbursement of the TV aerial costs and compensation for the distress caused to her and her family. On the same day the landlord said it would aim to respond to her within ten working days; however, due to high volumes of work, it may take longer. On 28 May 2020 the landlord said it would provide a further complaint response by 25 June 2020.
  4. On 5 June 2020 a NICEIC electrical contractor carried out a domestic electrical installation condition report. It concluded that the installation was “in good condition”.
  5. On 12 June 2020 the landlord issued its final response under its formal complaint procedure to the resident. The main points were:
  • All void properties were subject to a full electrical check, including smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detector and doorbell adding that the batteries in the smoke alarm would not have been replaced during the voids process.  
  • In recognition of the resident’s electrical safety concerns, its contractor would carry out a further full electrical check at a date to be agreed. 
  • It was satisfied that the stairlift and the new bathroom installation to the property were completed within a reasonable timescale.
  • While it was not the landlord’s responsibility to provide an aerial, it would reimburse the cost the resident incurred of £264 as a goodwill gesture.
  • It considered the £100 compensation previously offered to the resident to be fair.
  1. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
  2. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she wanted the landlord to acknowledge the time and trouble caused to her pursuing these matters and the inconvenience and distress this had caused her and her family.

Assessment and findings

Adaptations

  1. This investigation has considered only the actions of the landlord because the actions of the local authority in relation to the adaptations would be a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
  2. It is reasonable to assume that, had the surveyor not overlooked the feasibility visit (paragraph 18), it would have been completed more quickly. The lack of urgency in the landlord’s actions was not appropriate. It did not chase the surveyor for almost a week following contact from the local authority (paragraph 17), despite being aware of their need to make the application quickly (paragraph 18) because the resident was living without access to a bathroom or bedroom.
  3. However, it cannot be said with any certainty that the funding would have been approved and the stairlift installed earlier if the landlord had given its consent to the local authority sooner.

Various repairs including smoke alarms after moving into the property

  1. The landlord took appropriate void action by carrying out a domestic electrical installation condition (paragraph 6). After the resident moved in the landlord replaced three smoke alarms within the space of two months (paragraphs 21 and 24) and took other repair action, most of which was electrical (paragraph 15). There is no evidence to suggest from the electrical installation condition report, that there was any problem with the smoke alarms or any other electrical issue within the property; the repairs were therefore appropriately treated as responsive repairs.[2]
  2. Whilst the smoke alarms were beeping, they should have remained effective. The landlord acted appropriately by replacing them quickly – usually the next day and within five working days.
  3. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 for the repeat visits to resolve the smoke alarm problems and other repairs that were carried out after the resident moved in (paragraph 15). This Service considers that that offer was proportionate to remedy the inconvenience caused to the resident. It was also appropriate because it was in line with its compensation policy (paragraph 11). The landlord did not offer an explicit apology for the inconvenience caused by these repairs. Though that is not in itself a failure, it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide clear apologies when something has gone wrong. This is a way of acknowledging the failure, accepting responsibility for it as well as expressing regret that it occurred.

Burning light in the bathroom

  1. Prior to the incident on 23 February 2020 (paragraph 26), the resident had reported a faulty light in the bathroom (paragraph 25). The landlord’s decision to treat this as a non-emergency was appropriate because there is no evidence at that time to suggest that this repair would jeopardise the health or safety of the resident (paragraph 8).
  2. When the resident reported the burning light in the bathroom, the landlord took appropriate action by making the light safe the same day. There is no evidence that the landlord took other action at that time such as trying to identify the cause of this serious incident or investigating why the smoke alarm did not go off. This Service notes that the landlord did, however, carry out a further electrical installation condition report at the request of the resident (paragraph 33). This was a reasonable step to take to allay the obvious fears that the incident of 23 February 2020 had caused the resident.
  3. In its complaint handling the landlord did not acknowledge the distress the incident of 23 February 2020 had caused to the resident. There is no evidence to suggest that this incident was due to the action or any oversight by the landlord or its contractors. However, the delay in taking action to resolve matters by carrying out a further testing of the electrics in the property would have caused distress to the resident and her family. This Service considers that to be a service failure.

Reimbursement of cost of TV aerial

  1. The repairs guidance is clear that the TV aerial is the responsibility of the resident (paragraph 5). This Service has not seen evidence of the exchange between the landlord and the resident with regard to the TV aerial and therefore is unable to make a determination on that.
  2. However, in its complaint handling the landlord agreed to reimburse the cost incurred by the resident as a goodwill gesture (paragraph 34). Although there is no evidence that the landlord was obliged to reimburse this sum, doing so demonstrated the landlord’s willing to achieve a resolution in this instance.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord responded at stage one after some seven weeks; its stage two response took over two months. While the landlord did not give timescales in which it should respond to complaints, these complaint responses were not provided within a reasonable amount of time because such delays do not allow issues to be resolved quickly.
  2. The stage one response omitted to explain to the resident how she could escalate the complaint if she remained unhappy. Indeed, the wording of that letter wrongly suggested that the complaints procedure had been completed (paragraph 29). The landlord’s failure to be explicit about the review stage of its complaints procedure meant that the complainant believed she had completed this procedure and approached this Service. Adding such information to its formal complaint responses would ensure transparency and clarity to the landlord’s service delivery in this respect and would be in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  3. The resident was caused evident inconvenience and frustration by the complaint handling delays and lack of transparency by the landlord because she approached the Ombudsman in order to progress her complaint. While the landlord apologised for the delay at stage one (paragraph 27), it did not do so at stage two nor did it recognise the detriment caused to her.
  4. This Service notes that the landlord introduced an amended complaint handling procedure which came into effect in December 2020. These procedures include timescales for responses at each stage of the complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
  • its handling of adaptations to the property.
  • its response to the incident of the burning light in the bathroom.
  • its complaint handling.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 32(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of repairs when the resident first moved into the property, in particular with regard to the smoke alarms.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of its response to the resident’s request to reimburse the cost of a TV aerial.

Reasons

  1. There was some delay by the landlord in taking the necessary action to provide consent to the local authority. However, this Service cannot say with any certainty that this would have delayed the installation of the stairlift.
  2. The landlord acknowledged that repeat visits were required to the property to put right various matters after the resident moved in. It offered compensation of £100 for the inconvenience caused to the resident which this Service considers was a proportionate way to put matters right.
  3. The landlord took swift and appropriate action to remedy the problem with the light in the bathroom. It carried out a further electrics test; however, it did not try to investigate the cause of this incident or why the smoke alarm did not go off. The delay in putting the resident’s mind at rest over this issue caused evident distress and inconvenience.
  4. While the TV aerial is the responsibility of the resident, the landlord reimbursed the cost of installing a new aerial to the resident as a goodwill gesture.
  5. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It also failed to explain how the resident could ask for a review of its stage one response which caused evident frustration and inconvenience.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord shall within four weeks of the date of this report:
  • Apologise to the resident for:
    • the delays in the adaptations process; and
    •  the inconvenience caused to the resident caused by repeated repair visits to the property after she moved in.
  • Pay the resident compensation of £250 comprising:
    • £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in resolving matters for the resident in relation to the burning light in the bathroom.
    • £100 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures outlined in this report.

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

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:

  • Review how it responds to service failures to ensure that apologies are given when appropriate.
  • Consider amending its complaint procedure so that the stage one letter explains how the complaint can be escalated if the complainant remains unhappy. 

[1] National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting

[2] The beeping is often a sign that a hard-wired smoke alarm has reached the end of its life https://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/us/support/help-center/browse-articles/articles/what_is_causing_my_smoke_alarm_to_sound__beep__or_chirp_.html