Clarion Housing Association Limited (202000374)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000374

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 June 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her property;
    2. the resident’s concerns about building insurance cover for the property;
    3. the related complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising’.
  3. The resident advised in her complaint to the landlord that it partly related to long-standing repairs concerns from events that primarily occurred during the period 2003 to 2014 as well as cavity wall and bay window works in 2016 and 2018 respectively. The complaint about repairs needed at her property was made to the landlord in March 2020 and is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings’.
  5. The first-tier tribunal made a decision on 8 November 2017 following an application from the resident. As part of this, it found that ‘the nature and extent of the insurance cover for the property is in accordance with the terms of the lease’. It made another decision on 4 April 2019 that it said included determination of ‘whether the building insurance cover and third party cover were adequate’. It found that this point had been struck out by a tribunal decision on 20 November 2018 as it had already been determined at a previous tribunal.
  6. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about building insurance cover for the property is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  7. However, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident holds a 50% shared ownership lease with the landlord. The lease began on 10 March 1999 and the landlord has described the property as a four-bedroom house.
  2. The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy of 10 working days for the initial complaint phase and 20 working days for the final ‘peer review’ phase. The policy sets out that they will not consider matters through the complaints process that are over six months old or where legal action has been taken.
  3. The landlord has a compensation policy that allows for it to award compensation between £50-£250 ‘for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant’.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 12 March 2020. She included copies of historic documents from 2000-2017 and said the complaint related to incidents from 2003 to 2014 and complained on the grounds that repairs had not been undertaken, insurance cover was insufficient and she had spent her own money on more recent items like extractor fans and bay windows.
  2. The landlord logged the complaint on 18 March 2020 and recorded that it spoke to the resident on 25 March 2020. It noted that the resident’s concerns were that repairs were outstanding since the 1990s, that she wanted the landlord to complete fencing and window repairs and that a building insurance claim had not been in her favour.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 26 March 2020. It concluded that:
    1. it had advised the resident in July 2016 that she had a full repairing lease so repairs and replacements in the property were her responsibility
    2. it could not review matters through the complaints process that were more than six months old so could not award compensation for items such as repairs that were not covered by building insurance between 2003-2014, replacement of extractor fans following cavity wall works in March 2016 and bay windows that she had replaced in 2018
    3. it mentioned outstanding repairs to the fence damaged in 2003, doors damaged in 2008-9 and an ongoing ceiling leak that it indicated were the resident’s responsibility to repair.
  4. The resident replied to the landlord on 30 March 2020. She claimed that the landlord had failed to insure the structure of the property appropriately since 1999. She again listed the various repairs required to the property since 2003 that she said had made the property uninhabitable. She claimed that all of these matters would have fallen under the insurance part of her lease rather than the self-repairing part.
  5. The landlord’s internal records show that it spoke to the resident on 28 April 2020 and reminded her that it could not consider historic matters as its stage one complaint response had outlined. It noted that the resident requested another written response.
  6. The landlord issued a response to the resident on 5 May 2020. It concluded that:
    1. it had previously informed the resident of repairs responsibilities for the interior and exterior areas of her property and its view had not changed since the previous correspondence of 26 March 2020
    2. it had checked its records and confirmed that the resident was a shared owner with a ‘full repairing lease’
    3. the landlord was not responsible for repairs and this had been confirmed at first tier tribunal.
  7. Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 27 August 2020. It asked the landlord to contact the resident to help her with progressing her complaint.
  8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 September 2020. It offered to escalate the resident’s complaint if she was able to advise why she remained dissatisfied and what outcome she was seeking. The resident replied the same day and advised she would not respond to the landlord’s request.
  9. Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 27 September 2020. It asked the landlord to provide clarity on the status of her complaint and escalate the complaint if it was yet to exhaust the complaints process.
  10. The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 30 October 2020. It advised that it had spoken to the resident on 29 September 2020 and established that the resident wished for a response to each repair noted. It concluded that:
    1. the resident’s concerns were over six months old but it had still reviewed them and found that the terms of the resident’s lease meant she was responsible for the repairs
    2. it had arranged appropriate insurance cover for the resident which it described as ‘an industry standard cover, which provided for specified perils, which were noted on the Summary of Cover, and was subject to industry standard policy excesses’
    3. the insurance dispute had been considered by the first-tier tribunal in April 2019 when they struck out her claim but it advised her to direct her concerns to the insurers if she was dissatisfied with how they had interpreted the policy
    4. it apologised and awarded £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint of 30 March 2020.
  11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 November 2020 and advised that it had offset the £50 compensation because of arrears on the resident’s account.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint on 12 March 2020 and the landlord provided the stage one complaint response on 26 March 2020. This was within the 10 working days that the landlord’s complaints policy allows for so was dealt with in an appropriate timescale.
  3. The resident set out a list of repairs (and supporting evidence) that she indicated the landlord should take responsibility for. These repairs ranged from 2003 to 2018, between 2 and 17 years before the complaint was made. The landlord decided that these matters were outside of its complaint policy. Its policy says that it will not consider matters that are more than six months old so its decision was appropriate.
  4. The resident expressed her continued dissatisfaction on 30 March 2020. The landlord did not speak to the resident about this until 28 April 2020 and did not provide a response until 5 May 2020. When it did send a response, it seemed to be another stage one complaint response rather than a final ‘peer review’ response. This was inappropriate as there was a delay of around a month in responding to the complaint and the landlord failed to escalate the complaint in line with its complaints policy.
  5. The landlord subsequently apologised and awarded £50 compensation for the delay in its response to the 30 March 2020 correspondence. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (and the landlord’s compensation policy) recommends compensation within this range for service failure that is of short duration but may not have significantly affected the outcome for the complainant, including ‘failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact’. Given the failure to escalate the complaint appropriately did not impact the outcome of the complaint, the apology and compensation award were proportionate.
  6. The complaint was escalated when this Service passed on a request to the landlord on 27 September 2020. Although the landlord’s final ‘peer review’ complaint response of 30 October 2020 reiterated that it could not consider historic matters or issues that had been considered by the first-tier tribunal, it did:
    1. review and explain the type of insurance cover it had arranged
    2. signpost the resident as to how she could dispute insurance claim decisions
    3. confirm that it had reviewed the terms of the lease to conclude again that it was a self-repairing lease
    4. review the handling of the complaint, leading to the apology and £50 compensation award mentioned previously.

These actions demonstrate that, although the substantive issues were outside of its complaints policy remit, the landlord was not dismissive and attempted to explain how it had interpreted her lease and managed its responsibility to arrange building insurance cover.

  1. In summary, the landlord’s conclusions that the repairs and insurance concerns raised by the resident were outside of the remit of the complaints policy were appropriate. Although it did delay in progressing the complaint through its complaints process, the apology and compensation award represented reasonable redress for this service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failure identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not initially escalate the resident’s complaint as it should have but the combination of its apology and compensation award were proportionate given the circumstances of the case.