Clarion Housing Association Limited (202000626)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000626

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 March 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 resident has complained that:
1. The landlord took too long to complete repairs to the roof.
2. The landlord had not addressed all the outstanding repairs or complaint issues by the time of the final response.
3. The landlord provided poor customer service during the repairs and complaint procedure.
4. The cost of the Section 20 works was too high, and the resident had not been consulted about the works or the cost.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:
1. “39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
  1. concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure;”
The resident’s complaint about the actual cost of the Section 20 works is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service. Complaints about the level of service charges, increases in service charges, or the actual cost of Section 20 works are for the First Tier Tribunal to determine. The resident has advised the landlord prior to the start of the Ombudsman’s case that they were seeking legal advice as well as contacting the Ombudsman. It is assumed this legal advice would be about challenging the Section 20 costs, as well as the resident’s concerns about the purchase of the property (discussed below).

Background

The resident bought the leasehold flat on 29 July 2019. The dispute concerns the handling of Section 20 works to the roof. The works had been consulted with the previous owner.
The landlord’s final response (March 2020) agreed there had been unacceptable delays in the completion of the works. As such it offered compensation and confirmed the works that had been completed by the time that response was sent.
The resident remained dissatisfied with this response however as they felt:
1. The works should have been completed in July 2019, before their purchase.
2. They disputed the landlord’s statement about which part of the roof was their responsibility and which was the landlord’s.
3. The landlord did not explain the cancellations which contributed to the repair delays, or why the contractor did not complete agreed works on some dates.
4. The landlord only inspected the property in January 2020, after 6 months of correspondence.
5. The works were not completed at the time of the final response, as stated by the landlord, as holes remained in the walls from scaffolding.
6. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £400 for the time taken to complete the repairs; but felt further redress was merited for the ‘lack of urgency and extremely poor customer service.’

Summary of events

The resident found scaffolding and an ongoing leak into three rooms at the property on the day they bought the property. They later found out the works related to a Section 20 Notice.
Both parties agree that the original Section 20 Notice was consulted with the previous owner. The landlord was correct to explain that the obligation is on a buyer (and their solicitor) to ascertain whether any service charge arrears, major works or other costs are due from the property before completing any purchase. This includes whether any works have been consulted about through a Section 20 Notice.
The landlord has explained that the repairs to the roof were delayed as the scope of repairs was amended. This delay moved the repairs from when the previous owner was in occupation to when the resident had bought the property.
There is no specific document on file from the time which itemises why the scope of works needed to be amended. However it is not unreasonable that the works be properly planned and amended on the advice of appropriate experts, so long as residents are kept up to date.
This delay would not have had a detrimental impact on the resident. Even if the works had been completed in July 2019, the landlord has explained how the major works bill would then be charged for this period in September 2020, ie when the resident would have been occupation and responsible for any bill. Therefore the landlord’s response that it is the buyer’s responsibility to confirm any service charge cost or major works cost with the seller before completing (and to address any discrepancy with the seller through their conveyancing solicitors) remains the most relevant.
It is agreed by both parties that the works were started in August 2019. The contractor reported to the landlord on 15 August that the works were complete. It is also accepted by both parties that the contractor’s update turned out to be incorrect.
Prior to this the resident reported the contractor did not attend as agreed on 8 August and that the works only began on 13 August.
It is reasonable for a landlord to follow the advice it receives from an appropriately qualified member of staff or contractor. The landlord’s obligation is, at first, to investigate and arrange any required repairs. Its obligation after the repairs are reported as completed is to investigate any reports it receives about incomplete or poor standard repairs, and to arrange any appropriate follow up works. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to assume the works were completed until the resident followed up with the landlord later in August.
Then resident chased the landlord on 20 August to ask when the repairs would be completed. They reported damage inside the property due to the slow repair to the leak, and damage caused to the exterior guttering by the contractors.
The landlord did not reply until September, and simply stated that the works were recorded as completed. Therefore the resident submitted a formal complaint on 12 September.
The tenant chased the complaint throughout September 2019, however the first formal response was not sent until 15 October, when the complaint case was closed. Confusingly the stage 1 response was sent on 15 October but referred to a contractor’s visit on 11 October when the works would be completed in the future tense despite that date having passed.
In the meantime the contractors completed further repairs on 27 September. However these repairs differed from the Section 20 Notice and from the roof design of the similar surrounding properties. Therefore the nature of the repair itself (as well as the timescales) was now part of the complaint.
As a result of the dispute about which repairs had been completed and the quality, the landlord arranged a joint visit with its inspector, housing staff and the contractor’s supervisor on 4 October.
There is then a dispute about the timing of the works in October-December 2019:
1. The stage 1 response refers to works due on 11 October.
2. Later correspondence refers to guttering, render and ridge tiles repairs on 18 October.
3. The correspondence also explains the guttering work was not completed in October and so had to be finished on 28 November.
4. The landlord also noted that the downpipe had to be renewed on 6 December.
The resident reported no one attended on 11 October and this was not then disputed by the landlord. The resident also disputes that the work was completed on 18 October. Part of this discrepancy may lie in the landlord’s final response which states due to the previous owner’s roof extension, some ridge tiles are now the resident’s responsibility. This meant some of the work anticipated by the resident was not completed on 18 October.
However this point about which party is responsible for different elements of the roof has now also been disputed by the resident. This issue was not part of the formal complaint (given it only arose in the landlord’s final response and later correspondence). More importantly, it is a dispute that relates to the demise of the property. This is an issue that the Housing Ombudsman Service cannot determine. Therefore if this issue remains a concern the resident may need to pursue it for clarification through their conveyancing solicitors (and possibly with the support of a surveyor). Ultimately only the courts can determine where a disputed boundary may lie.
The resident chased the landlord on 23,24,27, 28,29, 30 and 31 October. The landlord did reply to some of these emails/calls, and it is reasonable that the landlord would not be able to always answer within a day or two. However on 27 the scaffolding was removed (despite the ongoing dispute about incomplete works). Therefore it is understandable why the resident continued to chase the repairs.
The landlord inspected the works in November and booked further guttering works for 28 November, however the resident was not informed of this until they chased again for updates on 4,12 and 13 November. The resident also reported a visit by the contractor on 14 November when they could not complete any works without the scaffolding, and that the contractor considered the existing partial repair irreparable due to the poor quality of work.
There is no record of the 28 November visit and the resident explained they chased the landlord again on 4 December after receiving no update. As before, they were informed of works at short notice (due on 6 December) that they had not been previously notified about. There is no correspondence on file from the landlord proactively informing the resident of the repair dates that the landlord itself referred to in its summary of the repair. This corresponds with the resident’s complaint that they were not kept updated about how the repair was being handled.
The resident also explained the repairs on 6 December were limited to only some of the guttering, and did not include the front guttering or roof issues.
The contractor’s manager, the landlord’s head of repairs and the resident all met on 13 January 2020 to inspect and discuss the works. The roof repairs were then completed to the resident’s, landlord’s and contractor’s satisfaction on 30-31 January 2020.
The resident reported holes in their walls from the repeated scaffolding. The landlord arranged the contractor to repair on 22 April 2020, but the return appointment to paint was then not attended.

Assessment

Repair time

There was a failure in the landlord’s repair service. The landlord has accepted that the repair took too long to complete, and that this was the result of both administrative delays (missed or incomplete appointments) and the quality of the work itself (ie requiring multiple revisits).
The delays were:
1. August 2019 – one missed appointment and the repairs were not completed.
2. September – overdue follow up to the August repairs, and the incorrect repairs were then completed.
3. October – One date not attended and the follow up works incomplete.
4. November – One failed visit as no scaffolding, and one not attended.
5. December – repairs not completed to areas that had been discussed with landlord as part of the ongoing complaint.
6. January – repairs not completed until the end of the month.
The landlord has offered £400 as redress for the inconvenience caused by the delay. The landlord’s compensation policy refers to:
1. £15 for failure to attend a repair
2. Up to £50 for repairs which have gone over target time (this based on the Right to Repair Scheme)
3. The option of discretionary payments for issues such as inconvenience, failures in process, time taken to resolve etc.
The Housing Ombudsman Service Guidance on Remedies states:
1. “Awards of £250 to £700 – Remedies in the range of these amounts may be for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.”
The repair took 6 months to complete (July 2019 -January 2020) and there were at least 4 missed appointments. On the basis of the landlord’s policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance the landlord’s offer of £400 (together with the substantive completion of the actual repairs) is an offer of redress that is considered satisfactory to resolve the complaint.

Outstanding issues

The tenant complained that the repeated scaffolding caused holes in the wall. The landlord ultimately arranged a partial repair in April 2020 (3 months after the main repair was completed). This repair is outside the landlord’s repair timescales.
Although not raised by the landlord, it is likely that the ongoing Covid restrictions at this time may have impacted on the organisation of repairs. However while this will mitigate the time from March 2020 onwards for any work, it does not answer why these works were not completed at the time of the main repair in January/February 2020. Therefore there has been a further delay in the repair service (albeit largely cosmetic and not fundamental to the property in the way the roof was).
This delay has not been redressed as it was not discussed and was ongoing at the time of the final response with its compensation offer. Therefore a further offer of redress should be made to acknowledge how the inconvenience of the handling of the roof repair continued beyond the final response.

Customer Service (including complaint handling)

The stage 1 response was overdue. It was also not clear as it referred to future action on dates that had already passed. The response upheld the complaint (about a roof repair that at that time had been ongoing for 3 months) but offered no redress.
The stage 2 response was sent in March 202, after the resident submitted the formal complaint on 30 October 2019. While there were significant discussions in the intervening time to resolve the complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to either explicitly agree a longer timeframe for its complaint response; or to issue the complaint response with an agreed action plan to resolve the works.
Separate from the formal complaint responses, there is more than one instance where the resident was only informed of repairs that had been booked when they had chased the landlord.
The resident has complained that the landlord took too long to inspect the property (in January 2020) However there were previous joint inspections in October and November.
The resident has also explained that the landlord did not explain why some visits resulted in no repair, partial repairs or incorrect repairs. The landlord has responded to some of the incorrect repair visits, for example by explaining their belief that the resident is responsible for some of the ridge tiles. They have also accepted that some repairs were simply of poor quality or guttering was not returned when removed for the work. This is effect an explanation by saying the repair it arranged through its contractor was not of a good enough standard. Ultimately the main focus of the complaint process is on resolving any outstanding issues that the landlord is responsible for and investigating the resident’s concerns. The landlord did achieve this, albeit with the delays identified above.

Section 20 consultation and associated costs

As explained above, the cost of the Section 20 works is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service.
Equally, the sharing of information between the resident (when acting as a buyer) and the seller is not something the landlord is responsible for and so is not something the Housing Ombudsman Service can investigate.

Determination (decision)

Therefore I can confirm:
1. In accordance with paragraph 55 the landlord has already made an offer of redress that is a satisfactory response to the failures in its service.
2. In accordance with paragraph 54 there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repair issues.
3. In accordance with paragraph 54 there was service failure in the landlord’s customer service (including the handling of the formal complaint).
4. In accordance with paragraph 39(i) the complaint about the Section 20 costs is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Reasons

The repair was overdue. This is accepted by the landlord and resident. The resident has stated that they accept the landlord’s offer of compensation for the time taken to complete the repair.
However some final repair works (holes in the exterior wall) remained outstanding and required further chasing. As such the time taken to complete these did not feature in the offer of redress.
The landlord’s communication about the repairs was not proactive, and the responses to the complaint were overdue.
Any dispute about the actual Section 20 works’ costs, or the liability for these costs in relation to the previous owner, would need to be settled through appropriate legal action.

Orders and recommendations

As a result of the determination above the landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
1. Pay the resident £100 to acknowledge the continued inconvenience of having to chase the final elements of the repair until April 2020.
2. Pay the resident £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience of having to chase the formal complaint and repair updates.
This compensation is in addition to the £400 already offered over the course of the landlord’s complaint procedure.