The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202002302)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002302

Clarion Housing Association Limited

8 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.

Complaint definition

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:

 

  1. The front entrance door to the building and;

 

  1. Complaints handling.

 

Background and Summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property (a ground floor flat) located within one of six buildings forming the estate. The lease for the property started on 14 June 2014.

 

  1. Under clause 5.3 of the Lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing/renewing: “…all parts of the Building and Estate which are not the responsibility Leaseholder…” (clause 5.3 a).

 

  1. Section 5.1 of the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy (version 2.2) states responsive repairs fall into two main categories – Emergency and Non-Emergency. Under this section the landlord states: “We also offer appointments for communal repairs in some areas. Repairs to communal areas should be appointed dependent upon the nature of the work (emergency or non-emergency as outlined above) but must always be completed within 28 days”. However, under Section 5.2 of the policy it is stated: “…Mechanical and electrical maintenance is also excluded from the responsive repairs services and installations are maintained by specialist teams with specialist contractors. This includes, for example, TV aerials, lifts, door entry systems, medical equipment, gas, green technology installations and fire safety equipment. Repairs and servicing for these areas should be referred to the Mechanical & Electrical team.”

 

  1. The landlord’s Complaints policy states: “Our principles are to provide a quality service by: putting things right within reasonable timeframes. Keeping the customer informed. Managing expectation.  Following our policy and procedures. Fully and accurately recording details, actions and investigations of the complaint at all stages. Use lessons learned from the complaints to improve our service and prevent complaints”.

 

  1. Furthermore, under the heading ‘Our procedure’, the landlord states that it has a two stage complaints procedure wherein if an initial attempt to resolve the query is not achieved, it will record a formal complaint and investigate and do all it can to resolve the customer’s issues and put things right. It will review a case at Stage two were requested by a resident who must be clear about their desired outcome and about what specifically they are not accepting. 

 

  1. Section 4.2 of the landlord’s Compensation policy provides for discretionary compensation payment to maintain good relations with a resident where inconvenience has been caused by its actions or failure to act. 

Summary of events

  1. On 21 January 2020, the resident reported a fault (through the landlord’s repairs process) with one of the communal front entry doors (FED) within his estate causing the door to be unable to lock. The evidence indicates that the resident expressed concern about increased antisocial behaviour (ASB) within the building/estate due to this.

 

  1. On 13 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to chase the repair of the FED. The resident also asked to raise a complaint regarding its response to the reported issue with the communal FED within his estate.

 

  1. The landlord completed a repair to one of the FEDs on the estate on 19 March 2020. Its Stage one response (below) stated that this repair related to the resident’s report. However, the landlord subsequently confirmed that the issue with the FED reported by the resident was repaired on 27 March 2020.

 

  1. The resident reiterated his request for a complaint to be raised in emails sent to the landlord dated 24 and 25 March 2020 and again in emails dated 27, 30 and 31 March 2020. On 1 April 2020, the landlord logged the resident’s complaint.

 

  1. The landlord’s call notes dated 6 April 2020 indicate that whilst the resident had confirmed the FED was now locking (although he advised only the top lock worked), the resident reported that it was now “sticking” when trying to open it and that the door kept getting stuck. The landlord advised it would raise the repair with its M&E contractor but that it was unsure if they could attend during the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

  1. On 30 April 2020, the landlord issued a Stage one response to the resident’s complaint that (incorrectly) stated that the FED was repaired on 19 March 2020. It also said that no issue was found with the FED on 8 April 2020 when checked by its contractors who had re-attended at this time. The landlord advised therefore that no further action would be taken. Within its response, the landlord also acknowledged that it had failed to raise a complaint when requested by the resident due to it being passed to its Repairs Team. It offered the resident £50.00 in compensation stating this was for the issues that were involved with his complaint.

 

  1. On or around 12 May 2020, the resident requested a Peer Review of his complaint about the FED. He expressed dissatisfaction about:

 

  1. The lack of any action taken until 17 March 2020 despite him raising the fault via the correct process on 21 January 2020 and calling the landlord on several occasions chasing up on an update regarding the repair. He stated that he pays over £100 per month in service fees and expected a better service. The resident advised he had raised complaints with the Ombudsman about the (landlord’s) same contractors in the past, which were upheld. The resident said this indicated a systemic failure.

 

  1. Having to ask the landlord to raise a complaint on several occasions before it did so. The resident said this only happened after he contacted its CEO.

 

  1. The resident requested the following remedies to resolve his complaint:

 

  1. An undertaking that complaints are acknowledged and dealt with in a better way.

 

  1. A review of the relevant contractors to be undertaken as repairs are “constantly delayed” and things keep “getting missed”.

 

  1. £200.00 in compensation equating to a partial refund of his service charge due to service failings in handling repairs and his complaint resulting in him having to spend a significant amount to time attempting to get the issues resolved. 

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records indicate that on or around 12 May 2020, the resident reiterated that the door was sticking and could not be opened without difficulty and it advised the resident that because the FED is secure, it was not deemed an essential repair but that it would raise this with its M&E contractor.

 

  1. On 27 May 2020, the resident reported (via the landlord’s online form) that the communal FED had failed again and did not lock.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show that its contractors attended on 28 May 2020 in response to reports of communal FEDs to the building not locking. Whilst contractors found the FED was locked, they noted that the communal FEDs to the estate were light in construction and that due to numerous attempts at forced entry, the FED in question was bent and did not always close properly.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show that on 29 May 2020, its Operations Manager noted communal FEDs to the estate are bent and “flimsy” and not suitable for this type of accommodation as there is a high foot flow. It is also noted that the last contractors to attend (on 28 May 2020) had said that they had left both locks disconnected as there could be a risk that the door will get jammed and recommended that a door contractor attend to align the doors.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records dated 4 June 2010 show its contractors attended on 3 June 2020 and found the FED had been vandalised with screws to the lock removed. They recommended that a transom bar be fitted to the FED as this would be a “more robust” option.

 

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on further occasions by phone and email  including on 11 June 2020 and 12 June 2020 to advise that the issue with the door not working was contributing to ASB issues within the block; he also expressed concern about the safety of the building, stating that he wanted the matter to be treated as an emergency.

 

  1. On 17 June 2020, the landlord’s contractors attempted to complete repairs but an issue with a timer prevented the completion of works.

 

  1. On 26 June 2020, the landlord’s contractors attended and completed outstanding work to secure the FED. Further works to install a door handle were scheduled for 10 July 2020.

 

  1. On 10 July 2020, the landlord issued a Stage two response to the resident’s complaint. Within its response, the landlord advised that the door handle would be installed that day but accepted this was only a temporary fix. The landlord advised that its Senior Management team had met to discuss a long-term solution to the issues with FED systems at the estate and that it was expecting a report from a review carried out by a specialist security consultant by end of July 2020. It said it would discuss the review with residents and confirmed it would continue to carry out temporary repairs in the interim to alleviate and stabilise issues. The landlord also acknowledged that the date of repair given in its Stage one response had (incorrectly) referred to another FED in a different building within the resident’s estate. It also acknowledged that its Stage one response failed to respond to the resident’s concern raised about increased antisocial behaviour (ASB) within the building/estate as a result of the fault with the FED. The landlord offered the resident an additional £75.00 compensation for the inconvenience caused (£50) and the delay in the Stage 2 response (£25), bringing the total amount of compensation offered to £125.

 

  1. Having raised issues of ASB, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident’s reports to its ASB team for further consideration. This would have enabled the landlord to engage its ASB procedure and identify suitable and proportionate action. There is no evidence of it doing this.

 

  1. On 10 July 2020, the resident advised the Ombudsman Service that he was dissatisfied with stage 2 response as it “nowhere near” addressed his “serious concerns”. He stated that whilst a handle to the FED has been fitted, it was “poor” because it had been taken from a chest of drawers and did not fit appropriately with a “high spec” building.

 

  1. On 4 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the residents of the estate to inform them about the security review that had been completed and advised that it would be following recommendations for upgrade works to the FEDs within the estate.

 

  1. On 14 August 2020, the landlord provided the residents with a timescale for action following the security review. This indicated that completion of upgrade works was due by February 2021 (stating this was the worst-case scenario). It stated that the upgrade requires work specifications to be drawn up, planning permission to be sought, costs to be evaluated and advised that this timescale took into account the festive season.

 

  1. In his response of the same date, the resident advised the landlord that he was unhappy with 6-month timescale given for the upgrade works. He also reported more ASB issues.

 

  1. Between 18 August 2020 and 11 September 2020, there was a series of communication between the landlord and resident in respect to the proposed timetable for completion of the upgrade works.  The landlord maintained its stated position in regards to the timeframe and on 11 September 2020 said that it would provide a further update at the end of September 2020.

 

Assessment and findings

Repair to the FED

  1. The Lease agreement makes clear that the landlord is responsible for repairing the communal parts, which includes FEDs to buildings within the resident’s estate. 

 

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy states that repairs to FEDs are classed as “Other Repairs” and no specific timeframe is given for these repairs. Nonetheless, it is noted that the maximum timeframe for standard responsive repairs to communal areas is 28 days. As such, this Service considers it is reasonable to take this into account when considering the length of time taken to provide repairs to the FED in this case, particularly in light of the increased risk to the security of the building.

 

  1. It is undisputed between the parties that the resident first reported an issue to the landlord regarding the FED not locking on 21 January 2020, through its repairs process. However, it is clear that the landlord did not complete the repair to the FED until 27 March 2020 when required works to the maglock to the FED, were successfully carried out. This indicates a delay of two months whereas its policy specifies a 28-day timescale. Therefore, this shows that the landlord did not appropriately respond to the fault reported. Additionally, as mentioned above, having reported ASB issues due to the faulty FED, this Service would expect the landlord to take greater care to ensure the repair was addressed within an appropriate timeframe, which it did not do.

 

  1. In its Stage one and Stage two responses, the landlord explained that different contractors are responsible for different components of the FED which resulted in the repair being passed backwards and forwards between both teams to try to get the issues resolved. Whilst it is accepted that this accounted for some delay, the evidence also suggests there was a considerable delay by the landlord before it took any action to address the resident’s report of a fault with the FED. As such, this does not affect the above finding that the landlord failed to appropriately respond to the fault reported due to the overall delay of two months.

 

  1. In light of the evidence, it is clear that following the initial repair to the FED on 27 March 2020, the resident (in early April 2020) reported difficulties experienced with opening the FED due to it “sticking”. The landlord’s response was that this issue would be raised with the relevant team but it would not be treated as an emergency as the FED was secure. In this circumstance, this Service is satisfied this response was appropriate.  However, it is noted that there is little evidence of the landlord attempting to address this issue over the next month or so, although it is also noted that this period was during the Covid-19 lockdown and the landlord’s call notes indicate the resident was made aware that the repair may be delayed due to this. Therefore, due to this circumstance, we do not consider this delay is sufficiently serious to constitute a service failure.

 

  1. The landlord attended the FED again on 28 May 2020 following contact from the resident on 27 May 2020 advising that the FED was unable to lock again. The quicker response time indicates that the landlord re-classified the repair to reflect the more urgent nature of the report, which this Service considers is an appropriate response in the circumstances and demonstrates learning from the complaints process; this is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from outcomes. The evidence shows the landlord’s contractors had found that the FED has been vandalised and the door did not always close properly. The landlord subsequently carried out repairs to the FED between 3 June 2020 and 26 June 2020.The landlord returned on 10 July 2020 to fit a new door handle (as to fit the new transom bar, the internal handle had to be removed). Whilst it took the landlord nearly a month to complete the repair, in its Stage two response, the landlord apologised for the delay and explained the repair required attendance of both its M&E and Repairs contractors as they were responsible for repairing different elements of the door to rectify the issue. Further, it advised that the completion of the repair had been scheduled for 17 June 2020 but due to an issue experienced with the timer relay, this prevented the works being completed on this occasion.

 

  1. It is noted that the landlord’s internal records show that FED repairs were required to other buildings within the estate during the complaint timeframe and in its Stage two response to the resident, the landlord advised that due to the issues being experienced with the communal FEDs to buildings across the resident’s estate, it had arranged for a security consultant to carry out a review of the FED system at the estate. Further, within its Stage two response, the landlord advised the resident that it would discuss the outcome of this with residents and that a report was due at the end of July 2020.

 

  1. The parties’ subsequent communications demonstrate that the landlord informed the resident of the outcome of the review on 4 August 2020 and confirmed that it would be following the recommendations made for upgrade works to the FEDs within the estate. This is accordance with its obligation under the Lease to “renew and improve” communal parts in circumstances where it considers it reasonable to do so. The landlord advised the resident of the expected timescale for the upgrade works on 14 August 2020. The landlord stated within its 10 July 2020 Stage two response that it would continue to carry out temporary repairs in the interim to alleviate and stabilise the security issues.

 

  1. Therefore, it is clear that due to the landlord recognising that the issues with the communal FEDs required a long-term and more permanent solution, it committed to providing a long-term solution whilst providing temporary repairs in the meantime, as confirmed to the resident in its Stage two response. The Ombudsman considers this is a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances.

 

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident remains dissatisfied both with the quality of the repair carried out to the FED and the timeframe indicated by the landlord for the upgrade works to be completed. In regards to the internal handle fitted to the FED, the resident said it is not in keeping with the specification of the building. Whilst the resident’s concerns, from an aesthetic perspective, were understandable, the Ombudsman is mindful that this work represents a temporary fix only, the purpose of which is to ensure the security of the FED until the landlord delivers the upgrade work.

 

  1. With regard to the proposed timetable for the upgrade works, as above, the resident has been in communications with the landlord since 14 August 2020  when it advised that the upgrade works are scheduled to be completed February 2021. This Service acknowledges that the resident is extremely unhappy with having to wait a further six months (from August 2020) particularly as the faulty FEDs have resulted in an increase to ASB on the estate. However, in light of the landlord’s communications with the resident, we are satisfied that it has explained the work involved and the different stages of the process before the remedial work can be completed, which includes possible planning permissions. Therefore, we do not find any service failure here by the landlord.

 

  1. In its Stage two response, the landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the faulty FED reported by the resident on 21 January 2020 and the impact this had on him and other residents. However, due to this delay, this Service deems that it is appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident a measure of compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. However, the landlord stated in its Stage two response that typically it did not compensate for communal issues. It is noted that the landlord’s Compensation policy does not provide for compensation in relation to repairs to communal areas (of buildings it owns) although section 4.2 of its policy does provide for discretionary compensation payments to maintain good relations with a resident where inconvenience has been caused by its actions or failure to act.  In line with this, the landlord offered the resident a total of £125 compensation made up of the £50.00 compensation offered in its Stage one response plus an additional £75.00 compensation: £50.00 for inconvenience caused and £25.00 for the delay in peer review (stage two) response. It appears this offer relates to admitted service failures with both its response to the resident’s report of a faulty FED and in respect of complaint handling. It is acknowledged that the resident asked for £200.00 in his request for a Peer Review (a partial refund of the service fee he pays to the landlord). However, in the circumstances, this Service considers the amount offered of £50 for inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in providing a repair to the FED as discussed above, is a reasonable amount and proportionate to the established service shortfall.

 

  1. In light of the £50 in compensation offered, the landlord’s apology for the delay and also the landlord’s documented commitment to carry out upgrade works to the FEDs within the resident’s estate by February 2021, we find that the landlord has offered redress which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

 

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaint policy (as detailed above in paragraphs 4 and 5), provides that it will record a formal complaint if an initial attempt to resolve the query is not achieved wherein it will investigate and do all it can to resolve the customer’s issues and put things right. As explained above, the landlord’s Compensation policy provides for discretionary compensation payment to maintain good relations with a resident where inconvenience has been caused by its actions or failure to act.

 

  1. In its Stage one response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for failing to raise a complaint for the resident when he first requested this on 13 March 2020. Further, it accepted that it only raised a complaint on 1 April 2020 after the resident had repeated this request on five occasions in emails to it between 24 March and 31 March 2020.  Due to the number of times the resident had to ask the landlord to raise a complaint and the length of time taken before it carried out the resident’s request (more than 10 working days), this Service considers the landlord did not handle this particular request in accordance with its Complaints policy or in a reasonable manner.

 

  1. Whilst the landlord’s Complaints policy does not specify a timeframe within which it will provide its Stage one and two responses, it is noted that the landlord took around 20 working days (from when it raised a complaint for the resident on 1 April 2020) to provide its Stage one response. Furthermore, it took approximately 40 working days (from the date the resident requested a review on 12 May 2020) to provide the resident with its Stage two (review) response. The Ombudsman expects member landlords to operate a timely and efficient complaints process that complements its overall service delivery. In this case, the landlord’s failure to raise the initial complaint and the length of time it took to provide its formal responses amounted to an unreasonable delay in its overall handling of the complaint process.

 

  1. As mentioned above, in its Stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the initial delay with raising the complaint but it did not acknowledge the delay with providing its Stage one response. In its Stage two response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in providing its Stage two response and it also advised that in its Stage one response, it had incorrectly referred to a repair which had been carried to a different communal FED, meaning it quoted an incorrect repair date and also incorrectly advised that no issue was found with the FED when its contractors visited on 8 April 2020 (other evidence confirms this related to a different FED within the estate). This would have caused confusion.

 

  1. Additionally, the landlord has acknowledged that it failed to respond to the reports of ASB noted in the resident’s initial complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer this issue to its ASB team so that it could have been handled appropriately. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to respond to issues raised during a complaints process, even if that response is to clarify what further action it will take in the circumstances.

 

  1. In response to the incorrect information provided in its Stage one response to the resident and the delays with raising the resident’s complaint and providing responses under Stage one and two of its Complaints process, this Service finds that the additional £75 compensation (the remaining amount from the overall amount of compensation offered of £125, if £50 of this is for the inconvenienced caused by the delay in responding to the faulty FED) provides the resident with reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in how it had dealt with his complaint.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress by the landlord which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, that resolves the complaint regarding its response to the resident’s reports about the FED.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress by the landlord which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding its Complaint Handling.

 

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not act appropriately in responding to the resident’s report of a faulty communal FED because its response was delayed and it took more than two months before it repaired the FED. However, in recognition of this, it apologised to the resident and offered compensation of £50 for the inconvenience caused. It also committed to carrying out upgrade works to the FEDs within the resident’s estate by February 2021, which the Ombudsman considers is reasonable and sufficient to resolve this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of complaint handling which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It delayed with raising a complaint when requested by the resident and its subsequent complaint responses were delayed and contained several errors. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation equating to £75 provides the resident with reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in how it had dealt with his complaint.

 

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to:

 

  1. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £50 offered in its Stage 1 response plus the additional £75 offered in its Stage 2 response.

 

  1. Carry out the agreed upgrade works to the FEDs within the resident’s estate by February 2021.

 

  1. The landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether ASB issues remain outstanding. If this is the case, the landlord to escalate any issues through the relevant procedure.