Clarion Housing Association Limited (202003749)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003749

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 February 2022

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

This complaint is about:
1. The level of redress the landlord offered in respect of its acknowledged delays and failures whilst handling a loss of hot water to the property, the resident’s transfer of ownership and her subsequent complaint;
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the building’s entry system, along with resident’s request to establish delegated authority for her representative.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property. The lease agreement seen is a joint agreement with the resident’s former partner. The lease began on 19 March 2015. The property is a ground floor flat in a block (the building).
The lease agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure of the building, which includes machinery and plant that does not exclusively serve the property. It is similarly responsible for cisterns, tanks, water apparatus and machinery which does not exclusively serve an individual flat in the building.
The building is situated in a development with a managing agent. The landlord has said the agent is appointed by the developer. From the information seen, the development’s communal heating system is in a separate building owned by the developer.
The landlord’s relevant repairs policy confirms repairs fall into two categories. Emergency repairs are defined as presenting an immediate danger to health, safety or security. Emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed upon this visit. Further repairs may be required afterwards but no completion timescale is given. Non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy was amended during the timeline. The initial policy document did not give details of required response timescales. The landlord’s new document, available online, confirms it aims to resolve complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two the target is 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms it will compensate residents at a rate of £5 per day for a loss of hot water caused by an outstanding repair. It shows compensation payments will be used to offset rent or other arrears.
The resident has vulnerabilities relating to her physical health and mobility. She has described herself as severely disabled with limited use of her hands. She receives home help from carers. Her brother has Power of Attorney (POA) and is acting as her representative. He has said the resident is unable to operate the property’s immersion heater by herself.
For the purposes of the assessment, both the resident and the representative will be referred to as “the resident” unless a clear distinction needs highlighting.

Summary of events

The following timeline is largely based on correspondence between the parties or with the Ombudsman. Though slight differences between both versions of events were noted, concerning the timeline, there was broad agreement amongst the parties about key details and the substance of the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 February 2020 about ending the joint lease. The landlord’s correspondence shows it emailed her the same day with instructions to return a consent form signed by both leaseholders. The resident followed up the instruction with a further question, but the landlord did not respond.
The resident contacted the landlord about the lease on 24 February and
11 March 2020. No further information about this contact was given.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 March 2020. Her letter said the joint lease was ending by mutual agreement, but the resident would remain in the property as a sole leaseholder. The landlord was asked to make the necessary changes with immediate effect and let the resident know if any further information was needed.
From the correspondence, the landlord emailed the resident on 6 April 2020. It said an administration fee of £150 was required to progress the ownership transfer. The landlord received the resident’s cheque on 28 April 2020.
The landlord was responsible for an unspecified delay in progressing the transfer on 6 May 2020. It later accepted its administration team incorrectly processed the cheque, which was consequently returned for reprocessing.
On 7 June 2020 the resident was notified the fee would be waived and the landlord could progress the transfer. It later said its finance team received the cheque, but it was unable to access the office due to the pandemic.
On 15 June 2020 the resident found there was no hot water to the property. The representative later told the Ombudsman her carers had to shower her in cold water. Since the resident is unable to raise her body temperature, this presented a serious risk to her health. Further, she needed hot water to perform a daily medical procedure. Failure to carry out the procedure caused significant pain and distress. The representative made efforts to contact the landlord the same day and restore the water supply. However, he was incorrectly signposted and could only get through to a voicemail.
On 16 June 2020 the resident received a letter from the landlord. It said the building’s communal heating system was being switched off for a period of eleven weeks from 15 June 2020. Residents were to use their immersion heaters for hot water during this time. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this letter. A letter notifying residents the heating had been switched back on, dated 9 September 2020, was seen. The landlord later told the Ombudsman a trial shutdown was attempted because the building was often too hot for comfort during the summer.
The resident said she informed the landlord about the lack of hot water the day she received the letter. The landlord said its records showed the problem was initially reported on 17 June 2020. Both parties agree she was advised, on several occasions, that the landlord was not obliged to repair the immersion heater given the property’s shared ownership status.
On 19 June 2020 the resident arranged her own plumber to attend the immersion heater. On inspection they found parts were needed before it could be used. Ultimately, after the resident contacted the landlord’s executive team multiple times, the landlord arranged an emergency repair to the immersion heater and the water supply was restored the same day.
The resident reported a fault with the building’s key entry system on 23 June 2020. The representative later said the resident’s carers were prevented from accessing the property, and the resident was unable to leave in the event of a fire.
The landlord’s repairs team received the repair request on 24 June 2020. The landlord attended the same day and found a replacement part was required. The door was left on a free access setting until the following day. The landlord attended again and secured the building by implementing fob access.
On the same day, the representative was advised he would need to complete a delegated authority form to continue communicating with the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the completed form dated 26 June 2020. The form required the signature of a joint tenant where applicable.
On 2 July 2020 the replacement part was fitted to the door. This was seven working days after the fault was reported. The landlord has said no further issues were reported with the door following the repair.
On 6 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord about the transfer of ownership. She said the other leaseholder had left the country and was therefore unable to sign the form. The landlord was notified in advance, through a letter signed by both parties, but did not respond to previous communications. As a result, the authorisation form was enclosed with one signature.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 9 July 2020. It addressed concerns raised on 20 June 2020 about the loss of hot water to the property and delays in progressing the resident’s transfer of ownership. The main points were:
1. The resident’s vulnerabilities and desire to quickly restore the hot water supply were acknowledged. However, the landlord had received multiple contacts which took excessive time to resolve to the disadvantage of other residents.
2. The landlord agreed to waive the administration fee and progress the transfer on 7 June 2020. The resident’s cheque was not banked.
3. The resident should instruct her solicitor to carry out the legal transfer of the property and serve a Notice of Transfer on completion. The landlord could only amend its records on receipt of this document.
4. The landlord failed to communicate details of the trial heating shutdown, received from the building’s managing agent, in a timely fashion. Six weeks’ notice should have been given to allow the resident to test her immersion heater or raise objections.
5. The landlord incorrectly redirected the resident’s call on 17 June 2020. It also handled her transfer letter and cheque incorrectly. Individual feedback and team training were provided accordingly.
6. The complaint was upheld. £50 compensation was awarded comprising a £30 goodwill payment and £20 for lost hot water over four days.
From later correspondence, the landlord wrote to the resident about the delegated authority form on 10 July 2020. The landlord has said it notified the resident that both leaseholders needed to sign the document. The resident has said the form was returned with no explanation.
Based on subsequent correspondence between the parties, the representative attempted to escalate the complaint on 15 July 2020. The landlord later accepted it overlooked this request because the email was attached to an inactive complaint. From the information seen, the landlord had no set complaint response timescale at this point.
The Ombudsman received notification of the resident’s complaint from the representative on 25 July 2020. At this stage, further complaint issues were added around repairs to the entry system, the landlord’s handling of the representative’s delegated authority to act for the resident, its complaint handling and alleged breaches of equalities and safety legislation. The Ombudsman’s records show that, due to an oversight at the Service, the correspondence was not actioned correctly.
On 7 January 2021, the Ombudsman passed the complaint details to the landlord for a response. This was prompted by contact from the resident in December 2020.
Following the landlord’s refusal to accept the resident’s delegated authority, during its complaint investigation, the parties were in email contact between
24 and 25 January 2021. The resident said her representative successfully liaised with the landlord on her behalf over several months. She had also completed the delegated authority form and provided evidence he held POA. She therefore felt the landlord was seeking to prevent the complaint from being addressed.
On 2 February 2021 the Ombudsman advised the representative the landlord would reply to the complaint at stage one, since additional concerns were added following its initial response on 9 July 2020.
On 12 February 2021 the landlord asked the resident for the POA document because it was unable to retrieve the information from its records. He replied with supporting documentation the same day and asked for a full explanation as why the delegated authority form was not accepted.
On 16 February 2021 the landlord notified the resident the document provided was a registration letter rather than proof POA was established. The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the registration document dated 1 October 2020. The landlord requested a one-time access code allowing it to review the full POA document through the government website. The landlord confirmed it successfully registered the representative as the resident’s advocate the following day.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. It addressed the following issues: the transfer to a sole tenancy; the loss of hot water; repairs to entry system; the representative’s authority to act for the resident; the landlord’s complaint handling and whether the landlord complied with the Equality Act 2010. The main points were:
1. The landlord had identified errors in its handling of the transfer. Its finance team were also handling a backlog due to the pandemic. It had waived the £150 administration fee as a result. In January 2021 notification was received from the resident that her solicitor would forward the relevant paperwork shortly.
2. The landlord had responded to the repair in 24 hours and the door was made useable until parts were available. This was in accordance with the landlord’s repair timescales.
3. The managing agent had notified the landlord of the heating shut down. The landlord delayed sending notification letters to residents.
4. Because there were two leaseholders, the landlord needed two signatures on its delegated authority form. The situation was ultimately resolved when the landlord gained access the resident’s POA document online through a passcode. The representative was added to the account as an advocate.
5. The landlord’s previous award of £20 was made in line with its compensation policy. The separate goodwill gesture related to the delay in processing the resident’s transfer.
6. The landlord had followed its process and policies providing the resident with support where needed.
7. Four errors had been identified resulting in delays. As a result, the complaint was upheld. A total of £425 compensation was awarded comprising £400 for the errors and £25 for a delay in resolving the complaint.
8. The compensation would be used to offset any arrears on the resident’s account.
The representative disagreed with the outcome the same day. He said any suggestion the landlord acted appropriately in respect of the hot water supply was farcical. He emphasised the distress; inconvenience; pain and risk the resident was caused over a period of four days until the immersion heater was repaired. As a result, the initial offer of £20 was derisory and did not reflect the effort expended, or the difficulty encountered in resolving the situation with the landlord.
He also said the proposal to use the compensation to offset any arrears was unacceptable because they stemmed from a significant variance in the landlord’s maintenance charges. This was with Department for Work and Pensions and logged with the landlord. While this was expected to be resolved in due course, the representative had no confidence the offsetting would be handled correctly. He therefore sought to avoid the matter becoming a time-consuming issue to resolve with the landlord.
To bring the matter to a close, he asked for the £425 to be paid directly to the resident within ten days. He also said the distress and inconvenience figure should be increased and, although it wouldn’t sufficiently compensate the resident for her experience, £100 was a more appropriate figure.
There was further correspondence between 19 and 22 February 2021. During this time, the landlord notified the representative the complaint was closed. This prompted him to reply his previous email was ignored and the matter was not resolved. On 22 February 2021 the landlord said, in a previous email, he had mentioned he would not be pursuing the matter.
On 4 March 2021 the representative notified the landlord of his intent to commence legal action if it did not pay £1000 in compensation within 14 days. This was based on the landlord’s alleged breaches of both the Equality Act (2010) and the Health and Safety Act (2005), along with personal injury.
The landlord replied the same day. It confirmed the complaint had been escalated based on the previous emails. It apologised there was a delay in notifying the resident. It said, because the total award was contested, compensation would not be paid until the landlord’s complaints process was concluded.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 9 March 2021. This was more than seven months after the resident’s initial escalation request. The layout of the document confirms it was amended, following the representative’s correspondence on 4 March 2020, prior to being issued. The main points were:
1. Multiple issues occurred in relation to several different matters.
2. It was evident the resident was caused significant distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s actions, which put her health and safety at risk.
3. The resident’s reliance on the hot water supply, in connection with her disability, was acknowledged.
4. A formal apology was offered, and it was accepted the errors were avoidable.
5. The initial offer of compensation was “derisory” given the circumstances.
6. The level of compensation was increased to £945 given the landlord’s disappointment with its handling of the situation, along with the resident’s subsequent complaint. This figure was increased to £1000 at the representative’s request.
7. Given the circumstances the landlord agreed to pay the compensation directly to the resident, rather than using the funds to offset any rent arrears.
8. The landlord’s findings would be discussed internally with a view to improving its service going forward. Particular focus would be given to cascading information received from managing agents to affected residents.
During a phone call on 8 February 2022, the representative said the resident was still experiencing a range of issues with the landlord. These included a recent unexpected loss of the hot water supply. He also emphasised the impact to the resident of the events above. We advised new issues were beyond the scope of the assessment and needed to be addressed by the landlord’s complaints procedure in the first instance.
On 9 February 2021 the representative provided recent email correspondence with the landlord. It suggests the managing agent previously declined the landlord’s request to be flexible in notifying its residents prior to any important works. The landlord noted there was no obligation on the part of the managing agent to comply with this request.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the resident is dealing with difficult personal circumstances. It is accepted the impact of the above events was significantly intensified by these circumstances. It is also evident there was a delay of over five months while the case was with the Ombudsman. Please accept my apology on behalf of the Service for this error. It may help to explain that, though this Service is an alternative to the courts, the Ombudsman is unable to make findings under the Equalities Act (2010) or otherwise. Nor can it establish liability or award damages.

The landlord’s level of redress for acknowledged delays and failures

In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The temporary loss of the resident’s water supply, for a period of around four days is the primary complaint issue. This can be seen from the resident’s escalation requests which consistently refer impact of this event, along with the landlord’s subsequent offer of redress.
The lease agreement shows the resident is responsible for the property’s immersion heater. That said, it is accepted her condition prevented her from confirming whether this was working. It is noted the representative, in his original complaint to the Ombudsman, said the carers were not permitted to operate the immersion. The landlord said it should have given all its residents six weeks prior notice of the shutdown. This was a significant event with the potential to cause adverse impacts to residents. The above information confirms the importance of issuing advance notification. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord has other residents with vulnerabilities.
Ultimately, the landlord used its discretion to carry out an emergency repair to the immersion heater. While the landlord was not obliged to complete this repair, it was an appropriate action given the circumstances. The timeline shows it took substantial effort from resident to achieve this outcome.
In relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer of ownership, it took around four months, between 13 February and 7 June 2020, to progress the transfer. It is accepted the landlord was not responsible for the whole of this delay and the pandemic was also a factor. However, the landlord was responsible for failures during this period. For example, it initially failed to respond to the resident and caused a separate processing delay. On that basis, it was reasonable for the landlord to waive the administration fee of around £150.
This assessment considered the timeline in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s internal remedies guidance. It is noted the landlord’s final award of £1000 is in line with our expectations for instances where a landlord’s maladministration, or severe maladministration, resulted in a long-term impact on the resident, for example, a failure to make reasonable adjustments. This is a reasonable benchmark for comparison given the circumstances. Though the duration of period without hot water was relatively short, the impact on the resident was particularly severe.
The timeline confirms the total redress exceeded the landlord’s award of £1000. This is because the landlord incurred the cost of repairing the immersion heater, along with costs associated with waiving the administration fee. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm the cost to the landlord of these actions.
It also shows the landlord took steps to accommodate the resident’s preferences on more than one occasion. Contrary to its compensation policy, it agreed with the resident’s request to pay the compensation direct rather than offset any arrears. It also agreed to increase the total compensation figure to £1000 in line with the resident’s suggestion. Though it is noted the increase was approved following a threat of legal action, there is no indication the landlord was obliged to agree these actions. It therefore showed it was resolution focussed and appropriately engaged with the resident’s concerns.
In respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, the evidence suggests there was an avoidable delay of around seven months because the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in July 2020. Though the escalation request has not been seen, the landlord’s correspondence shows it accepts a request was attached to an inactive complaint. This delay occurred irrespective of the Ombudsman’s error. The landlord’s second stage one response was also issued outside of the landlord’s applicable timescale.
Additionally, the tone of the landlord’s initial stage one response was unsensitive given its reference to excessive communication from the resident. This was compounded by the highly disproportionate offer of redress included. While the offer was based on the landlord’s policy, in respect of a daily rate for lost amenities, little consideration was given to the serious impact on the resident, or the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord again lacked sensitivity when it issued a closure letter after the second stage one response was issued. It is unclear whether the complaint would have been escalated without the threat of legal action.
The wording of the stage two response shows complaint handling was considered during the landlord’s review and failures were recognised. It is noted both parties independently reached a broadly similar compensation figure, £945 and £1000, and the higher amount was agreed. This assessment therefore found the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns around complaint handling, which were reflected proportionately in its total offer of redress.
The timeline shows the landlord attempted to use the resident’s experience to improve its services going forward. For example, its stage one response from
9 July 2020, confirmed feedback had been provided in relation to a misdirected call. It also said process training was delivered to a relevant team. The stage two response, from 9 March 2021, said internal conversations would be held in respect of distributing information to residents.
These actions showed the landlord’s willingness to learn from outcomes in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Though the resident’s evidence around a similar recent incident was noted, the Ombudsman was unable to assess this information fairly.
Given the above, this assessment found the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to the multiple delays and failures identified.

The landlord’s handling of the repair and the resident’s delegated authority

The timeline confirms the entry was repaired in line with the landlord’s emergency repairs policy. This is because it was made safe within 24 hours and a temporary fix was put in place, until the replacement parts could be installed around ten days later. It is noted the resident did not raise this issue when the complaint was escalated in February 2021. This suggests she ultimately agreed with the landlord’s assessment in respect of this complaint issue.
In relation to the landlord’s handling of the delegated authority, the resident asked for an explanation as to why the authority was not accepted in July 2020. The landlord offered an explanation in its second stage one response. It said two signatures were required where a lease was jointly held. Further, its support team was unaware the resident was in the process of creating a sole lease. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to either confirm or refute this explanation. It said proof of POA was sought as an alternative solution while the ownership transfer was ongoing.
From the wording of the landlord’s responses, it is unclear whether it identified any failures in relation to this process. On that basis, though the resident’s complaints were upheld overall, this investigation considered the matter separately. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s letter from 10 July 2020. The date of the POA registration document was noted. From the information seen, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord was mindful of its obligations to both signatories of the lease agreement.
No information has been seen to show the landlord’s handling of the delegated authority prevented the situation from being resolved at an earlier stage. As a result, the landlord’s refusal to register the representative’s ongoing authority, until proof of POA was provided, was reasonable. That said, it would be preferable if the landlord’s relevant departments were aware of its activities. The timeline suggests the resident was previously able to provide temporary authority for the representative to deal with specific issues. This is because, in January 2021, the resident said he had successfully liaised with the landlord before.
Given the above, this assessment found there was no maladministration in respect of landlord’s handling of the repairs or the delegated authority.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its acknowledged delays and failures whilst handling a loss of hot water to the property, the resident’s transfer of ownership and her subsequent complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the entry system, along with resident’s request to establish delegated authority for her representative.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged and apologised for multiple delays and failures throughout the timeline. It considered the acute impact to the resident and, ultimately, worked to accommodate her preferred resolution. It also demonstrated a willingness to learn from outcomes. The parties reached a similar compensation figure independently and the higher amount was agreed. Having considered the evidence carefully, the Ombudsman found the figure was in line with our expectations and therefore fair to both parties.
The landlord completed repairs to the entry system in accordance with its repairs policy. No evidence was seen to show the landlord unreasonably declined to accept the resident’s ongoing delegated authority, or that its failures prevented the situation from being resolved earlier.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord, if it hasn’t already, to pay the resident £1000 in total compensation within four weeks, as agreed in its stage two response. Any amount paid previously should be deducted from this total.
The landlord to consider cascading information with health and safety implications in advance through a resident representative, or its local area staff. Bulletin boards or information posters may help.
The landlord to consider communicating this information using text/email as well as by post to ensure prompt delivery.
The landlord to share details of the case/Ombudsman’s determination with its staff for training purposes.
The landlord to provide training redress training based around identifying impacts and vulnerable residents. This is with a view to promoting the use of discretion, in respect of compensation payments, to ensure redress is proportionate.
The landlord to review its interdepartmental information sharing, with a view to improving its service to residents, by ensuring information relevant to a range of functions can be accessed easily.
The landlord should confirm its intentions regarding the recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.