Clarion Housing Association Limited (202004382)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004382

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 May 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for a new front door.
2. Response to the resident’s request to replace the gas fire.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.

Summary of events

On 20 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to make a complaint regarding its response to her request for a new front door and replacement gas fire. In summary the resident said:
1. In respect of the front door:
  1. Following a fall in the property in April 2019 the police forced entry which damaged the front door. The resident explained that the landlord repaired the door by “gluing it together”.
  2. The door should be replaced as it was not in good condition. The resident explained that there was a large gap on one side which let heat out and smoke in. The resident stated that she did not believe that the door was compliant with fire regulations.
  3. The landlord had replaced the front door on neighbouring properties.
2. In respect of the gas fire:
  1. In May 2019 the gas fire was condemned. The resident explained that the landlord therefore disconnected the fire however did not replace it.
  2. The gas fire was part of property’s fixture and fittings and therefore should be replaced.
  3. Should the property experience a power cut the gas fire would be her only form of heating. The resident noted that she had Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and therefore needed to keep warm at all times.
3. She was disappointed that the landlord had not taken steps to replace the front door and gas fire.
An internal email by the landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint was logged on the same day.
On 17 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response following a phone call with the resident on 3 March 2020. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of the front door:
  1. Its Area Manager for repairs had confirmed that the door had been repaired to a make safe standard following the forced entry. The landlord noted that additional works were requested however were not completed as access was refused.
  2. Its Senior Surveyor (the SS) had confirmed that the door was “fully functioning and not causing any issues”.
  3. The replacement of fire doors sat with the Fire Team. The landlord confirmed that the resident would be contacted by the Fire Team when the door was due to be replaced.
2. In respect of the gas fire:
  1. Gas fires were not replaced when they were beyond repair where a property had full gas central heating.
  2. Its contractor attended to remove the gas fire and block up the opening however the resident had requested that it was left in place.
On 27 April 2020 the resident requested to escalate the complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. In respect of the front door:
  1. She had not refused access in respect of a repair appointment for the front door.
  2. She did not understand why the landlord would not replace the front door.
  3. The repair following the forced entry involved gluing the front door together and filling the gaps with putty.
  4. She did not believe that the front door was compliant with fire regulations. The resident noted that the door had a brush on the bottom which prevented it from closing automatically.
  5. The gaps around the front door allowed heat to escape the property and would allow smoke to enter the property if there was a fire.
2. In respect of the gas fire:
  1. The gas fire was part of the fixtures and fittings and should therefore be repaired or replaced by the landlord.
  2. She suffered from COPD and therefore she needed to keep warm at all times. The resident stated that the gas fire was therefore necessary in case there was a power cut.
On 9 June 2020 the landlord provided its stage two (final) response. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of the front door:
  1. The SS had confirmed that the front door was “safe and secure”.
  2. The property would be included in a future programme of improvement works which would likely include replacement of the front door. The landlord noted that at this time it did not have a date for the work.
2. In respect of the gas fire:
  1. Its Gas Safety Management Policy sets out that it was “committed to phasing out open fires, open flue appliances, gas fires and gas wall heaters and [would] seek to remove and replace all solid fuel appliances with other forms of heating when identified in our properties”. The landlord confirmed that it had therefore acted in accordance with its policy in not reinstating the gas fire when it went beyond economical repair.
  2. It had scheduled an appointment to remove the gas fire from the property on 3 July 2020.
  3. The resident should visit its website for information on keeping warm.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she was not satisfied with its response.
As the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response she referred the complaint to the Ombudsman for adjudication.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new front door

The landlord’s repair log confirms that it attended to make good the front door following a forced entry by the police on 15 April 2019. The record of the appointment confirmed “operative spliced out and repaired the frame as well as changed the lock – no follow on works required”. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that an emergency repair includes a repair which jeopardises the security of a resident. As the property was left unsecure following the forced entry it was therefore appropriate that the landlord attended the property within 24 hours to make good the front door.
A second entry in the landlord’s repair log dated 24 July 2019 requested a work order for “overhead door closer” to the front door as the current closer “[would] not shut the fire door”. The record further stated that the door “was repaired satisfactory following the police breaking in entry”. The Ombudsman notes that the appointment to fit the new closer was cancelled as the resident “refused” access. The Ombudsman has not identified any further repair request in respect of the condition of the front door after July 2019 or that another appointment was later made to fit the door closer.
The resident made her complaint in January 2020 which was approximately eight months after the repair to make good the front door on 15 April 2019 and five months after the repair was raised to replace the closer where it was noted that the repair undertaken in April was satisfactory. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it would have been appropriate for the landlord to attend the property to inspect the front door as the resident noted that the door was in poor condition and had raised fire safety concerns. It was not reasonable for the landlord to rely on its findings from April and July 2019 to confirm that the door had not deteriorated and therefore that it did not require replacement or repair due to the time which had elapsed since these appointments. Further there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to make a new appointment in respect of the work order to install a closer. This is unsatisfactory. While the Ombudsman notes that the appointment was not completed due to an access issue, which the resident disputes, the landlord retained a repair obligation. As the work order noted that the part was required to close the “fire door” it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have been proactive in following up the matter.
In responding to the complaint the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety which she had explicitly raised in relation to the front door. While the landlord stated that the SS had attended the property and was satisfied that the door was safe and secure it did not go on to explain why the gaps reports by the resident or brush at the bottom were not considered a fire risk. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unsatisfactory. The landlord should have provided reassurances to the resident to confirm its position particularly given that it had confirmed that she was going to have to wait to have the door replaced as part of a door replacement programme.
The Ombudsman understands from the landlord’s records that the property’s front door was replaced in early 2021 as part of improvement works.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the gas fire

The landlord’s repair log confirms that the landlord attended the property on 1 May 2019 to service the gas appliances. The record confirmed that the “fire was left off” following the appointment. The record does not document the reason the fire was left off however the Ombudsman notes from the complaint correspondence that it is not disputed that this was because the fire was not safe.
The landlord’s policy on Gas Safety Management sets out it is “committed to phasing out open fires, open flue appliances, gas fires and gas wall heaters and will seek to remove and replace all solid fuel appliances with other forms of heating when identified in [its] properties”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s position that it would not replace the gas fire in the property, once it had been identified as unsafe, was appropriate as it was in line with the policy. The landlord’s decision was also in in accordance with the Ombudsman’s understanding of good practice across the sector, with landlord’s moving away from the use of such appliances.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident believes that under the property’s tenancy agreement the landlord is required to repair or replace the gas fire when it no longer works. While the Ombudsman notes that the tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord will repair and maintain the equipment for heating the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord was in breach of the tenancy agreement for refusing to repair or replace the gas fire. This is because the property had a full central heating system installed and the gas fire was a secondary appliance. However, if the resident disagrees the Ombudsman’s opinion in relation to the landlord’s obligations under the tenancy in respect of the gas fire she would need to refer the matter to the Court. This is because the Court may provide a binding decision on the terms of the lease and the landlord’s responsibilities.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding keeping warm due to her health condition the landlord signposted her to information on its website. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate as the advice was on keeping a home warm.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy further sets out where this is not possible it will inform the resident.
The chronology of the complaint shows that the landlord did not respond to the complaint at stage one or two in line with its service standards or notify the resident of any delays. This is unsatisfactory as the purpose of a complaint procedure is to address concerns at the earliest stage. The delay was also contrary to the landlord’s complaint handling principle to resolve complaints quickly.
On notification that the resident had referred her complaint to this service, and gathering evidence for the Ombudsman’s investigation, the landlord reviewed its complaint handling. The landlord confirmed that it had identified that it had not met its service standards for complaint handling and would therefore like to apologise to the resident and awarded £50 compensation.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer is appropriate to remedy the complaint handling failings identified in paragraph 20. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s offer was in line with its compensation policy which sets out that it may award £50 compensation for failure to meet service standards for responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s request for a new front door.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s request to replace the gas fire.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the matter.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new front door

On receipt of the resident’s complaint the landlord should have attended the property to inspect the front door to determine if the door had deteriorated since it made good the repair in April 2019 and following the work order to replace the closer in July 2019. It was unreasonable for the landlord to rely on its findings from April and July 2019 to confirm that the door had not deteriorated and therefore that it did not require replacement or repair due to the time which had passed since these appointments.
It was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not follow up the work order to install a door closer to the front door despite the no access issue.
The landlord failed to provide reassurances to the resident to support its conclusions that the front door was not a fire risk despite her concerns regarding gaps and the brush at the bottom.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the gas fire

The landlord’s decision to not replace the gas fire after the appointment on 1 May 2019 was in accordance with its policy on Gas Safety Management.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion there has been no breach in the property’s tenancy agreement in respect of the landlord’s decision to not repair or replace the gas fire. This is because while the tenancy agreement sets out that landlord will repair and maintain the equipment for heating the Ombudsman notes that the gas fire was the secondary source for heating within the property and the central heating system was the primary source.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord did not respond to the complaint in accordance with its service standards the landlord has since recognised its failings and confirmed that it would like to apologise to the resident in addition to offering the resident £50 compensation. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has taken steps to put matters right.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £300 compensation for not taking appropriate steps to assess and respond to the resident’s request for a new front door following her complaint in January 2020.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it awarded in consideration of her complaint. The compensation should be accompanied by an apology to acknowledge its shortcomings in responding to the complaint in a timely manner.
The Ombudsman notes that in correspondence to the landlord following the end of the complaint procedure the resident noted that she did not have access to the internet and could not review the information it had provided regarding keeping warm. The landlord should therefore provide the resident with paper copies of the information.
The landlord should comply with the orders and recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.