Clarion Housing Association Limited (202004806)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004806

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 August 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 response to the resident’s reports about:
1. handling of a boiler installation, moving a carbon monoxide detector, replacement of a rusty radiator, bathroom wall cracks, replacement of a towel handle, and replacement of a vacuum cleaner.
2. holes around the boiler.
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a first floor flat.
The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm Regulations 2015 and the Building Regulations require private landlords to fit carbon monoxide alarms in properties where solid fuel (not gas) appliances are used. Registered providers of social housing are currently excluded from these requirements.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out a landlord’s obligation to maintain the structure of a property and to keep in repair installations for space heating and heating water. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy sets out standards for responsive repairs including by its partner contractors. For non-emergency repairs, appointments will be offered within 28 calendar days of a repair being reported.
The landlord’s complaints policy advises initial queries will be resolved by one of its departments where possible. If an initial attempt to resolve a query is unsuccessful, it operates a two stage complaints procedure, in which it aims to respond within 10 working days at stage one, and within 20 working days at a peer review stage.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out instances where compensation may be considered, including where it fails to meet service standards for actions and responses. It advises that where there is no hot water as a result of an outstanding repair, £5 per day after 7 days from the initial report is applicable, and where there is no hot water as a result of a boiler replacement, £5 per day after 14 days from the initial report is applicable, both taking into account a reasonable time to complete the work. It advises for repairs that have gone over target time, a daily tariff up to a maximum payment of £50 is applicable, and sets out discretionary amounts that can be awarded dependent on the level of failure and impact on the resident.
The resident has submitted a number of complaints about various issues which overlap with one another.
On 28 July 2020, this Service determined a separate complaint about a bathroom pipe/mould which exhausted the landlord’s procedure on 23 March 2020.
On 15 October 2020, this Service determined a separate complaint about a delay installing the boiler, which exhausted the landlord’s procedure on 20 January 2020.
On 20 July 2020, the landlord issued a final response to a complaint about the issues detailed in Paragraph 1 of this report.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord issued a final response to a separate complaint about the bathroom walls and events from August/September 2020. This was brought to this Service at a later date and is being handled as a separate case, to reflect that it progressed as a separate complaint within the landlord’s complaints procedure at a different time.
This investigation therefore focuses on the resident’s formal complaint about the issues detailed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this report, up until the landlord’s final response to this complaint on 20 July 2020. This investigation does not specifically assess issues and events beyond July 2020, and events that post-date the complaints procedure are referenced for contextual purposes only.

Summary of events

On 20 November 2019, a new boiler was installed in the property with a temporary wire up, which the resident advises he was informed may be permanently completed the following day. The landlord’s account advises that the boiler was left fully functional, while the resident’s account adds that the attendant operative used the resident’s vacuum cleaner to clean up after the boiler install.
On 21 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and its gas contractor to note potential completion of the permanent wire up that day. He raised concern if this did not occur, explaining that the boiler had stopped allowing central heating to come on and there was no hot water coming out of the taps or shower. He added that a new boiler pipe that led outside was not sealed and allowed cold in, and that an engineer had recommended replacement of a bathroom radiator, which he requested to be advised of an appointment for.
Following this, the landlord and resident’s accounts are contradictory as to when wire up of the boiler was completed. The landlord has stated this took place on 25 November 2019, while the resident advises an electrician completed the boiler installation on 21 November 2019, four days earlier and contrary to the landlord’s “false information.”
On 25 November 2019, the resident reported a hot water issue to the landlord, after report of the issue to the electrician who attended on 21 November 2019 and emails and calls to the gas contractor, according to his account. The same day, the landlord’s plumber attended and resolved the report of no hot water from bath taps and a shower. The resident’s account advises it was identified the mixer had not been connected to the new boiler, although in correspondence two weeks later he notes the landlord later explained the problem had been with an air trap in pipework. The resident has advised this indicated failure to test the mixer hot water flow and connect the mixer to the boiler, and/or failure to test the mixer to correct the air trap.
On 26 November 2019, the resident complained to the landlord’s gas contractor, as advised by the landlord around this time.
1. He reported that after installation of the boiler on 20 November 2020, the vacuum cleaner used by an operative had developed defects. He asked to be reimbursed for a new vacuum and compensated for inconvenience caused by loss of its use.
2. He advised that when a plumber attended on 25 November 2019, the mixer was identified to have not been connected to the new boiler. He asked to be compensated for having to heat water to bathe.
3. He advised that at the boiler installation, the new pipe and holes around new pipes had not been not sealed. He asked to be compensated for cold experienced while waiting for holes to be sealed.
On 27 November 2019, in a further email the resident requested the landlord’s gas contractor move a carbon monoxide detector into the kitchen where the boiler had been installed.
In December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and its gas contractor on several occasions including 11 December and 30 December 2019, to advise there had been no response after 10 working days as advised by the landlord to allow. Following the 11 December 2019 email, the landlord advised the issue had been escalated to its complaint handling team who would be in contact within 10 working days, while the response after the 30 December 2019 email is unclear.
On 16 January 2020, the landlord’s gas contractor responded to a report from the resident on 6 January 2020 that the bathroom radiator was not working. The gas contractor’s account advises the radiator was bled and considered to be in full working order. The resident’s account advises that around this time, the carbon monoxide detector was moved, and he provided contact details for a neighbour whose garden the contractor would need to access to seal exterior holes.
On 20 January 2020, a manager from the landlord’s gas contractor attended to discuss the complaint the resident made on 26 November 2019, after he had restated requests for reimbursement for the vacuum cleaner, to fill holes and move a carbon monoxide detector in an email on 12 January 2020. From information provided, the manager installed a fuse which was missing from the vacuum, suggested a new filter was required, and promised to write to the resident. Following this, the resident emailed that, after installation of a new filter, the vacuum did not work as effectively as it should and still required replacement.
On 31 January 2020, after calls including on 27 January 2020, the resident raised concern to the landlord and its contractor that his complaint had not been responded to, and he intended to take his complaint to this Service. The same day, the landlord requested a summary of what the complaint related to, following which the resident forwarded his previous emails.
On 4 February 2020, the landlord’s gas contractor emailed the resident. They apologised for the delay in response following the 20 January 2020 visit, due to an emergency. They requested a date in the coming weeks when the resident would be available to have the holes and pipes filled. They advised they could send the vacuum value in vouchers for him to replace it or they could have a replacement delivered to him. They advised there had been heating and hot water since the installation and there was no evidence or call raised to support that the tap had not worked, so no compensation for the installation would be provided. On 11 and 13 February 2020, the contractor internally noted no response to this email. The resident subsequently disputed receipt of the email, and in further correspondence advised he had “still not seen” it as he could not open an attachment in a separate email he received.
On 24 February 2020, the landlord carried out a mould wash to the bathroom wall, following which the resident reported the wall developed cracks. He stated this was an issue caused by insulation of a cold pipe (assessed in the previous Ombudsman’s determination) and requested for the bathroom wall to be tiled.
On 4 March 2020, the landlord’s gas contractor wrote to the resident. They advised they understood he had not received an email and apologised for the level of service received. They advised the boiler flue had been found to be correctly sealed but required a final finish. They advised they understood an issue with the hot water supply in the bathroom was attended and an air lock on the supply pipework was rectified. They noted attending contractors used the resident’s vacuum cleaner which had resulted in a loss of suction, and offered £35 as a gesture of goodwill for a replacement.
On 5 March 2020, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the response. He advised the vacuum had cost him £45; he was affected by loss of service for a week until the bath tap was rectified; and the sealing of holes was not addressed in the letter. On 20 March 2020, the landlord’s gas contractor confirmed concerns about a bathroom radiator and areas that required making good had been referred internally, but explained that radiators were not generally changed for decorative reasons when the resident advised the radiator was “just rusty.”
On 23 March 2020, the landlord’s records advise that repairs were raised to reseal the bathroom walls ready for painting, in response to the resident’s reports of bathroom wall cracks, however these were cancelled due to Covid-19.
On 22 April 2020, the information provided advises the landlord’s gas contractor attended to seal outstanding holes related to the boiler install and on 25 April 2020 delivered a replacement vacuum cleaner to the resident. He advises he was informed the seal on the inside had to dry before sealing of the outside, and he was told to wait until the cold season to assess if he needed to request contractors to seal the outside.
On 7 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that although the vacuum had been replaced, he believed compensation was due for the delays involved in this and other outstanding works. On 26 May 2020, the landlord took steps to arrange for a complaint to be raised and on 3 June 2020, it issued its stage one response:
1. It acknowledged a complaint that the new boiler pipe was not connected to the bath mixer and that he had no heating and hot water following installation of a new boiler. They noted the boiler was installed in November 2019, and there was an attendance on 25 November 2019 to resolve a report of no hot water to a bath tap and shower attachment, and an attendance on 16 January 2020 to resolve a report a radiator was not working. They advised there had been no reports of problems since.
2. It advised holes around the new boiler pipes were made good on 22 April 2020.
3. It advised that due to Covid-19 restrictions, there had been delays attending in regard to moving the carbon monoxide detector, and asked the resident to liaise with its contractor.
4. It advised that the resident should directly contact the contractor concerning the rusty radiator issue, noting the contractor advised they had received no reports about the radiator for engineers to attend.
5. It noted bathroom wall cracks works were scheduled for 30 March 2020, and that the resident was informed non-critical work had to be cancelled due to Covid-19 restrictions and was asked to call to arrange works when restrictions lifted.
6. It noted a replacement vacuum cleaner was delivered and the resident had confirmed receipt.
On 20 July 2020, the landlord issued its final response after the resident expressed dissatisfaction:
1. It clarified that the boiler installation and related work occurred on 20 and 25 November 2019, during which it stated the boiler was fully functional.
2. It advised the contractor did not become aware holes around the boiler were not sealed at the time of the installation until the resident reported the issue on 24 March 2020, following which works were done on 22 April 2020. It explained this delay was due to requirement for scaffold and attempts to liaise with a neighbouring private property for this. It apologised that the works were not done at the time of the installation and awarded £50 in recognition of the delay.
3. It noted the resident’s report that a boiler pipe was still not sealed, and advised it had liaised with its contractor to confirm the area was sealed, and provided a photograph of this.
4. It advised that there was no specific requirement for the carbon monoxide detector to be located in the kitchen but confirmed this had been moved as requested.
5. It advised it would not replace a rusty radiator as this was in full working order. It advised that while its contractor may make recommendations, this would need to be supported by appropriate information, and it ultimately decides if work should proceed.
6. It advised that an appointment on 30 March 2020 for bathroom wall cracks works was unable to be kept due to Covid-19 restrictions. It advised it attended on 8 July 2020 and identified cracks and flaking paint which could be due to numerous reasons such as poor application and condensation, but the wall was identified to be dry during the visit. It advised there was no history of repairs to the cracked bathroom wall prior to the March 2020 cancelled appointment, and confirmed an appointment had been arranged with the resident for 17 July 2020. It noted the bathroom was tiled around the bath area and stated it would not tile the rest of the bathroom.
7. It stated that it was unable to meet the resident’s request for a towel handle replacement as it did not fit fixtures and fittings for residents.
8. It noted concern about the time taken to replace a vacuum cleaner and how this was handled. It advised its contractor stated the vacuum cleaner was not broken and that the resident had reportedly removed the fuse. It advised the replacement was agreed as a gesture of goodwill, and it was unable to agree any compensation for its contractor’s handling of the issue as they had gone beyond what was required to resolve it.
Following the response, the information provided advises that on 22 July 2020 the landlord carried out painting to the walls, after which on 19 August 2020 the resident made a new complaint; the towel rail was replaced in early 2021; and the landlord carried out further inspections and works, including an inspection in early 2021, which concluded that on visual inspection the boiler flue sealing looked correct, but recommended a gas engineer to inspect to confirm this.
The resident subsequently brought his complaint to this Service and made comments which are summarised below:
1. He raised concern about inaccuracies in the landlord’s records.
2. He advised moving of the carbon monoxide detector, replacement of the towel rail, replacement of the vacuum cleaner, and repair of holes took too long, and he should be compensated for issues including these.
3. He advised the mixer should have been tested and confirmed as operational in the same way as a kitchen sink, and that the hot water issue was not rectified despite emails and calls to the contractor until the landlord’s plumber attended. He highlighted that if the boiler install on 20 November 2019 was not completed till 25 November 2019 according to the landlord’s response, he had no central heating or hot water to bath for about six days.
4. He advised he was previously informed that the carbon monoxide detector should be placed about one metre away from the boiler, and that the landlord’s initial response to liaise with contractors was absurd, as at that point it had been moved.
5. He disputed the final response’s statement he had first reported holes on 24 March 2020, referring to his earlier emails, and advised a photo referenced in the landlord’s final response was misleading as a boiler hole still let in cold.
6. He advised responses in relation to the vacuum cleaner and a fuse were also misleading. He explained the fuse was removed from the broken vacuum and used in an old “not too good vacuum cleaner” which was used until the replacement was provided.
7. He was unhappy with the landlord’s position for the rusty radiator to remain until it stopped being operational, as it had been previously recommended for it to be replaced, and a mould issue had led to it rusting.
8. He advised the cracked bathroom walls occurred after a pipe was insulated in February 2020, and that they should be tiled as otherwise cracks/mould may return. He referred to events after 20 July 2020 and requested this Service to review photos from surveyor visits in 2020 and 2021, or arrange to visit his home.

Assessment and findings

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible to repair and maintain the structure of the property and any installations for supply of heating and hot water. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to investigate or assess the resident’s reports and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.
This Service does not make findings on technical aspects in relation to the property or repairs. Therefore this investigation would not be able to make definitive conclusions on whether there were failures to carry out sufficient tests during the boiler install, or make conclusions on issues via photographs or our own first-hand inspections. Instead, our investigation considers a landlord’s actions when it is made aware of an issue, and whether it followed its policies and procedures, kept to the law, and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about handling of a boiler installation, moving a carbon monoxide detector, replacement of a rusty radiator, bathroom wall cracks, replacement of a towel handle, and replacement of a vacuum cleaner.

For the boiler installation and resultant lack of hot water from the mixer, while the resident contends there were failures to carry out tests which resulted in a loss of hot water for a week, the information provided does not evidence the contractor or landlord was notified of an hot water issue before 25 November 2019, when action was taken to resolve it the same day the report was received.
This Service notes the resident emailed on 21 November 2019 and mentioned an hot water issue when expressing hope an electrician would attend to complete the permanent wire up of the boiler. As the resident’s account advises the electrician did attend and the boiler install was completed that day, this Service would have expected to see evidence of further reports when the issue continued.
This Service notes there are some discrepancies over the boiler install completion, and it is unclear to what extent the landlord investigated the resident’s concern that the mixer had not been connected, which he advised was supported by findings of an operative who attended on 25 November 2019. While the issue at this attendance appears to have been subsequently recorded as an air lock in pipework, it may have been helpful for the landlord to review any scope for service improvement.
However, this Service notes that the landlord’s compensation policy advises that compensation for no hot water does not become applicable until 7 to 14 days after an initial report. This means the short period the resident reports he was affected for does not appear eligible for compensation under the landlord’s compensation policy.
For the carbon monoxide detector, the landlord advised that there was no specific requirement for the carbon monoxide detector to be located in the kitchen, but confirmed this had been moved. The relevant legislation confirms that there is no specific requirement for a social housing provider to fit a carbon monoxide alarm in a property, although it may be good practice to. This Service notes the resident reports an operative informed him the carbon monoxide detector needed to be about a metre from the boiler, which indicates his expectations may have been mismanaged and the complaint may have been avoidable. This Service therefore makes a recommendation for this aspect.
For the rusty radiator, the landlord considered the resident’s request and set out its position that it would not replace it as it was in full working order. The landlord is ultimately entitled to rely on the opinion of its own staff in its decision-making, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s position was not unreasonable as the radiator was fully functional.
For the bathroom wall cracks, after the resident reported these in early March 2020, the landlord raised works which were to take place on 30 March 2020, in the timeframe of the 28 day period for non-emergency repairs, then arranged for these to be completed on 22 July 2020 when Covid-19 restrictions lifted. This Service is unable to consider subsequent events, due to the timeframe of the complaint this investigation is assessing. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, within the timeframe of this complaint the landlord’s response and position that it would not tile the wall was reasonable. This is because the landlord took action by carrying out works it identified in a reasonably timely manner, and it is entitled to respond to initial reports of issues as it sees fit, before considering further resolutions to an issue. A separate investigation of the resident’s further formal complaint on this matter will be able to consider events which occurred after the landlord’s final response to this complaint on 20 July 2020.
For the replacement of a towel handle, the landlord considered the resident’s request and set out its position that it would not replace it as it was not responsible for such fixtures and fittings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this appears reasonable, as this Service sees no specific obligation on the landlord’s part to replace the towel rail, and its subsequent replacement of it in early 2021 appears to have been discretionary. This Service therefore sees no basis to find service failure for delay in replacement of the towel rail or for any compensation to be awarded.
For the replacement of a vacuum cleaner, it is not in this Service’s expertise to assess whether the vacuum cleaner required replacement, but as set out above we can consider if the landlord has responded reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances. The information provided advises there was dispute that the vacuum cleaner was broken and that the resident also had another vacuum he was able to use. The contractor offered to replace the vacuum cleaner, while the landlord considered the request for compensation for handling of the matter and set out its position that it did not consider this applicable.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the responses were reasonable as, while delayed, the landlord and its contractor’s considerations of the issue were in accordance with what this Service would expect to see, and there is no evidence the circumstances merit further compensation. The contractor’s replacement of the vacuum demonstrates they exercised reasonable discretion and were seeking to be customer focused, while the landlord was reasonable to decline to offer compensation if it did not accept there was a service failure and felt the replacement in itself was more than reasonable remedy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about holes around the boiler.

For the holes around the boiler, the landlord was incorrect to advise the resident he first reported the issue on 24 March 2020, as the information provided advises he reported this to contractors in an email on 21 November 2019 and a complaint on 26 November. The issue was also addressed in the contractor’s response to the resident’s complaint on 4 February 2020. It is important to be factually accurate to effectively and fairly consider a complaint, and this lack of acknowledgement that the resident reported the issue earlier will been distressing to the resident.
However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised that works for holes around the boiler were not done at the time of the installation, and offered £50 compensation for this, which is at the top end of the scale prescribed by its compensation policy for repairs delays. Although this Service is not bound by the landlord’s compensation levels, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this appears to be reasonable. There is no specific evidence the resident experienced significant adverse effect, and the landlord’s apology and remedy recognises the works were delayed from the start of the boiler installation and demonstrates it was mindful of the provisions in its policy.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

As the landlord provided reasonable responses to the substantive issues, this Service goes on to consider its specific complaint handling.
The resident complained to the landlord and its contractor on 26 November 2020 about the vacuum cleaner, the boiler installation, and holes around the boiler. When he reported a lack of response to the landlord on 11 December 2019, it informed him that the issues had been escalated to its complaint handling team who would be in contact within 10 working days. The resident then communicated a lack of response on further occasions including 30 December 2019 and provided previous emails which explained what the complaint was about. No evidence has been provided that the landlord issued a formal written response until June 2020, which this Service understands may have been due to the Ombudsman’s intervention.
While the landlord’s contractor provided their own responses, these were delayed and inconsistent, with a 4 March 2020 letter being less detailed than a 4 February 2020 response which the resident disputed receipt of. The resident would have benefited from the complaint being handled earlier within the landlord’s formal complaints procedure to ensure all issues were effectively addressed in a timely manner. In addition, the landlord may have missed opportunities to more effectively assess issues, such as the claim a mixer tap was not connected to the boiler, which may have benefited from earlier investigation and discussion with operatives involved when such matters may have been more fresh in memories.
As the resident complained in November 2019 and did not receive a more detailed response to the issues until June and July 2020, the evidence shows the landlord took six to seven months to respond to this complaint. This Service notes that the resident has submitted a number of complaints/correspondence about various issues and recognises the challenges these and Covid-19 may have caused to the landlord, however this handling/timeframe is not reasonable, and it is understandable the delay and repeated attempts to raise issues will have caused frustration to the resident. This was not acknowledged by the landlord, when consideration of an apology and compensation may have been appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about handling of a boiler installation, moving a carbon monoxide detector, replacement of a rusty radiator, bathroom wall cracks, replacement of a towel handle, and replacement of a vacuum cleaner.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about holes around the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the boiler installation, moving a carbon monoxide detector, replacement of a rusty radiator, bathroom wall cracks, replacement of a towel handle, and replacement of a vacuum cleaner was reasonable. This is because there are no specific service failures identified in the handling of/position on these issues which would merit a finding of service failure or further compensation.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made reasonable redress for delays to works for holes around the boiler. This is because although it did not acknowledge the correct date that the resident reported the issue, it acknowledged there was a delay from the boiler installation in carrying out the works, and provided reasonable apology and compensation for this which was in accordance with its compensation policy.
The evidence shows the landlord took six to seven months to respond to this complaint, which it has not acknowledged and was not appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £100 for the service failure in its complaint handling.
The landlord to update this Service within four weeks of this decision to confirm it has complied with the above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so since January 2021, the landlord to review the resident’s concern that holes in relation to the boiler require further sealing due to cold coming in, in light of its own recommendation noted at Paragraph 32.
The landlord to review its complaint handling to ensure it responds to all complaints in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord to review its repairs record keeping and that of its contractors, to ensure relevant and accurate records are kept.
The landlord to review the approach to the distance of carbon monoxide detectors from appliances and ensure communication to residents reflects this.