Clarion Housing Association Limited (202004945)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004945

Clarion Housing Association Limited

13 December 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 concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

reports of an electrical fault.
complaint about the conduct of an employee.
claim for compensation.
request for gas heating.
The associated handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The tenant is an assured tenant. The property is one-bedroom flat. The tenancy started on 25 March 2015.
The resident has vulnerabilities and this is noted on the landlord’s records.
The property is heated by electrical storage heaters. The landlord installed three new electrical storage heaters at the property on 5 August 2020.
In or around September 2020, the resident raised a concern with the landlord about the new storage heaters being the wrong size for the rooms and said he had had “five years” without heating. He also mentioned he had asked the landlord for gas heating but that no one had got back to him.
The landlord’s repair log shows on 8 October 2020 it raised a repair job to attend the property as the storage heaters were not working properly. The landlord’s log indicates it completed a repair on 9 October 2020. The log shows a further report of no heating and “luke warm” water from the resident on 13 October 2020. The landlord’s log indicates it completed a repair on the same day. The operative who attended this repair raised a concern about the resident being “aggressive”. The landlord subsequently put in place an arrangement to visit the property “in pairs”.
On Friday 16 October 2020, the resident reported that the storage heaters were not giving out any heat. The landlord’s operative and two members of staff attended the property the same day. The operative identified a fault with the second storage heater due to faulty wiring. They also had concerns about the fuse box and the kitchen light which had been installed by the resident. The operative identified that the electricity was unsafe to use and that the supply needed disconnecting in order to complete the repair.
The landlord’s contemporaneous records of the visit indicate that when the operative was explaining this to the resident, he became agitated, called the operative a liar and asked him to leave. The landlord’s evidence also indicated that when the operative tried to turn off the electrical supply, the resident had “pushed him” to try to prevent him from doing this. The landlord’s internal communications state neither party was physically injured but the dispute resulted in both parties calling the police. The resident made accusations to the police about the landlord’s operative having assaulted him.
After police attended the property, the resident agreed to travel to his parents’ home to stay there whilst the landlord carried out the repair. He took a taxi to his parents on the same day. The landlord’s internal contemporaneous records show its supervisor had made an internal enquiry about “covering” the resident’s travel costs whilst at the property, however, it is unclear if the landlord agreed to cover the resident’s taxi fare.
The landlord’s internal records also show it made a safeguarding referral by phone to Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) whilst in attendance at the property on 16 October 2020 due to concerns it had about the resident’s learning difficulties and mental health. The landlord’s notes said the resident had told its supervising member of staff about struggles he had had with mental health whilst at the property. The landlord’s records show it subsequently followed up this up with a referral in writing.
The landlord’s operative and staff attended on 19 and 20 October 2020 to complete repairs to the light switch and heater raised on 16 October 2020 which involved replacing a cylinder. A temporary electricity supply was connected on 19 October 2020 as the resident had returned to the property before the repair was completed.
The landlord’s internal communications indicated that the resident told the landlord on 19 October 2020 that he did not want his heaters on at night and wanted gas heating and said this would be cheaper for him to run.
On 20 October 2020, the resident told the landlord he had five hens who had died the night before and one was missing presumed taken by a fox. The landlord’s notes said the resident agreed for it to make a referral to an advocate for then to provide advice about energy and bills.
The resident called the landlord on 30 October 2020 requesting £50,000 for being left without “proper heating” and for the landlord “abusing him”. The landlord’s internal communications indicate the resident had said that he would pay for a boiler with his credit card and recharge this to the landlord. He wanted the landlord to answer his complaint and a manager to call him as promised. He queried why it had not given him compensation as promised following the incident.
Over the next few weeks, the resident called the landlord on a number of occasions regarding the visit of 16 October 2020 and the situation with the storage heaters. The landlord’s repair records show the landlord completed further work to the cylinder of the heating system on 11 November 2020. On 27 November 2020 the landlord logged a stage one complaint.
On 2 December 2020, the resident explained to the landlord that he had lost quail eggs which had been in an incubator when he had to leave the property on 16 October 2020. He also reiterated hens had died and said that his freezer had been full of food. He requested compensation for several months of insufficient heating and he mentioned he had been promised a boiler. The resident also complained about the conduct of the operative that had attended on 16 October 2020.
On 4 December 2020 the landlord obtained a quote for a gas installation at the property from its gas provider.
The resident called the landlord on 4 and 8 December 2020 regard the same issues. On 9 December 2020, he called advising he wanted to add to his complaint that he felt he had been without heating for an extended time. The landlord’s notes show it checked the repair history for the property which indicated three repairs had been raised in connection with heating and it made an internal enquiry about whether the resident had been left without heating at any point.
On 10 December 2020, the resident told the landlord he had had a boiler survey carried out and wanted it to progress the gas connection. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request and said the relevant team would get in contact about this. Within its internal communications, the landlord noted gas connections could take “a very long time” and so it could not give a timeframe to the resident until it was confident the work was “on the new program”.
The landlord provided a stage one response to the resident on 21 December 2020. It acknowledged that the resident’s complaint was about:

The electrical fault diagnosed on 16 October 2020 and its repair- the landlord said it had contacted the supervisor who attended with the operative on 16 October 2020. It said she explained that the operative had diagnosed a serious electrical fault with the fuse board and deemed it was unsafe to use. Further, it said because the operative was not equipped to carry out the repair at that time, the resident was advised to leave the property until the fault could be resolved- the supply had been made safe at this time and there was no power to the property. It said its staff had offered alternative places to stay, including a local hotel however the resident had declined these offers and made the decision to stay at his parents’ house until the repair could be resolved.
Regarding:
1. The report made in relation to his chickens dying – it did not consider this event was connected to him not being at the property.
2. His freezer contents- it was not responsible for this loss and the resident should contact his insurance provider should he want to make a claim.
3. It offered alternative accommodation and it was his choice to travel to his parents’ home and therefore it could not provide compensation for this event.
4. Loss of electricity – it was able to offer compensation for the loss of electricity in line with its policy for ‘loss of amenity’ for the period 16 to 20 October 2020 (five days). The amount awarded was £91 and was equal to five days rent.
The claim for loss of heating compensation – the landlord said the property was equipped with electrical storage heaters and it acknowledged he had told it that they do not work properly and were expensive to run. It said its records show three new storage heaters were installed on 5 August 2020 and two repairs had been raised on 9 October 2020 and 16 October 2020. It said there were no records to suggest that he was left without heating outside of those scheduled repair visits, and it said those repairs were completed within its service level agreements. It also said:

Should he have any further issues with the storage heaters he should follow the usual process by calling its contact centre and booking a repair appointment.
It referred to Covid operating restrictions between March 2020 and June 2020, when it said only emergency repairs were attended. This led to a backlog of routine repair appointments, which were outside of its control. The storage heater repairs raised however were recorded on its system, attended and resolved within acceptable timeframes.

His enquiry about gas installation – whilst it understood his concern raised about heating costs, its obligation for his heating provision was to provide maintenance for the electrical system designated for his home. It said that “considerable effort” had been made to maintain his storage heaters, including the replacement of three units. However, it had made a strategic decision in regards to his request for gas heating and it confirmed that the property was eligible for a gas supply to enable gas heating. It said his property was on its planned programme for replacement heating, however the surveyor had advised this could take “a very long time.” The latest information regarding the proposed gas connection was in the process of obtaining a quote from the gas provider to see if the property could be connected to gas or not.

On 12 January 2021, the resident called the landlord advising he was not accepting the £91 in compensation. The landlord confirmed by email that it would escalate his complaint for a stage two review.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 January 2021 advising he was expecting compensation for being “pushed away” from his electrical meter and being “forced out” of his address on 16 October 2020. He said it was unnecessary to switch off his power for the weekend and all that was needed was to rewire a kitchen light. He reported it to police as he felt violated as he was pushed so hard. The landlord acknowledged his email and said it would aim to provide a stage two review response within 20 working days.
The resident called the landlord on 26 January 2021 in regards to the incident on 16 October 2020. He said he had not pushed the operative only interjected himself between the operative and the fuse box when he had tried to take the fuse from the fuse board.
The resident called and emailed the landlord on 10 February 2021 chasing it for the stage two review response. The landlord acknowledged his communication and said it had passed it to the relevant team. The resident called the landlord on 12 and 16 February 2021 and also sent it a number of emails regarding an update on his complaint which the landlord acknowledged.
On 18 February 2021, the resident called the landlord requesting £100 k for “abusing him” for six years. The landlord’s note of the call stated that the compensation offered of £91 was for the weekend incident. Regarding any other incident he was told to email its contact centre but if he had not raised it with it within six months of the event, it would be unable to investigate.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage two review response on 18 February 2021. It reiterated the conclusions reached in its stage one response regarding: the electrical fault and repair 16-20 October 2020; his claim for loss of heating compensation and his inquiry regarding a gas heating installation.
It acknowledged his 14 January 2021 email in which he requested compensation above £91. It said it had reviewed all the information that the resident had provided as well as the information provided by its contractor, housing staff and the notes of the repair. The landlord reiterated that he was offered a temporary decant on 16 October 2020 as the electrician had to turn off and isolate the electricity because there was a health and safety risk due to an unauthorised repair to the electricity within the property. It said he was offered a temporary decant in the vicinity over the weekend, as the full repair could not be carried out until the following Monday however he had opted to go to his parents.
It said in regard to the compensation offered to him, this amount was in line with its compensation policy. It reiterated that any claims for loss of personal property or contents of a freezer would be covered by his own content’s insurance.
Within its response the landlord also said that it had considered his allegation that its electrician had pushed him on 16 October 2020. It confirmed that it had reviewed both the staff and police reports from 16 October 2020 and said no evidence was found that the electrician had pushed him. It said the police had not taken any further action in relation to the alleged incident. It said it was satisfied that the alleged incident was investigated and that the final decision regarding the matter was made by the police. The landlord advised it would not be taking any further action regarding the matter.
Within its response the landlord advised that regarding the gas supply, he was previously told this was a lengthy process and could take many weeks. It said it had no further information at that time regarding the gas installation but that as soon as there was an update, he would be provided with more information about the next steps and any timeline involved.
The landlord said in conclusion, the actions taken at the time of the repair were appropriate and therefore it was upholding the findings in the stage one response. In reviewing his complaint further at stage two, it was satisfied that there was no additional evidence that showed any failure of service. Therefore, it was not upholding his stage two complaint request. It said it would arrange for the original compensation payment he previously refused, to be paid to him.
The resident contacted HOS on 22 February 2021 advising he was unhappy about:
1. The lack of heating at the property.
2. The incident on 16 October 2020. He said:
  1. He did not agree with the electrician’s finding that electrics in the property were unsafe. He said he felt forced out of the property because of this.
  2. His father had to drive a number of hours to pick him up and when they returned, the electrics had not been fixed.
  3. This resulted in the loss of his chickens and eggs as he wasn’t at the property to look after them. He requested that the landlord pay him compensation, suggesting £100,000.
On 29 June 2021 and 23 August 2021, the landlord provided the resident with stage one and two complaint responses respectively in relation to complaints raised about other repairs at the property. The resident provided these to the Ombudsman in September 2021. This complaint was put forward for investigation and will be dealt with under a separate complaint reference: 202120341.
On 3 August 2021, the landlord told the Ombudsman that the operative who attended on 16 October 2020 may have been able to complete works to the electrics that day to give the resident an emergency supply over the weekend however due to the matter escalating to a dispute when its operative explained the situation to the resident, this did not happen.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an electrical fault.

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states an emergency repair is “one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident”. An emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Further repairs may then subsequently be required.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports made on 8, 13 and 16 October 2020 regarding the problem with his electrical storage heating, within 24 hours. Given the time of year it was appropriate to treat these reports as an emergency and the landlord’s attendance within this timescale was appropriate. The landlord’s repair records do not give details of the repairs undertaken on 9 and 13 October 2020 but suggest repairs were “completed”. Due to a further report from the resident on 16 October 2020 that his storage heaters were “not giving out any heat”, the landlord attended again on 16 October 2020 to investigate. On this occasion, the landlord’s operative identified a serious electrical fault with the fuse board which they deemed unsafe to use. Whilst it is clear the resident disagreed with this, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the diagnoses of the situation by its electrician who would have been trained in identifying such risks.
The landlord set out what had happened in its stage one and two complaint responses to the resident. The landlord’s records of the incident corroborate this and there is no evidence to show their operative’s assessment was inaccurate. Therefore, the action taken to isolate the electricity supply on 16 October 2020 in order to carry out a repair to the heating system, was appropriate.
Regarding the resident’s complaint about being “forced out” of his property when this happened, the landlord told the Ombudsman in August 2021 that it may have been possible for its operative to have completed works on the same day in order to provide a temporary supply for the resident over the weekend. However it said that due to the disagreement, its operative was unable to do so although they did make the supply safe. It is reasonable to expect the resident to have allowed the landlord’s operative to disconnect the electricity supply at the point they deemed it to be unsafe however the landlord’s records indicate the resident challenged their diagnosis. It is clear this led to relations between the parties deteriorating which meant repairs were unable to be progressed that day and no temporary supply was provided. The landlord therefore offered to decant the resident to a local hotel however the resident chose to travel to his parents instead.
In its stage one response, the landlord set out these events and explained that it was the resident’s choice to travel to his parents. In this situation, the landlord’s offer to decant the resident until the repair was completed, was reasonable. Whilst this situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience, there is no evidence to establish the landlord acted unreasonably in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of an operative.

The Ombudsman role is not to form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate or not. Rather this service will consider whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. For example, the landlord would generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
The resident made a complaint to police regarding the conduct of the landlord’s operative when they attended the property on 16 October 2020 following the dispute that arose between the parties. Following the incident, the resident also complained to the landlord that its operative had pushed him after he got in between the operative and fuse box in order to stop him disconnecting the supply. The landlord’s supervisor who had witnessed the incident, completed an incident form which detailed the incident from their perspective.
In its stage two response the landlord said it was satisfied that based on the account given by its supervisor and the police report, its operative had not pushed the resident. The landlord also said that the police report showed that neither the operative nor the resident had requested for any further action to be taken at that time. The written record made by the supervisor says that the operative did not push or assault the resident after he disagreed with the operative’s decision to turn off the electricity supply. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the police report and therefore cannot be sure about any conclusions drawn by the police or whether it shows that neither party wanted to take any further action, as suggested by the landlord. Nonetheless, as it is clear the landlord documented the incident at the time, explained its position to the resident during its complaints process and the reasons for its decision not to take any further action against its operative, which were reasonable based on the evidence, the landlord responded appropriately to this allegation.
It is evident that prior to the incident on 16 October 2020 the landlord had taken steps to ensure its operatives were supervised when carrying out repairs at the property due to a concern previously raised about the resident’s behaviour. Its records show it continued to supervise visits going forward including when it returned to the property on 19 and 20 October 2020 to complete repairs. As it is clear this action was taken to support both the resident and the landlord’s operatives, this was appropriate.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s claim for compensation.

The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay compensation for loss of amenities or service including electricity and space heating but its policy also states such compensation would not apply to a decant situation. Further, the landlord’s policy says it will not normally compensate for personal belongings as this would be covered under a customer’s contents insurance.
The landlord’s decant policy says in the circumstances of ‘unplanned emergency temporary decants’ due to a property being deemed unsafe or uninhabitable, temporary accommodation will be arranged. It says where a resident stays with family or friends an allowance of £50 per day per household will be paid to the resident to compensate their relative or friend for the inconvenience and additional costs. Further, if the family or friends are not in the local area, it will also consider paying reasonable travel costs for the resident to stay with them.
Following the incident on 16 October 2020, the resident requested compensation from the landlord for: the inconvenience caused by having to leave his property; the cost of the taxi fare to his parents; lost freezer contents due to the electricity being disconnected and; losing his hens and quail eggs which he said had happened due to him not being there.
In its stage one response the landlord explained it did not consider that his report of his chickens dying to be connected to the fact he was not at the property. It also said that any claims for loss of personal property including for quail eggs and freezer contents, would be covered by a resident’s own contents insurance. It reiterated this position in its final response. As the landlord’s compensation policy makes clear it does not pay compensation for any loss of personal belongings, its advice to the resident that he should contact his insurance provider in regards to the loss of personal items, was appropriate in the circumstances.
In its stage one response the landlord offered the resident total compensation of £91 for the loss of electrical power for 5 days which it said was equal to the rent he had paid for the same period. This offer was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which compensates for loss of amenities or service including electricity and space heating. However, in this case, the landlord confirmed it offered a decant to the resident. Therefore, its decant policy would apply even if the resident chose to stay with his parents as its policy allows for a payment of £50 per day for staying with friends or relatives. Therefore, whilst the landlord offered the resident £91 in compensation in line with its compensation policy, it would have been more appropriate to apply its decant policy when calculating compensation due to the resident. Its failure to do so is a service shortcoming. This was not considered by the landlord in its complaint responses.
Regarding the resident’s claim that the landlord originally offered to pay his taxi fare but then refused to do so, the landlord’s internal records show that its staff member had made an internal enquiry on 16 October 2020 about it covering the resident’s taxi fare to his parents. Whilst the outcome of this enquiry or what it told the resident at the time, is unclear from the available evidence, the landlord’s decant policy allows for “reasonable travel costs” where a resident stays with family or friends who are not in the local area, on balance, it was reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to pay any reasonable cost incurred for travelling to his parents. Its failure to do so is a service shortcoming.
Regarding the resident’s complaint that he had been without heating or “proper heating” for years, as the property was equipped with electrical storage heaters, there is no evidence that the landlord failed to provide reliable heating. The landlord’s repair records confirm it replaced the electrical storage heaters at the property on 5 August 2020 however it is noted that in or around September 2020 the resident said he had had “no heating” at the property for five years. In its stage one response the landlord responded to his concern advising it had checked its records which showed it had made “considerable effort” to maintain his storage heaters, including the replacement of three units in August 2020 and that its records indicate no compensation for heating loss was due. As there is no evidence to demonstrate the resident raised a complaint with the landlord regarding a lack heating prior to September 2020, there is no basis to find the landlord is responsible for any lack of heating prior to this date or for paying the resident compensation.
On the two occasions the resident reported issues with the heating on 8 and 13 October 2020, the landlord attended within 24 hours and completed repairs as such no compensation would be due for loss of heating on these occasions.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for gas heating.

As the property was equipped with electrical storage heaters, the landlord was under no obligation to provide gas heating. However, following the resident’s request for gas heating as he said the electrical storage heaters were too expensive to run, the landlord subsequently obtained a quote for a gas installation at the property from its gas provider on 4 December 2020. In its stage one response the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had obtained a quote and also that it had added his property to its planned programme for replacement heating although it explained that as new connections can take a very long time, it could not give a timeframe for completion of this work.
The landlord reiterated this position in its stage two complaint response and said it had no further update on this. Whilst the landlord was under no obligation to provide gas powered heating, having agreed to so do, the Ombudsman would expect it to be able to provide the resident with an approximate timeframe. As there is no evidence to show gas powered heating has been installed at the property, it is appropriate to include a recommendation below for the landlord to provide the resident with a timescale for this.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process which states that the landlord will provide a response at stage one within 5 working days and a response at the final review stage within 10 working days of receiving the request.
Following the incident at the resident’s property on 16 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord on repeated occasions from 19 October 2020 onwards regarding the incident including 30 October 2020 when he requested £50,000 in compensation for leaving him without proper heating. Whilst the landlord eventually logged a complaint on 27 November 2020 and provided a stage one response on 21 December 2020, there were delays in registering a formal complaint from the resident and the landlord did not adhere to the timescales in its complaints process.
The resident requested escalation to stage two of its complaints process on 12 January 2021 and the landlord provided its stage two response on 18 February 2021. This was outside of the timescale given in its complaint’s process as well as the 20 working days timeframe it had given to the resident. This is further evidence of the landlord failing to follow the timescales advised to the resident. It is also noted that the landlord’s responses contained some inaccuracies such as referencing only two reports of his heating not working properly in October 2020 whereas its repair records showed he made three reports.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports of an electrical fault.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of an employee.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when responding to the resident’s claim for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s request for gas heating.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when dealing with the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord deemed it necessary to isolate the electricity at the property to complete a repair due to its operative diagnosing a serious electrical fault when it visited the property. Given the risk to heath and safety, this action was appropriate. The landlord acted reasonably by offering to decant the resident when it was unable to complete the repair that day.
The landlord obtained reports from staff supervising the operative’s visit regarding the conduct of the operative and based on these and the police report it decided not to take any further action against its operative which was reasonable. It explained the basis of its decision to the resident in its stage two complaint response.
It offered to decant the resident when it had to isolate the electricity at the property and could not complete the repair that day however it did not offer compensation in accordance with its decant policy. Whilst it did offer compensation for loss of amenity, this amount was less compensation that if it had applied its decant policy. It also refused to cover the resident’s reasonable travel costs when it was appropriate to do so.
Whilst it had no obligation to do so the landlord took reasonable steps to secure a gas connection for the resident and provide gas heating.
The landlord did not raise a complaint as promptly as it should have when the resident raised concerns about an incident which happened when its operative visited to attend a repair. It also did not provide complaint responses within the timescales in its complaints process or when promised.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident:
1. £150 in expenses for the decant to his parents (three nights) – this is in addition to the £91 offered in its complaints process.
2. The cost of the taxi fare/petrol incurred if the resident can provide proof of costs to the landlord.
3. £100 for poor complaint handling.
4. The landlord to comply with the above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord provide an update to the resident in regards to the timescales for the gas connection and promised provision of gas heating at his property if it has not already done so.