Clarion Housing Association Limited (202009639)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009639

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 October 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

  1. The resident complains about the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs required at the property.

Background

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs will be attended to within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a two-stage process. At stage one it would aim to resolve complaints within 10 working days, and keep complainants informed if it was unable to meet this target.  At stage two, it would aim to provide a response within 20 working days.

Summary of events

  1. The resident has explained that she moved to the property on 22 March 2021. That same day she contacted this Service to complain about repairs needed to the toilet. On 23 March 2021 this Service forwarded the complaint to the landlord. The landlord then had a telephone conversation with the resident, during which she raised further repair issues to be included in the complaint.
  2. On 26 April 2021 the landlord attended the property to carry out an inspection of the issues that the resident had highlighted. It found that there were no defects to the passive vents in the property, and hairline cracks in the plaster had been filled ready for the resident to carry out their own decoration. The kitchen sink taps and basin taps in the bathroom were tested and no defects were found. No leak was found under the sink or to the toilet. The toilet was inspected and tested in front of the resident and was flushing correctly. It was noted that the resident was not pleased with the findings and did not accept the information given.
  3. That same day, following on from the inspection, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for a double socket to be removed from the bedroom, as she did not use it. She also reported the same issues that had been inspected that morning. Jobs were raised for these issues, but then cancelled by the landlord in light of the inspection that had already taken place.
  4. The landlord provided a stage one complaint response dated 29 April 2021. In this it noted that it received the complaint from this Service on 23 March 2021, and that the resident then spoke with it on 25 March 2021 and advised there was a leak from the toilet and wanted the toilet to be replaced, that the kitchen sink was blocked, there was a leak in the bathroom sink, an issue with the electric shower, broken air vents in the kitchen and bathroom, and a crack in the ceiling which had been plastered over. The resident later confirmed that she wanted a new sink and toilet in the bathroom, a new sink in the kitchen, a new worktop in the kitchen and to have the ceilings lined with wallpaper.
  5. The landlord said that a contractor attended on 14 April 2021, but the resident refused access as she believed that a surveyor should carry out an inspection. The landlord explained that its contractor was required to attend to repairs in the first instance. The landlord then arranged a new appointment for its Area Manager to attend and inspect the repairs that the resident had raised.
  6. Regarding the shower, the landlord noted that on one side was the switch to turn it on and off, and the other was the temperature gauge. It explained that the resident should turn the temperature side to the level she was happy with and to leave it there, then all she would need to do is turn the shower off and on.
  7. On 26 April 2021 the inspection found that the cracks were hairline cracks and had already been filled in. The toilet was inspected and tested in front of the resident to show there was no leak or other issue. A leak to the basin was fixed. The bath had a bath panel and did not require replacing. The shower was working and there was no leak under the kitchen sink. There were a few slight marks on the kitchen worktop, however this did not warrant replacing it. The air vents were inspected, and no defects were found.
  8. The landlord noted that the resident then called into the repair team that same day to report all the same issues that had just been inspected that morning, and also requested a double plug socket be removed from the bedroom as she did not use it. The landlord said it would not remove the socket, as this was not a repair, and it had cancelled the duplicate jobs that had been raised.
  9. In recognition of the delayed stage one response, the landlord offered £25 compensation.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint during a conversation with the customer resolution team on 5 May 2021. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response dated 27 May 2021 in which it noted that during the 5 May 2021 call the resident explained that she felt:
    1. The Customer Solutions Co-ordinator had not done anything with her complaint.
    2. The inspection carried out at the property was not valid.
    3. She wanted the landlord to replace the toilet and kitchen sink.
  11. The resident had then contacted the landlord again to ask to be paid £400 compensation if she replaced the items herself.
  12. The stage two response stated that the stage one response had been fair and reasonable and accurately confirmed the actions taken. An inspection was arranged to ascertain if the items the resident was unhappy with needed to be replaced or not. Therefore, it was not the case that nothing was done about the complaint.
  13. However, the stage one response had incorrectly stated ‘Vents were inspected and no defects were found therefore no further works are required.’ The landlord apologised that this was incorrect, and that in fact a vent had a crack in it and should be replaced. The landlord went on to say ‘However, following other discussions surrounding the kitchen you refused to discuss progressing the repair forward and ushered [the staff members] out of the property.’ The landlord said that if the resident would like the job to go ahead, she should contact the landlord to let it know.
  14. The inspection had found no faults or requirements for replacement of the toilet, sinks or worktops. The landlord said, ‘I have no reason to doubt the integrity and outcome of the inspection and you have not advised of any reason why the inspection result was incorrect, other than that it was not in your favour.’ It said that as there was no reason to replace the toilet and sink it would not compensate the resident if she wanted to do this herself.
  15. The landlord’s records show that it made attempts to book in the job for the vent, but the resident declined this, saying that she did not wish the landlord to attend.
  16. As part of a disrepair claim the resident then made, a surveyor attended the property on 21 July 2021 to carry out an inspection. This found no repair issues relating to any of the items addressed in this complaint, other than a replacement plug for the kitchen sink. However, given the resident’s strong feelings on the matter the landlord agreed to replace the toilet suite and the sink top in the kitchen, with an appointment booked for 27 September 2021. The Ombudsman understands that this work has been completed.

Assessment and findings

  1. When assessing a landlord’s response to reports of a problem, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principle. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
  • Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
  • Put things right
  • Learn from outcomes
  1. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that she won’t accept anything less than £10,000 in compensation and for the toilet, bath, kitchen sink, work tops and air vents to be replaced. She has stated that she will not allow these items to be repaired, only replaced.
  2. In line with the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had a duty to investigate repair issues at the property when these were reported. The evidence shows that the landlord attended within 28 days of being alerted to the repair issues, as it would seem that these were first raised via the formal complaint on 23 March 2021. This timeframe was in line with its repairs policy. As the resident was unhappy with contractors attending, it then arranged for a manager to attend to inspect, which demonstrates that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
  3. The issues that the resident had reported were inspected, and no repair problems found. While the Ombudsman recognises that the resident disagrees with this finding, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its professional staff members when determining whether any repairs were required.
  4. The note from this inspection does not mention that the passive vents were cracked and required repair, and it is not until the stage two response that this is referred to in the evidence available. This is somewhat confusing, but as the landlord apologised for the oversight, and the evidence (in the form of internal emails from June 2021) shows that it then tried to make an appointment to carry out the repair which the resident declined, no maladministration is found here.
  5. The surveyor inspection from 21 July 2021 supported the findings of the April 2021 inspection as no repair issues were identified. Nevertheless, the landlord agreed to replace the toilet suite and the sink top in the kitchen. This was above and beyond the landlord’s repair obligations, and demonstrates that it was willing to take action to resolve the resident’s concerns and ‘put things right’ for her.
  6. While the landlord’s stage one response was provided outside of its complaint policy 10-day timeframe, this was not wholly unreasonable as it first needed to attend the property to inspect the repair issues that had been reported. It also offered £25 for the delayed stage one response, which was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with Section 54 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs at the property. 

Reasons

  1. No repair issues were found at the resident’s property at either the 26 April 2021 inspection, or the 21 July 2021 surveyor inspection, and so the landlord was not obliged to take any further action. However, due to the resident’s strong feelings on the matter, it did replace some items.