Clarion Housing Association Limited (202010192)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010192

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about;
   1. the heating/hot water system at the property;
   2. parking.

Background and summary of events

 Tenancy agreement, policies and procedures.

2. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s repair/maintenance responsibilities to the structure and exterior of the property, including the heating/hot water installations. The landlord has confirmed that the property is serviced by a communal boiler, with a managing agent responsible for ensuring the gas supply to this boiler.
3. The tenancy agreement does not explicitly state that a designated parking space is provided as part of the tenancy. It requires resident’s to first obtain written permission if they intend to park in any spaces it provides and also that they obtain a valid permit if there is a parking scheme in place.
4. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for £5 per day compensation, payable where a household is left without either heating or hot water, with this amount payable 7 days after the initial report and for both sets of amenities, with the amount payable for heating immediately if no temporary heating facilities are provided.
5. The compensation policy also provides guidance for suggested ranges of discretionary compensation, with awards between £50 to £250 for service failure resulting in some impact upon the household, payments of £250 to £700 for instances of considerable service failure and award of more than £700 in instances of significant and serious service failures.
6. The sign-up information (signed by both the resident and the landlord on 3 July 2020) has a section that confirms whether or not specified ‘key messages have been explained and understood’. The majority of the items listed have been ticked off in this instance, however, it is noted that the section ‘the type of heating system they have and if communal, how billing will work’ has not been ticked off. There is no reference to parking in this sign-up document.

Summary of events.

7. The resident’s tenancy started on 2 July 2020. Upon moving in, the resident found that there was no heating or hot water available and reported this to the landlord. The problem appeared to be that there were arrears on the meter and this was preventing the resident from topping it up and therefore getting the heating/hot water system working. In addition, it soon became apparent that the problem was more complex. The arrangement with the company that had been responsible for billing services to that particular housing scheme had ended and there was confusion about what company was providing the communal gas supply.
8. There was also some confusion about who was responsible for sorting the issue out and the managing agent for the scheme was not contacted by the landlord until 30 July 2020. The managing agent confirmed that a new billing company would need to be instructed. Whilst the landlord took steps to resolve the situation, it is not disputed that the resident remained without heating and hot water.
9. Other tenants in the scheme were also affected by this issue. Looking at the correspondence between the landlord and the managing agent, concern was expressed for the resident’s situation and there was a sense of urgency in trying to resolve the problem. However, it took some time to source a new supplier, with the matter finally being resolved on 28 August 2020. From that point the resident would have been able to restore and top up his energy supply. In total the resident was without heating and hot water for 57 days.
10. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 October 2020. He complained about the delay in resolving the heating/hot water system issues and also raised a complaint about parking. He said that when viewing the property, he was advised that parking was available on the estate on a permit basis. However, this turned out not to be the case and the resident found that he was having to park some way away from his flat.
11. On 10 November 2020 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response in relation to both the heating/hot water and parking issues. With regard to the heating and hot water, the landlord explained how it had chased the issue and how the matter had finally been resolved by the managing agents on 28 August 2020. The landlord concluded that there had been a service failure due to the delay in sourcing a new gas supplier.
12. With regard to the parking issue, the landlord explained that there were no designated parking spaces. It said that it owned very few properties on the site and that parking was managed by a separate company whose details were displayed on signs around the scheme. There were no records of what had been discussed about parking on the sign–up notes. As such, the landlord concluded that there was a service failure as it was unable to identify that the correct information had been provided during the sign–up process.
13. As the landlord had upheld the resident’s complaint in full, it offered him £600 compensation. The details of how this amount was broken down was not set out in the stage 1 response, but an internal document from the landlord shows that it was made up of £250 for no heating, £250 for no hot water and a £100 discretionary payment for the parking issue.
14. The resident was unhappy with the offer of £600 and that he still had no parking. He said that if parking could not be made available then he wanted to be put back on the ‘Homelink’ system in band A so that he could move. He also wanted additional compensation for money that he had already spent on his current property. The resident also advised that he had been informed by his legal representative that the landlord would be liable for any parking fines he received whilst parked outside of his property.
15. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 December 2020. With regard to the gas supply issue, the landlord said that it had reviewed its practices to ensure that Customer Services were clear on where to report issues relating to that scheme. It said that its compensation policy stated that it would offer £5 per day, after the first seven days, for no hot water and the same for heating. Therefore, the offer of £500 made at stage 1 was fair.
16. With regard to the parking issue, the stage 2 response reiterated the landlord’s lack of control over parking provision and that its process was for tenants to speak to the parking management company, though it acknowledged that there were no records of this advice having been provided on this occasion. The landlord said that, as part of lessons learnt, it was in the process of reviewing the information provided at sign up. It said that the Homelink housing register was managed by the Council and that the landlord had no power to put the resident back on it in band A. It also said that it owned very few properties in the area that had associated parking and could not offer him any alternative accommodation at present. It said that it would be happy to write a supporting statement if the resident did want to re-apply to Homelink or that it would support him with a move to another of its properties when available. In recognition of the fact that the resident’s complaint about parking could not be easily reconciled, it awarded him an additional £100 compensation. Furthermore, it awarded an extra £25 because the stage 1 response took longer than its advertised timescales. Therefore in total, the amount of compensation being offered was £725.
17. Following the completion of the complaints process, the landlord provided a letter in support of the resident’s desire to be re-housed (19 January 2021). This was not addressed to any party in particular and detailed the issues with parking outlined in the above summary of events. 
18. The resident remained unhappy with the response from the landlord and therefore brought his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The heating/hot water system.

19. In identifying whether there has been any maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make any findings of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
20. The landlord is responsible, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, and in accordance with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, for repairing/maintaining the heating and hot water system at the property. In this case, it is not disputed that, at the tenancy start date, the resident was unable to use the heating and hot water system due to the issue subsequently identified with the gas supply.
21. The sign-up checklist provided to this investigation, clearly identifies a requirement for the landlord to have a discussion with the incoming tenant about the heating system in place, including whether or not the system is a communal one. The landlord’s failure to tick this part of the sign-up sheet might have contributed to the overall failure in providing heating and hot water as such a discussion may have identified the gas supply issue.
22. A further failure occurred in the delay in raising the issue with the managing agent, which took nearly a month from the tenancy start date. The timing of this issue was fortunate, given that the household was left without heating during a part of the year when it was likely not required, nonetheless, the lack of hot water will have caused considerable inconvenience.
23. The landlord has confirmed that the gas supply issue was ultimately resolved 57 days after the tenancy start date and its offer of compensation reflected this excessive delay. The landlord’s offer amounted top £500, £250 respectively for both the hot water and heating, at a rate of £5 per day with the first 7 days of the delay not payable. This was a reasonable and proportionate offer in the circumstances as it was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and also in accordance with the Ombudsman’s consideration of other similar cases across the sector.

Parking.

24. There is no evidence in the tenancy agreement nor the sign-up document of the resident having an entitlement to a designated parking space, or access to a permit scheme that would have enabled him to park near to the property. The focus of the resident’s complaint relates to information he says he was given at the point of sign-up. In his view, the officer completing the sign-up confirmed that he would have access to a permit scheme for parking locally, and he had been left dissatisfied to find out that this was not the case.
25. The landlord said that prospective tenants are to be advised at sign-up that the parking management company be contacted as it had no jurisdiction over parking in the area. It acknowledged however, that it was unable to demonstrate that such a conversation had taken place with the resident and that this led to a finding of service failure.
26. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine what might have been said during the sign-up meeting, but to consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to any reports or complaints raised. In this case, the landlord investigated, and identified that it had not retained records of what had been said and that this failure contributed to the overall failure that led to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the parking issue. Having identified this service failure, the landlord took reasonable steps to ensure that the same issue would not re-occur (by reviewing the sign-up process), assisting with the resident’s attempts to obtain suitable alternative accommodation and by offering compensation.
27. The level of compensation offered is considered (£200) is considered reasonable in the circumstances as it amounts to an award at the higher end of the landlord’s guidance for service failure resulting in ‘some’ impact on the resident. Whilst the resident disagreed with the amount offered, it is noted that there is no evidence of an entitlement to parking as part of the tenancy and, as such, the landlord’s failure here is not reflective of the resident’s inability to park in the location he would prefer, but for the lack of clarity and failure in record keeping as part of its sign-up process.
28. It is also noted that an additional amount of compensation (£25) was offered by the landlord to reflect a delay in providing its complaint response. This was appropriate given that the delay in question was not excessive.
29. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that, in offering £725 total compensation, the landlord has properly considered the range of factors it needed to under its policy, such as the severity of any distress, the degree of inconvenience, the period over which the problem occurred and the nature of its actions (or inactions).
30. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord has written a letter in support of the resident’s wish to move, as it promised to do in its stage 2 response. There is also evidence that the landlord was giving consideration to the resident for any of its own properties that became available that had parking. By doing this the landlord has recognised that it was unable to fully resolve the resident’s issues as part of the complaint process and therefore it has continued to take steps to try to assist the resident where possible.
31. With respect to the resident’s desire to move properties, it is relevant to note that the landlord confirmed to the resident that it was not responsible for any attempts to get re-housed through the local housing register. This was an appropriate response as the Local Authority would be the party to which any issues would need to be raised, with further referral options to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in the event that a complaint is left unresolved.
32. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it was mindful of its obligations under relevant policies and procedures, taken the opportunity of the complaints process to clearly explain its position and identify elements of service failure, and offered reasonable redress for those failings which ‘put things right’ in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own Dispute Resolution Principles. As a result, no further action is required by the landlord to resolve the complaint.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about heating/hot water.
34. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about parking.

Reasons

35. In respect of both aspects of the complaint, the landlord took the resident’s complaint seriously, investigated and accepted that there were shortcomings in the service it provided. It then offered reasonable and proportionate compensation, identified learning and sought to assist the resident with his attempts to get re-housed.

Recommendation

36. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £725 compensation that it offered in its stage 2 complaint response.