Clarion Housing Association Limited (202010581)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010581

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 January 2022

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 concerns the landlord’s:

1. handling of the kitchen replacement works including its communication with the resident.
2. response to the resident’s reports of staff attending his property without identification or prior notice.
3. complaint handling.
    

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy began in 2008. The property is a one bedroom bungalow.
3. The landlord’s repair records indicate it that in early 2019 it had identified that the resident’s kitchen was 30 years old and needed replacing. The Ombudsman has not been provided with details of what happened during the subsequent 18 months. However, in September 2020, the landlord’s responsive repair provider attended the property to measure up the kitchen replacement works.
4. In November 2020, the landlord’s responsive repair provider told the landlord they were unable to proceed with the kitchen replacement works. On 13 November the landlord’s Technical Inspection Officer (TIO) called the resident to arrange an appointment for a kitchen supplier to attend to carry out a kitchen design survey. This survey was carried out on 17 November 2020.
5. The landlord’s repair records show on 20 November 2020 a work order was raised for a grounds work visit to the property to assess slabs which were “dropping outside the property at the rear backdoor”. This was unrelated to the kitchen replacement works. 
6. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 29 November 2020. The landlord’s internal complaint records show that the resident complained about its repair operatives showing up with no identification and without providing prior notification of the appointment. A recent instance of this happening was when its operative had attended to assess ‘slab works’ at the rear. It is unclear from the landlord’s notes of the resident’s complaint what the impact of this was on him although it is clear the resident sought a reassurance this would not happen again.
7. The resident also complained about the level of communication from the landlord and said that he was awaiting an update on planned kitchen replacement works that he said had been measured up two months ago.
8. The landlord logged the resident’s complaint on the same date and comments in its stage one complaint notes referenced that its responsive repair provider had referred it back to the landlord to action. Comments from its TIO dated 9 December 2020 referred to his call to the resident “two weeks ago” when he made an appointment for a kitchen supplier to attend to carry out the survey. He said they were now in the process of obtaining quotes for the kitchen works from installers which would take place in the new year.  
9. The resident called the landlord on 15 and 16 December for an update. The landlord’s notes indicate it called him back on 16 December 2020 and told him his complaint was due to be escalated that day.
10. Due to contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 16 December 2020 requesting it to provide a response to the resident’s formal complaint.
11. The landlord’s complaint notes indicate that the resident’s complaint was allocated to another member of staff on 23 December 2020. The landlord’s internal records of the same date refer to it obtaining two quotes from different kitchen installers.
12. The landlord’s complaint notes indicate the landlord discussed the kitchen works and the outcome of the complaint with the resident during a telephone call on 11 January 2021. The landlord advised it would send plans of kitchen to the resident. Notes said the resident “accepted compensation” and that the landlord advised it would send out a letter in next few days.
13. On 13 January 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response. It said:

1. Regarding its staff attending the property without identification, operatives should always show their identification and who they are working for when attending jobs. The importance of showing identification when attending jobs has been reiterated to all its repair operatives, and it will also highlight this to its external contractor who recently attended the property, to ensure this did not happen again. 
2. Regarding the kitchen, it acknowledged that the resident’s kitchen works were due to be completed by its responsive repair provider. It said however that this work was then referred on to its Planned Investment Team (PIT) to action. It said it was sorry that the resident was not updated about this. Its PIT was in the process of obtaining quotes for the kitchen replacement and once received it would contact him to confirm when works would commence.
3. It was upholding his complaint as it accepted that there had been service failure on its part. It advised it was offering him £100 in compensation comprised of £50 for time taken to resolve the complaint and £50 for the lack of communication which it said was discussed during the phone call of 11 January 2021.

14. The landlord’s internal records indicate its TIO chased providers for the quotes during January 2021 and that they were expecting a quote from one kitchen installer by 29 January 2021. However, this quote was not received until 8 February 2021. A note dated 17 February 2021 referred to waiting for the works to be booked in.
15. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 28 January and 1 March 2021 following contact from the resident. On 3 March 2021, the landlord gave the Ombudsman an update on the formal complaint which said:
    1. it had not received any specific concerns from the resident when it spoke to him on 28 January 2021 to take to stage two.
    2. it had given advice to the resident on who to contact if he did not hear back within ten days.
    3. it received a call back request on 10 February 2021 and left a message for the resident on 11 February 2021.
16. The landlord’s call notes show that it called the resident on 3 March 2021 to advise it was escalating his complaint to stage two of its complaints process. During this call the resident said despite someone advising he had been sent plans of his kitchen, he never received these. He said a contractor had come “about a month ago” to measure up his kitchen without notice or identification as had happened previously. He has not heard anything since and has no schedule of when and what will happen.
17. The landlord’s internal communications dated from 3 March to 11 March 2021 show that it contacted the TIO and other the members of staff dealing with the kitchen repair works as part of its investigation into this complaint. This referred to the stage one response incorrectly advising that its PIT were dealing with the kitchen replacement when in fact its Property Services Team were dealing with it.
18. In an internal response from its TIO it was stated that it had awarded a contractor the kitchen replacement works on 18 February 2021 and that the works started on 8 March 2021.
19. On 15 March 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a stage two final response which referred to his contact with the Ombudsman on 1 March 2021 and its call with him on 3 March 2021. Based on these, it acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied that he had not received plans for the kitchen works or any commencement date.
20. It advised that regarding his kitchen, it said after its responsive repair provider initially measured up for the kitchen replacement works, they then passed this work back and the works were referred to its Property Services team to facilitate in November 2020. It referred to the call to the resident from its TIO on 13 November 2020 to arrange kitchen design survey which went ahead on 17 November 2020. It said its TIO also called him on 17 November 2020 to check the survey had been completed and that the resident called on 20 November 2020 to request a slight change to the design layout which was agreed.
21. The landlord said unfortunately after this the country went into another lockdown for Covid-19 and as a result, there were delays in obtaining quotes for the new kitchen installation.
22. It said that as acknowledged in its stage one response, it did not communicate this effectively with him for which it apologised. The landlord advised that in order to ensure this did not happen again, its TIO would be his point of contact, and he would update the resident on any predicted delays, changes to the schedule, and provide details of appointments. It provided a contact telephone number for its TIO.
23. Further, the landlord advised that it received quotes on 8 February 2021, and following a cost analysis, the works were awarded to a contractor on 18 February 2021. Furthermore, the landlord said the kitchen works had begun on 8 March 2021 and that they were due to be completed by 16 March 2021.
24. On 7 April 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s communication had remained poor, contact numbers which he had been provided with just went through to the switch board and that the landlord had not provided updates on the kitchen works or explained anything regarding the works.
25. The resident then raised concerns on 17 May 2021 about the quality of some of the repair works in the kitchen, but this element of the complaint has not been through the landlord’s internal complaint process. As such the Ombudsman cannot consider the resident’s concerns about this in this investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement works including its communication with the resident.

26. The landlord’s repair policy sets out different repair categories within responsive repairs however its policy states major component replacement including kitchens falls outside of responsive repairs and that should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes which ensures that they are delivered in line with the relevant standards and specifications for these works, and ensures that they are delivered providing the best value for money.
27. The landlord’s repair records indicate the resident’s kitchen was deemed to need replacing due to its age and that its responsive repairs provider was initially tasked with providing the replacement kitchen works. Its repairs provider attended the property in September 2020 to measure up the resident’s kitchen. However, it is clear that they then referred the works back to the landlord to action in November 2020 as they were unable to carry out the kitchen replacement works.
28. The reason for this is unclear however as the landlord’s repair policy says that major component replacements including kitchens are not classified as responsive repairs, this suggests its responsive repairs provider may not have been the right team to allocate the work to.  As they gave the job back to the landlord, it meant the landlord had to make alternative arrangements in order to provide the replacement kitchen. It arranged for a kitchen supplier to remeasure the kitchen on 17 November 2020 indicating the landlord acted promptly in this regard. Nonetheless there was a delay caused by works being referred back to the landlord, this and the additional appointment to measure up the resident’s kitchen would have caused inconvenience to the resident.  This was a shortcoming in the service provided by the landlord.
29. Following the resident’s formal complaint of 30 November 2020, the landlord contacted two kitchen installers in late December 2020 to obtain quotes in respect to installing the kitchen. Therefore, the landlord was taking reasonable steps to progress the kitchen works at this stage. However, there is no evidence of it contacting the resident to provide any updates. Given the previous delay and resident’s complaint raised about its communication to date, this would have been reasonable. This resulted in the resident having to contact the landlord again on 15 and 16 December 2020 to chase it for an update.
30. In its stage one response to the resident dated 13 January 2021, the landlord confirmed it was awaiting receipt of the quotes and told the resident it would contact him in writing to confirm when the works will commence. The landlord’s internal records indicate its TIO chased up third parties for these quotes during January 2021, that it received a quote on 8 February 2021 and that it then appointed a contractor to carry out the works on 18 February 2021. Following this the kitchen works began on 8 March 2021.
31. The landlord’s internal notes state that this all occurred during the third national Covid-19 lockdown which caused a delay in obtaining the quotes. It is accepted this would have impacted on the timeframe taken by the landlord to source quotes and contractors to deliver the kitchen works and the landlord explained this to the resident in its final response. The start of the kitchen works began as soon as restrictions started to ease on 8 March 2021. This shows delays because of the lockdown were kept to a minimum. As such, the landlord is not responsible for any delay caused by this issue.
32. Therefore, following the resident’s formal complaint in November 2020, the landlord has shown that overall, it that took reasonable steps to progress the kitchen works which ultimately enabled the works to take place in March 2021. However, the landlord did not provide sufficient updates to the resident during this timeframe. This prompted the resident to contact the Ombudsman at the end of January 2021. Following contact from the Ombudsman on 28 January 2021 and on 1 March 2021, the landlord told this Service that it had called the resident on 28 January 2021 and that it advised him it would contact the relevant teams to provide him with an update on his kitchen works within 10 days.  There is no evidence of it doing so or of it confirming in writing to the resident when the works would start as had been promised in its stage one response.
33. It is noted that the landlord advised in its stage one response that its PI team was dealing with the works whereas in its stage two response it said its Property Services team was responsible for delivering the kitchen works. This indicates there was confusion internally about which team was handling the resident’s works which is likely to have affected the level and accuracy of the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the works.  
34. However, the landlord called the resident on 3 March 2021 following contact from the Ombudsman to advise it would escalate his complaint to stage two following his further contact with the Ombudsman. The call notes indicate the resident had told the landlord he remained dissatisfied with its service therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to escalate his complaint to the next stage at this point.  It then issued its stage two final response on 15 March 2021 confirming works had began and which gave a phone number for its TIO for him to contact him if he had any concerns or queries during the works, which was reasonable.
35. Nonetheless, it is clear that there were gaps in the landlord’s communications with the resident when dealing with his kitchen works up to its stage two complaint response. This resulted in the resident having to contact the landlord (either directly or via the Ombudsman) to receive updates on most occasions between the end of November 2020 until the works started on 8 March 2021. 
36. Whilst in its stage one response the landlord apologised for not keeping the resident updated about the initial change of team dealing with his kitchen works and offered £50 in compensation for the lack of communication, its final response did not acknowledge that it had failed to keep the resident sufficiently updated or that it had not done what it had promised over the two months since its stage one response.
37. On balance, due to insufficient communication from the landlord throughout the timeframe it was dealing with the kitchen works, the £50 in compensation offered by the landlord in its stage one response did not reasonably resolve the complaint about this aspect of its service.

The landlord’s response to his reports of staff attending his property without identification or prior notice.

38. The landlord’s repair policy does not refer to any process regarding pre-booking appointments or giving notice of these to residents and the Ombudsman has not been provided with any other policy which includes this. However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord or any third party acting on its behalf to notify the residents in advance of operatives attending appointments for repairs so residents can ensure they are at home or rearrange an appointment if inconvenient. It is also good practice for the landlord’s operative to provide identification when attended jobs to reassure residents their visit is for legitimate purposes. 
39. Following the resident’s complaint about instances of him not being given prior notice of contractors attending the property and then not having identification,  the landlord made internal enquiries about its processes relating to these issues. The response from its Area Manager was that operatives should always show their identification and who they are working for when attending jobs received.  The landlord’s internal records noted this complaint related to a ground works contractor who had attended in November 2020 to assess slabs, externally at the rear of the property which had reportedly dropped. 
40. In its stage one complaint response the landlord relayed its Area Manager’s response about identification being shown and explained it had been a contractor that had recently attended to assess slabs at the rear at the property. It said its Area Manager had reiterated the importance of showing identification to all of its operatives and advised that they would address the lack of communication with the contractor in question to ensure that this did not happen again. 
41. This shows the landlord took steps to investigate the issue and its commitment to highlight the issue with its operatives and contractors was reasonable as it addressed the resident’s request for reassurance on this issue. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show the landlord followed through with this commitment. It is clear that the resident, during the telephone call with the landlord on 3 March 2021 reported that another contractor had attended without notice or any identification. This would have caused distress to the resident. This suggests that any action taken was not sufficient to fully resolve the issue and this further report was not addressed by the landlord in the final response. Due to this and the absence of any evidence to show the landlord took steps to investigate or address the further instance of a contractor attending the property without identification and notice, there was a failure in the level of service provided by the landlord in this regard. The landlord has not shown it reasonably resolved this complaint during its complaint process.

Complaint handling

42. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a two stage complaint process and that it will aim to provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a stage two response within 20 working days. It says if it is unable to resolve the complaint within these time frames it aims to keep the resident informed, explain why it is unable to resolve the complaint and provide an approximate timescale of how long the complaint would take to resolve. Its policy also requires that when requesting escalation of their complaint to stage two, a resident is clear about what they wish to be considered as their desired outcome and what specifically they are not accepting.
43. The resident raised the formal complaint with the landlord on 29 November 2020 and it provided its stage one response to the resident on 13 January 2021. This was only after contact from the Ombudsman chasing it for a response on 16 December 2020. Therefore, the landlord’s response was issued outside the timescale given in its policy and there is no evidence of it explaining to the resident the reason for this delay.
44. However, in its stage one response it offered the resident £50 in compensation for “time taken to resolve the complaint”. On balance this was reasonable as it recognised the inconvenience caused by its failure to adhere to its own timescale whilst handling his complaint. This sufficiently resolved the landlord’s service failure whilst complaint handling.
45. The landlord provided its stage two final response on 15 March 2021. As this was within 20 days of the Ombudsman’s 1 March 2021 communication and what the resident told it during the telephone conversation on 3 March 2021 about being  unhappy with its service, the landlord complied with the timescales given in its policy when handling stage two complaints. It is acknowledged that the Ombudsman had contacted the landlord on an earlier occasion on 28 January 2021 due to contact from the resident at this time. However, it was not clear that the resident wanted to escalate his complaint to stage two at this time, as such there is no evidence to establish the landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint at an earlier time.

Determination (decision)

46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the kitchen replacement works including its communication with the resident.
47. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of staff attending his property without identification or prior notice.
48. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord when complaint handling.

Reasons

49. There was a delay caused by the kitchen replacement works being referred back to the landlord from its responsive repair provider however it promptly made alternative arrangements to deliver the kitchen works, organising for the kitchen to be remeasured by a kitchen supplier. It chased up third parties for the quotes and subsequently booked in the kitchen works at the property which began in March 2021. However, the landlord did not provide sufficient updates to the resident even after he raised this issue in his formal complaint. This resulted in the resident having to keep contacting the landlord to gain information regarding the progress of the works. This landlord did not sufficiently address this issue during its complaint process.
50. The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint about its operatives and contractors attending his property without notice or identification and provided reasonable reassurances in its stage one response which indicated it had taken adequate steps to resolve the issue. However, it did not demonstrate it acted upon the resident’s further report of this issue continuing or address this in its final response.
51. There was a delay by the landlord when responding to the resident’s formal complaint however as it offered reasonable compensation in its complaints process, it reasonably resolved the service failure when handling the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

52. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident further compensation of £150 consisting of:
       1. £75 for poor communication whilst handling the resident’s kitchen replacement works and;
       2. £75 for not adequately addressing the reports of operatives and contractors attending without notice or identification.
       3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.