Clarion Housing Association Limited (202013193)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013193

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 November 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:

a. Reports of a water leak in the resident’s property.

b. Repairs to the lifts in the building.

c. The resident’s request to have pigeon netting installed.

d. cleaning in communal areas.

e. The resident’s concerns regarding the service charge.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building. The resident, her partner and her son have corresponded with the landlord and this Service during the period of the complaint. For reasons of clarity, the complainants have been collectively referred to as “the resident” throughout this report.
3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (attend and make safe within 24 hours) and “Non-Emergency” (attend within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported). Emergency repairs are defined as a repair that “presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident”.
4. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord will first attempt to resolve the complaint informally. If that is not possible it will provide a formal stage one complaint response. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s process. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
5. The complaints policy states that the landlord aims to “put things right within reasonable timescales”. However, the policy does not provide specific timescales for responding to complaints. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) requires for complaint response timescales in landlords’ complaints procedure to be for the landlord to respond at the first stage of the complaint process within ten working days of receiving a complaint, and to respond at the second and final stage of the complaint process within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.

Summary of events

6. The landlord’s repair logs state:
   1. On 8 January 2021, one of the lifts in the building was out of service on the fourth floor. The issue was identified as a problem with the pickup rollers. An adjustment to the rollers was made and the lift returned to service.
   2. Planned maintenance was undertaken to the lift on 11 January 2021. The lift returned to service on 13 January 2021.
   3. One of the lifts was found to be out of service between the sixth and eighth floors on 9 February 2021. The lift returned to service on 12 February 2021.
7. The resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord on 1 February 2021. She described the elements of her complaint as:
   1. There had been an ongoing issue of a water leak in the building from an unknown source which had affected several properties. The resident had observed a wet patch on the living room wall in her property that day and requested that the landlord investigate and identify the source of the leak.
   2. She had been requesting that pigeon netting be added to the balcony for five months but had received no response from the landlord.
   3. There had been an ongoing issue of spiders in communal areas of the building. The landlord’s cleaners removed the spiders, but the problem always returned. The resident requested an exterminator was used to eradicate the spiders.
   4. The lift was being vandalised or breaking down regularly, which had caused significant issues during the national lockdown in receiving deliveries to properties in the building.
   5. The communal stairways were in a very poor condition. There was a lot of rubbish present, which included discarded needles. The CCTV cameras in the building either did not work or were being used as decoys.
   6. There was a large amount of refuse outside of the building which did not get collected.
8. The resident also provided the landlord with photographs highlighting the issues she had raised.
9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 February 2021. The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 February 2021 and asked for an update on the status of the complaint.
10. On 23 February 2021 the resident called this Service and stated that she had not heard from the landlord since it had acknowledged the complaint on 2 February 2021.  This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord. The landlord replied on 24 February 2021 and confirmed that a complaint had been opened.
11. The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 26 February 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
    1. It believed that the source of the leak was the downpipe that runs down the building. It had arranged an inspection of the downpipe in various locations in the building for 25 February 2021. It understood that the resident would not be available on that day and if access to her property was required, the landlord would be in contact to arrange an appointment.
    2. Work was due begin to replace the external cladding of the building in March 2021. When this worked was completed the pigeon netting would be renewed to all balconies, including the resident’s.
    3. Spider webs were routinely cleaned from communal areas and the landlord accepted that they often returned quickly. It also explained that due to health and safety guidelines it was unable to use pesticides or insect sprays in communal areas.
    4. Both lifts in the property were cleaned at least once per day. As per its planned investment programme, lifts are normally renewed every 20-25 years. The landlord would write separately to the resident with information relating to the renewal schedule of the lifts in the building.
    5. It responded to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in a timely manner and noted that the building had an on-site concierge service where incidents could be reported. It further informed the resident that in response to her comments on CCTV, it had arranged a survey of the CCTV system and would consider adding CCTV cameras to each of the lifts.
    6. Refuse was moved to the designated areas and collected twice weekly. The landlord was not aware of any issues of rubbish being left outside the building. It noted that the bins were taken out of the designated area on refuse collection days and that may be what the resident was referring to.
12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 February 2021. She gave it her contact details to pass on to the contractor to arrange an appointment if needed and noted that she was not aware of any inspections going ahead on 25 February 2021.
13. The landlord replied on 2 March 2021. It confirmed that inspections were undertaken at several properties on 25 February 2021, but that the leak affecting those properties was not the same issue as the leak affecting the resident’s property. It informed the resident that it would be in contact to arrange an appointment for an inspection of her property.
14. On 18 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that:
    1. The leak at the property remained outstanding following an inspection by the landlord’s surveyor. The wall was now rotten with signs of mould. As the source of the leak was from a communal pipe, it was the responsibility of the landlord to resolve leak and repair the damage to the wall.
    2. The issue of the pigeon netting was first raised nine months ago and, as yet, she had seen no sign of any work being done to the outside of the building.
    3. She accepted that the landlord would not be able to use sprays, but that the communal areas should be swept more regularly to prevent spiders.
    4. She had lived in the property for 34 years and was only aware of repairs being undertaken to the lifts once approximately 20 years ago.
    5. It was not acceptable that it had taken her complaint for the landlord to review CCTV coverage of the building.
    6. The building’s refuse bins were overflowing constantly, attracting animals and were a health issue.
15. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2021 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated and it aimed to provide a response within 20 working days.
16. The resident called this service on 20 April 2021 and again on 28 April 2021 to state that she had not received a response from the landlord. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord on both occasions.
17. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 4 May 2021. It informed her that:
    1. Following an inspection held on 9 March 2021, the landlord identified the source of the leak as coming from a neighbouring property. The landlord had arranged an appointment for 27 April 2021 to complete repairs. It also confirmed that it would cover the costs of any remedial works that was not covered by insurance.
    2. It recognised that the delay in providing information to the resident relating to the pigeon netting was not acceptable. It apologised and confirmed that cladding replacement work had started and was due to be completed in February 2022, when the netting would be replaced.
    3. Due to the balconies being open, insects would always be present. It had asked the caretaker of the building to instruct the cleaners to ensure that all light fittings and pipework in communal areas were properly cleaned, with all spider webs removed on each visit.
    4. The lifts were last refurbished 14 years ago and per its planned works programme, they would be due to be replaced within the next five years. Its records show that in the last three years there had been one technical fault with the lifts, but several issues as a result of vandalism. it confirmed that CCTV cameras were due to be installed into the lifts which it expected to reduce the vandalism issue.
    5. It confirmed that the building and its communal areas were covered by CCTV and that it would take action if any evidence of ASB was recorded.
    6. It was not aware of any issues with the bins at the building and noted that when the bins were at full capacity on collection days, some rubbish may fall onto the floor.
    7. In recognition of the poor communication experienced by the resident, the delays and inconveniences this had caused her and the delay in providing the stage two complaint response, the landlord apologised and offered £150 compensation. It broke down this award as:

i.        £50 for failure to respond to correspondence.

ii.      £50 for the inconvenience caused by service delays.

iii.    £50 for the delay in providing a stage two response

18. On 5 May 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. She requested further information about insurance and how any costs would be reimbursed relating to the leak. She also accepted the compensation offer for the delays and inconvenience she experienced.
19. The resident then informed the landlord that she was still dissatisfied with the condition of the building and that the landlord had not provided a sufficient level of service. As a full resolution to the complaint, the resident requested a refund of the total service charge for that year.
20. On 25 May 2021 the resident called the landlord to discuss her outstanding issues relating to the service charge. Following further contact on 15 June 2021 where specific enquiries about the service charge raised, the landlord wrote to her on 22 June 2021 and provided a follow-up to its stage two complaint response to this issue. It informed the resident that:
    1. £2.70 per week of the service charge covered cleaning. The building and its grounds were inspected and cleaned daily. The lifts were clean twice per day and the building was mopped twice per week. Extra mopping occurred when there was more footfall in the building, such as when major works were being undertaken.
    2. The timers on the communal lighting were adjusted throughout the year. It had passed on the resident’s reports of flickering lights to its repairs team.
    3. The £37 charge for repairs was an estimated cost of what the landlord expected each resident’s share of the day-to-day upkeep of the building to be. The actual costs would be set out in the certificate of actual expenditure and any required adjustments made in the next financial year.
    4. The resident queried the £21,40 in the service charge for lift maintenance. The landlord explained that as a leaseholder, the resident was liable for a proportion of the costs of maintenance and noted that in the last year the lift’s suspension ropes and sheaves were replaced at a cost of £16,000.
    5. The management fee covered the landlord’s costs for:

i.        Managing the lease obligations.

ii.      Collecting rent and service charges.

iii.    Consulting leaseholders on repair work and long-term contracts.

iv.    Investigating and where necessary taking action on breaches of the lease.

v.      Undertaking inspections to ensure compliance with statutory requirements.

21. During a telephone call with this Service on 30 June 2021 the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord not properly addressing her dissatisfaction with the cleaning of communal areas, pigeon netting, lift maintenance and the removal of rubbish. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested the yearly service charge of £878.80 to be refunded.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled reports of a leak in the resident’s property

22. When she raised her complaint on 1 February 2021, the resident informed the landlord that a leak had caused a damp patch on a wall in the lounge of her property. Following an inspection on 9 March 2021, it was determined that the leak affecting the resident’s property was a separate issue to the leak from the building’s downpipe. An appointment was made for 27 April 2021 to complete repairs. The landlord also confirmed that it would cover the costs of any damage that was not covered by the resident’s home insurer.
23. The landlord has followed its repairs policy when responding to this issue. When the resident informed the landlord about the leak, the landlord offered an appointment date within its timescale for non-emergency repairs. When the issue was identified, follow-on work was raised and also scheduled within this timescale. Although, it needed to be repaired, the leak would not be considered to be an emergency, In line with the landlord’s repairs policy because it did not pose an immediate risk to health and safety.
24. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord in how it responded to the resident reports of a leak. It arranged work within its published timescales and agreed to cover the costs to repair any outstanding damage caused by the leak.
25. However, the landlord did accept that the information provided to the resident relating to issues of leaks in building prior to 1 February 2021 was inadequate. This was considered in its compensation offer made at stage two of its internal complaints process and addressed in more detail below.

How the landlord handled repairs to the lifts in the building

26. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the condition of the lifts in the building and stated that they should be replaced. In response, the landlord described what work had been undertaken and the status of the lifts within its planned major works programme.
27. The landlord’s repair logs described the work undertaken to the lifts during the time period considered in this complaint. The landlord explained that all but one of these issues were as a result of vandalism. The landlord also informed the resident that CCTV cameras would be installed in the lifts in an effort to reduce the amount of vandalism.
28. It is reasonable for the landlord to look to replace items as part of planned work when major costs are involved as this can be more cost effective. Social landlords have limited budgets and they are expected to manage their resources effectively for the benefit of all their residents, who ultimately fund any work through their rent and service charges. In the case of the two lifts in the building, the costs of replacement would be in excess of £100,000.
29. The landlord has provided this Service with copies of its lift inspection reports for the period of this complaint. These inspections are held every six months by an independent consultant to ensure the lifts are fit to operate and the landlord is in compliance with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998.
30. The reports made recommendations for repair work to be carried out, which the landlord undertook as described in the stage two complaint response. The reports confirmed that the lifts were safe to operate, meaning they did not need immediate replacement and the replacement ahead of the scheduled replacement date under the landlord’s major works programme.
31. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the lift repairs. It has undertaken repairs to lifts when highlighted, arranged for independent inspections to confirm the lifts were safe to operate and in compliance with government regulations, explained how and when the lifts will be replaced, and installed CCTV cameras to help reduce vandalism of the lifts.

The resident’s request to have pigeon netting installed

32. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with delays in the landlord responding to her requests to have pigeon netting installed across the balcony of the property. The landlord explained that it would not be able to install the netting until work to replace the external cladding of the building had been completed. It was reasonable for the landlord to decide to wait until the cladding work has been completed before installing the pigeon netting. This will understandably cause inconvenience to residents in the meantime as the pigeons are not being controlled. However, if the landlord fitted netting now, it would need to take it down and reinstall it after the cladding works. This would incur additional costs and may add time to the cladding works, which would need to be delayed to allow the pigeon netting to be removed.
33. The landlord has accepted that it should have provided this information to resident sooner, in response to her queries. The landlord apologised and offered the resident a total of £150 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed response. This payment recognised its failure to answer the resident’s queries about the netting, delay in update to work relating to the leaks in the building, the delay in providing a stage two complaint, and the inconvenience these service failures has caused to the resident.
34. This payment was made in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service resulting in some impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests, repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls, or failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact on the outcome of the complaint.
35. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The resident’s concerns relating to the cleaning of communal areas.

36. The resident raised issues concerning the overall cleanliness of the building, rubbish in communal areas and the build-up of refuse in the building’s grounds.
37. The landlord undertakes a quarterly inspection of the building and grounds. The inspection looks at ground maintenance, external communal areas and internal communal areas. The elements that are inspected are graded as good, acceptable or poor.
38. The landlord’s records show that the last inspection occurred on 25 March 2021. This found the elements inspected as good or acceptable, except for the condition of the communal trees and the condition of the pathways. These were found to be poor.
39. The inspection found that the condition of the bin areas/chutes, and the condition and cleanliness of the communal areas in the building were acceptable. The report did not make reference to a build-up of refuse in the bin areas, but it did note that several properties were asked to remove rubbish from their front doors and a damaged bin was replaced. The inspection recommended minor repairs to the entrance door, skirting, electrical cupboard and the entrance lobby. It also recommended a downpipe was renewed and gullies cleared.
40. The landlord further explained to the resident how daily cleaning was conducted in the building and that it had given advice to the caretaker to ensure attention was given to areas where spider webs and nests were most likely to be found.
41. Overall, there is no evidence of service failure in the landlord’s cleaning of the building. Its records show that regular inspections occurred, that most areas of the estate were found to be good or acceptable and it took action when recommended to in the inspections.
42. The landlord also took on board the resident’s concerns about spider webs and nests. It took steps make ensure its cleaners were aware of the concerns and to pay particular attention to areas of the building where spiders were likely to be found. This was a reasonable response under the circumstances and the landlord was not required to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

The resident’s queries regarding the service charge.

43. The resident had requested as a resolution to the complaint to be refunded the service charge for the year. The resident also made several queries as what services were provided as part of the service charge and how the costs had been calculated.
44. The landlord responded to the resident’s request by sending a follow-up letter to its stage two complaint response where addressed the queries raised. The landlord was therefore under no obligation to consider a refund of the service charge as it had provided all the information request. The landlord is entitled to apply a service charge, in line with the lease agreement and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest the service charge has been calculated incorrectly.
45. It should be noted that whilst this Service can look at what information has been provided by the landlord as it relates to the service charge, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to consider the level of the service charge, including whether it presents good value for money.
46. This is line with paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. Should the resident wish to pursue the level of the service charge amount further, she has the option of making an application to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chambers) (the FTT).
47. The FTT can make determinations on all aspects of the liability to pay a service charge, including by whom, to who, how much and when a service charge is payable. In order to decide liability a tribunal also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and if so whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable. 

Determination (decision)

48. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolved the aspects of the complaint that related to:
    1. How it handled reports of a leak in the resident’s property.
    2. The resident’s request to have pigeon netting installed.
49. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. How it handled repairs to the lifts in the building.
    2. The resident’s concerns relating to the cleaning of communal areas.
    3. The resident’s concerns regarding the service charge.

Reasons

50. The landlord followed its repairs policy in responding to the residents reports of a water leak into the property. It arranged an inspection and follow-on work within its published timescales and agreed to cover the costs of making good any damage that was not covered by insurance.
51. The landlord undertook repairs to the lifts, took appropriate steps to reduce incidents of vandalism, explained how the lifts would be replaced as part of a planned work programme, and provided evidence that the lifts had been deemed safe to operate when they were inspected.
52. The landlord recognised that there had been delays in responding to the resident’s requests to have pigeon netting installed, providing information about leaks in the building, and sending a further stage two complaint response to cover this issue. The landlord apologised to the resident offered compensation proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays.
53. The landlord responded appropriately to the queries raised by the resident relating to the service charge. The Ombudsman would not ask the landlord to refund the service charge as there is no evidence to show it has been charged incorrectly. If the resident wishes to dispute the service charge, she may be able to contact the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to review this.