Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202013334)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013334

Clarion Housing Association Limited

8 March 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 resident has complained about the replacement of her windows.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

  1. With regards to “How Planned Improvement Projects Work”, the landlord’s website advises residents that “You’ll be given contact details for your resident liaison officer and site team before any work starts. Your resident liaison officer will visit you beforehand to answer any questions, discuss any special needs you have and let you know when the work will be carried out. They’ll also contact you periodically during the works to make sure everything is going smoothly and answer any additional questions or concerns you might have”.
  2. The landlord’s Complaints Procedure in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint states that the landlord has “a two stage procedure which is co-ordinated by our Customer Solutions Team”.
    1. “Complaint – If an initial attempt to resolve the query is not achieved, a formal complaint will be recorded and will be investigated. We do all we can to resolve Customers issues and put things right. We aim to resolve complaints within 10 working days”.
    2. “Peer Review – At the conclusion of the complaint process, a customer may request a review of their case. They will need to be clear on what they wish to be considered as their desired outcome and what specifically they are not accepting. We aim to resolve complaints within 20 working days”.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy reflects this Service’s Remedies Guidance. It states that “Remedies in the range … [£50-£250] may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. Examples could include:
    1. Repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls…
    2. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.
  4. The policy notes that the “impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved”.  The policy also notes that the landlord should award “£50 per quarter per failure. eg 6 months for repeated reply to letters or phone calls = £100”.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.  Her property is a flat in a block. Window replacement works were identified at the resident’s block and neighbouring properties in July 2020 from validation surveys that were carried to identify larger programmes of cyclical maintenance and external works. On 3 September 2020 the landlord’s contractor’s Resident Liaison Officer wrote to the resident to advise that the contractor had been appointed to carry out window replacement works and that it needed to survey her property. On 17 September 2020 the contractor carried out the survey. As planning permission was required for the window replacement works to the blocks of flats in the area, the landlord submitted a planning application to the local authority on 9 October 2020.
  2. Anticipating that planning approval would be provided in December 2020 the contractor sent a letter to all residents on 9 November 2020 to notify them that the window works would be completed. It is understood from the information provided to this Service that the resident spoke to the RLO on several occasions, but contemporaneous records of the conversations were not kept.
  3. Approval for the resident’s block was not received when expected, and later to other blocks. In an email from the resident dated 13 November 2020 she noted that works had commenced at neighbouring properties and asked when her windows would be replaced.  She stated she understood that other people did not want the works, but this should not delay the window replacement at her property. The resident also noted that she had spent hooks for new curtains.
  4. The landlord’s chronology of the case notes that in December 2020 the resident reportedly had a discussion with the RLO where he stated that access was the issue causing delays to completing works; however, this was not the case as it was still awaiting planning permission at this time.
  5. On 18 and 19 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord noting window works had been completed at neighbouring houses and enquiring why the window works had not been completed at her property, and when they would be. She stated that she had spoken to the RLO for updates on several occasions but had been given unclear and conflicting information.  She stated the RLO had provided “different types of answer and lies” and at one point stated that planning permission had been granted. The landlord on 21 December 2020 advised that its Planned Investment Team would respond. On 7 January 2021, the resident pursued a response, asking that it be sent by email and in response the landlord again stated that its Planned Investment Team would respond.  
  6. On 19 January 2021 the resident complained about the delay to the window replacement. On 2 February 2021 the resident chased up a response to her complaint of 19 January 2021 by phone and email, and she also notified this Service on 4 February 2021 that her complaint had not been acknowledged. On 5 February 2021 the Service advised the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint within its complaints procedure.
  7. On 8 February 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint stating that it aimed to respond within 10 working days although it may take longer due to current volumes.
  8. On 18 February 2021 the landlord’s Customer Solutions Team exchanged correspondence with the resident and phoned her to discuss her complaint. Also, on 18 February 2021 its Planned Investment Team phoned the resident to advise of the delays with receiving approval for the planning application for the resident’s block and that it with its consultant were pursuing the matter. 
  9. The resident explained she remained dissatisfied as the Planned Investment Team had not responded to her correspondence and also because she had been told “lies”. Within the correspondence the landlord noted that the resident was also unhappy that the RLO had advised her that her windows would be installed by 4 January 2021, but this did not happen.  It also noted the resident commenting that the RLO had advised her that neighbouring flats were holding up the works. The landlord took the opportunity to advise that window works to neighbouring houses had commenced earlier as planning permission was not required for that property type.
  10. On 10 March 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint of 19 January 2021. It noted that the resident was unhappy that the RLO informed her that permission had been received for the works at the resident’s block and apologised for the incorrect information.  It noted that the Planned Investment Team was seeking an update and also that the resident could view the status of the plans online on the local authority’s website. The landlord noted that the resident’s two queries to the Planned Investment Team were followed up but that it did not respond to the resident for which it apologised. The landlord also offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s emails.
  11. In emails sent in response on 10-11 March 2021, the resident stated that she remained dissatisfied stating that there had been “lies, false promise, deceit, whisperers,” and that she had been put at risk from Covid-19 from going out to buy curtain hooks.  She also advised she was unhappy that the landlord advised her to check with the local authority about the works.
  12. On 10 March 2021 the resident wrote to the local authority’s Planning Team stating that the landlord had informed her that it had refused planning permission. By phone and in writing on 16 March 2021 the local authority advised that the application had not been rejected but that it had not yet made a decision.
  13. The local authority granted planning approval for the resident’s block on 17 March 2021. 
  14. After the landlord asked the resident to explain further why she wanted to escalate her complaint, on 25 March 2021 she confirmed she was unhappy as she was misled with “fake promises” and suggested that the landlord should have intervened after the contractor had provided false information. She stated that shopping for hooks and new blinds had risked her health. The resident further stated that it was unprofessional that the landlord had advised her to contact the local authority as she did not work for its Planned Investment Team. On 30 March 2021, the landlord advised it would send the Stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  15. On 25 March 2020 the contractor sent a letter advising the resident that it would start the external works to the resident’s block – which entailed roof works, wall repairs, painting of soffits and guttering, repair of rainwater goods and guttering works as well as the window replacement works – on 29 March 2020, with the erection of scaffolding initially.
  16. The external works to the block started on 29 March 2021 but did not include the window works to the resident’s flat at this time due to the lead in time for the windows to be manufactured. On 1 April 2021, the resident asked why scaffolding had not been erected and suggested that the landlord was holding up her window works.
  17. On 16 April 2021 the landlord sent the resident the Stage 2 response to the complaint. In the response the landlord accepted that it had not been clear enough about the length of time the process of renewing the windows would take. It noted that it did not make the resident fully aware that it needed planning permission before fabricating the windows.
  18. The landlord stated that the local authority usually took 2-4 months to determine an application, it took around 4-6 weeks to fabricate windows and that from measurement to installation usually took six months. In this case, it understood that the contractor took measurements in September 2020 and submitted the application on 9 October 2021. However, it only received approval on 17 March 2021.  The landlord apologised for misinforming the resident that permission had been awarded earlier, noting there was confusion with the planning application for neighbouring properties.
  19. The landlord apologised if informing the resident about the local authority planning portal/website had been taken in the wrong manner and for not sending responses to the resident’s queries/complaint. The landlord advised that the windows were in fabrication and anticipated the installation in June/July. It offered further discretionary compensation of £50 to recognise poor communication.
  20. On 3 May 2021 the contractor sent a letter to the resident with a new start date of 4 June 2021 for works. It anticipated the works would take two days to complete although this was weather dependent.
  21. The landlord has advised that works to resident’s property commenced in June 2021 and were substantially completed on 7 June 2021.  On 4 June 2021 the resident signed a “Repairs During Defects Period” form which stated she could report problems with the window replacement works to the contactor up until 30 June 2022. It transpired that there were outstanding trims and broken glass in a window which the contractor remedied on 17 June 2021. 

Assessment and findings

  1. Having decided to carry out a planned programme of maintenance works at the resident’s block, which included the replacement of the resident’s windows, the landlord did not have a particular timeframe to complete the works to her property.  This depended on a number of factors such as securing the funding for the works, the prioritisation of the works, the availability of the contractor and the relevant materials, and completing the consultation process with leaseholders if relevant. In this case, planning permission was also required. However, the landlord, through its contractor, raised the resident’s expectations by confirming on 9 November 2020 that it would imminently install new windows in her property. Consequently, the landlord had a responsibility to manage her expectations as to when the works would be carried out.
  2. The RLO, in line with guidance on the landlord’s website, was employed to update residents and respond to concerns. In this case, it is not possible to establish the full extent and details of resident’s contact with the RLO due to much of the contact being verbal and the absence of contemporaneous records.  However, it is evident that the window works did not commence when the resident expected them to, including an expectation that the works would commence at the start of January 2021.  It is also not disputed that the RLO at times did not provide accurate information, for instance by referring to access difficulties and omitting to make clear the crucial point that planning permission had not been granted.  As such, the landlord through the RLO did not manage the resident’s expectations effectively. This suggests that the were misunderstandings and/or a lack of information between the landlord and contractor, therefore a recommendation has been made in this regard.
  3. Compounding this, the landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectation by failing to respond to the emails she sent it, including her emails of 13 November 2020, 18 and 19 December 2020 and 7 January 2021. In fact, the landlord has advised this Service that planned investment surveyors have a responsibility to respond to queries.
  4. Having received planning permission from the local authority, the landlord was not obliged to immediately replace the resident’s windows as the planned works programme entailed window works to other properties in the block and there were other works to the block separate to the window replacement. However, its responsibility to manage her expectations remained. The resident’s email of 1 April 2021 indicates that she wanted her windows to be replaced at that time. The landlord thereafter took reasonable steps to manage her expectations by advising within the Stage 2 complaint response that the windows were being fabricated and advising that works were anticipated in June 2021, which was confirmed in the contractor’s letter of 3 May 2021.  The works were then completed in June 20210 as stated. Although the contractor had to attend again on 17 June 2021, this was in line with the process for remedying snags and defects in completed works.
  5. As noted there had been a failure by the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations, compounded by its failure to respond to correspondence, prior to the eventual successful completion of the window replacement works.  In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which 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 a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  6. In this case, the landlord offered a total of £100 compensation when responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages.  This award reflected the failures in its communication, including not responding to correspondence, that have been identified by this Service. The award also was in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy which suggests compensation of £100 for poor communication over six months as was the case here (November 2020 when the contractor wrote to the resident to the landlord’s Stage 2 response of April 2021 when it explained the delays that had occurred and advised of the timeframe for the works thereafter).
  7. Compensation is not the only form of redress that a landlord can offer.  An apology whereby the landlord acknowledges the service failure, explains clearly why it happened and expresses regret also provides redress. The landlord, in this case, also provided redress by apologising, and explaining the delay and why it suggested the resident look directly on the local authority Planning Department webpages.  Taken altogether, the landlord provided redress which was proportionate to the circumstances of the case, and which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that: “At any time, the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’”.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) the Ombudsman has determined that the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident that has satisfactorily resolved her complaint.

Reasons

  1. With regards to the window replacement works at the resident’s property, there were the failures in the landlord’s communication including not responding to correspondence. However, its compensation award of £100 taken together with the apologies and explanations it provided constituted redress which was proportionate to the circumstances of the case and which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. As this determination is contingent on the landlord’s offer of compensation, it should pay the resident the £100 offered within its complaints procedure if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord reviews its policy and procedures for carrying out planned programme of works so as to ensure that relevant and accurate information is passed between the landlord’s Planned Investment Team and the contractor’s Resident Liaison Officer.