Clarion Housing Association Limited (202014589)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014589

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charges and communal cleaning and maintenance.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, an housing association. The property is a flat in a block located on an estate.
The lease sets out obligations agreed between the landlord and the resident. The landlord covenants so far as practicable to provide services to or in respect of the building to a reasonable level. The services include window cleaning and lighting, cleaning and maintenance of internal communal parts of the building. The landlord also covenants to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building and to keep in good repair and condition communal areas. The resident covenants to pay estimated service charges every year, which include administrative and labour costs of managing the estate. If costs prove to be more than the estimated service charge, the resident is asked to pay the deficiency, and if costs are less, the surplus is credited towards next demands.
The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy advises that in conjunction with residents reporting communal repairs, it conducts regular inspections to ensure estates are maintained and services are delivered. The policy advises that frequency of inspections are determined on individual basis, ranging from no less than twice a year to every four weeks.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out how it prioritises repairs. ‘Emergency repairs,’ for issues which are an immediate danger or jeopardise health, safety or security, have a completion timeframe of 24 hours; while ‘non emergency repairs,’ for all other issues, have a completion timeframe of 28 calendar days. Communal repairs are prioritised in a similar way and must always be completed within 28 days.
The landlord’s website advises it has a planned improvement scheme, under which it aims to carry out works to communal areas on a seven year basis, although this timeline is affected by condition, budget and changes to the improvement programme.
The landlord operates a two stage formal complaints procedure, if an initial attempt to resolve a query is not achieved. At stage one, it aims to respond in 10 working days, and at stage two, it aims to respond in 20 working days. The landlord does not consider complaints closed over six months prior except in specific circumstances.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out instances where compensation may be considered, including where it fails to meet service standards for actions and responses. It also sets out discretionary amounts starting from £50, which can be awarded dependent on the level of failure and impact on the resident.

Summary of events

Between May 2019 and September 2019, the information provided advises that the resident reported a communal light not working outside her flat, and later added reports about a main stairwell light not working; lights along her walkway not working; almost falling down stairs due to the dark; and tripping over tools and rubbish left by lift workmen. The landlord carried out some investigation and noted the landlord’s mechanical and electrical team were upgrading lights and working their way up to the resident’s floor. After further reports, the resident was informed the mechanical and electrical team were contacted; and later investigation of the issue included a fuse board being checked; a time switch being reset; and light fittings/sensors being replaced outside the resident’s flat.
In August 2019, the information provided also advises the landlord noted an empty property’s previous owner had allowed their dog to foul a communal balcony and walkway, at the resident’s block. It noted that dog mess needed to be cleared as this had been left to fester after the owner moved out. Following this, in September 2019 the landlord’s environmental services team attended to jet wash the balcony, with support of the estate services team and the block caretaker.
On 17 September 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the communal lighting, which appears to have been handled in line with its policy to initially attempt to resolve a query informally. It noted the resident’s desired outcome was to be provided with confirmation that the lighting was fixed; reasons for delay restoring lights; and reasons operatives were unable to see the resident’s light was disconnected at a fuse box. The information provided advises it confirmed with the resident that the lights were fixed and the reason for delays was that the landlord’s operatives were unable to locate the feed that had been disconnected, due to the upgrade carried out to lighting on lower floors. It noted she mentioned lift contractors leaving tools and mess and offered to start an housing ‘process’ for this issue, for which it confirmed an email address the resident subsequently forwarded correspondence to about the issue. The landlord notes it closed the communal lighting complaint on 10 October 2019.
On 27 September 2019, the landlord sent out a statement to the resident, which set out the actual service charges incurred during 2018/19 and the estimated charges for 2019/20. For 2018/19, the actual costs exceeded the estimate and a deficit of £296.40 was applied to the account.
On 20 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and confirmed she had received the statement. She explained she had reported lights on her walkway in May 2019 which were finally fixed in September 2019, and wished to establish what she was paying for since it took four months to resolve the issue. She also reported there was no evidence of communal cleaning, block caretaking, day to day repairs and communal window cleaning regularly occurring. She requested schedules of these for her block, and a breakdown of all the charges for the 2018/19 and 2019/20 estimated service charges. The resident’s account advises she subsequently received an acknowledgement in response to this dated 14 November 2019.
On 19 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she had heard nothing after its acknowledgement, and she requested for the issue to be escalated to a complaint. On 24 April 2020, the landlord advised the query had been passed to its service charges team.
On 10 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to highlight that two months had passed since its acknowledgement, and that her query went back to October the previous year. She explained her account was in arrears because the landlord had not responded, and this had caused distress and anxiety and affected sleep. On 27 July 2020, the landlord apologised for the delay and advised the query had been passed to its service charges team.
On 12 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to highlight that no one had contacted her, after standard replies the query had been passed to the service charges team. She asked to be contacted by a manager, and highlighted that it was eleven months since her first query.
On 3 September 2020, the resident emailed a senior manager. She explained she had not received a response to her enquiry in October 2019; she had repeatedly requested escalation to a manager; and the issue had caused anxiety and stress.
On 9 September 2020, the landlord’s service charges team emailed the resident.
1. It advised that its system showed her original query was responded to in December 2019, however it could not find evidence of a letter and could only assume a response was not sent. It sincerely apologised for this and the delay responding to the query.
2. It advised that it understood from the email chain that certain charges were being queried for the 2018/19 expenditure which had resulted in a deficit of £296.40 on the account. The information provided advises that it supplied information in relation to communal cleaning/communal window cleaning; a breakdown of caretaking visits; and a list of repairs that made up the charge for the day to day repairs. It advised that it had addressed services the resident had listed, but invited her to let it know if she required evidence for other services.
3. It advised that the 2019/20 costs were being finalised and should be received by the end of the month. It invited the resident to directly contact the team if she had any queries on receipt of these.
On 11 September 2020, the resident detailed concern about a lack of cleaning and management at her block.
1. She detailed rubbish that had been around for weeks; a chip in a step that had been caused during lift repairs; oil marks; paintwork in stairwells; and a hole in the wall caused during gas works. She reported that a dog mess left on the balcony of a vacant property took weeks to be addressed while she put up with the smell.
2. She contended that if the block was regularly cleaned and managed, rubbish would not be left for weeks on end; the oil would have been cleaned up; the dog would not have been allowed to go to the toilet on the balcony; the dog mess would have been reported; paintwork would have been finished; and contractor damage would have been fixed.
On 22 September 2020, the landlord’s estate services team spoke to the resident after referral of her concerns, where caretaker responsibilities were discussed. She raised some issues out of estate services’ responsibility related to lifts, gas and repairs, which she advised the landlord should still arrange maintenance for. She confirmed rubbish and dog mess had been cleared, but she explained this was an example and she requested to speak to an estate manager. She expressed general frustration and having to speak to different departments.
On 23 September 2020, an estate manager met with the resident. It was noted that cleaning was discussed and the manager clarified services provided daily, weekly and monthly. It was noted the manager was satisfied with caretaking and standards, but would continue to monitor these in conjunction with monthly estate visits. It was confirmed to the resident that issues out of the estate team’s direct responsibility, such as general repairs, were being reported and chased. The resident was informed she could raise future issues directly with the manager or the block caretaker.
On 9 October 2020, the landlord raised a complaint after it contacted the resident to discuss her concerns. It noted that she complained her block was not being managed properly; was unhappy with how the landlord had dealt with her queries; was unhappy at having to complain to senior managers; and wanted her complaint to be managed by one person. It noted that she was also unhappy about:
1. Lack of response to her service charge queries, which had resulted in her account going into arrears.
2. Communal lights not working from May to September 2019, when the caretaker had realised switches on a ‘master board’ were off.
3. Slipping in the communal area in summer 2019 when it was dark.
4. A previous resident allowing their dog to mess in the communal area for months, which she and the caretaker had cleaned to get rid of the smell.
5. Standard and frequency of communal cleaning, as rubbish and discarded cans remained in communal areas for days.
6. Incomplete communal paintwork.
7. Lack of response to queries when she raised these using the landlord’s website.
On 5 November 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response.
1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns related to a lack of grounds maintenance, and service charges.
2. It detailed the services provided daily, weekly and monthly, and advised that quality assurance checks between July and September 2020 had found caretaking to be of a ‘gold’ standard; and inspections of the estate to be of an ‘acceptable’ standard. It noted that in September 2020, she had discussed the caretaking of the block with staff and it was thought she was happy with this.
3. It noted she complained breakdowns for cleaning and repairs service charges in 2018/19 and 2019/20 had not been provided. It restated explanation and apology about a letter in December 2019 which it assumed was not sent. It explained information had been emailed on 9 September 2020, and it re-supplied information about services that made up costs for communal cleaning, block caretaking and day to day repairs; provided a breakdown of 2018/19 charges; and provided a breakdown of 2019/20 estimates. It restated that 2019/20 costs were being finalised and should be received by the end of the month.
4. It apologised for the issues, inconvenience and complaint response delay, and awarded £50 compensation.
On 25 November 2020, the resident raised dissatisfaction the response had not addressed all concerns in her correspondence. She clarified she had mentioned incidents where the landlord had failed to manage the property, and that she was questioning the management fee. She advised the service being deemed a ‘gold’ standard was unacceptable and that she wanted the landlord to accept it was failing to provide services it was asking her to pay for, She also raised concern that her queries had not been dealt with in an acceptable and timely manner.
On 22 December 2020, the landlord issued its final response.
1. It advised its caretaker had no recollection of switching the communal lights on the master board, but noted that during May and September 2019 works were carried out to install light fittings and sensors where this must have been done by contractors. It apologised for any inconvenience this caused, and it noted there was a reduction in communal electricity costs during the period, likely due to the failed lighting. It advised it found no prior report of a fall as a result of a light outage, but detailed how to submit an insurance claim.
2. It advised its caretaker was aware a dog excreted in a communal area and that action was taken to clear this; speak to the owner; and arrange for the environmental team to deep clean the balcony.
3. It advised that between April 2018 and March 2020, cleaning quality assurance inspection ratings varied between good, acceptable and poor. It explained the aim of the inspections were to ensure steps can be taken to improve when standards fell. It advised that it encouraged residents to be involved in its quality assurance inspections and invited the resident to be involved in an upcoming one. It concluded that the frequency, quality and service level in regard to caretaking and cleaning was adequate, and advised that the management fee would not be reduced/removed for the periods 2018/19 or 2019/20.
4. It advised that a cyclical decoration programme was in place which determined when walls and ceilings were painted, and it confirmed cyclical works were due in 2023/24
5. It acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication and failing to acknowledge concerns before and after the complaint, as well as for not addressing issues in its stage one response, which could have potentially resolved the case earlier. It explained that at the time of the original query, new systems were implemented which may have impacted matters due to challenges and teething issues. It confirmed the service charge team was reviewing internal processes to avoid the poor communication seen in the case, and that it was also carrying out a review to improve complaints service. It awarded £200 for the communication and complaint handling failings it identified.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service. She explained her service charge account was in arrears and the issue had caused distress, worry, anxiety and sleepless nights. She stated she felt that the landlord was not managing the property, that it did not seem to care about its residents and she felt down by it. She stated that when repairs were reported it should have timescales it works to; and when enquiries and complaints are made it should have to respond within certain timeframes and be penalised if it does not. She advised that she has queried when services on her statement do not happen and would like the landlord to be held accountable for failing to deliver services it charges for.

Assessment and findings

In this case the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has acknowledged service failures and awarded £200 compensation. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This further assessment therefore considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
The Ombudsman understands the course of events has frustrated and upset the resident, and understands the resident’s opinion that the landlord is failing to deliver cleaning and maintenance services that it charges her for.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as service charges, in the same way as the courts. Nor is it within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on alleged lease breach, such as alleged failure to manage a property or to provide services, in the same way as the courts. This is because the Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), which details the type of complaints the Ombudsman will and may not investigate.
Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in its opinion concern the level of service charge. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. While the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law and the lease agreement, if this is disputed, only a court or tribunal can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
This means this Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord met its obligations and took reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. In reaching a decision, we consider whether a landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. This investigation notes the resident states the landlord should have timescales it works to, and when assessing complaints this Service considers if a landlord has met obligations and timeframes such as those set out in Paragraphs 3 to 8 of this report.
Under the lease, the resident pays a service charge for communal services, so when concern was raised about the delivery of these services, the landlord had a responsibility to review the concerns. Following the resident’s original query about service charges in October 2019, the landlord has not disputed that a response in December 2019 may not have been sent. After this, there was repeated failure to respond to the resident’s correspondence in March, July and August 2020. This meant that the resident did not receive a response to her original query until September 2020, approximately ten months later. This will clearly have caused distress and frustration to the resident, and was not appropriate.
The information provided advises that between September and December 2020, the landlord went on to assess the resident’s concerns through a block visit and a review of matters. The landlord reviewed concerns about communal lights and provided explanation about these; explained it had no reports of a fall as a result of the light issue; provided insurance details; and explained the issue likely had no cost impact on the resident. The landlord also reviewed concerns about a dog being allowed to cause mess, and explained some actions it took.
This investigation notes the dog mess issue appears to have been specifically complained about a year after events; and the landlord dealt with and closed a complaint about the communal lighting repair in October 2019, a year before the issue was complained about in conjunction with related services charges. Such timeframes may limit the ability to investigate issues, as the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted.
Further, the Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by its Scheme and Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale;” while Paragraph 39(e) advises the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.” The landlord’s complaints policy also sets out that it does not consider complaints which have been closed over six months prior.
The previous complaint, which could have been re-raised within six months of its closure in October 2019, provided reasonable opportunity for the resident to escalate the communal lighting repair for a further contemporaneous investigation, if she was dissatisfied; therefore this investigation primarily considers the landlord’s responses to matters in the context of the later complaint.
The landlord’s responses appear reasonable, as it considered the issues, recognised and apologised for the inconvenience, and reassured the resident that it was unlikely she was charged for communal lighting electricity costs while it was not functional, so will not have been further affected by this. While records advise the resident made contemporaneous reports about tripping, it is unclear to what extent this directly resulted from the light issue and it appears reasonable for her to have been signposted to submit an injury claim (which this Service does not have the jurisdiction or expertise to assess). The four month timeframe to resolve the resident’s reports about communal lighting does however appear excessive, and a recommendation is made about this.
The landlord reviewed communal repairs the resident raised and although it did not specifically address a hole in a wall caused by previous gas works, which would have been customer focused, it explained when communal cyclical decoration works were due. This appears reasonable, as there is no indication that the impact of the repairs issues mentioned by the resident go beyond aesthetic, and the lease does not specify when cyclical works should be carried out. Where the landlord decides repairs are for its cyclical works programme and decides an appropriate timeframe for these, as in this case, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point these should be carried out.
The landlord provided service charges supporting information for the periods the resident queried, and offered to provided further information if requested. In correspondence further evidence does not appear to have been requested, therefore the landlord’s response to this aspect appears to have been reasonable.
The landlord reviewed caretaking and cleaning services, which included a co-inspection with the resident and a review of records. It concluded that the services the resident raised concern about were being delivered adequately, and it set out the position that it would not reduce or remove the management fee. It also explained how future issues could be reported to an estate manager and a block caretaker. This appears reasonable, as the landlord reached its conclusions based on evidence the resident provided; first hand inspection by members of staff, whose opinion the landlord is entitled to rely on; and caretaker and inspection reports. Further, its invitation to raise future concerns to specific staff appears customer focused and appears to offer a reasonable means for future concerns to be investigated in a timely, effective way.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, overall the landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about service charges and communal cleaning and maintenance, as the above demonstrates that the landlord has considered these matters and set out its position, which is in accordance with what this Service would expect to see.
While the resident clearly disagrees that the services the landlord charges for are adequate, this investigation sees no specific evidence for which it could make a determination in this regard. As outlined at Paragraph 31 of this report, the Ombudsman can take a view on the position, and if this position is disputed, only a court or tribunal can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
This investigation does note the resident mentions making additional reports in the timeframe of the complaint which did not receive response, and in addition, when service charges are disputed it is good practice for a landlord to remind residents of the right to apply to the Tribunal; therefore recommendations are made about these.
Moving on to the landlord’s complaints handling, after the resident complained in March 2020 the landlord did not raise a complaint until October 2020, after which its stage one response in November 2020 exceeded its 10 working day timeframe by several weeks. This meant that the overall timeframe for the landlord’s stage one response from March 2020 was over seven months. Further, while the landlord acknowledged some issues and awarded £50 in its stage one response, it did not address all the issues raised. This was not appropriate and will have caused the resident further distress and frustration.
The landlord’s final response did generally meet the timescale of its complaints procedure, and set out a final position in which it considered the issues which had not been addressed; acknowledged service issues; and confirmed steps would be taken in relation to these to improve future service. It also offered compensation for its failings in communication and complaints handling. The landlord’s final response appears an appropriate response which demonstrated a commitment to address matters, improve future service, and recognise and remedy the impact on the resident.
Moving on to the landlord’s compensation offer, this investigation notes that the resident has advised that she seeks £3,000 for the landlord’s failings and the impact on her. When considering compensation, this Service considers a range of factors such as the circumstances of the case, and the landlord and Ombudsman’s compensation guidance. Our remedies are never intended to be punitive, as the Ombudsman is an alternative dispute resolution process to taking legal action. That means that we do not make the same findings that a court would and we do not operate in the same way as a court does, or make binding decisions on matters such as lease breach or service charges.
The landlord has explained that its compensation offer of £200 comprises £100 for its communication and £100 for its complaint handling. Its compensation policy advises it awards compensation between £50 to £250 in cases which include repeated failure to reply to correspondence. The landlord’s offer of £200 appears to demonstrate it considered the service failings and impact on the resident, and sought to provide compensation in accordance with its policy.
In its own Remedies Guidance, the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges which this Service takes into account when determining cases. The financial remedy of £200 provided by the landlord falls in the third range, where there has been some failure to meet service standards for responses and actions, and where the impact includes some distress, inconvenience and delays. These appear applicable to the issues the landlord has acknowledged and the issues this Service identifies regarding delays in response to the resident’s queries and complaint, which will have understandably frustrated her.
Accordingly, the overall financial remedy of £200 offered by the landlord is in accordance with this Service’s Remedies Guidance and, considering all of the circumstances of the case, in the Ombudsman’s opinion appears suitable financial redress.
The above demonstrates the landlord appropriately carried out investigation of the complaint, identified and acknowledged service failings, and was resolution focused in seeking to address all issues the resident raised and to make reasonable redress to her in recognition of the issues she experienced. Overall, the landlord’s responses evidences it appropriately put things right, in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charges and communal cleaning and maintenance.

Reasons

The landlord took appropriate steps to inspect communal services and review its records in relation to these and the concerns the resident raised.
The landlord took appropriate steps to review service charge concerns and to provide a reasonable position in accordance with the lease agreement and good practice.
The landlord appropriately identified and acknowledged service failings and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, made reasonable redress to the resident, for the delays in response to her queries and complaint, and the distress and inconvenience she experienced.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to review the resident’s communal lighting reports, and ensure processes are in place to investigate and resolve individual reports in a timely and issue focused manner.
The landlord to liaise with the resident about any outstanding reports she has not received a response to, and to ensure these are progressed appropriately.
The landlord to highlight a customer’s right to apply to the First-Tier Tribunal, when responding to service charge disputes and service charge complaints.