The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202015290)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015290

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 July 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a three-bedroom house.
  2. On 19 July 2019, the landlord raised a job to overhaul the resident’s front entrance door.
  3. On 14 October 2019, the resident called the landlord to report that its workers had attended but had been unable to complete the replacement of the door due to bringing the wrong door.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 23 November 2019 to relay his dissatisfaction with the newly installed door. He reported that it did not have a spyhole, the wrong letterbox was attached which he had to replace as it would not stay attached, the door continued to allow draughts into the property, the door did not fit into the frame correctly and it had been overcut which left a gap. The resident requested that it be inspected by a surveyor.
  5. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 20 December 2019 recorded that, after a post inspection, several issues were identified with the door. It noted that the door fitted was either the wrong size or had been cut down incorrectly. The door had also been fitted with the incorrect hinges, the decorative finish was poor, the wrong screws had been used, and the letterbox was poor quality, resulting in the letterbox plate falling off. The landlord said it would contact the resident in the new year to arrange for the door to be replaced.
  6. The landlord offered an appointment to the resident for 16 January 2020 to obtain measurements for the door. He reported to it that day that this was not attended. The landlord said that its contractor advised that the door had been measured from the outside, but the resident disputed this as his CCTV did not record anyone doing so. It attended the property again on 21 January 2020, but he was informed that it could not carry out the work.
  7. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 17 February 2020, which noted that it had received his stage one complaint on 13 November 2019 and acknowledged that the standard of the door installation was not satisfactory. It advised that it had arranged for the door to be replaced on 21 February 2020 which it hoped would resolve the issue. The landlord apologised for the delays and inconvenience the resident experienced and offered compensation of £80. This comprised two payments of £15 for two missed appointments and £50 for not completing the work within the timeframe specified in its service level agreement.
  8. On 21 February 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the appointment for that day to reinstall the door had not been attended. It made a new appointment for 17 March 2020 and re-opened his complaint.
  9. On 18 March 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the door replacement did not go ahead as he was advised by the operative that the doorframe required replacing first. He expressed concern that this issue had not been identified earlier and requested that it install a UPVC door instead. The landlord told him that this would need to be assessed by a surveyor first. It made a new appointment with him for the installation of a new frame and door on 8 April 2020.
  10. On 26 March 2020, the landlord informed the resident that his door replacement would be placed on hold due to restrictions in place because of the corona virus pandemic. It confirmed with him that the door was secure but noted that he said it was draughty which caused his property to be cold.
  11. On 10 July 2020, the landlord attended the resident’s property and its worker reported to it that the door did not require replacement as it was in working order.
  12. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 13 July 2020 that it would arrange for senior staff to attend and apologised for the confusion.
  13. On 24 July 2020, the resident conveyed his disappointment to the landlord with its visit, which took place earlier that day, as it had not brought the required materials to carry out the door and doorframe replacement. He had also been told that day that the doorframe could not be replaced, and it would only install a new door. Furthermore, this new door would not be available until 14 August 2020.
  14. On 14 August 2020, the landlord cancelled the appointment that day to fit the door at short notice. This was due to the door not yet being available. Another appointment was made for 16 September 2020.
  15. On 17 September 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the door replacement was carried out but was of a poor standard. He said that the top of the door and the keyhole had been overcut, allowing draughts to enter his property.
  16. The landlord carried out a post inspection of the door on 21 September 2020 and its internal correspondence on 22 September 2020 noted that snagging works were required. These were to: fit a third hinge to the door, renew the letterbox for one of better quality, and fit a new key escutcheon which would cover the keyhole and prevent draughts. The landlord was to also retouch the varnishing and timber infill to the doorframe.
  17. The landlord noted that the door was produced in metric sizing and was made to fit a doorframe in imperial sizing. This resulted in the requirement of a timber infill section to the door head which its surveyor considered to be “perfectly acceptable”. The landlord noted that the resident continued to be dissatisfied with the standard of the door installation but considered that, aside from the remaining snagging works, the door was “fitted well and fit for purpose”.
  18. The landlord advised the resident on 6 October 2020 that the snagging works were to be carried out the following day. It confirmed that his complaint would stay open until it had confirmed that all works had been completed.
  19. On 7 October 2020, the landlord recorded that the resident refused access to it for the snagging works to be completed and noted that he wanted a UPVC door to be fitted instead.
  20. After the landlord emailed the resident on 9 October 2020 to confirm the remaining works required for the door, he responded on 13 October 2020 to dispute the standard of the door installation. He asserted that the bottom of the door did not fit correctly, which let draughts and insects in, and this prevented him from using the bottom floor of the house. The resident requested that the landlord arrange for a “professional” to inspect the door. He expressed frustration with the process, highlighting that it had been ongoing since July 2019, in which time three different doors had been installed and he had been dissatisfied with each one.
  21. The resident stated that the draughts and cold affecting the ground floor of the property due to the ill-fitting door had impacted on his and his family’s health and wanted a rebate of his rent to reflect that he had been unable to use the ground floor as a result. He requested that this information was added to his complaint.
  22. The landlord issued an updated stage one complaint response to the resident on 28 October 2020 after calling him earlier that day. It stated that the complaint was received on 21 February 2020 and noted the failed appointments on 17 and 21 February, 17 March, 8 April, 24 July, and 14 August 2020. The landlord explained that these were due to a combination of operatives receiving conflicting information and delays in obtaining parts and assured him this had been raised to senior management. It also noted that the complaint was put on hold during the corona virus outbreak until it was safe for staff to carry out the works.
  23. The landlord relayed that its surveyor had found that the door had been “fitted well and fit for purpose” although final snagging works were required. It noted the resident’s previous requests for the door to be re-inspected and for it to be replaced by a UPVC door. The landlord affirmed that its inspection on 21 September 2020 had found the door to be fit for purpose and therefore it would not carry out any further inspections nor replace the door. It noted that internal and external draught excluders had been fitted to the door.
  24. The landlord advised that it could take no further action at this stage, as the resident had refused works on 7 October 2020, and he had also declined a further appointment to carry out these works. It offered a revised amount of compensation £390. This comprised: £50 for the delay in carrying out the works, £50 for the delay in resolving the complaint, £90 for six missed appointments, and a discretionary payment of £200. The landlord noted that the resident had already advised the landlord in previous contact that he was dissatisfied with this and wanted to escalate his complaint. 
  25. In the week following the landlord’s revised stage one complaint response, he raised an emergency repair for the front door. Its internal correspondence on 2 November 2020 recorded that, on attendance, the “resident opened door with ease” and that he said that the door had been catching at the top. After adjusting the door that day, the landlord returned the following day to complete the snagging works and adjusted the door.  
  26. The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage on 8 November 2020 in which he asserted that the landlord had recorded the date of the complaint incorrectly and the door had been an issue since 16 October 2019. Due to the length of time elapsed, he felt that the sum of £390 in compensation was insufficient.
  27. The resident contended that the landlord’s surveyor was biased as the newly installed door did not fit correctly. He said that it had not been cut correctly, requiring a timber infill, and he had since needed to make an emergency call as the door had become stuck. The resident held that the timber infill needed to be removed and the door needed to be replaced. He maintained that he wanted a “non biased” surveyor to inspect the door and contended that, as the landlord had failed to provide a like-for-like replacement of the door, he wanted it to fit a UPVC door instead.
  28. After acknowledging the resident’s complaint on 9 November 2020, the landlord sent holding responses on 24 November and 22 December 2020, 7 and 14 January 2021 and 1 February 2021.
  29. On 28 January 2021, the resident reported an emergency repair to the door. This was attended the same day and the landlord’s correspondence noted that when the operative arrived the “resident opened the door to [him]. It was sticking a bit so planed off a small amount and varnished [the] edge of [the] door”.
  30. The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 10 February 2021. It acknowledged that there had been a “quality issue” with the door originally fitted but confirmed that the second door was “fit for purpose”. The landlord explained that the resident’s property was within a site which was due for redevelopment in the coming years and would therefore be upgraded. Therefore, it advised that the front door to the property would not be upgraded to UPVC ahead of this redevelopment. The landlord noted that the three remaining snagging issues with the door had been completed and repeated that the door was fit for purpose.
  31. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported an emergency repair to the door in January 2021 and noted that this was found to be a “very minor issue which has been resolved”. It also noted the resident’s request for an inspection by an alternative surveyor to the one who had already visited but asserted that this would not change the outcome.
  32. The landlord noted that the resident first reported repairs to the front door in July 2019 and recognised in its previous responses that this repair had exceeded its service level for completion. It stated that its response on 28 October 2020 had taken into account the further delays which had occurred since its original stage one complaint response on 17 February 2020, resulting in its offer of £390 compensation. The landlord said that it was satisfied that this offer was appropriate to recognise the issues raised in the complaint.
  33. The landlord noted, however, that the resident had raised the complaint several times and therefore it should have escalated the complaint sooner. It also acknowledged that its final response had been delayed. The landlord therefore offered an additional £100 compensation to recognise these complaint-handling issues, bringing the total offer of compensation to £490.
  34. The resident subsequently brought his complaint to a designated person, specifying that he continued to be dissatisfied with the quality of the door installation and the level of compensation offered by the landlord. He sought compensation of £1500 in total for being unable to use the ground floor of the property and the risk to his health and safety if the door jammed in an emergency.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for repairs and maintenance to the structure and exterior of the property, including outside doors.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out two categories of repairs: emergency repairs, which present an immediate danger to residents or the public, and non-emergency repairs. Non-emergency repair appointments are to be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported and no timeframe is specified for the completion of this category of repair.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure where it aims to resolve complaints at stage one within ten working days and within 20 days at the final stage. If it is unable to do so, then it is to keep him informed, explain why the complaint cannot be resolved yet, and provide a timescale to the resident for resolution.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for the payment of discretionary compensation to recognise “adverse effect and impact on a complainant”. Its guidance suggests the payment of £50 per quarter where there has been a failure which impacted the complainant.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door

  1. The resident has said that the draughts from the front door had an impact on his and his family’s health. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct connection between the front door repair and subsequent health conditions experienced by the resident. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding making a personal injury claim if he feels that his health has been impacted negatively by the landlord actions or inaction.
  2. As confirmed by the tenancy agreement, above at point 36, the landlord was responsible for the repair to the resident’s front door. The resident has expressed concern over the judgement of the surveyor who inspected his replacement front door. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff; therefore, it was reasonable for it to conclude that the door was “fit for purpose” after the remaining snagging works were completed, as identified by its surveyor. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to maintain, in its final stage complaint response on 10 February 2021, that the front door did not require replacement or a further inspection.
  3. Furthermore, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to replace the timber front door with a UPVC door. A landlord is obliged to remedy instances of disrepair in its properties; it is not obliged to carry out improvements. Replacing the timber front door with an UPVC door would therefore constitute an improvement to the property. As the front door of the property was timber, and was subsequently replaced with timber, this was a like-for-like replacement and it was reasonable for the landlord to do this.
  4. However, as acknowledged by the landlord, this repair took an excessive length of time to complete. The job was raised on 19 July 2019 to overhaul the front door and it was not confirmed complete until 2 November 2020. If March to July 2020 is not considered as part of the delay due to corona virus restrictions, this still represents a period of approximately one year for the repair to be completed. While there is no specified timeframe in the landlord’s repairs policy, above at point 37, for the completion of a non-emergency repair, this is an unreasonable delay on the landlord’s part.
  5. There were six attendances by the landlord on 16 and 21 January, 21 February, 18 March, 10 July, and 14 August 2020 which were either missed appointments or abortive as operatives did not have the correct information nor parts. The landlord acknowledged these failures and offered compensation for each missed appointment in its stage one and final stage complaint responses.
  6. The landlord offered £490 compensation in total in its final stage complaint response on 10 February 2021, of which £350 was in recognition of its failures in completing the repair. This amount was in accordance with its compensation policy, above at point 39, and was broadly in line with our remedies guidance where there has been “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”.
  7. It should be clarified that the purpose of compensation is not to punish the landlord, nor is it to award ‘damages’ in the way that a court might. The Ombudsman considers whether any offers of compensation reasonably and proportionately recognise the likely level of distress or inconvenience caused to a resident by the landlord’s actions or lack of action. Therefore, the offer of compensation made by the landlord in this instance was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.
  8. In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged the failures it had exhibited in the process of carrying the replacement of the resident door and offered a reasonable sum of compensation to recognise the impact of its failures on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy, above at point 38, allows for a complaint to be kept open whilst it pursues a resolution. However, the complaint was kept open for an excessive period of time at stage one. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published in July 2020, specifies that a stage one complaint should be finalised in ten working days, with no more than a further extension of ten working days. This complaint predates the publication of the Code; however, the Code serves to illustrate that this complaint was kept open at stage one for an unreasonable time, with the revised stage one response being provided by the landlord on 28 October 2020, 11 months after it registered the stage one complaint.
  2. The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 10 February 2021 acknowledged that the complaint should have been escalated sooner due to the timescales involved, and compensation of £100 was awarded for this. When added to the £50 compensation offered in the original stage one complaint response on 17 February 2020, this represents an offer of £150 compensation for the delays in its handling of the complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance would consider an offer of £150 compensation appropriate where there has been a failure that “may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant”. The offer of £150 compensation for the landlord’s handling of the complaint is therefore reasonable, as escalating the complaint sooner was unlikely to have had a significant impact on the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of repairs to his front door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged its failures in the handling of the repair to the resident’s front door and offered a reasonable amount of compensation to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by these failures.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its failures in the handling of the complaint and offered a reasonable amount of compensation to recognise the likely inconvenience caused to the resident by these.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the amount of £490 compensation in total to the resident.
  2. The landlord should review its procedures for the management of its contractors and operatives to ensure that they are properly informed and equipped for repair appointments, to avoid causing unnecessary frustration to residents.