Clarion Housing Association Limited (202016831)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016831

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 September 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 response to the resident’s request for it to replaster her property.
   2. The landlord’s handling complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is the tenant of the landlord.
3. On 26 November 2020, the landlord called the resident to discuss a complaint she had made about a visit she had received from it that day. She said that she had been previously informed it was her responsibility to carry out repairs to the walls at the property, but she had been told during the visit that “most parts” of the plastering had blown and repairs to this were required. The resident said that she wanted the blown areas to be hacked off and all walls skimmed to allow her to redecorate.
4. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 21 December 2020. In this, it confirmed that the results of the inspection on 26 November 2020 indicated that the following repairs were required to the property:
   1. Patch repairs to the plastering
   2. Removal of woodchip wallpaper from the lounge ceiling and skimming of the same
   3. Mist coating the lounge ceiling with emulsion once skimmed.
5. The landlord confirmed that these works were booked to be completed on 4 and 27 January 2021. It did not uphold the complaint as it did not find any failure in its service.
6. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 January 2021 to express her dissatisfaction with its response. She said that she had been attempting to have the property replastered as she believed the plaster was “completely blown throughout” which made the property uninhabitable for her and her son. The resident said that she had been told by several operatives that the entire property required replastering. She said that the dust and loose plaster resulting from the blown plasterwork were having an impact on her and her son’s health as they were asthma sufferers.
7. The resident was unhappy that the landlord would only do patch repairs and would not take responsibility for replastering. She relayed that she had been advised by its surveyor and area manager that the cracks in the plaster were considered her responsibility to decorate over with lining paper. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact the same day.
8. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 January 2021 to ask if she had received the stage one complaint response, as this had specified repairs which were yet to be completed, on 4 and 27 January 2021. She replied to it later that day to advise that the work had not gone ahead on 4 January 2021 as, upon starting to strip the lounge ceiling paper, the damage to the plaster was found to be worse than previously identified. The resident said that she was yet to be advised of an update to the work.
9. The landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the property on 15 January 2021. It recorded on 28 January 2021 that new works had been agreed, noting that the resident had not agreed to them.
10. The landlord issued a follow up stage one complaint response to the resident on 29 January 2021. It noted that there was dispute over its actions on 4 January 2021. It said its understanding was that the resident had refused the works because it was not freshly plastering the walls, whereas she had previously said that the operative did not complete the work.
11. The landlord confirmed the updated schedule of works to the resident, noting that she had agreed to allow the works to be completed and to contact it if she continued to be dissatisfied. This schedule of works comprised various patch repairs to several rooms in the property.
12. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 March 2021 to express her dissatisfaction with the conduct of the operative who had been at her property between 8 and 12 March 2021 to carry out the work. She said they had been “lazy” and had “really bad attitudes”. The resident asserted that the property had subsidence and was unhappy that the landlord had not addressed replastering the entire property. She questioned the value of the repair work that it had carried out at the property, pointing out that there were numerous cracks to which the landlord had carried out patch repairs to.
13. The resident said that the landlord was putting her and her child’s health at risk from the effects of the “freezing cold and dusty walls”. She informed the landlord that she would now be withholding her rent for two months while she paid for a private contractor to carry out plastering.
14. The landlord responded to the resident on 16 March 2021 to inform her that it had inspected the works after completion on 11 March 2021 and telephoned her the following day to follow up. It advised that its surveyor had ruled out any subsidence at the property and assured her that there were no concerns over the structure of the property. The landlord confirmed that the newly plastered surfaces had been sealed to enable her to decorate. It advised her that it did not normally carry out work to make good decorative cracks following wallpaper removal and it had done this as part of the schedule of works as a goodwill gesture to her.
15. The landlord advised that it had investigated the behaviour of its operative, reviewed the specification of works against the labour time, and checked the trackers of the operative’s vehicles. It found no evidence to support the resident’s report about their behaviour. It advised her that the payment of rent was a requirement of her tenancy, and any failure to make payment would result in debt recovery action.
16. The resident contacted this Service on 8 April 2021 and, after an enquiry from the Ombudsman on 12 April 2021, the landlord confirmed the following day that it had logged an escalation of the complaint to the final stage of its complaints process.
17. After it spoke to the resident about her complaint on 15 April 2021, the landlord issued its final response to her on 14 May 2021. It noted that her desired resolution was for it to replaster her property throughout, or for it to hang lining paper on the walls as she said she had been unable to do this because of the condition of the plaster.
18. The landlord explained that the property had been inspected by its surveyor and two of its area managers. It confirmed that the cracks in the plaster did not indicate any structural problems and it considered it reasonable to remedy these with patch repairs to the affected areas. The landlord asserted that its inspection had found that the repairs for which it was responsible had been completed and the surfaces were suitable for redecoration. It confirmed that there was no need to replaster the entire property and that it was not responsible for hanging lining paper on the walls.
19. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in providing the final response to the resident and offered compensation of £50 for its delay.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

20. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the maintenance of the structure of the property, including the plaster work. This agreement also states that it is the resident’s responsibility to repair “minor cracks in the plaster” and to keep the property in a good standard of decorative repair.
21. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy provides for two priorities of repair; emergency and non-emergency. Emergency repairs are classed as those which present an immediate danger to the resident or public and are to be attended and made safe within 24 hours. In the case of non-emergency repairs, an appointment is to be offered to the resident within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. 
22. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints process. At stage one of this process, it aims to provide a resolution within ten working days, otherwise it will keep the resident informed and provide a timescale for resolution. At the final stage of the complaints process, the landlord aims to resolve complaints within 20 working days, and again will keep the resident informed and provide a timeframe for resolution if it is unable to meet its published timeframe.
23. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for the payment of discretionary compensation when a service failure had had some impact on a resident. This policy provides for the payment of £50 per quarter per failure where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to replaster her property

24. The resident has said that the condition of the walls negatively impacted on her and her child’s health. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to draw any direct links between the action or omissions of a landlord and any subsequent health impact on the resident or their household. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on bringing a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her or her household’s health had been affected by the landlord’s actions or omissions.
25. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the maintenance of the plaster work in the property. Therefore, it was appropriate for it to raise repairs to the areas of blown plaster that it identified on its inspection on 26 November 2020.
26. It is evident that further repairs were required once it commenced the work on 4 January 2021. When a landlord receives a report of a fault or repair, its first response should be to inspect the issue. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to conduct a second inspection on 15 January 2021 and arrange a new schedule of works.
27. The resident has disputed the suitability of the patch repairs arranged by the landlord to address the defects in the plaster work. The tenancy agreement states that it is the resident’s responsibility to repair minor cracks in the plaster and, while there was dispute over the responsibility for the repair of damaged plaster, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the professional opinions of its staff. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to confirm, in its final stage complaint response on 14 May 2021, after inspections by its surveyor and area managers, that there was no need to replaster the entire property, and the patch repairs it carried out were sufficient.
28. It was also reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident in its final stage complaint response on 14 May 2021 that it was not its responsibility to hang lining paper on the walls of the property; as confirmed by the tenancy agreement, it was the resident’s responsibility to keep the property in a good standard of decoration. Therefore, there was no obligation on its part to paper the walls.
29. Overall, there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord to comply with its obligations, nor evidence of it responding unreasonably to the resident’s request for the entire property to be replastered.

The landlord’s complaint handling

30. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident on 21 December 2020, 17 working days after she raised her complaint on 26 November 2020. This was seven working days in excess of the timeframe stated in its complaints policy, above at point 22. As there was no evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to advise of the delay and providing a timeframe for resolution, this represented a failure by it to adhere to its policy.
31. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 14 May 2021, 21 working days after it acknowledged the escalation of the complaint to the final stage on 13 April 2021. This was slightly in excess of the 20-working day timeframe stated in its complaints policy.
32. The landlord offered £50 compensation to the resident in recognition of the delays in its handling of her complaint. As the period of delay did not extend over three months, this offer was in accordance with its compensation policy. The offer of £50 compensation was also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact” as there was no evidence of any detriment caused to the resident by the delay in response by the landlord. Therefore, it made a reasonable of redress to the resident for its acknowledged failure to adhere to its complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for it to replaster her property.
34. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the delays in its complaint handling.

Reasons

35. The landlord took reasonable actions to assess and complete the repairs to the resident’s plaster which were its responsibility.
36. The landlord acknowledged its failure to handle the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policy and offered a reasonable level of redress in recognition of this.

Recommendations

37. If it has not done so already, the landlord should now pay the resident the £50 compensation which it offered in its final stage complaint response.