Clarion Housing Association Limited (202101610)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101610

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that two of her bicycles had been stolen from a communal bicycle shed.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding:
1. ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the communal areas at the estate;
2. a flood at her property;
3. grounds maintenance at the estate;
4. her request for a management move.
The complaint also includes the landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) 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.

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has reported ASB incidents occurring in the communal areas of the estate. These have included smoking, shouting, fighting, and setting fire to a vehicle. On each occasion, the landlord has acknowledged the resident’s reports and followed up with an action plan noting the resident can keep incident diaries. Following its investigations, the landlord has provided letters advising it has concluded its investigations and that based on the lack of evidence of who the perpetrators are, and whether they are residents of the landlord, it is unable to take further action. The landlord has also noted the police have been made aware of the incidents and that it would assist with any of their investigations.
On 22 December 2020, the resident made a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s response to her concerns about ASB. The landlord provided a stage one response regarding this complaint on 28 January 2021. It outlined its actions and its policy regarding ASB, and advised it considered its actions to have been in line with this policy. It is not evident that the resident subsequently requested an escalation of this complaint.
On 3 November 2020, the resident reported that the property above her had experienced a flood and that water had entered her property. On 22 December 2020, the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the flood, to which the landlord provided a stage one response on 28 January 2021. The landlord outlined the steps it had taken in response to the resident’s concerns, however, it agreed with her that its communication throughout this period had not been sufficient, for which it apologised. As with above, it is not evident that the resident subsequently requested an escalation of this complaint. The resident has also provided correspondence noting that she is now experiencing issues with damp which she attributes to the flood.
On 1 December 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that she had concerns about the quality of grounds maintenance. The resident returned to this concern on 17 July 2021 when she requested it be treated as a formal complaint. It is not evident whether the landlord has provided a formal response on this issue. Additionally, the resident has noted to this service her concerns about her cleaning bills, however, it is not evident whether this has been raised as a formal complaint with the landlord.
On 3 February 2021, the resident requested that the landlord offer her a new property due to the ongoing ASB on the estate. On 5 February 2021, the landlord signposted the resident to its online application system for property transfers. It is evident that following this, the resident also made a formal application for a management move, however, on 29 March 2021, the landlord advised this had been denied on the basis that its criteria had not been met. The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction at this outcome, however, it is not evident whether she subsequently raised a formal complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding:
  1. ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the communal areas at the estate;
  2. a flood at her property;
  3. grounds maintenance at the estate;
  4. her request for a management move.
The Ombudsman also notes that elements of the above complaints were not included in the original complaint referred to this service. As such, the landlord has not been presented with the opportunity to provide evidence relating to these complaints. Should the resident wish to pursue these complaints, she must initially ensure each has been raised as a formal complaint with the landlord and then progress the complaints through each stage of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. She may then be able to refer the complaints to this service.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord has not provided this service with a signed copy of the tenancy agreement so it cannot be determined on which date the tenancy began. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The property is a flat in a multistorey block of flats located on an estate including similar buildings. Within the grounds of the estate there is a building (shed) designated for bicycle storage. The shed consists of metal railings upon which to secure bicycles. There is no door to the shed.
The unsigned tenancy agreement provided to this service by the landlord does not reference the bicycle storage shed.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy provided to this service does not note specific timeframes for responses.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that where the landlord’s service failure has had an impact on the resident resulting in distress and inconvenience, it may offer up to £250 compensation. The policy relates to compensation for the landlord’s service failures, and not for loss of a resident’s property.
The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes where ASB takes the form of a criminal activity, the landlord would “not generally lead” investigations into such incidents, but would refer residents to the police, who would in turn take action if they have sufficient evidence to do so. The landlord will work collaboratively with police to support their role in enforcing the law. The policy also notes that it will respond to complaints involving crime within five working days, and it will close a case where there is no evidence and there is no further action the landlord can take.

Summary of events

The resident has advised that at the time she moved into the property, the landlord highlighted that she could use the communal bicycle storage shed to store her bicycles. As part of its correspondence during the period of the complaint, the landlord has indicated it does not dispute this advice was given. It is not evident, however, that this was put in writing at the time, nor that the landlord indicated it intended to provide any assurances regarding the use of the shed.
On 1 August 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that two of her bicycles had been stolen, one used by her, the other used by her child. Both bicycles had been secured using bicycle locks, but it appeared these had been compromised. She advised that she had reported the theft to the police. The resident has provided this service with her correspondence with the police, who advised on 2 August 2020 that based on the evidence provided, it was unable to take any further action. The resident advised that a business close to the estate had CCTV, however, the police subsequently advised they had been unsuccessful at obtaining any useable evidence from this CCTV.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports on 3 August 2020 and advised it would contact her to discuss it further. In its later formal responses, the landlord advised that it called the resident to discuss this concern on 7 August 2020. This service has not been provided with any telephone logs or other correspondence relating to this contact.
On 10 August 2020, the landlord advised it was closing the ASB case due to a lack of evidence, and that at this time, no further action would be taken. It advised that if the police were able to identify the perpetrators involved and they were tenants of the landlord, it would then be able to take further action.
On 8 September 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding the theft of the bicycles. She advised of the impact the loss of these bicycles had on her and the financial constraints she faced in replacing them. She also advised she considered the landlord’s response to have been dispassionate, and that while she had been promised a call from a specific member of the landlord’s staff, she instead received a call from a different member of staff, which she considered a breach of the landlord’s promise. She noted that the bicycle shed was not secured, and that the landlord should have advised her using it was at her own risk. She advised that the police had indicated it was “unacceptable” for the landlord to provide an unsecured bike shed and that she should seek compensation. This service has been provided with some of the correspondence from the police, however, none of the correspondence notes such a comment from the police. The resident concluded that she wished for compensation and for the landlord to replace the bicycles.
The resident reiterated her complaint on 14 September 2020, following which the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 September 2020. The landlord provided its stage one response on 23 September 2020. It sympathised with the resident’s loss but advised that it did not consider itself responsible for bicycles left in the communal bike shed, and that these were left at a resident’s own risk. It noted that residents were responsible for insuring their own belongings and signposted her to a possible claim with her contents insurer. It reiterated it would cooperate with any further police investigations and that it also intended to survey other residents as to whether they had had similar experiences, and if so, consider future projects to address this.
On 29 September 2020, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. She reiterated her concerns about the landlord’s communication and noted that her communications on other matters have previously gone not responded to. She advised that her contents insurance would not extend to a communal bike shed, and that she remained of the opinion that the landlord should compensate her for the loss of the bicycles.
On 30 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request that her complaint be escalated and advised it had been forwarded to the relevant team. The landlord provided a further acknowledgement on 9 October 2020, in which it apologised for its delay in acknowledging the complaint and advised that a stage two response would be provided within 20 working days.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 2 November 2020. It acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction at the level of communication but advised that its policy was to respond to such reports within five working days. It noted it had called the resident on 7 August 2020, which had been within five working days of the resident’s report on 1 August 2020. It also advised that its decision to subsequently close the case was due to a lack of evidence which it considered to be in line with its policies. It also noted that the resident had previously raised concerns about the security at the bicycle shed in June 2020, following which it had advised it would inspect the shed during its next site inspection. The landlord advised that during its inspections in July and August 2020, it had not found any concerns with the bicycle shed. Regarding its advice to the resident that she could make use of the bicycle shed, the landlord advised it considered this to have been reasonable and that it had not accepted any liability in doing so. The landlord noted, however, that its acknowledgement of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint had been on 9 October 2020, which it considered to have been an unreasonable delay. It apologised and offered £25 compensation for this delay.
As noted above, following the landlord’s stage two response, the resident has raised a number of additional concerns with the landlord which are outside of the scope of this investigation. A recommendation about how to proceed with these concerns has nevertheless been made below.

Assessment and findings

Bicycle theft

The landlord’s ASB policy notes that where the ASB relates to a crime (separate from an ‘urgent’ crime, which involves a threat to someone’s physical safety), the landlord will respond to the report within five working days. Following the resident’s initial reports on 1 August 2020, the landlord initially provided an acknowledgement on 3 August 2020, before a further follow up on 7 August 2020. The Ombudsman understands that being the victim of a crime of this nature would have been very distressing for the resident. While it would be helpful for a landlord to provide urgent attention to every such incident, the Ombudsman accepts that the reality of a landlord’s finite resources means that it cannot offer an urgent response in every instance. Given that the resident had advised in her complaint that she had notified the police, it was reasonable for the landlord to respond in the timeframe that it did, which was also within the timeframes noted in its policy.
The resident has also noted her concern that the landlord initially advised her a certain member of its staff would be handling her complaint, which was then subsequently handled by a different member of staff. Again, whilst it would be helpful for a landlord to have a consistent point of contact for distressing incidents such as this, given the realities of using its resources effectively, it was not unreasonable for a different member of staff to have made contact with the resident.
The landlord’s ASB policy also notes that where the ASB relates to a crime, it will provide support to the police who are the correct body to investigate such matters. It is not disputed that the police investigated this incident but were unable to take any further action due to a lack of evidence. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord failed to provide any support to this investigation. Based on the lack of evidence or further action, it was reasonable for the landlord to close its ASB case, which it informed the resident of. It was also appropriate that it clarified that it would take action should the perpetrators be identified as tenants of the landlord, and that it would continue to provide any requested support to the police.
As part of the resident’s complaint, she advised she considered the landlord to be financially responsible for the loss, as it had informed her that she could use the communal bicycle shed and had not advised her that to do so was at her own risk. This service has not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the landlord had indicated that it would take financial responsibility for any bicycles kept in the bicycle shed. No mention of the bicycle shed or the liability implications is included in the tenancy agreement. The bicycle shed itself does not include any locking mechanism or door that would indicate an intention of the landlord to keep it secure, beyond the use of a resident’s own bike lock. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, a landlord is entitled to offer used of a bicycle shed and is not obligated to expressly advise that use is at a resident’s own liability. To make an inference that any liability is implied by these circumstances is beyond the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, and should the resident consider otherwise, this service recommends she seek legal advice.
Given the above, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have advised its position that it was not liable in both its stage one and stage two responses. It was also appropriate that it signposted the resident to her insurer in case she had cover.
In its stage two response, the landlord noted the resident had previously raised concerns about the security of bicycle shed, and that it had advised it would assess this on its next site inspection. While it would have been helpful had the landlord provided an update following its inspections in July and August 2020 to give its position, it is not evident that it had promised to do so, and so to provide an update in its stage two response was reasonable.
In summary, the landlord handled the ASB case reasonably and in accordance with its policy. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord is financially liable for the theft of the bicycles, and so its advice of the same in its formal responses was also reasonable.

Complaints handling

The complaints policy document provided by the landlord to this service did not note specific timeframes for a landlord to acknowledge or respond to a resident’s complaint. In such instances, the Ombudsman must consider what it reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident’s initial complaint was made on 8 September 2020. It is not evident that the landlord initially acknowledged this complaint, leading the resident to reiterate it on 14 September 2020. The landlord subsequently acknowledged it on 17 September 2020. This meant there was a seven working day delay between her initial complaint and the landlord’s acknowledgement. While this delay did not cause any significant detriment to the resident, it would nevertheless have been frustrating not to have received a response, and inconvenient in having to reiterate the complaint. The Ombudsman notes that the stage one response followed shortly after in a reasonable timeframe.
Following the resident’s request that her complaint be escalated on 29 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged the request on 30 September 2020. Based on the acknowledgement’s contents, it is likely this was drafted by a frontline member of staff, who advised that the request would be forwarded to the relevant team. The landlord’s subsequent acknowledgement by the complaints team was sent on 9 October 2020 and included information such as a target date for its stage two response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the initial acknowledgement was lacking some of the helpful information included in the further acknowledgement, it was nevertheless an appropriate acknowledgement of the resident’s request.
It is not evident that the delay to the additional information included in the further acknowledgement caused any detriment to the resident, however, given that the resident had expressed her concern with the landlord’s communication, it was appropriate that the landlord identified this information could have been provided earlier. The landlord has considered this delay to amount to service failure, and has offered £25 compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounts to reasonable redress for the trouble and inconvenience caused by the delays in the acknowledgements for both the stage one and two responses, and is also in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding:
  1. ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the communal areas at the estate;
  2. a flood at her property;
  3. grounds maintenance at the estate;
  4. her request for a management move.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports that two of her bicycles had been stolen from a communal bicycle shed.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

Bicycle theft

The landlord appropriately acknowledged and followed up the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy, and also appropriately informed the resident that it had closed the case and explained its reasoning for doing so.
It is not evident that the landlord either was, or indicated that intended to be, financially liable for bicycles stored in the communal bicycle shed, and so its advice to this end in its formal responses was reasonable.

Complaints handling

The delays to the landlord’s acknowledgement at stage one, and delay to it providing a timeframe for its stage two response following her request for an escalation would have caused minor inconvenience to the resident, for which the landlord’s offer of compensation amounted to reasonable redress.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following:
1. reiterate its offer of £25 compensation should this have yet to have been accepted by the resident;
2. enquire as to whether the resident has any ongoing concerns about ASB or concerns regarding grounds maintenance at the estate;
3. reiterate its advice about the resident’s options for obtaining a property transfer.