Clarion Housing Association Limited (202101705)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101705

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 August 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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the lino flooring in the shower room.
2. Repairs to the communal main entrance door.
3. Their concerns about the condition of the bin store and communal areas.
4. Reports of a mouse infestation.
5. Reports of anti-social behaviour and associated request for a transfer.
The resident has also complained about:
1. The cost of energy provided through the communal heating system.
2. Injury caused by a shower chair coming away from a wall in July 2020.
3. Issues with a key fob.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

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.

The communal heating system.

Paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion, ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’.
Paragraph 39 (r) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion, ‘concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
The resident is a tenant of the landlord at the property, which is a flat in a block of flats served by a communal heating system. The landlord is not the freeholder of the property, and internal correspondence states that the landlord is the leaseholder of two blocks of flats on a larger development.
The landlord has told this Service that it does not hold a contract with the heat provider, contracted by the freeholder to supply and manage the heating system. Neither does the landlord hold a contract with the company which manages the metering or billing for the system (‘the billing agent’), understood to be contracted by the heat provider. The landlord has advised that ‘As the contract is not under Clarion’s control (and the bills are not in our name), there’s no action we could take as we have no jurisdiction to change the supplier or the contract terms.’
The resident has advised that the billing agent’s view is that the resident is tied into a contract and cannot ‘get out of it’. The resident considers that the charges are too high and would like the amount they pay to be reduced, or if this is not possible, to be freed from the contract so that they can choose a cheaper supplier.
In cases where the landlord holds the contract with the heat provider or billing agent, the Ombudsman may consider a complaint about the delivery of this service. In this case, the landlord does not hold the contract. The outcome that the resident requires – a reduction in energy costs or removal from the communal heating system – is not something which the Ombudsman has the authority to provide.
The resident may complain directly to the billing agent and, as this company is registered with the Heat Trust, the resident may refer an unresolved complaint to the Energy Ombudsman.
The resident’s complaint about the cost of the communal heating system is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. However, this investigation has considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint about this issue.

Injury

Paragraph 39 (i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion, ‘concern matters where this Service considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, or other tribunal or procedure’.
The resident has stated, ‘I need Clarion to accept the fault of incorrectly installing the chair using small plugs and screws. I want compensation for Injuries and distress caused.’ The resident’s request for compensation requires an assessment of liability for injury. This is a matter which would most appropriately be decided through a personal injury claim through the courts, or via an insurance claim, where medical evidence can be assessed and liability can be established. The resident’s complaint about injury is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
However, as above, the Ombudsman can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the matter, and this is assessed below.

Key fob

Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his 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’. This is so that a landlord has reasonable opportunity to address a complaint.
In their complaint to this Service the resident raised concerns about problems using a key fob, however this did not form part of the complaint raised with and considered by the landlord. As such, the resident’s complaint about issues with the key fob is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. If the resident is still experiencing issues with the key fob, they may wish to raise this directly with their landlord, either through a repairs reporting process or as a formal complaint.

Background

The landlord’s repair policy in place at the time stated that communal repairs would be appointed dependent upon the nature of the work: Emergency (presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident, to be attended within 24 hours) or non-emergency, but must always be completed within 28 days.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy in place at the time stated that responsibility for preventing, reducing and eradicating pests was shared between it, residents and the local authority. Unless the law, the tenancy agreement or lease stated otherwise, residents were responsible for taking all reasonable action to prevent, reduce or destroy pests and infestations, including keeping their home clean and tidy and free from rubbish, and reporting any infestations promptly to Clarion so it could assess the cause and try to prevent access to properties and treat any problems in communal areas.
The landlord would identify and block any potential access points, regularly inspect estates with known pest control problems and enter in to a pest control contract for regular treatments for high risk blocks or estates, repair any damage to the structure of buildings, eradicate any infestations and pests in communal areas, or those caused by disrepair, arrange for the eradication of pests in a residents home where the problem is clearly traced to an infestation in a communal area, and undertake or arrange treatment where a whole block or several flats were affected (which may be service chargeable).
The antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy in place at the time set out that that where ASB was the result of criminal activity it would expect residents to report this to the police and would expect the police and other statutory agencies to take action where they have sufficient evidence to do so. Behaviours such as threats and behaviour causing or intended to cause alarm or distress were considered generally criminal offences and the responsibility of the police. Where appropriate the landlord may take tenancy enforcement action against a perpetrator as a result of evidence obtained by the Police or upon conviction.

Summary of events

On 11 January 2021 the resident emailed this Service, copying in the landlord, setting out a number of complaints. On 27 January 2021 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord summarising the complaints as follows:
1. A delay in carrying out a repair to the main entrance communal door, which was a health and safety concern for wheelchair users accessing the building.
1. A delay in responding to the resident’s request to discuss changing energy provider due to high charges.
2. A delay in responding to the resident’s request to renew flooring in the shower room that was raised, and replace a shower chair that was too high.
3. Lack of cleaning in the bin room that was left overflowing.
4. Lack of cleaning in the lift and the surrounding area.
5. The resident’s request to be rehoused due to death threats made towards them.
The landlord was asked to get in touch with the resident for further details of the complaint and the resolution sought.
The landlord’s records note that it called the resident on 12 February 2021, during which the resident explained that the communal main entrance door was broken and kept breaking, which meant that the resident was not able to go out due to access issues. Also, the bin store was located underneath their window and caused a smell to come into property, and they wanted this to be relocated.
On 18 February 2021 the landlord updated the resident, saying that it was currently investigating the complaint but the complex nature was causing a delay. It apologised for this and said that it aimed to send the response by 26 February 2021.
The landlord provided a stage one response dated 8 March 2021:
1. Communal door: The landlord stated that the communal door had always been repaired in a timely manner and was currently working.
1. Energy provider: The landlord said this was a communal heating contract and the provider could not be changed.
2. Flooring and chair in the shower room: The landlord said that the flooring was addressed on a number of occasions, referring to jobs raised in July 2020, August 2020, and February 2021. It said that on all occasions the repair was ‘completed within the service level agreement.’

It stated that the shower seat was reported four times in June 2020, July 2020, September 2020, and February 2021. It said on all occasions the repairs were ‘completed within the service level agreement.’

Regarding the height of the chair, the landlord said that as explained during a conversation with the resident on 5 March 2021 this would need to be discussed with occupational therapy, who would need to assess the resident’s needs and put forward recommendations.

Bin room: The landlord said that the bins were cleaned on a weekly basis in line with the service level agreement. The location of the bins could not be moved, because the location was built into the building.
Cleaning in the lift and the surrounding area: The lift and surrounding areas were cleaned on a weekly basis, in line with the service level agreement.
Request to be rehoused due to ASB: The landlord noted that the resident had made no reports of ASB since 2018, and provided details on how to do so.

On 23 March 2021 the resident requested escalation of their complaint. They explained that there had been hardly any improvement in the bin room and there were still occasions where there was lots of rubbish left out. They said that they had reported mice in the bin room and surrounding area but had not seen pest control attend. The resident said that the bin room should be cleaned every week. The resident questioned whether the lift was ever cleaned and described dogs urinating in it regularly.
The resident accepted that the communal door was now fixed but explained that there had been a number of times since 2014 where it had not worked for long periods, making it hard for them to access the building due to disability. It had also meant people accessing the building who should not be, causing distress. The resident said that they had asked for compensation for these issues but had no response.
In regards to the energy provider, the resident said that all residents shared the use of a communal boiler and the price was too high. They stated, ‘I was never told when I moved here that I was locked into a contract…’ They asked for an explanation.
The resident stated that they had requested compensation regarding ‘…the incident with the bathroom chair where it came away from the wall while I was taking a shower’ but had not heard anything. They said that the lino in bathroom under the shower chair was coming away but the landlord had not attended to this.
In regards to the ASB, the resident said that they had reported death threats made against them to the police, who informed social services, who then informed the landlord. They said, ‘I have evidence of the threats and the perpetrator knows my address.’
In a further email that the resident sent to the landlord they stated that they had been reporting a mouse infestation to the landlord for five years, nothing had been done, and ‘Now the mice are running riot in almost every property in the building.’
The resident said that they had sustained injuries in July 2020 when the shower chair gave way, and now suffered with ongoing back pain, which had caused them to become depressed. They said, ‘To this day Clarion are making excuses why my and my son should not be compensated.’
The landlord sent a stage two response dated 5 May 2021, noting that in their escalation the resident had said that there had been no improvement to the cleaning, in particular to the bin store and lift, and that there was a mouse infestation. The landlord stated, ‘Our Head of Estate Services has confirmed that on the basis of inspections he is satisfied that the standard of cleaning at [the building] after the caretaker has carried out his duties is good.’ The landlord explained that it aimed to balance a good quality service against the cost of providing the service, and so its target was to clean the communal parts once a week.
Having said this, it had been noted that the appearance of the communal areas did decline between cleans. It said that this was caused by factors outside of its control, mainly the misuse/abuse of the communal areas by some users. Therefore, it had considered an action plan to try and address this: The caretaking team would work with the Housing team to try and encourage residents to dispose of their waste items in the correct manner and clean up after their dogs. The landlord said, ‘Should this fail to bring about an improvement then we will discuss with all residents a proposal to increase the frequency of our cleaning. However the consequences of this action will be an increase in the service charge.’
The landlord said that it had a regular pest control programme in place for the communal area, but due to the resident’s and other tenants’ concerns it had decided to go beyond its policy (which stated that pest control within the home is the residents’ responsibility) and had arranged for its pest control contractor to contact each resident to make arrangements to inspect and where necessary lay bait.
Communal entrance door: It had reviewed reports to the door from the past 12 months. Six repair reports had been made between September 2020 and March 2021. The landlord had been unable to identify a failure in how the reports were responded to and managed: Two instances were due to vandalism, and another three were due to the auto-operator being faulty, which was renewed on 18 February 2021. It apologised for the inconvenience caused, but explained that the fault was out of its control, and rectified in a timely manner.
Communal heating system: The landlord said, ‘I am advised that when you first moved into your home you were advised that you would be tied into an agreement…Clarion did not negotiate this agreement and we have no contractual relationship with [the billing agent]. It is not therefore immediately apparent that Clarion have any leverage over the amount being charged by [the billing agent], It said that it would review what, if any, action it may be able to take with regard to these third party agreements where residents consider the charge to be excessive.
ASB: As the resident was aware, in response to the complaint about this issue, the landlord had visited each household to remind residents of their responsibility to dispose of rubbish correctly, clean up after their pets responsibly, and to discuss any reports of ASB. The landlord said, ‘The general feeling was that there is an issue with young people who are not associated with any of our residents loitering in the communal areas.’ Therefore, the landlord had contacted the local Safer Neighbourhood Team and asked for the police to pay particular attention when patrolling.
With regard to the resident’s specific reports of ASB, the landlord had reviewed its records and noted that in 2018 it received a complaint from the resident of unauthorised people entering the block and smoking cannabis. It attempted to make telephone contact to discuss this but was unable to do so, and so the case was closed. In November 2020 the resident made a further report relating to the same matter, but because there was no crime reference number, in accordance with policy, the landlord ‘deactivated the case’. It said that the resident should report any criminal activity to the police, obtain a crime reference number and then provide this to the landlord.
In the meantime, the landlord had asked the police for a formal disclosure of information relating to any intelligence they have relating to unauthorised people entering and smoking cannabis. It said, ‘Once we receive a response to this request we will be able to identify whether there is any action Clarion as a landlord is able to take.’
Shower chair/flooring: The landlord said that the shower chair was initially lowered on 6 July 2020 and an emergency job was raised on 27 July 2020, after the chair had collapsed, although the resident cancelled this appointment as they had prioritised seeking medical attention. On 28 July 2020 a new emergency repair was raised and on attending on 29 July 2020 it was noted that new tiles were required along with a new shower chair. The landlord said, ‘The shower chair was lowered in accordance of manufacturer’s guidelines and all appropriate fixings were used. As explained to you previously, you will need to contact your Occupational Therapist who will assess your needs, should you wish to have the shower chair lowered further.’ The landlord said that repairs to the lino flooring had already been completed, as explained in its previous response.
The landlord noted the resident’s request for compensation and explained that this was usually reserved for circumstances in which it had failed in service, or a gesture of good will as a form of providing appropriate redress, and therefore no compensation would be offered.
The landlord concluded that while the stage one response had been appropriate, there was a need for better communication by the provision of clearer information, which could have potentially alleviated the resident’s concerns at a much earlier point, and may have prevented the complaint altogether. It also acknowledged that the complaint response at both stages were issued outside of the 10 and 20 working day aim and apologised for this, explaining that it had recently experienced a larger volume of queries, which had impacted its service, and was recruiting more staff to mitigate this. In recognition of the service failures identified, the landlord offered £125.00 in compensation, as follows.
1. Delay in acknowledging and responding to complaints at stage 1 and 2 £100.00
2. Communication failures / inconvenience £25.00

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the lino flooring in the shower room.

As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide records relating to the flooring repairs such as correspondence and telephone contact notes concerning the resident’s repair reports, any records of the landlord’s investigation into the repairs, copies of any survey or inspection reports, the repairs logs, records of dates that the repairs were attended, and an explanation of works completed at each visit.
The landlord has provided no contemporaneous records relating to the flooring, although it has provided internal emails that were generated in response to the Ombudsman’s request for evidence. In an email dated 28 September 2021 the landlord notes that a repair was raised in July 2020 to replace the floor tiling, and this was completed on 10 September 2020. The Ombudsman understands that it is this replacement lino flooring that has lifted and is the subject of the resident’s complaint, rather than the original issue with the tiles. It may be that the landlord’s reference in its stage one complaint response to a repair being carried out to the flooring in February 2021 relates to this, but it is not clear due to the lack of any other details or records. Neither is it clear when this was first reported. The stage two response simply states that the repair had been completed, despite the resident having explained that it was still lifting.
Overall, there is insufficient evidence that the landlord has repaired the lino flooring, and it has not responded adequately to the complaint about this.

Repairs to the communal main entrance door

As above, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide records relating to this repair. In response it has provided copies of internal emails relating to its investigation of the complaint. In an email dated 12 April 2021 the history of the repair over the previous 12 months is set out as follows:
1. 11 November 2020 reports that the communal door automatic opening function had stopped working. The landlord attended and repaired on 26 November 2020.
1. 26 January 2021, resident reported that the automatic opening function had stopped working. This was attended to on 2 February 2021 and it was found that new parts were required which would take a couple of weeks to arrive (the landlord has provided an email from its contractor dated 3 February 2021 that supports this). It was noted on 15 February that this was ‘needed asap as disabled residents cannot exit or enter the building unassisted.’ The repair was completed on 18 February 2021.
From this information, it can be seen that the landlord treated this as a non-emergency repair, which was in line with its repair policy and reasonable as there is no evidence that it was initially aware that the repair presented an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or that it jeopardised the health, safety or security of the resident. The first repair was completed within two weeks, and the second took slightly longer due to needing parts, but both were completed within the 28 days as set out for non-emergency repairs in the repair policy.
There is no evidence that the landlord was made aware of the particular impact this situation was having on the resident due to their disability prior to the 15 February 2021 note. If it had been, then it should have considered whether the repair could be expedited. As it was, the repair was completed within three days of it being recorded that the matter was impacting disabled residents.
Overall, there is no maladministration in the handling of the repair. However, given that the resident has explained to this Service the difficulties they and other disabled residents face when the door is not working, which they say happens regularly, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider how it prioritises this repair in future. A recommendation is made below.

The condition of the bin store and communal areas.

Internal emails dated February 2021 show the landlord making enquiries as to whether the bin store could be moved in response to the resident’s complaints about this. It was confirmed that it was not possible to relocate the bin store, and that this was cleaned weekly. An internal email dated 18 February 2021 noted that the bin room was cleaned weekly and the standards were always rated as good after each clean and acceptable in-between visits. As the bin room was integrated within the building and based upon the layout of the site, it was not possible to re-site it anywhere else. The Estate Manager carried out a monthly quality assurance inspection at the site and had always scored the caretaking standards (including the bin room) as acceptable.
Internal emails dated 31 March 2021 show the landlord seeking the view of the Estate Manager on the condition of the bin store in light of the resident’s stage two complaint. The Manager reported back that the bin area was misused by tenants and also the local authority refuse teams did not ‘give it a lot of respect.’ They said that there was often litter on the floor and bulky items left. They confirmed that cleaning occurred once a week with the floors washed in the bin store every two weeks. They noted that the bins themselves had been scheduled for a professional washout pre-Covid but were unsure if this went ahead. They concluded that in general the cleaner did a ‘decent job’ but would create an action plan for improvement.
This evidence demonstrates that the landlord took steps to investigate and address the resident’s concerns. Further, the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with copies of its communal cleaning logs for the period in question which show weekly communal cleaning being carried out, including the bin room being tided and cleaned. A ‘Block inspection form’ dated 27 January 2021 noted the condition of the bin area as ‘good’. A record of five Estate and Quality Assurance inspections carried out between late 2020 and mid- 2021 found the condition of the estate to be good or acceptable.
In light of the above, the landlord’s stage two response to the complaint was reasonable. The evidence supports its position that cleaning was conducted on a weekly basis, and that inspections found that the standard of cleaning was good. It accepted that communal areas did decline between cleans which was caused by factors outside of its control, mainly the misuse/abuse by some users. It outlined an action plan to try and address this, which again demonstrates that the landlord was willing to take measures to address the resident’s concerns and ‘put things right’.
A further internal email dated 18 June 2021 provided confirmation that the bins were jet washed twice a year, and provided the dates this had been done since 2018, and had last been done in May 2021. In response to the resident’s reports of a bad smell in the warm weather, another deep clean was scheduled for August 2021. Again, this shows the landlord taking action to address the issue.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident finds the smell from the bin store extremely unpleasant, however, the landlord cannot eliminate all smells emanating from the bins. It has also explained that the location cannot be moved as this is built in. Overall, the evidence available shows the landlord taking reasonable steps to address this matter.

Mouse infestation

As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide records relating to pest control, such as correspondence and telephone contact notes of the resident’s reports, any records of the landlord’s investigation into the reports, repair logs and works orders for the property and for communal areas where relevant, copies of any survey or inspection reports, or feedback from other employees or contractors, and information about the pest control programme in place for the communal areas referred to in the landlord’s final complaint response dated 5 May 2021.
In response the landlord has provided copies of internal emails relating to its investigation of the complaint about this matter. On 7 April 2021 it was noted that the pest control contractor visited eight times per year for the communal areas, with the most recent inspection dated 22 February 2021, stating ‘I have attended site for a routine pest control inspection. All accessible areas have been inspected for any evidence of pests. Control points show no visual signs of pest activity during visit…will continue to monitor between visits.’
The internal emails then show that on 15 April 2021 the landlord carried out a door knocking exercise, speaking with residents of the block, finding ‘a major issue raised by most was mice/rats.’ The landlord noted that its pest control contractor was carrying out eight treatments a year but according to residents there had been no improvement, so it would seek an update from the contractor.
It was then noted that the two most recent reports form the contractor stated, ‘Control points show no visual signs of pest activity during visit’ (22 February 2021) and ‘bait consumption noted’ (14 April 2021), and that the contractor was recommending flat inspections as residents had reported hearing mice in their flats.
On 24 September 2021, in response to the Ombudsman’s request for information, an internal email noted that there had been an annual communal monitoring and baiting programme in place since 8 November 2018. It said that there were four tenancy breach processes and two general enquiry processes with the issues dating back to March 2019. A recent block treatment programme had been attempted by the pest control contractor with visits to each flat. It was noted that, ‘The report didn’t have anything listed in the recommendations section…’ However, when another resident in the block complained about mice in August 2021 the report was reviewed and was found to suggest that proofing was required within all flats (although not all flats were showing signs of pest activity). Proofing works were then raised to all flats, but the landlord was not sure whether these works were booked in.
This email also referred to attachments such as the pest control contractor’s reports, correspondence relating to the issue, and evidence of the other information referred to, but these have not been provided to the Ombudsman. There is limited evidence to identify when the landlord was first put on notice of the issue, and whether it was/should have been aware that this was a block wide issue prior to 2021. The fact that there were tenancy breach processes and general enquiries in place dating back to 2019 suggests that the landlord had at least some awareness that more than one property was affected at this time. The resident has stated that they (and other residents) had been reporting the issue since 2018. It does then follow that the landlord initiated the communal programme in 2019, which presumably was in response to this, and the eight yearly visits show that the landlord was acting in line with its pest control policy in addressing issues in communal areas.
The evidence that is available does show that the landlord took reasonable action to investigate and address the pest control issue when the resident raised this as part of their stage two complaint in March 2021. It visited other residents to gather information and then arranged for its pest control contractor to attend each property. This was in line with its obligations. The limited information available suggests that some but not all residents were experiencing the problem.
The landlord’s comment in its stage two response that it had ‘gone beyond its policy’ in arranging to have its pest control contractor attend each property was not accurate: This was not beyond its policy, which stipulated that this is the action that the landlord would take where several flats were affected.
However, the pest control contractor’s note that all flats needed to be proofed was missed until August 2021, and then there is no evidence that this work was carried out: The landlord was unsure itself whether this had been done. The resident has stated to the Ombudsman that the issue has not improved.
Overall, while there does appear to have been a communal pest control programme in place in line with policy, and the landlord did take action to address the issue following on from the formal complaint, there is insufficient contemporaneous evidence that demonstrates it has fully followed up on this and has carried out the proofing works recommended.

Anti-social behaviour/request for a transfer

The complaint that the resident made to the landlord was about a death threat, and request for a transfer due to this. They have explained to this Service that the threat came from a family acquaintance that did not live in the development. They say that this was reported to the police, who reported it to social services, who reported it to the landlord. The resident has been unable to provide any other information relating to this, and there is no indication that they contacted the landlord themselves about the matter. The landlord has said that the only report of ASB it received from the resident was in relation to the communal areas. In the absence of any evidence of the landlord being aware of this issue or the resident making enquiries about a transfer at that time, it cannot be found that there was a failing on the part of the landlord here.
In its response to the complaint (and despite this not being what the complaint was about) the landlord conducted a door knocking exercise and spoke with other residents about ASB in the block, some of who reported people not associated with any residents loitering in the communal areas. Internal emails note that also in response to the complaint, the landlord contacted the Safer Neighbourhoods Team who said that no ASB had been reported to it, and that it was patrolling on a regular basis. The landlord had asked for extra patrols to be carried out (although no contemporaneous record of this has been provided).
Overall there is no evidence of no maladministration on the part of the landlord in relation to the complaint made about a death threat, although the stage two response primarily addressed issues with loitering in the communal areas, which had not been complained about. The resident has said that they are unhappy with the landlord’s stage two response as, ‘We are still experiencing people coming in the building setting off the alarm. Loitering at the emergency exit. Intimidating tenants. Hanging around in the garage smoking weed and being a nuisance. Tenant have given addresses on many occasions where to people concerned live and go to. Absolutely nothing gets done. Instead clarion accuses the tenant of not wanting to work with them.’ In light of this, a recommendation is made below.

Complaint Handling

Concerns about a shower chair that came away from the wall in July 2020 causing injury.

The resident has provided the Ombudsman with evidence that as well as escalating a complaint about this matter through the landlord’s complaint procedure in 2021, they had previously made a formal complaint to the landlord about the chair in October 2020. In this earlier complaint, they described the chair coming away from the wall on 27 July 2020 causing them injuries, and asked for compensation for this. From the information that the resident has provided it appears that the landlord did not provide a complaint response, and instead passed the matter to its insurer to investigate liability.
The outcome of the insurance claim was decided in April 2021, when the insurer advised the resident that ‘Our Insured have confirmed that the height of the shower seat was adjusted …on 6/7/2020. [The operative] has confirmed that he agreed the height of the seat with you at the time of his visit and you tested the seat post installation and agreed that it had been set at the correct height…In view of the above, we consider the shower seat was installed correctly and was fit for purpose. We therefore, accept no liability for this incident on behalf of our Insured.’
The resident replied to the insurer the following day stating that this did not address what had led to them getting badly injured or why the chair came away from the wall, suggesting that the size of the plugs and screws used should be looked at.
The resident’s stage one complaint of January 2021 to the landlord appeared to focus on the height of the shower chair, but in their stage two complaint of March 2021, they clearly set out that the complaint was about an incident with the chair coming away from the wall and their request for compensation for this. They also stated that the current flooring in the shower room had lifted, but the landlord had failed to attend to this.
In their complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that the first shower chair was damaged, and so the landlord attended to fix a new chair. They state, ‘The worker who fixed the chair used the wrong plugs and screws. Both the plugs and screw were way to short and as a result the chair came away from the wall while I was taking a shower. I nearly broke my back.’ They also say the chair came away because the wall it was fixed to was hollow. The landlord then provided a replacement chair but in the resident’s opinion placed it too high and will not lower it, meaning the resident is unable to shower.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide records relating to this matter. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous records. Its 28 September 2021internal email noted a series of repairs completed to the shower seat, and said that these works were completed within the service level agreement.
The landlord’s stage two response of May 2021 did not address the resident’s complaint about the chair not being correctly fitted to the wall, only briefly commenting that the correct fixings were used. There is no indication that the landlord carried out any investigation into the resident’s complaint about the chair coming away from the wall. If the landlord considered that it was unable to comment on this matter as liability for injury had been decided by insurers, it would have been appropriate for it to have set this out to the resident.
The landlord said in its complaint response that the resident’s concerns about the height of the chair would need to be discussed with occupational therapy who would need to assess the resident’s needs and put forward recommendations. In the absence of any evidence to show that the height of the chair is correct or that the landlord undertook any inspection of this in response to the resident’s concerns, this was an unreasonable response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have initially checked that the chair had been installed at the correct height before referring the resident to occupational therapy. There is no indication that it did so.
Overall, the landlord has not responded adequately to this complaint and has failed to address the substantive issues raised by the resident.

Concerns regarding the communal heating system

Internal communication regarding this issue shows the landlord discussing this matter in April 2021 following the resident’s complaint escalation request. It noted that in its response, it should provide details on the heating charges and an explanation of these, and whether the charges being levied were reasonable. It then established that because of the nature of the development, ‘its likely Clarion would have had little involvement in the procurement of communal heating system management or the billing arrangements… This is something that the freeholder/developers would have arranged.’
The landlord also noted that if the resident gave the billing agent permission for it to speak with the landlord, it would ‘…see what we can do to help as we have a relationship with [the billing agent] but over than that, if Clarion do not own and operate the heating plant and do not own / operate / manage the metered supply there really isn’t very much that we can do on this point.’
The landlord commented that it had a moral duty, if not a contractual one, to help resolve these issues where possible. It then said in its stage two response of May 2021, ‘I am advised that when you first moved into your home you were advised that you would be tied into an agreement with [the billing agent]. Clarion did not negotiate this agreement and we have no contractual relationship with [the billing agent]. It is not therefore immediately apparent that Clarion have any leverage over the amount being charged. However, as an organisation we are going to review what, if any, action we are able to take with regard to these third party agreements where residents consider the charge to be excessive.’
The landlord has provided many emails exchanged between senior staff members during the escalated complaint stage, in addition to the ones detailed in this report, which demonstrate its intention to help resolve the issue for the resident. Empathy for the resident is clear in these emails. It is therefore unfortunate that there has been no confirmation that the landlord then carried out a review, or took any other action on the issue such as obtaining the resident’s permission to speak to the billing agent.
Internal records from September 2021 (in response to the Ombudsman’s request for information on this matter) show the landlord making enquiries as to whether a review of cases such as this could take place. It then determined that as the landlord itself did not have any direct contract with the heat provider or billing agent there was no action it could take as it had no jurisdiction to change the supplier or the contract terms, and thought that the resident may be able to contact the Heat Trust as the ‘informal regulator’.
It could be said this this constituted the landlord’s ‘review’ of the situation, but if so, it had taken four months and there is no indication that it communicated the outcome to the resident. The landlord failed to adequately address this complaint. An order has been made to the landlord to ensure that an appropriate review with clear outcomes is completed.
It is also noted that, following conclusion of the complaint procedure, the resident told the landlord that the hot water in the property was intermittent; that there were days when the water was freezing. It is noted that the landlord has not addressed this point in the information it has provided to this Service.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to maintain the structure of the property, including installations for the provision of water and heating. It is understood that the landlord does not have control over the heating system outside of the property, and any issue with the operation of that system would need to be addressed by the freeholder, or the heating provider on the freeholder’s behalf. It is not known at which point in the system the landlord’s responsibility ceases and the freeholder’s responsibility begins. The landlord may wish to consider how it will address this matter as part of the review ordered by the Ombudsman at the end of this investigation report.
The landlord’s complaint policy does not stipulate a timeframe for response to complaints at stage one and stage two. However, the Ombudsman would expect a stage one response to be provided within ten working days, and a stage two within 20. In this case both responses from the landlord took over a month. However, the landlord recognised this, apologised and explained what action it was taking to improve. It also offered £100 in compensation for the delays.
The landlord took reasonable action here to ‘put things right’ for the resident, and offered a reasonable redress to the frustration caused by the delay.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the lino flooring in the shower room.
2. The formal complaints.

In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of a mouse infestation.
In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the communal main entrance door.
2. Concerns about the condition of the bin store and communal areas.
3. Reports of ASB and request for a transfer.

Reasons

There is insufficient evidence that the landlord has repaired the lino flooring, it is unclear how long this has been outstanding for, and it has not responded adequately to the complaint about this. This has caused frustration and time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter.
The main entrance door repair was carried out in line with the repair policy, and three days after it was noted that the matter was impacting disabled residents.
The evidence supports the landlord’s position that cleaning is conducted on a weekly basis, and that inspections found that the standard of cleaning was good.
There is insufficient contemporaneous evidence that demonstrates the landlord fully followed up on the pest control contractor’s recommendation regarding proofing, and the resident states that they are still experiencing an infestation. If the proofing had been done sooner this may have improved the situation.
There is no indication that the resident reported a death threat being made or requested a transfer prior to the formal complaint.
The landlord took no action to verify that the chair was installed at the correct height. It also failed to address the substantive issue regarding the chair coming away from the wall and causing injury in 2020. This has caused frustration and time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter.
The landlord failed to follow through with the review it said it would conduct regarding the district heating system.
The landlord took reasonable action to ‘put things right’ in relation to the delayed complaint responses.

Orders

Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £875 comprising:
  1. The £125 offered by the landlord through the complaint procedure for delays in addressing the complaint, if not already paid.
  2. £150 for the frustration and time and trouble to the resident regarding the flooring.
  3. £200 for the inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident regarding pest control.
  4. £400 for the frustration and time and trouble caused to the resident for failings in complaint handling.
1. Attend the property and carry out any necessary repairs to the lino flooring.
2. Attend the property and carry out proofing work as per the pest control contractor’s suggestion.
3. Attend the property and inspect the chair to determine whether or not it is at the correct height. It should then write to the resident to confirm the outcome and whether any works are required.
4. Carry out a training exercise for staff members that deal with complaints, to highlight the need to provide a full response to the complaint raised, which should also include reference to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Complaints Involving Insurance: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Guidance-on-Insurance.pdf
Carry out the review into what, if any, action it can take in assisting residents with the issue of reported high costs associated with the communal heating system. This should include signposting residents to appropriate organisations. As part of this review, the landlord must confirm the relationships between all parties (the landlord, the freeholder, and contracted companies).

Once the review is complete, the landlord should provide a copy of the outcome to both the resident and the Ombudsman, and disseminate to any relevant staff so that they are able to fully inform other residents who may raise similar concerns.

As part of its review, the landlord may wish to consider how it can address concerns about the operation of the heating system, including where it considers repair of the communal system (and not parts of the heating system under the landlord’s control) is required.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord has suffered a cyber attack which has compromised effective delivery of services, including responsive repairs. If it is not possible for the landlord to meet the timescales set out above because of this cyber attack, it should let the Ombudsman know within the next two weeks, and propose an alternative and timely date.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider whether repairs to the main entrance door to the block should be given a higher priority than the standard ‘routine repair’, in light of the impact this has on the resident’s ability to access the building.
The landlord should write to the resident setting out what they should do to report ASB in the communal areas such as loitering, and the responsibilities of the landlord in relation to this.
The landlord should let the Ombudsman know of its intentions regarding these recommendations within one month of this report.