Clarion Housing Association Limited (202107040)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107040

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 November 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 boiler.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat within a block of flats. She lives in the property with her husband and son. Much of the complaint has been via the resident’s son and their local councillor.

 

  1. The landlord’s gas safety records show that a contractor attended the resident’s property on 16 December 2020 to carry out an annual gas and safety check. The contractor found that the condense pipe leaked inside the boiler and needed a repair. A cap was placed on the meter and the contractor ordered the part needed to complete the repair. As a result the resident’s family had not heating or hot water. The landlord later explained that temporary heaters were promptly provided.

 

  1. On 19 December 2020 the resident’s son emailed her councillor and raised concerns regarding the outstanding repair. He explained that:

 

  1. The contractor switched the boiler off and disconnected the gas supply, which resulted in the loss of heating and hot water until the repair was completed. The contractor ordered a new part and told the resident the following day that the part was ordered and a contractor would attend on 18 December 2020 to install it.
  2. The contractor reattended on 18 December 2020 but had the incorrect part and could not complete the repair; a new part was ordered, and the resident was told the repairs would be completed on 21 December 2020. That date was subsequently changed to 23 December.
  3. The loss of the hot water was a problem as the resident’s husband was vulnerable due to his health, and had specific personal hygiene needs which necessitated ready access to hot water. The resident raised concerns about further potential delays and requested the repair be chased.
  1. The councillor forwarded the resident’s email and concerns to the landlord on 22 December 2020. He asked if the boiler could be restored that afternoon, or for reassurance that the appointment scheduled for 23 December would be adhered to. He expressed his concerns that the resident and her family were being left without heating and hot water for an long period, especially given their age and poor health. The landlord replied to the councillor on 23 December. It apologised for the delay in responding and confirmed its contractor would attend later that day.

 

  1. On 23 January 2021 the councillor emailed the landlord on the resident’s behalf, following a letter the resident had received from the contractor offering £31 compensation. The councillor said the resident was dissatisfied with the compensation offered and wanted it reviewed. He also asked for details on how the compensation was calculated and queried if this was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. He said he hoped to resolve the matter without needing to make a formal complaint.

 

  1. On 4 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the councillor regarding the resident’s compensation enquiry. It explained that because the repair issues occurred during its contractor’s attendance, it allowed the contractor to take ownership of the compensation. It provided a breakdown of the compensation and advised the amount offered was in line with its compensation policy.

 

  1. The landlord explained that its compensation policy set out that “The repair carries a three-day timescale, which was exceeded. The fourth day of 20 December 2020 is compensated £10, plus £2 for each of the three further days the issue remained unresolved, totalling £16. The £10 per day compensation for a lack of heating and hot water would only be valid on cases which exceed seven days and are paid on the number of days from the eighth day after the initial report.”. The landlord also recognised the failure to keep an appointment on 21 December without giving 24 hours’ notice, for which it offered £15, totalling £31.

 

  1. The councillor emailed the landlord on 13 February 2021. He explained that the resident was still dissatisfied with the compensation and wanted to make a formal complaint. The resident had said that in the past she had been compensated £10/day without heating and hot water, plus compensation for distress and inconvenience. She believed that level of compensation was appropriate in this case too, given the time of year and vulnerabilities. She challenged the landlord’s compensation policy and asked, “what consultation it undertook with tenants before making this change?”. She said the landlord’s gas repair services had failed her and others over the past years and asked what the landlord was doing to improve it.

 

  1. On 24 February 2021 the landlord asked its contractor for the resident’s repairs history. It responded the next day with a list of various repair issues in 2019, including for water pressure, but only one repair visit in 2020, in February (presumably other than the repairs in December 2020).

 

  1. The landlord sent its complaint response on 18 March 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding, and noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the compensation because she did not feel it reflected “the inconvenience caused and the household vulnerabilities”. It confirmed the offer of £31 was in line with its compensation policy. It noted that during the loss of heating and hot water between 16 and 23 December 2020 temporary heaters were provided. However, as the repair was completed within seven days, compensation for loss of amenities would not be considered. The landlord identified no service failures in the way its compensation was calculated. It explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.

 

  1. On the resident’s behalf, the councillor asked for the resident’s complaint to be escalated on the 10 May 2021. He advised that the landlord’s complaint response did not address the points raised about the changes to the compensation policy; or its inadequacy in offering reasonable redress for loss of heating and water during winter; or to the questions raised about what was being done to resolve the ongoing service failures with the gas/boiler which had affected the resident over the years.

 

  1. An internal email between the landlord’s officers, dated 27 May 2021, notes that the resident was complaining that her family’s vulnerabilities were not considered, she should have been informed of any changes to the compensation policy, and that she had boiler problems for several years, including poor water pressure.

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 27 May 2021.

 

  1. Internal emails dated from the end of May and early June 2021 show the landlord investigated the resident’s repair history and could find no significant repair history, or indications of repair service failure.

 

  1. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 18 June 2021. It acknowledged the resident’s original concern that the compensation was not reasonable given the time of year and “household vulnerabilities”, and apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It explained that it had found no service failure in its contractor’s handling of the repairs. It said it had reviewed its first complaint response and believed it to have been reasonable, and the compensation offered was in line with its compensation policy. It explained the policy was reviewed yearly. It further explained that:
    1. It had found no reports of low water pressure at the resident’s property since 2019, or any repair reports prior to the report on 16 December 2020.
    2. It provided a detailed list of the actions taken to resolve the issue with the boiler and restore the heating and hot water.
    3. It had asked its contractor to speak with the resident regarding the water pressure issue.
    4. in light of its delayed complaint response, it offered additional compensation of £25.
  2. Following further correspondence between the resident and landlord, the landlord wrote to her on 22 September 2021. It gave more details about its compensation policy, and recognised that its stage one complaint had been delayed similarly to its stage two. It offered a further £25 compensation because of it.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy (at the time of the boiler issue and complaint) sets levels of compensation when recognising a particular adverse effect or impact on a complainant. The policy aims and objectives are to ensure; it complies with all legal, statutory, and regulatory obligations, to ensure fairness and consistency when considering compensation request, where financial payments are appropriate, they are proportionate to the loss or inconvenience caused, to provide resolution focussed service.

 

  1. The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy sets out its principles to resolve complaints and to provide a quality service by: Putting things right within reasonable timescales; Keeping customers informed; Managing expectations; Following policy and procedures; Fully and accurately recording details, actions, and investigations of the complaint at all stages and using lessons learned from the complaints to improve service and prevent complaints.

 

  1. The compensation policy advises that where there is a loss of heating or hot water as a result of an outstanding repair it would offer “£5 per day after seven days of the initial report. This timescale allows for circumstances where we attend the appointment within time or at resident’s convenience but need to order a part to complete the repair.”

 

  1. The compensation policy states that when the landlord is offering compensation it will, amongst other things, consider household vulnerabilities. It also states that discretionary compensation can be considered where “any inconvenience has been caused by Clarion’s actions of failure to act”. One of the examples given in the policy for such a situation is “Consideration of the household vulnerabilities including age and disability.”

 

  1. The landlord’s repairs procedure sets out a time scale of 24 hours for emergency repairs to make safe and 28 calendar days for nonemergency repairs. It defines emergency repairs as ones where there is a threat to residents’ health, safety or security. The landlord had an obligation to carry out repairs in respect of the loss of heating and hot water in the property, in accordance with its repairs and maintenance policy.

Repairs to the boiler

  1. Following an annual gas safety check on 16 December 2020, a fault was uncovered with the boiler, the boiler was switched off as a safety precaution, resulting in the loss of heating and hot water. Temporary heating was provided. A repair was scheduled and attended on 18 December 2020, however, the contractor required an additional part, so the repair was rescheduled to 21 December, and then changed to 23 December. On 23 December 2020 its contractor completed repairs to the boiler and offered £31 compensation for the delay. The amount offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

 

  1. The landlord explained that it sets itself a three-day target to resolve boiler faults. The contractor’s attendance on 18 December 2020 was within that timeframe, but their inability to resolve the issue at that visit meant that the timeframe had been exceeded when the matter was finally resolved on 23 December. In such circumstances, especially in winter and where there are vulnerable tenants, a landlord would be expected to provide temporary heating. The landlord’s contractors did so in this case, as explained by the landlord in its first complaint response.

 

  1. In a typical boiler repair case, when heating and hot water is affected in winter, a landlord would generally be expected to attend within one day to attempt to resolve the problem (using the local authority right to repair scheme timeframes as a guideline). If the problem cannot be resolved in that first visit, the landlord would be expected to take the steps needed to complete the repair as soon as possible, and consider temporary solutions in the meantime. In this case, the boiler fault was discovered during a routine safety check, and so the usual one-day guideline for an initial response to a boiler repair report did not apply. Because of that, the three day timeframe the landlord referred to in its complaint response was not an unreasonable one. In any other circumstances, three days for an initial response to a boiler failure in winter would not usually be acceptable.

 

  1. The resident was also without hot water. In such circumstances, tenants are usually expected to utilise other means to obtain hot water, such as by heating it in a kettle or on the stove, especially when the repair time is relatively short. The resident’s son explained to the councillor on 19 December 2020 why, due to vulnerabilities, the family had a greater need than usual for easy access to hot water. The councillor passed that concern to the landlord on 22 December, but by that point the hot water was scheduled to be returned the next day. There is no evidence indicating the landlord was aware before that date of the family’s greater need for hot water, and therefore it did not have an opportunity to attempt to provide a temporary solution for them, when they needed it most.

 

  1. Overall, there is no disputing how stressful and inconvenient the resident and her family must have found the time without heating and hot water, especially given their circumstances, and the timing in winter. Nonetheless, the landlord (through its contractors) appropriately acknowledged its delays completing the repair, provided temporary heating, and offered compensation which was in line with its compensation policy. Its actions provided a reasonable remedy to its failings with the repair.

Complaint handling

  1. As set out above, the resident’s son explained to the landlord, via their councillor, specifically why the family had an urgent need for accessible hot water. That explanation was too late for the landlord to take any reasonable steps to provide a temporary solution, but the information was important in relation to the resident’s eventual complaint to the landlord. In her complaint the resident said she did not believe the landlord had appropriately considered the impact the boiler repair had on her family, given the time of year and their vulnerabilities.

 

  1. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses, and the internal correspondence on 27 May 2021, make clear that the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns. However, none of the evidence indicates it clarified or discussed that issue with the resident to better understand the impact on her and her family, or that it took notice of the explanation provided by her son to the councillor in December 2020. If it had, it would have either reconsidered the compensation in light of the information, or explained why the information did not affect its decision. It did neither of those things. That omission was unreasonable and counter to the landlord’s compensation policy, which expressly allows for such consideration. It is important to emphasise that the failing here is not in not providing additional compensation, it is in not considering it, especially given how understandably important the issue was for the resident.

 

  1. In other respects the landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable. It clearly explained how the compensation was calculated, clarified its policy, and acknowledged and offered compensation for its delayed complaint responses. It responded to the resident’s concern about the frequency of repair issues, and its explanations are supported by the repair records and information from its contractors. It acknowledged the resident’s concern about the water pressure, and made arrangements with its contractor to follow the matter up with her. These were reasonable responses.

 

  1. Nothing in the evidence provided indicates that the landlord was obliged to update or consult with its tenants and residents when it amended or updated its policies. Common sense would be for it to do so proportionately for issues which affected tenants on a day to day or otherwise regular basis, and which they had an essential need to know or comment on because it affects them significantly. A compensation policy cannot reasonably be argued to fit that description. It is sufficient for a landlord to have such a policy, to regularly reassess it, and provide it on request to any residents. In terms of actual policy, the landlord’s compensation policy is broadly in line to that generally found amongst social housing landlords.

 

  1. Overall, while majority of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was reasonable, there is no evidence it properly considered the resident’s household vulnerabilities. That was a significant omission.

Determination (decision)

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

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged and suitably remedied its delay repairing the resident’s boiler. It’s handling of the resulting complaint was broadly reasonable, except that it failed to consider the resident’s household vulnerabilities, which was the main focus of her complaint.

Orders

  1.  In light of the findings in this investigation, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £150 for the inconvenience and frustration caused.

 

  1. This payment is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord in its complaint responses, which it should also now pay if it has not already. This payment must be made within four weeks of this report.