Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202121725)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121725

Clarion Housing Association Limited

6 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of the carpet in the property.

Background

  1. The resident has been a shared ownership leaseholder of the property since 8 January 2021.
  2. The resident has advised that the carpet pile was flattened when she moved in. In or around February 2021, the resident reported that the carpet on the stairs also appeared worn and was flattened. The landlord replied that the carpets had been defect-free when the property was handed over from the building contractor. Later inspections by the landlord’s contractor found that there was no issue with the carpet fit and that the carpet was to the landlord’s specification.
  3. The landlord’s stage one complaint response concluded that it was normal for carpets to flatten in high traffic areas like hallways and staircases. However, the landlord did offer the resident £25 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied and advised that the carpets looked worn down when they were supposed to be brand new. She also advised that the underlay was very thin and not sufficient, and that the carpet was not fit for purpose.
  5. The landlord’s stage two response stated that, although the carpeting was thinner than the resident expected, it did not follow that this was a defect in the materials. The carpet’s specification was as sold and there was no damage or issues noted at handover from the builder. Therefore, the landlord maintained that there had been no failings on its part.
  6. The resident has reiterated her position to this service that the carpets were of poor quality and already worn, which should not be the case in a new build. She is also concerned she will have to pay to have them replaced sooner than expected. Her desired outcome from the complaint is that the landlord either compensates her for new carpets or replaces the carpet itself with something more suitable.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is beyond the expertise of this service to determine whether the carpet was or was not of poor quality. The Ombudsman’s investigation can, however, consider the actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports. In doing so, the Ombudsman is able to consider whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures, kept to the law, and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
  2. Although photos have been provided by the resident, the Ombudsman is limited in the extent to which it can rely on photographic evidence as it is not possible for this service to authenticate the time, location, or circumstances of the images. As a result, this service is unable to solely rely on photographs in reaching a decision. With this said, it is important to note that the Ombudsman does not dispute that there was likely some flattening of the carpet.
  3. The landlord’s delivery team had recorded all flooring as being defect-free at the time the property was handed over from the builder. Although the resident says the carpet was worn from the time she moved in, she did not immediately raise this as an issue and agreed to acquire the property with the present carpet. She emailed the landlord on 11 January 2021 with a list of five repairs issues but the carpet was not one of them. However, the carpet did quickly become a cause of concern as she reported it in February 2021.
  4. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response and can see that upon receiving the resident’s report, the landlord raised a defect order with its contractor who visited the property in March 2021. The resident says that the contractor verbally agreed that the carpet had worn down but as this service was not privy to the conversation, and has seen no documented evidence to suggest this, it cannot be confirmed. Records indicate, contrary to this, that the contractor reported the carpets being defect-free. The Ombudsman accepts that this assessment may have been in reference to the fitting of the carpet, rather than the condition of it, but the landlord was entitled to rely on the feedback and expertise of its contractor.
  5. When the resident remained dissatisfied, the landlord raised another defect order in May 2021. Although it had already closed this matter, it agreed to re-opened the resident’s case for further investigation. This demonstrates that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. The Ombudsman can see that the contractor’s further report did not record any issues with the carpet and stated that the carpet was as per the landlord’s specification. As such, the landlord confirmed its position that the carpet being thin was not considered to be a defect. It explained that the carpet specification and condition was as sold.
  6. The Ombudsman recognises the frustration the carpet wear would have caused for the resident. The Ombudsman has been unable to find, however, that the landlord was obligated to replace the carpet based on the resident’s dissatisfaction with its flattening/wear. The resident’s suggestion that the carpet had been this way from the time she moved in indicates that it was in a similar state to what it had been when the purchase was agreed, however, this was not raised prior to the resident accepting the property.
  7. In summary, the landlord carried out a reasonable investigation of the carpet wear. Given that the resident accepted the carpets when entering into the shared ownership agreement, that they met the specifications of the landlord, and were assessed to be free from defects, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it was not responsible for replacing the carpets.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of the carpet.