Clarion Housing Association Limited (202122624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122624

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 March 2023

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 concerns:
   1. How the landlord handled an electric repair in the communal area of the building.
   2. The associated formal complaint into this matter.

Background

2. The resident is a shared owner of the property with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The landlord’s records state that on 27 September 2021 a work order was raised to repair a junction box in the communal area. The notes stated that the cover was missing from the box and wires were exposed. Follow-on work was raised on 10 November 2021 to tidy up the wires and fit a new cover.
4. On 16 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and requested to raise a complaint into how it was handling the repair. He described the elements of his complaint as:
   1. A fire assessment of the building was undertaken on 27 September 2021, which highlighted exposed wires in the communal electric cupboard. An operative attended on 10 November 2021, but was unable to complete the work and a follow-on appointment was arranged for 2 December 2021. This appointment failed and was rebooked for 22 December 2021.
   2. He had taken two and a half days off work for the appointments as he was required to be present to allow the contractors access as only tenants of the building have an access key.
   3. The current condition of the electric cupboard was a fire hazard and the length of time it was taking the landlord to arrange repairs was unacceptable.
5. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Explained that an error was made when the work was first raised resulting in an operative attending on 10 November 2021 who did not have the correct skillset to complete all the work. A follow-on appointment was arranged for 2 December 2021 and then 22 December 2021. However, these did not go ahead due to the operative being absent due to illness.
   2. Noted that a new appointment was raised for 20 January 2022, but this was declined by the resident on the grounds that he did not wish to take any more time off work to be present for the operative. The resident had requested that the issue be treated as an emergency and that the landlord attend either on a Saturday or on a weekday after 7:30pm.
   3. Explained that it would be unable to arrange an appointment at the times specified by the resident due to a lack of resources. It also explained that an emergency repair would be to inspect and make-safe an issue, and that any required follow-on work would be scheduled to take place at its standard repair times of 8am to 5:30pm Monday to Friday.
   4. Informed the resident that following receiving information from him about access to the building, it was able to gain access via the cleaners and confirmed that the repair had been completed by its operative. The landlord noted that the issue was with a pattress box housing wires from a 12-volt transformer for data cables which had a missing blanking plate. The plate was replaced on the box. The landlord also informed the resident that the operative found no ‘significant tampering’ of the wires, that the wires were mounted and double insulated, that no bare wires were exposed and there was no danger of an electric shock.
   5. Apologised for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the delayed and failed appointments, the poor communication he experienced and the delay in providing the complaint responses. The landlord offered £375 compensation which it broke down as:
      1. £75 for the failed appointments.
      2. £50 for not completing the repair within its published target time.
      3. £50 for not providing the complaint responses within its target times.
      4. £200 for the poor service and communication experienced by the resident in chasing the outstanding repair.
6. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord did not inform the resident that the repair had been completed until it sent the stage two complaint response, the length of time it took the landlord to respond to the complaint, receiving conflicting information from the landlord as to the reasons for the failed appointments, the landlord had not put any procedures in place to prevent a similar issue happening again, and that the level of compensation was inadequate. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord increase its compensation offer to £2,500.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. Section 5 of the shared ownership lease sets out the landlord’s responsibilities for the upkeep of the premises. This, in part, states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of “the pipes sewers drains wires cisterns and tanks and other gas electric drainage ventilation and water apparatus and machinery and upon the Building (except such as serve exclusively an individual flat in the Building except such as belong to the Post Office or any public utility supply authority) [and] the Common Parts”.
8. Section 3 of the shared ownership lease sets out the leaseholder’s responsibilities. Section 3(11) relates to access and states that the leaseholder agrees to “permit the Landlord and its surveyor or agent at all reasonable times on notice to enter the Premises to view the condition thereof to make good all defects and wants of repair”.
9. The landlord’s repair policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (attend and make safe within 24 hours), “Non-Emergency” (offer an appointment within 28 calendar days) and “Communal” (complete repairs within 28 calendar days of the issue being reported). The landlord defines an emergency repair as a repair that “presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident”. The policy states that the landlord will offer appointments from 8am to 5pm Monday to Friday and offer an out-of-hours service covering emergency repairs outside of those times.
10. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord will investigate the matter and provide a formal response at stage one. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint. The policy states that the landlord aims to “put things right within reasonable timescales”. However, the policy does not describe specific timescales for responding to complaints. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website), landlords are expected to respond at the first stage of their internal complaint process within ten working days of receiving the complaint, and to respond at the second stage of the complaint process within 20 working days of the resident asking for the complaint to be escalated.
11. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering financial redress “for loss of service or out of pocket expense at a quantifiable rate or amount incurred by a resident as a direct result of [the landlord’s] actions or failure to act”. The policy’s remedies guidance categorises its payment levels at £50 to £250, £250 to £700, and over £700. The policy recommends a compensation award at the level of £250 to £700 in circumstances where there has been “considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. As an example of this level of service failure, the landlord suggests “a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant”.

How the landlord handled an electric repair in the communal area of the building

12. Once the landlord had been informed that the cover for the junction box was missing, it had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the leasehold agreement and its published policies and procedures. The landlord has accepted that it did not respond appropriately. It has acknowledged that the repair was not completed within its published timescale for a communal repair and the resident received a poor level of service and communication when he chased up the status of the work and raised a complaint into how the repair was being handled by the landlord.
13. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, offer compensation for its service failures and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by completing the repair to the junction box and offering £325 compensation (excluding the £50 compensation it offered for failures in complaint handling which are considered in more detail below). It looked to improve its service by taking steps to ensure that its operatives could gain access to the communal areas of the building to complete future repairs without requiring a tenant of the building to be available to allow access.
14. The compensation offered by the landlord was calculated in line with its policy and payment guidance detailed above. The resident has rejected this offer as inadequate and has stated that a more reasonable level of compensation for the service failures he experienced would be £2,500. The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
15. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, the compensation offer by the landlord of £325 to recognise its failure in completing the repair within its target timescale of 28 calendar days, its poor service in sending the incorrect operative to the first appointment and the two subsequent failed appointments, the poor communication experienced by resident in requesting updates on the status of the repair and the inconvenience in having to raise a complaint in order to receive this information was reasonable in the circumstances. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
16. The resident has disputed the landlord’s position that the repair was not an emergency and therefore it should have agreed to arrange an appointment outside of its 8am to 5pm weekday window. The landlord provided information on the condition of the junction box in its complaint responses. It explained that its operatives had informed it that there was no danger of electrocution from the wires as they were properly mounted and insulated. The landlord also noted that the fire stopping works that occurred on 23 September 2021, which highlighted the missing box cover, did not report any health and safety issues.
17. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of specialist contractors and its appropriately qualified staff members who inspected the junction box and informed it that its condition did not constitute a fire hazard or a health and safety risk. While this position has been disputed by the resident, no evidence has been provided to this Service by the resident or any other party that disputes the landlord’s position. It should also be noted that an emergency repair would be to make safe any health and safety issues. The replacement cover would be considered follow-on work to the emergency appointment and raised as a communal repair and attended to in the landlord’s normal published appointment times detailed above. As such there was no failing here by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

18. The landlord did not follow the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code at either stage of its complaint’s process. The resident raised a complaint on 16 December 2021 and received a stage one response on 23 February 2022: 37 working days outside of the Code’s ten working day target. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 23 February 2022 and received a stage two response on 8 April 2022: 13 working days outside of the Code’s 20 working day target. The landlord recognised these delays in its complaint responses. It apologised to the resident, offered £50 compensation for the delays and took into account the inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling in the £200 it offered for its poor service and communication.
19. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer financial redress to the resident, the £50 compensation it offered was not adequate in light of the significant delays experienced by the resident. Moreover, it took the intervention of this Service before the landlord opened a formal complaint and provided a stage one complaint response. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling and in order to fully resolve this aspect of the case, additional compensation is warranted. Taking in account the remedies guidance from both the landlord and this Service detailed above, it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay £250 compensation to the resident in recognition of the delays he experienced at both stages of the landlord’s complaint process and the inconvenience caused to him in having to contact this Service on several occasions in order for the complaint to be opened and to receive the stage one response. As the landlord has already offered £50 for this element of the complaint, the total additional compensation is £200.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled an electric repair in the communal area of the building which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

22. For the service failure in its complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £250. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made. This compensation award is inclusive of the £50 compensation already awarded by the landlord in its complaint process for this element of the complaint. This can be deducted if it has already been paid.
23. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any arrears.

Recommendations

24. As the determination of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £325 compensation for this element of the complaint, it is recommended that the landlord now pay this to the resident if it has not done so already.