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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202125916)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125916

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 June 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 is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to a property leak and subsequent remedial repairs.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 11 August 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there were discolouration marks on his bedroom ceiling, which he presumed were caused by a roof leak. The landlord’s contractor attended to inspect the issue on 22 October 2021. It found that repairs to the roof were necessary. However, due to an administrative error, the resident’s follow-on works were not raised. The resident chased for an update throughout November 2021, and reported that the ceiling had started to leak on 30 December 2021.
  3. The resident has stated that he first complained on 14 January 2022, as he had no contact from the landlord, and no works had been undertaken for the roof. After invention from this Service, the landlord picked up the resident’s complaint on 24 February 2022, responding on 9 March 2022. It confirmed that the resident’s follow-on works should have been re-booked in October 2021, and acknowledged that the resident had to chase for an update. It apologised, and offered £265 compensation. It assured the resident that it would attend on 22 March 2022 to complete his works.
  4. The landlord missed the appointment on 22 March 2022, due to another administrative error. After the resident contacted it, the landlord stated that it would now attend on 11 April 2022. It again inspected the roof, and looked at the loft space, concluding that an asbestos report was needed before works could take place. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 April 2022. The landlord attended on 17 May 2022 to repair the roof, and again on 26 May 2022 to undertake an asbestos survey of the resident’s ceiling.
  5. The landlord sent its stage two response on 27 July 2022. It apologised for not attending on 22 March 2022 as agreed. It explained that it had since attended and completed the works to the roof, but acknowledged that works to the ceiling were outstanding. It stated that it had arranged for the ceiling to removed and reinstated on 3 August 2022. The landlord offered a further £330 compensation in recognition of the further delays to repairs, the missed appointment and the resident’s general inconvenience.
  6. The landlord authorised the work on 12 August 2022. The removal and reinstatement of the ceiling were arranged for 26 and 27 October 2022.Subsequently, the landlord contacted the resident on 5 January 2023, explaining that it would be attending on 13 February 2023 to reinstate the insulation above the bedroom ceiling. The resident submitted another complaint in January 2023, stating that the works to the ceiling in October 2022 had been delayed and inadequate. He also he felt that the loft insulation should have been reinstated during the previous works. He stated that as a result, his home had been more expensive to heat.
  7. The landlord responded on 18 January 2023. It apologised for the inadequate works to the ceiling, and for the delay in scheduling them. It asked for the resident to provide evidence to assess compensation for his increased heating usage. In recognition of its failings, the landlord offered an additional £350 compensation. It has stated to this Service that the works are now complete at the property. In his complaint to this Service, the resident stated that he was dissatisfied with the delays to his repairs, the quality of the works and the landlord lack of communication throughout the process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to a property leak and subsequent remedial repairs.

  1. According to the landlord’s website, it is responsible for keeping the roof watertight, as well as repairing and maintaining the property’s walls, ceilings and plaster. It also states that the landlord must replace insulation where it has removed it to do work and that it will fix any damage caused by its own repairs. The landlord’s repair policy states that routine repairs will be attended to within 28 days of the repair being reported.
  2. According to the landlord’s repair policy, when the resident reported his ceiling on 11 August 2021, the landlord should have attended within 28 days. However, the landlord failed to do so, instead first attending on 22 October 2021, over two months after it was reported. This was not appropriate. It inspected the issue and concluded that works were required to the roof. It then did not attend the property again until 11 April 2022, where it completed another inspection. Works to the resident’s roof were not completed until 17 May 2022, nine months after the resident reported the issue. Not all delays are classed as an error, particularly if the issue is complex and the landlord has continued to manage the repair. However, in this case the delay was caused by an administrative error by the landlord and therefore represents a failing in the circumstances.
  3. Although repairs to the roof were completed in May 2022, the resident’s ceiling repairs remained outstanding until at least October 2022. In the landlord’s final complaint response on 27 July 2022, it stated that the repairs were provisionally booked for 3 August 2022. However, the landlord did not actually action the repair until 12 August 2022. It undertook the ceiling repair in October 2022, 14 months after the resident first reported the issue. The landlord has not explained why this further delay occurred, or why it was slow to action the repair with its contractor. Therefore, this is a further failing in the circumstances.
  4. In January 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it would attend in February 2023 to reinstate the resident’s insulation to his loft area. In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy the landlord should have replaced any insulation it removed during the works to the resident’s roof in May 2022. This should again have been completed within the landlord’s 28-day repair timescale. It is not appropriate that the landlord only attended the property to do so nine months after the initial roof repairs took place.
  5. In its stage one response in March 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by identifying the delays in repairing the resident’s repairs and apologising. It offered a total of £250 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident for the delays to his roof and ceiling repairs. Had the landlord continued to manage the resident’s repairs, and followed through on its repair appointments, this would have been viewed as sufficient redress.
  6. However, despite assuring the resident that it would attend the property on 22 March 2022 the landlord failed to attend. This was not appropriate, as the Complaint Handling Code (the code) specifies that when offering a remedy, a landlord should clearly set out what will happen and by when. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. In its second complaint response on 21 July 2022, the landlord again identified its failings and took responsibilities for the delays to the resident’s repairs. It apologised and offered the resident an additional £345 compensation, £595 in total. Again, this would have offered suitable redress, had the landlord managed the repair proactively, and attended on the promised date of 2 August 2022. However, the landlord did not attend, and the repairs were not completed until two months later. This was not appropriate and is another failing.
  7. The resident should not have had to complain again, as the landlord should have resolved his complaint adequately within its two-stage complaint procedure. Although in each of the landlord’s responses, it acted reasonably by identifying its failings, apologising for them and attempting to put them right, it subsequently, and repeatedly, failed to manage the resident’s repairs appropriately.
  8. In its second stage one response, the landlord acted appropriately in identifying that it should not have had to attend the property so many times. It acknowledged that the repairs had not been completed properly, and were outside of its designated timescales. The landlord also recognised that its communication had been poor, and that the resident had to chase for updates. The landlord stated that it would inspect the repairs and ensure that any issues were rectified. It offered a further £350 (totalling £945) for failing to manage the resident’s repairs effectively, and neglecting to follow its own policies and procedures correctly. It also offered to compare the resident’s utilities usage and assess if any further compensation was due. This was appropriate, as it would place the resident back in the position he was in, but for the landlord’s failings.
  9. The landlord has now rectified the resident’s repairs in this case. It has apologised for its failings, acknowledged the detriment to the resident and tried to put things right. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the compensation amount of £945 offers sufficient redress to the resident. The amount is also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, as laid out on our website, for situations where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to a stage one complaint within 20 working days. If a complaint is escalated, it will aim to respond within 40 working days. However, this Services Complaint handling code (the code), specifies that the maximum timescale for a response is five working days to acknowledge a complaint, 10 working days to respond at stage one, and 20 working days for the stage two complaint. Each complaint response deadline can be extended by a maximum of 10 working days, if this is conveyed to the resident. The code also specifies that when a complaint is made to the landlord, it shall be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure.
  2. The resident has stated that he first complained on 14 January 2022. The landlord failed to respond to the resident and did not raise a formal complaint. This is contrary to the code laid out above. After intervention from this Service, the landlord acknowledged it had received the resident’s complaint on 24 February 2022, and responded on 9 March 2022. This is two months after the resident originally complained. The landlord has stated that the resident escalated his complaint on 21 April 2022. The landlord should have responded within the code’s timescale of 20 working days. However, it did not reply until 21 July 2022, which was three months after the resident escalated the complaint.
  3. The landlord has stated that its response was delayed because of a cyber security incident in June 2022. However, had the landlord responded within the correct timescales, this would not have impacted its response. Therefore, both delays in the resident’s complaint handling were not appropriate and therefore represent a failing in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s response to a property leak and subsequent remedial repairs satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100, in recognition of its failure to handle the associated complaint appropriately. Evidence of compliance with this above orders must be provided to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is also recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £945 already offered in its complaint procedure, if it has not done so already. The determination of reasonable redress being dependent on the landlord doing so.
    2. Inspects the property and ensure that the works have been completed to a satisfactory standard. If any works related to this repair are outstanding, the landlord must complete these works.
    3. Consider what re-training is necessary to ensure that its operatives understand that complaint remedies must be followed through to completion once the complaint procedure has concluded. This will ensure that further failings do not occur.