The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202128331)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128331

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 November 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 handling of the resident’s enquiries in relation to the sale of her property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom maisonette which she shared with her daughter.
  2. The resident was in the process of selling the property. The landlord’s notes show that it received a fee for a management pack on 4 August 2020 and forwarded a copy of the pack to the resident’s solicitor on 1 September 2020. The resident’s solicitor requested further information on 4 November 2020. On 9 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the solicitor and requested a fee for additional queries.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 December 2020 and 12 December 2020 and advised that the buyer had changed their mind because of the landlord’s delay in providing information. The resident asked the landlord to provide the information quickly and disputed the fee charged. On 14 December 2020, the landlord confirmed that it would waive the fee and it provided a response to the resident’s solicitors enquiries on 15 and 17 December 2020.
  4. On 19 January 2021, the resident complained to the landlord that she lost a sale of the house because of the landlord’s delayed response to her solicitor’s enquiries. In its stage 1 complaint response, on 14 September 2021, the landlord advised the resident that her solicitor received the management pack on 1 September 2020 but did not request further information until 4 November 2020. The landlord accepted that there was a delay in providing the information and upheld the complaint. It offered £150 compensation because its response was outside its agreed service levels, its failure to respond to the resident, and its failure to meet its service standards for actions and responses.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint. The resident felt £50,000 compensation was more appropriate. On 18 January 2022, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that it was not responsible to ensure that the sale progressed in line with the anticipated timescales and made no offer to compensate the resident for the loss of sale or subsequent losses.
  6. When the resident brought the complaint to this Service, she advised that she had moved her belongings, dismantled furniture and shelving, and had made arrangements to move before the buyer pulled out. She advised that because of the loss of sale she subsequently sold the house for £10,000 less than the agreed price with the initial buyer. This sale wasn’t complete until December 2021, which caused financial difficulties. She advised this Service that she would have been in a better financial position to find more appropriate accommodation had the initial sale went through, but she is now living in a shared property with her belongings in storage. She had to leave large goods like her washing machine, dryer, fridge, and bed with the new buyer because she had to move in with her mother for a short period of time after the sale. The resident also received an order granting repossession after the sale of the house had finalised. All these issues caused her emotional distress and inconvenience. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted appropriate compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.      Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

      b.      put things right, and;

      c.      learn from outcomes.

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries in relation to the sale of her property

  1. We have not disregarded the resident’s comments about the reasons why the sale of her property fell through. However, this Service cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions directly caused the potential buyer to pull out of purchasing the property. There are several reasons why the buyer could have discontinued their purchase of the property, and without any definitive confirmation explaining their reasons for doing so, this Service cannot draw any conclusions, or make assumptions as to why the buyer made this decision. However, this Service can determine whether the landlord acted fairly and appropriately throughout the process, and also whether it acted in line with its relevant policies and procedures.
  2. In its complaint response, the landlord advised that it aims to answer enquiries within 10 working days in line with its service standards. It acknowledged the solicitors request for further information 25 working days later and requested a fee to provide it. The next day the resident advised the landlord that the buyer was pulling out of the sale and asked the landlord to provide the information quickly. The landlord waived the fee and provided the information within 5 working days of that email. The landlord accepted that there was a delay in responding to her solicitor’s enquiries. It apologised and offered £150 for its service failure. This Service finds that this was a reasonable offer of compensation for the service failure in line with its compensation policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
  3. This Service understands that the loss of the original sale likely had a significant impact on the resident. However, this Service has not identified any evidence which demonstrates that the landlord significantly or intentionally delayed in responding to her solicitor’s enquiries. It would not be reasonable to attribute the resident’s subsequent issues to the landlord’s service failure. This Service finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress when it identified a service failure with its handling of the resident’s enquiries in relation to the sale of her property.

Complaint handling. 

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. At stage 1, the landlord will investigate and respond to the resident within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied a peer review or escalation can be requested. After this it aims to provide a formal written response within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman.
  2. On 19 January 2021, the resident raised a number of complaints including this complaint. The resident chased a reply 3 times before she got a response on 15 February 2021 in which the landlord advised the resident that she would have to raise the complaint with the complaints team. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have logged a complaint or forwarded the correspondence to its complaints team for investigation.
  3. The resident requested a final response letter on 15 February 2021. The landlord followed up on 26 February 2021 to advise that it had dealt with her complaint previously. The resident replied and clarified that this was a different complaint, with different issues. The resident chased a complaint response a further 3 times before the landlord replied on 14 June 2021, and referred to a subsequent complaint that it was dealing with in relation to the subsequent sale of the property. While the complaints were similar, the resident’s previous correspondence was clearly referring to her loss of sale of the property in 2020. The landlord failed to identify and acknowledge this complaint within its own policy. This caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The resident clarified the complaint on 15 June 2021, and chased a reply on the 6 July 2021. The landlord called the resident and discussed the complaint on 7 July 2021. It is not clear if it registered a complaint. There were internal notes that the complaint was being investigated on 16 August 2021 and 20 August 2021. There were phone calls with the resident on 25 August 2021 and 13 September 2021, before it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 September 2021. Based on the evidence, the landlord identified the complaint on its phone call of 7 July 2021 but did not provide a stage 1 complaint response until 49 working days later. The landlord failed to adhere to its policy of providing a stage 1 response within 10 working days. The resident’s numerous emails to the landlord chasing a response, demonstrates the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
  5. After its stage 1 complaint response, the resident expressed dissatisfaction on 29 September 2021, and chased the landlord on 3 further occasions for a complaint escalation. The landlord again failed to identify the complaint and called the resident on 6 January 2022 to discuss the complaint. It provided a stage 2 peer review response on 18 January 2022. This was 76 working days from the first expression of dissatisfaction after its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord failed to identify the complaint escalation request and failed to respond to the resident within its timeframe of 20 working days. Furthermore, in its final complaint response it failed to identify or acknowledge its complaint handling failures and consider the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  6. This Service finds there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling, and orders it to issue an apology to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report, and to pay further compensation of £200 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident because of its failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s enquiries in relation to the sale of her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident in writing for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reoffer £150 for the service failure identified in its stage 1 complaint response (if not already paid). The Ombudsman found reasonable redress based on the offer.