Clarion Housing Association Limited (202203423)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203423

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 April 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 the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of loss of hot water from the kitchen tap.
   2. The associated complaint. 

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord and is now deceased. The complaint has been raised by one of the executors of the resident’s will, who will be referred to as the representative in this report.
3. The resident initially reported a loss of hot water from the kitchen tap on 6 July 2021 and an appointment was attended on 3 August 2021 to complete repairs to reinstate the hot water. Further repairs were completed on 16 September 2021 and 9 December 2021, after the resident reported recurrences of the issue.
4. The representative raised a complaint on 22 December 2021 as the repair to the hot water had not been completed. He said that a contractor attended on 10 December but was unable to complete the repair, and advised a follow-on appointment would be attended the same day, but no further contractors attended. There had been intermittent hot water issues as the hot water stopped working shortly after each repair, which was particularly detrimental as the resident was vulnerable. He wanted the landlord to investigate the issue, address any lessons learned and asked for a partial rent refund for the four months the issue had been ongoing. The representative escalated the complaint as he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord.
5. In the landlord’s final response, it apologised for the level of service as it failed to identify and repair the issues and did not clearly communicate or consider the resident’s health conditions. It acknowledged that the loss of access to hot water in the kitchen would have been difficult for the resident, but as there were alternative hot water facilities, the property was not uninhabitable so it was unable to offer a rent reimbursement. It stated that it had reminded staff to check the repair notes to ensure all repairs had been completed, to prevent follow-on work from being missed. It offered £265 compensation for the service failure, missed appointment, repeated recurrence of the repair issues, the time taken to identify the problems, the inconvenience caused, the lack of communication and for the resident’s vulnerabilities not being considered. It also offered £75 for its complaint handling failures.
6. In the representative’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied as he believed there were systemic failings in the landlord’s handling of the loss of hot water from the kitchen tap.

Assessment and findings

7. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining installations for the supply of water. A total loss of hot water during the winter period would typically be considered an emergency repair. However, in this case, as the resident had only reported a loss of hot water from the kitchen tap, and had access to alternative hot water facilities, it was reasonable that the repair was handled as a non-emergency. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days of being reported. As a result, the landlord should complete the required repairs within its timeframe.
8. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of loss of hot water from the kitchen tap and offered £265 compensation. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
9. The resident initially reported a loss of hot water in the kitchen on 6 July 2021 and a contractor attended on 3 August 2021 to complete the required repairs, thus within the landlord’s repair response timeframe. Recurrences of the loss of hot water were reported on 28 August 2021 and 19 November 2021 and appointments were attended on 16 September 2021 and 10 December 2021 respectively. Again, each repair was attended in line with the landlord’s repair timeframe. However, as the landlord raised each recurrence as a new work order, it led to cumulative delays in finding a full resolution to the loss of hot water from the kitchen tap. Therefore, given the numerous reports made by the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered prioritising the additional repairs.
10. When there are repeated repair issues, the landlord should establish whether the repair has been handled appropriately and assess the repair issue holistically to ensure a full resolution is reached. In this case, the landlord relied on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors to determine how best to proceed with the repair. It is important to note that different repairs were completed on each appointment including clearing an airlock, installing a new gland in the tap, and changing the cartilage. As a result, there is not sufficient evidence to determine that the landlord could have taken additional action to resolve the repair in full at an earlier date as various solutions had been attempted, and other than the appointment on 10 December 2021, the hot water was left in working order following the repairs.
11. Following the appointment on 10 December 2021, additional work was required to clear an airlock, and the contractor advised the resident they would reattend that day, but failed to do so. When follow-on works are required, the landlord should ensure that the required appointments are promptly arranged. In this case, as the contractor had made a verbal agreement to reattend the same day, the landlord should have ensured the appointment was completed or provided an appropriate reason why it was unable to. As it failed to do so, the issue remained unresolved and the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the required works.
12. Although the resident did not subsequently chase the follow-on repairs, it is evident that his health conditions may have prevented him from doing so. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord took accountability for the error and acknowledged that it should have ensured any follow-on works were identified prior to the work being closed down. It stated that it had reminded its staff to ensure the correct process were followed to prevent a recurrence of the issue. It therefore demonstrated that it had learned from the outcome of the complaint and had taken steps to improve its service.
13. This Service’s spotlight report on heating and hot water states that “landlords should be particularly aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond accordingly”. While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, we will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. In this case, the representative advised that due to the resident’s medical condition, he mainly resided downstairs in the property, and experienced difficulties going upstairs to access the hot water. Although it is clear that the landlord was aware of the resident’s medical condition, it is unclear whether the resident advised of the specific impact while the issue was ongoing. This Service is therefore unable to determine whether the landlord had the relevant information to ensure the repairs were correctly prioritised, to minimise the impact to the resident. However, in future cases, it would be appropriate for the landlord to take steps to establish the impact of repairs on residents, if it is aware of any vulnerabilities.
14. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure has adversely impacted the resident. Overall, the landlord generally took reasonable steps to resolve the kitchen hot water tap repair issues. However, the landlord acknowledged numerous failings including a missed appointment, the time taken to resolve the problem, and its poor communication. As a result of the landlord’s failings, it is clear that the resident was caused distress and inconvenience due to the loss of hot water in the kitchen, however, the landlord’s offer of £265, was in line with this Service’s guidance, and reasonably redressed the complaint.

Complaint handling

15. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that it will aim to resolve stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord should therefore act in line with its policy when it receives a complaint. 
16. The representative raised a complaint on 22 December 2021; however, the landlord did not acknowledge it as such until 28 January 2022, after the representative had chased a response. The representative subsequently chased a response on two further occasions and the landlord issued its stage one response on 28 March 2022. As a result, the landlord significantly exceeded its complaint response timeframe. The representative escalated the complaint on 1 April 2022 and the landlord issued its stage two response on 13 May 2022, again exceeding its complaint response timeframe.
17. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint had not been raised correctly due to administrative errors and that there were delays in responding to both complaints. It offered £50 compensation for the failure to follow its policy at stage one and £25 for the delay at stage two. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s complaint handling failings led to additional time and effort to the representative in pursuing the complaint. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where there has been a service failure by the landlord, which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. As a result, the compensation offered by the landlord was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance and has demonstrated that it has reasonably redressed this element of the complaint. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to assess its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling.

Determination

18. 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 about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a loss of hot water from the kitchen tap, satisfactorily.
19. 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 about the landlord’s complaint handling, satisfactorily.

Recommendations

20. If it has not done so already, the landlord should award the resident £340, as offered in its complaint responses.
21. It is recommended that the landlord assesses its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling.