Clarion Housing Association Limited (202204056)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204056

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 October 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of his property overheating.

Background

2.     The resident is a shared owner of a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a residential block. The building is owned by the housing association landlord, and the lease began in April 2015. The resident purchased the lease from the previous occupant on 11 February 2021.

3.     On 4 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord expressing concerns about the property overheating, particularly during summer. The resident mentioned that this was a common issue across the entire building and that the landlord had previously installed air conditioning in selected properties over the previous 2 years.

4.     The landlord responded on 10 November 2021. It offered to commission an independent temperature survey to determine whether the resident’s property required air conditioning. There is no evidence that the resident responded at that time.

5.     The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 June 2022. He said 6 months had passed, and the overheating issue had not been resolved. He raised concerns that the landlord might selectively choose surveyors to produce a biased report. He further requested the landlord explain why his property was the ‘only one subjected to a selective survey’.

6.     Throughout the complaint process, the landlord stated it was engaged in legal proceedings with the builder and, as such:

  1. It could not release information about the criteria for installing air conditioning in other properties.
  2. It needed to determine whether air conditioning was required in the resident’s property by way of a thermal survey. This would entail installing specialist equipment in and around the resident’s property for 8 to 12 weeks.
  3. The survey would be done at no cost to the resident.
  4. If the report determined that air conditioning was required, it would be installed at the resident’s property at no cost to the resident, as the landlord would recover the cost from the builder.
  5. In order to progress the resident’s complaint, it needed the resident to accept the offer.

7.     The resident brought his complaint to this service and stated the landlord had ignored the essence of the complaint: “The entire block of flats turns into a giant microwave for 6 months of the year”. According to the resident, the landlord ‘selectively’ installed air-con units in some flats, “asking the residents not to disclose this information”. 

Assessment and findings

8.     When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.

9.     This investigation focuses on determining whether the landlord acted on the resident’s concerns promptly, investigated the concerns fairly, and formed an action plan accordingly.

10. The property in question was built in 2015. The first 2 years after completion are referred to as the defect liability period. While the resident said that the previous occupant had informed the landlord of the overheating issue, there is no evidence that the landlord was made aware during the defect liability period.

11. From the evidence available to this service, and as the landlord explained to the resident, it has previously received concerns about overheating in the block. In 2017, the landlord conducted a thermal dynamic modelling survey, which recommended several remedial works to address the issue of overheating. Subsequently, the landlord carried out the works to the communal parts, which it said had improved the situation. This was carried out before the resident purchased the property.

12. The resident would have had legal advice during the conveyancing process. As such, he would have been advised to conduct a home survey report before purchasing the property. This would have highlighted any defects with the property.

13. When the resident brought his concern to the landlord in 2021, he asked to see the thermal modelling, which the landlord had carried out in 2017. The landlord explained it was in litigation with the builder and, as such, it could not release this report. However, it agreed to assess the resident’s property by a specialist company and follow the specialist’s advice. The landlord acted appropriately here. It provided a reasonable explanation to the resident, but more importantly, it was resolution focused.

14. The resident declined the landlord’s offer. He wanted the landlord to carry out the work on his property based on the data it held for other properties. The landlord explained that it needed to show there was a need for air conditioning in the resident’s property to recover the cost from the builder. The resident refused this option, stating he thought the landlord would “hand pick the surveyors”, meaning the report would not be independent and its result would not be impartial.

15. The landlord clarified that the survey requires specialist equipment to collect readings over several weeks. Despite this explanation, the resident continued to have doubts. It should be noted that the resident was able to commission his own independent survey, which the landlord agreed to accept.

16. The resident did not explain what would resolve the complaint for him, except for the landlord carrying out the work at the landlord’s expense without evidence that it was needed and with no ability to recover this expenditure from a third party. It was reasonable for the landlord not to accept this option.

17. It is noted that there were delays with the landlord’s internal complaint process. The resident has put his time and effort into chasing the landlord’s response and progressing the complaint to this service. From the evidence available, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in responding to the complaint. It explained this was due to many of its staff taking annual leave during the peak summer season. However, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and offered a compromise to mitigate his concerns prior to the delay. On occasions, it also contacted the resident proactively to progress the matter. Therefore, overall, the landlord dealt with the complaint reasonably.

18. 18. It is, however, important to acknowledge that although the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s complaint, the situation remains unresolved. He is living in a property which, evidently, he and many of his neighbours find uncomfortably hot for 6 months of the year. It is recognised that the detrimental impact on the resident is ongoing. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to continue working with the resident to find a solution.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the property overheated.

Recommendation

20. The landlord should re-offer the resident the opportunity to carry out the survey within the framework that would allow the landlord to recover its costs from the third party.