Clarion Housing Association Limited (202204510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204510

Clarion Housing Association Limited

1 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the start of his tenancy.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs required to:
  1. The boiler – heating and hot water.
  2. The kitchen flooring.
  3. The windows.
  4. The kitchen units.
3. The resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
4. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy commenced on 24 February 2022, the property having been empty since June 2021.
The gas supply to the boiler had been capped during the void period and on 4 March 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to reinstate it. However, it was then found that there was a fault with the boiler meaning the property had no heating or hot water. This was resolved on 11 March 2022 once relevant parts had been obtained.
The resident complained to the landlord about this development on 7 March 2022. In his view, the fault should have been identified and resolved during the void period. He stated that the property was uninhabitable and that there were a lot of outstanding repairs at the property, although he did not set out what this consisted of. The resident reported that the lack of heating was causing condensation and mould to form. He suggested the start date of the tenancy be put back to 1 April 2022 whilst matters were resolved and proposed that the rent he had already paid be applied accordingly.
On 11 March 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident who clarified that his dissatisfaction lay with the boiler fault and the fact the locks were loose on some of the windows. He was told that any condensation would be resolved by the heating repair and any mould could be wiped off, although the landlord would offer to carry out a ‘wash’ if that was needed afterwards.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 April 2022 because he had employed his own contractor to remove the kitchen floor covering to install his own. That contractor had discovered that the subflooring needed levelling. The landlord agreed to undertake this work which it asserted was not apparent as necessary during the void period – it had only come to light as a result of the resident’s decision to make changes. The landlord asserted that the floor covering already in place was fit for purpose. During the course of the levelling works, the landlord’s contractor accidentally drilled into a heating pipe causing a leak which the landlord then had to repair.
In its complaint response, the landlord accepted that the boiler repair was completed outside of its service levels and offered compensation for 8 days without heating and hot water totalling £80. It also offered compensation of £100 in respect of condensation/mould at the property although it later confirmed none had been apparent on void inspection and that in its view, this offer might reasonably have been avoided. Further compensation of £100 was then offered for the inconvenience caused by the leak in the kitchen flooring. Finally, the landlord acknowledged that its complaint handling had shown delays and offered compensation of £25. Its total offer was therefore £305.
The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the matter to this Service. He wants any outstanding repairs to be completed and for a refund of 3 months’ rent, during which he states the property could not be occupied.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

This Service’s remit is set out in our Scheme Rules. They state that residents should address any complaints to their landlord to begin with and that that process should be completed before we become involved.
Paragraph 42(a) states, “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
The events complained about by the resident took place in 2021 and 2022. However, the resident has reported a potential problem in the property with rising damp which emerged in the spring of 2023. He reports being decanted from the property for investigations to take place. These events took place after the complaint being considered here was made and were not included in the subsequent process. The landlord has not had the opportunity to assess its handling of that situation. It is not therefore appropriate for this matter to be taken into account as part of this investigation.

The condition of the property at the start of his tenancy

The resident made a general complaint to the landlord that the property was not “in a moveable condition” on sign up and there was “a lot of work to the property to be done”. He did not state what this work was and when asked about this by the landlord’s complaint handling team, the resident confirmed he was referring to a fault with the boiler and the windows. The evidence shows that the resident was aware there was an outstanding repair with the windows at the time he signed up for the property and he therefore accepted the property on that basis. However, he was entitled to expect the boiler to be working. The landlord’s handling of these repairs will be considered below.
The resident has then pointed to further issues that arose after this to support his view that the property was uninhabitable from the outset. This consisted of a flooring issue (not apparent on void inspection), and a leak caused during the repair of that problem. The resident also referred to condensation and damp caused by the lack of heating.
It is reasonable to expect a landlord to ensure that a property is in a fit state of repair upon the commencement of a tenancy. However, it would not be expected to go the length of removing fixtures and fittings (such as floor coverings) to check the structure below – unless there was some sort of red flag suggesting this was necessary. There is nothing to confirm that was the case here. There is nothing to say that the pre-existing kitchen floor covering was not fit for purpose.
The boiler issue had not been picked up. The landlord might reasonably have noted it during the void period. However, heating and hot water apparatus do require maintenance and repair from time to time and this property had been void for some time. This, in itself, does not make a property uninhabitable where it can be fixed in a relatively short time period and when residents can use heaters and/or kettles/appliances.
In this case, the resident was not living in the property during this period anyway. The evidence suggests this was because he was making changes – for example to the flooring – and getting the property ready for his family to move in. The evidence does not support a finding that he arrived on the first day of the tenancy, found there was no heating/hot water, and refused to move in. The contractor was unable to gain access on that first day (24 February 2022) to uncap the gas supply – the resident was not there to allow entry. No complaint was then made about the fact there was a delay from then until 4 March 2022 when the contractor returned, and the fault was discovered. The resident was not living there during the following week before the fault was repaired.
This Service does not, typically, inspect properties and determine whether they are fit for purpose. However, the circumstances of this case do not support a finding that the condition of the property was of a degree as to make it unfit to be moved into at the outset of the tenancy. Accordingly, the landlord acted reasonably in this regard and no service failing has been found by this assessment.

Repairs to the boiler – heating and hot water

Once the fault with the boiler was identified on 4 March 2022 it took the landlord until 11 March 2022 to repair it. In its complaint response it stated that the repair took longer than it should have and offered compensation of £80 – that is at the rate of £10 per day for 8 days. The landlord’s Compensation Policy confirms this calculation. At Appendix 2 it states that loss of amenities will be compensated in the sum of £5 per day for loss of hot water and £5 per day for no heating.
The landlord also accepted that the lack of heating in the property was responsible for condensation and mould (although it had not identified any during the void period). It considered that once the heating was on, this issue would be resolved, but offered to carry out a mould wash if required. Ultimately, this was not done. However, the landlord offered compensation of £100 for the resident’s inconvenience in dealing with this issue. Its Compensation Policy provides for awards of £50 – £250 in circumstances where a service failure has had some impact on the resident, but it is not significant or long term. The offer of £100 was reasonably placed within this bracket.
The landlord’s acceptance of a service failing was reasonable in the circumstances and its offers of compensation were appropriate to its policy. Accordingly, it has offered reasonable redress in respect of this repair.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen flooring

This issue arose after the complaint was made. The resident had referred to outstanding works in that complaint, but this was not known about at the time. As stated above, where an issue has not been included in a complaint, it may not be considered by this Service. However, the landlord addressed the issue in its complaint responses. It has completed that procedure. The landlord took the opportunity to examine its handling of the situation. It is appropriate, therefore, that it is considered in this report.
On 1 April 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that he had removed the existing kitchen flooring and the subfloor needed repair – levelling. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy provides that such repairs are non-emergency. It commits to an initial attendance within 28 calendar days (four weeks) of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s records show that this repair was carried out sometime between 10 May and 25 May 2022. Even if it were done on the first of those dates, it would still have been outside the service level provided for by the policy, which is inappropriate.
Initially, it was intended that once the subfloor was repaired, the resident would install his own floor covering. However, on or around 23 May 2022 he decided he wanted a vinyl flooring and the landlord agreed to install one at its own expense. This was done on 29 June 2022 which was once again outstanding the relevant 4-week period from the date it was agreed to be done.
However, the landlord maintains that the floor covering that was already in the property was fit for purpose and did not need changing. Further, the resident has not suggested otherwise. The landlord might reasonably have asserted that in these circumstances it did not have to shoulder the cost of a new floor covering – it agreed to do so as a gesture of goodwill. This represented reasonable redress for the delays in levelling the subfloor. The landlord acted reasonably in making this offer.
For the sake of completeness, it is noted that the resident further reported that during this time, he had to move his white goods out of the kitchen and suffered a lack of facilities. The landlord asserts that it only needed removal for the 2 days on which the repair was done, and the new floor laid. It stated that the loss of facilities was avoidable and unnecessary. This was a reasonable response on this point.

Repairs to the windows

As set out above there was an outstanding window repair at the start of the tenancy that the resident was aware of. The landlord’s records show an initial attendance for this repair on 11 April 2022. As a non-emergency repair, the landlord’s policy states this should have taken place within 28 days of the report – in this case the commencement date of 24 February 2022. This attendance was almost three weeks outside of that limit which was inappropriate. Further works were then required, and which took place in conjunction with the flooring works.
The landlord did not consider whether it had met this service level in its complaints responses and offered no remedy as a result. It might reasonably have offered some compensation for the delay. According to its Compensation Policy this was a short-lived service failing which had some impact on the resident, although he was not living in the property for much of the time it was outstanding. Once again, the compensation bracket of £50 – £250 is appropriate and an order for payment of £100 has been made below.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen units.

The resident reported to the landlord that work was required to resolve gaps behind a kitchen unit. This issue was not apparent at the time of the complaint and cannot be said to be included in the generalised assertion of outstanding works. However, the landlord addressed the issue in its complaint responses. It has completed that procedure. The landlord took the opportunity to examine its handling of the situation. It is appropriate, therefore, that it is considered in this report.
The landlord responded that a gap behind units was allowable, and often desirable, to enable cables and pipes to run behind them. The resident has not contradicted this or suggested the landlord is mistaken.
No service failing has been identified in respect of this issue. The landlord’s response was fair and reasonable.

Reports of a leak in the property.

Whilst repairing/levelling the sub floor in the kitchen, the landlord’s operative drilled into a water pipe causing a leak. This had to be repaired. Once again, this issue was not included in the original complaint and cannot be said to be ‘outstanding works’ as it had not happened at that point.
However, the landlord addressed its handling of the issue in its complaint responses, and it has completed its procedure. Accordingly, it is appropriate that it is considered in this report.
The leak was repaired, and the resident offered compensation of £100 for the inconvenience of it. Given the provisions of the landlord’s Compensation Policy, already discussed, this offer was in an appropriate bracket. It was fair and reasonable. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for this part of the complaint.

The resident’s complaint.

The landlord operates a Complaints Policy which provides for a 2-stage process for handling complaints. The first stage involves an investigation with the resident receiving a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they are entitled to escalate the complaint to a second stage. A review is then conducted with a response being given within 20 working days.
In this case there was a delay in the stage 1 response being given. The complaint was made on 7 March 2022 and the response on 13 April 2022, some 20 working days late. An escalation request was made the same day, 13 April 2022 with a stage 2 response being given, dated 27 May 2022. This was 14 working days late.
The landlord volunteered that its response was late at stage 1, apologised and offered compensation of £25. However, it failed to revisit this when its stage 2 reply was also late. The landlord might reasonably have increased its compensation offer to reflect this additional service failing. An order has been made below for compensation of £75 (which covers both delays and includes the £25 already offered).

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports about the condition of the property at the start of his tenancy.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen units.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.
2. The resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, reasonable redress has been offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the boiler – heating and hot water.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen flooring.
3. The resident’s reports of a leak in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident compensation of £75 for its complaint handling and £100 for its handling of repairs to the windows at the property, total £175.
It should confirm with this Service that it has complied with the order within 5 weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer to the resident its offer of compensation of £280 in respect of its handling of the boiler, condensation/mould, and leak repairs at the property as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.