Clarion Housing Association Limited (202206745)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206745

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 February 2024

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. Repairs to the property, including leaks, subsidence and cracks in the ceilings and walls.
2. The resident being moved into temporary accommodation.
3. The resident’s request for a transfer to another property.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She is registered disabled and suffers with a number of medical condition’s including fibromyalgia, which the landlord has a record of.
In December 2020, the resident raised a number of repairs with the landlord about the following:
1. There were a number of cracks on the ceilings and walls throughout the property, where plaster was also coming away from the walls.
2. The roof was leaking, which was coming through the bathroom ceiling.
3. The basement was damp.

Between January 2021 and March 2021, the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property, and attempted to repair the leaking roof. On 8 March 2021, the resident raised a complaint that the landlord’s contractors had carried out an incorrect repair. She said they had not repaired the roof leak at the property. The landlord completed a further inspection of the condition of the property in May 2021.
In July 2021, the resident raised a disrepair claim. She said the roof continued to leak into the property. The bathroom light did not work, which she believed was due to water ingress from the leaking roof. She also reported cracks on the ceilings and walls throughout the property, which she believed to be structural damage.
On 12 January 2022, the resident reported that the wooden banister was moving, which was affecting the ceiling on the ground floor. During this period, the landlord completed an assessment for the resident and her family to move into temporary accommodation, whilst it completed the repairs. The landlord said it expected the works to take 3 months.On 10 March 2022, the resident was still in her property when the landlord cancelled a repair to her ceiling. It said it would only respond to emergency repairs due to the resident’s on-going disrepair claim. On 15 April 2022, the hallway ceiling of the resident’s property collapsed.
On 21 April 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint, about the landlord’s handling of her repairs. She also said that the landlord had told her she would have to clear the rubble from the collapsed ceiling herself, because it could not provide contractors until after the bank holiday weekend.
Between 15 April 2022 and 16 July 2022, the resident and her family were provided temporary accommodation. During this period, the resident was moved 7 times, and on some occasions without prior warning. The resident also said she has not been compensated for her food and taxi expenses incurred during this period.
On 4 July 2022, the resident raised an escalation of her complaint about the landlord’s handling of her repairs, including the disrepair claim. The resident said she was unhappy with its handling of the temporary accommodation provided, and that the landlord had promised her a permanent move. She also said that the landlord had not addressed the subsidence within the property. This included that the flooring within her bedroom, living room, and at the top of the staircase, was not level. She was also unhappy that the landlord had not responded to her previous complaint about repairs, raised on 8 March 2021.

On 9 September 2022, at the final stage of the landlord’s complaints process, it apologised for the delay in its response. The landlord said it had completed all works as agreed as part of the disrepair claim. It said that she did not meet its criteria for a permanent move to another of its properties. It awarded the resident £150, to reflect the delay in its stage 2 response, and its lack of communication during her move into temporary accommodation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 10 December 2022. The resident said that the property still suffered with subsidence, and repairs remained outstanding. She had also not received any expenses from her time in temporary accommodation. She is seeking compensation, repairs to be completed and a permanent move to another property.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must 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 consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of Investigation

Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resdient raised a complaint on 8 March 2021. The resident has been persistent about her reports of repairs at her property previous to this. This investigation has therefore focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from 8 September 2020, up until the landlord’s final complaint response on 9 September 2022. The only exception has been to comment on when the outstanding repairs, or relevant matters of the complaints were resolved as agreed in its final response.

Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. The Ombudsman is aware that this case was subject of a disrepair claim, and the resident was awarded £2000 compensation by the landlord. However, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that no claim was filed with the court, and matters were subject to the pre-action protocol stage. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it puts repairs in to the following 2 categories:
1. Emergency repairs – The landlord describes this as a repair which presents an immediate danger to the resident or would jeopardise the health and safety to the resident. It states it will make safe this type of repair within 24 hours, and that further subsequent repairs may be required.
2. Non-emergency repairs – The landlord states that these repairs will be carried out by appointment at the resident’s convenience. This will be within 28 days of the repair being reported. This service is from Monday to Friday, between 9am and 5pm, with an out of hours service covering emergencies outside of these times.
This policy also states that complex repairs such as disrepair cases are also managed through its responsive repairs service. It states that all of its repairs will be completed to an acceptable standard.
The landlord’s decant policy states that when moving residents into appropriate temporary accommodation, it will consider a number of factors which includes the availability, and suitability of accommodation. It states it will usually make only 1 offer of a property of its own stock. However, due to limited availability, it may not always be possible for this to be of a similar size and location of the resident’s property.
This policy also states that the landlord will meet all reasonable costs, as a direct consequence of being required to move home. It also states that where a temporary decant does not provide a statutory entitlement to a disturbance payment, its head of service may consider a discretionary payment.
The decant policy also states that it will provide regular updates and agree with the resident on a frequency, about keeping them informed.
The landlord’s management transfer policy states that it will only consider a management transfer in a small number of circumstances, which include the following:
1. When a resident suffers serious antisocial behaviour, or harassment that puts their life at risk.
2. Where the resident is subjected to domestic abuse that is putting, or likely to put a resident’s life at risk.
3. After a resident has undergone a significant change in circumstances and is no longer able to access their home.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It states that for all complaints received before 17 June 2022, it will make an attempt to resolve a resident’s complaint by ‘managing their expectations’. It states it will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 10 days at both stage 1 and stage 2. It does not offer a timescale for a response for complaints before 17 June 2022. The landlord states it will provide its written response at stage 2, within 40 working days. The landlord states it will contact the resident if it requires more time to respond to their complaint.

Repairs to the property, including leaks, subsidence, and cracks in the ceilings and walls.

On 10 December 2020, the resident reported her roof was leaking. She also said that there were a number of cracked walls throughout her property. The repair logs show that an inspection of the leak was completed on 8 January 2021, setting out the required works. This was an appropriate response to the repair of the leaking roof. However, this service has not seen any correspondence during this period to show that it had inspected the cracked walls. This aspect of the repair was, therefore, not an appropriate response. The landlord should have inspected and communicated its findings with the resident.
On 27 January 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that all the walls, ceilings, and under the staircase were cracked, with plaster falling from them. On 17 February 2021, the landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property and reported the following:
1. Plaster had blown on the walls, in several places throughout the property. Substantial plaster repairs were needed.
2. The living room ceiling showed signs of dropping and highlighted that there was a potential health and safety risk.
3. The roof was leaking, and this was causing damage to the ceiling.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s surveyor carried out this inspection. On 22 February 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property to repair the leak. The contractors were not successful in completing this repair, which the resident informed the landlord of, on 8 March 2021. It is accepted that sometimes repairs can take more than one attempt to successfully complete. However, where this is the case, a landlord should continue its investigations within a reasonable timescale. It should also communicate with the resident until a repair is satisfactorily resolved. The Ombudsman has viewed correspondence and maintenance logs, which evidence poor communication by the landlord in this regard. This included periods where the landlord provided no updates to this repair between February 2021 and July 2021, which was when its contractor believed they had completed the repair. This was a significant delay. There was also no evidence the landlord had carried out any works in respect of the cracked walls and ceilings within the property. This was an unreasonable response in the landlord’s handling of these repairs.
In July 2021, the resident said she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to the repairs. She started a disrepair claim against the landlord. In August 2021, the landlord completed a disrepair inspection report. It was appropriate the landlord completed this report. However, the resident should not have had to raise a disrepair claim for the landlord to look into her repairs, as correspondence shows she had reported these previously. The Ombudsman understands that this had caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. The report completed following landlord’s inspection highlighted a number of repairs, which included the following:
1. Further investigations were required to find cause of the roof leak.
2. Hairline cracks, and re-plastering was needed to multiple walls throughout the property.
3. The living room ceiling was damaged due to age and needed to be re-plastered and sealed.
4. Living room floorboards were to be raised and further investigation was required, due to sloping in this area.
On 12 January 2022, the resident reported that the wooden banister was moving, and that 3 spindles were broken. She said that this was affecting the downstairs ceiling, at the property. On 6 February 2022, the landlord’s contractor fixed the broken spindles at the property. This was appropriate. The resident then informed the landlord that the stairs were still broken, and still moving.
On 10 March 2022, the landlord told the resident that due to the on-going disrepair claim, that it would only respond to what is classed as emergency repairs. It said it was planning for the resident to be moved into temporary accommodation to complete the outstanding repairs. While it is perhaps understandable that the landlord took this position given the planned decant, generally the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to continue to engage with repair issues where a disrepair claim had been made.
On 15 April 2022, which was a bank holiday, the resident reported that the hallway ceiling at her property had collapsed. She was concerned that the structural integrity of the building had been compromised. The landlord responded that the resident would have to wait until after the bank holiday weekend for it to visit the property. Its contractors would the assist to clear the rubble and assess the damage. This was not a reasonable response by the landlord. The resident was disabled, with allergies that the landlord was aware of. It should have attended to the collapsed ceiling as an emergency to assess the repair. The Ombudsman has been informed that this delay exacerbated the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
On 15 April 2022, the resident was moved into emergency temporary accommodation. This was an appropriate response by the landlord. The resident returned to her property in July 2022. On 9 September 2022, the landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that the outstanding repairs at the property were completed in line with its disrepair inspection report, from August 2021. It said the repairs had been carried out whilst the resident was in temporary accommodation between April 2022 and July 2022. The resident has said the living room floorboards were never taken up and investigated, plaster remained blown in the hallways. There were also cracks and continued movement throughout the property, including the staircase.
The Ombudsman has reviewed a report from an environmental health and enforcement officer, at the resident’s local authority. This report in respect of the resident’s property is dated June 2023. The inspector has said they had carried out an inspection both before, and following the works the landlord has said it had completed in its stage 2 response. This report states that the works completed and signed off by the landlord’s surveyors, were not completed in line with the disrepair claim. Many of the repairs remain outstanding, and the works that were completed were of a poor quality. The opinion of the inspector is that the property continues to demonstrate a potential risk to subsidence, falls on the stairs and a health and safety risk. This is evidence of poor handling by the landlord, in respect of these repairs. It is responsible for the work carried out by its contractors and signed off by its surveyors.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete repairs to its properties in a timely and efficient manner. The evidence demonstrated above, shows the landlord’s response was neither timely, nor was it efficient.
The resident has said the outstanding repairs have caused her significant distress and inconvenience. She is also physically disabled, living in a house with uneven floors, with movement on the stairs, that she states is an additional risk to her health and wellbeing. To put things right the landlord needs to complete these outstanding repairs within a reasonable time period for the resident.
For the reasons described above there is a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property, including leaks, subsidence and cracks in the ceilings and walls. This includes the delays set out above, poor levels of communication, and works completed to either a poor standard, or not completed at all. The landlord has also failed to recognise the significant adverse impact caused to the resident by its handling of these repairs.
The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The Ombudsman is aware that the resident was awarded £2000, as part of her disrepair claim. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for awards of compensation, following a finding of severe maladministration by the landlord. This type of award includes where a landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service which had a seriously detrimental effect on the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not make a further pay award for this aspect of the resident’s complaint, on the condition the £2000 has been paid to the resident as compensation. The Ombudsman, will however, order that an independent survey of the property is completed. This is to be followed by providing the resident with a schedule, setting out the outstanding works, which are to be completed within timescales that are in line with industry best practice.

The resident being moved into temporary accommodation.

In January 2022, the landlord carried out an assessment of the resident’s needs for her to move into temporary accommodation. This was an appropriate response. The resident requested the temporary move take place in February 2022. The landlord offered the resident a property in February 2022, which the resident declined. This was a decision for the resident. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of a property at that time was reasonable. The landlord also acted in line with its decants policy as set out above.

On 15 April 2022, the resident and her family were moved into a hotel, as emergency temporary accommodation. The resident and her family were then moved to another hotel until 14 May 2022. This was reasonable because the landlord’s initial arrangements were as part of its emergency response. It was, therefore, reasonable that the resident and her family would be required to move again.
On 21 April 2022, the resident said that she was unhappy that she was in a hotel. She said that the temporary accommodation did not meet the needs of her family. She also said that it was too far from her home. The hotel rooms were also not on the same floor which unsettled her family. She was also unhappy that she was having to attend her property daily, to feed her cat, whilst ill with respiratory issues. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that did not have any 4-bedroom properties available, as she had requested. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. The landlord will only have a limited number of properties available, with an increasing demand for them. Therefore, the landlord must act responsibly and fairly in the allocation of its properties, in the best interests of all residents. This can often mean that properties with specific criteria, like 4-bedrooms will take significantly longer to become available. The first hotel was within 5 miles of the resident’s home address, and the second was over a mile. These distances that were not unreasonable in the circumstances.
The resident said that during the period of 23 April 2022 and 14 May 2022, the landlord’s agent booking was made as a bed and breakfast. The landlord had provided £500 in food vouchers to cover other meal expenses. The resident’s children however, had not been included on the booking, which meant they went without breakfast for this period. This was not appropriate, and the Ombudsman does not doubt that the resident felt distress and inconvenience by this error in her booking.
On 14 May 2022, the resident was moved into a self-catering, serviced apartment. Her adult daughter was offered a hotel room nearby. The resident was then requested to move to a different serviced apartment on 8 June 2022. It is unclear why the resident was moved again. The Ombudsman does not doubt that this will have exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident at that time. The correspondence seen by the Ombudsman also demonstrates a lack of communication in respect of food vouchers and support for the resident during this period. This lack of communication will have exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

On 30 June 2022, the landlord told the resident that her property would be ready on 8 July 2022. On 2 July 2022, the resident was evicted without prior warning from her temporary accommodation to another property. This was a property that would not take her cat. This caused her significant distress and inconvenience and is evidence of poor communication by the landlord. The landlord should have made prior arrangements for any further moves, and kept the resident updated, as it states it will do in its decant policy.
The landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation in its final response for its lack of communication. This included in relation to its lack of information about its food vouchers, and the multiple moves from the different types of accommodation during this 12-week period. It was appropriate the landlord acknowledged its errors in its communication. The Ombudsman, however, does not consider the landlord has fairly assessed the full detriment to the resident caused by its errors.
In the landlord’s final response, it also said that it would accept and review receipts from the resident and reimburse reasonable food and taxi expenses incurred during the period she was in temporary accommodation. The resident has said that this did not happen. This is evidence of poor communication and poor complaint handling. Therefore, the Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to reimburse the resident all reasonable costs, in line with its decants policy, subject to being provided receipts by the resident.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling the resident being moved into temporary accommodation. The Ombudsman’s has considered its own remedies guidance (published on our website).The landlord,therefore, is ordered to pay the resident an additional£300 in compensation. This is in line with Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance as mentioned above. This reflects that the resident suffered significant distress and inconvenience, caused by the landlord’s poor communication throughout the 12-week period between April 2022 to July 2022. Examples of this level of compensation include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact. This also includes where a landlord has made an attempt to put things right, but failed to address the full detriment caused, as in this case.

The resident’s request for a transfer to another property.

On 16 May 2022, the resident said the landlord agreed for her to be approved a management move. The landlord has said in its final response to the resident, that she was offered a temporary move, in line with its decant policy. It apologised for any miscommunication. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened and a lack of evidence to support either account, the Ombudsman as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot conclude whether the landlord offered the resident a permanent management transfer, during this conversation on 16 May 2022.
In the landlord’s final response, it told the resident that a management transfer was not the same as a ‘decant’. It then explained to the resident what ground’s it would consider a management transfer as set out above. It was appropriate the landlord explained this to the resident.
However, the landlord had said in its stage 1 complaint response that its housing team had approved the resident’s management transfer. It said that the transfer could be either temporary, or permanent. The use of the landlord’s wording was misleading. The Ombudsman can understand why the resident believed she was awaiting a permanent transfer. This was evidence of poor communication by the landlord.
The Ombudsman, however, has found the landlord’s explanation for not considering the resident’s request, set out at stage two of the complaint process, to have been reasonable. The landlord also explained that it did have discretion to offer a permanent move if the works to the resident’s property were to take longer than 6 months. It told the resident that this was not necessary in her case, as works were completed sooner than this.
While rehousing can be appropriate in some instances, the Ombudsman has found the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request in this case to have been fair and appropriate. If the resident considers that they need to be rehoused for other reasons, aside from the repairs, they can make a formal request for rehousing to the landlord. The landlord would be expected to consider the resident’s request and respond in line with its housing allocations policy. The resident may also wish to consider other options for rehousing such as a mutual exchange and the landlord should provide information to the resident on her rehousing options if it has not done so already.
The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer to another property. This is due to its own poor communication. The landlord failed to address putting this right in its stage 2 response. We have considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. Therefore, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £100 for errors in its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer. Amounts in this range are appropriate in cases where there has been service failure by a landlord. Examples of this are where there was a minor failure, and the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge the failing, or do enough to put it right. Or where the landlord’s acknowledgment failed to reflect the detriment caused to the resident.

The associated complaint.

On 8 March 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord that it had not carried out the correct repair, in relation to her damaged roof. The roof was still leaking. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this complaint. The Housing Ombudsman’s code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling) is that a landlord should provide a response within 10 working days. This is evidence of poor record keeping, and complaint handling.
On 21 April 2022, the resident raised a further stage 1 complaint to the landlord about the matters raised above in this report. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 25 working days later, on 27 May 2022. This delay, although not significant, was unreasonable, and not in line with the Ombudsman’s code as set out above.
On 4 July 2022, the resident raised her complaint again. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised this as an escalation to her complaint. It provided its stage 2 response 49 working days later, on 9 September 2022. This delay was not in line with the landlord’s own complaints policy of 40 working days. It was also not in line with Ombudsman’s own complaint handling code, which expects the landlord to provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. This delay was therefore unreasonable and would have impacted the resident.
For the reasons described above the landlord makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because it failed to respond to the resident previous complaint, and there were delays throughout its complaints process. It was appropriate the landlord acknowledged its delay and awarded the resident £50 in its final response. However, the Ombudsman considers that this level of compensation did not fully consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The Ombudsman has considered its own remedies guidance and awards the resident an additional £100 in compensation, for the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property, including leaks, subsidence and cracks in the ceilings and walls.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident being moved into temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer to another property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days of the issue of this report. The apology is to be in line with this Service’s guidance that it acknowledges the severe maladministration and maladministration, and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of:
1. Repairs to the property, including leaks, subsidence and cracks in the ceilings and walls.
2. The resident being moved into temporary accommodation.
3. The resident’s request for a transfer to another property.
4. The associated complaint.
The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £500 within 28 days of this report. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:
1. £300 for the resident being moved into temporary accommodation.
2. £100 for the resident’s request for a transfer to another property.
3. £100 for the associated complaint.
The landlord is to pay the resident the £2000 in compensation it awarded as part of her disrepair claim, if it has not already done so, within 28 days of this report.
The landlord is to pay the resident the £150 in compensation it awarded the resident as part of its stage 1 and 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so, within 28 days of this report.
Within 28 days, the landlord is to complete a survey of the outstanding repairs to the property. The landlord should draw up a schedule of works following the survey which is to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman and is to include timescales for the outstanding repairs to be completed. The repairs must be completed within a reasonable time period, in line with the landlord’s published timescales, and in line with industry best practice.

Within 8 weeks of this report, subject to the resident submitting her receipts, the landlord is to review and reimburse all reasonable costs, including food and taxi expenses incurred by the resident, during her period in temporary accommodation. It is then to update this service that it has done so.