Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212249)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212249

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 June 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s decant following a fire in her home.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about smoke alarms in her home and communal areas.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She started her tenancy in December 2019. Her home is a flat, in which she lives with her two children.
On 12 May 2022 the resident experienced a major fire in her home. Nobody was injured, but significant damage was caused and she and her family were immediately decanted to temporary accommodation. The fire brigade report states the fire was started by an electrical fault in a television.
In July 2022 the resident’s local authority wrote to the landlord on her behalf. It explained the resident had mental ill health and a fire phobia, which it said had been impacted by the incident. It said the resident had told it she was pregnant at the time, and that she and her family would benefit from some stability during the decant. It also explained the resident was reluctant to return to her home because of the fire, and was seeking a permanent move. It asked the landlord to give her some clarity about the decant and whether a permanent move could be offered. The resident also provided letters from her carers supporting her desire to move permanently.
Over the rest of 2022 the resident resided in nine different temporary accommodation venues, including hotels and serviced apartments. Her stays at each location ranged from a few days to up to three months. The landlord’s internal records state it offered the resident two different temporary homes over the period, which she declined for various reasons.
The resident complained to the landlord via the Ombudsman in October 2022. She complained about its handling of the fire aftermath and the decant, saying that she had not been kept updated about progress, and that the number of accommodation moves had been disruptive for her family. She also complained that the fire alarms in the property had not worked at the time of the fire.
The landlord sent its complaint response in December 2022. It provided a history of the decant and its actions in support of the resident during it, but acknowledged that at times she had “been left to navigate the decant process through the Insurer directly and have not been provided with the next steps, You have also been left till the day the decant ends to then be contacted and advised what and where you will be moving to next.” It confirmed the repair work was scheduled to be completed by the end of the month, and explained the further steps it planned to take to assist her with her move home, and with her desire to move elsewhere. It addressed the resident’s concerns about the fire alarms, explaining that testing was the resident’s responsibility, but also that alarms do not sound in all circumstances. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience its handling of matters had caused and offered the resident £400 compensation in light of it, with an additional £50 for its delayed complaint response.
Repair and renovation work on the resident’s home was completed by the start of 2023, and she returned on 18 January 2023.
The resident escalated her complaint in January 2023. She repeated her concerns about the alarms, saying they had not worked or been delayed in her home and the communal areas. She complained again about the impact on her family from the decant, especially in regard to exacerbating her already existing mental health problems. She disagreed with the level of compensation the landlord had offered.
The landlord sent its final complaint response on 16 February 2023. As part of its investigations it had obtained the fire brigade report of the incident. It repeated its previous explanations about the alarms, but also provided further detail about why they had not sounded. It said there was no indication they had been faulty. It gave a history of its repair activities for the flat and explained why they had taken several months. It addressed the resident’s request to be permanently moved, explaining why her circumstances did not meet the criteria for that, but again said it would assist her with other options. It provided further details about the support it had provided to her during the decant and with her move back to her home, but acknowledged how distressing and frustrating the resident had found the process to be. It offered her an additional amount of compensation of £300 in light of her experience, and £50 for its delayed final complaint response.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She repeated her complaint about the fire alarms, and the landlord’s handling of the decant.
In March 2024 the landlord further reviewed the level of compensation it had offered the resident. It concluded the amount did not reflect the level of impact from the decant on the resident and her family, and offered a further £600.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

In her complaints to the landlord and the Ombudsman the resident has explained that the decants she experienced impacted on her and her family’s health and mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman’s remit includes considering distress caused by a landlord’s actions, but issues of damage to health constitute a personal injury claim. They are outside the complaints process and the Ombudsman’s remit and expertise. Such claims are more appropriately determined by way of legal action, and the resident is recommended to seek legal advice if she believes her or her family’s health has been impacted by the landlord’s actions.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord has a vulnerable residents policy, which explains it provides “additional support and responds flexibly to residents who are facing exceptional circumstances that can make them more vulnerable and unable to cope and manage…and where appropriate vary our service delivery to ensure vulnerable residents still receive the same level of service.”
The landlord’s decant policy states it considers decanting a tenant in exceptional circumstances when their property is uninhabitable and it is not possible to conduct repairs with them still there. It states the decant should last only as long as it takes to complete the repairs, and the choice of accommodation to decant a tenant to depends on a “number of factors such as, the availability and suitability of accommodation, the relative costs, the personal circumstances of the household, and the length of time the tenant needs to be moved for.”
The landlord’s decant information on its website states that “if a home has been damaged by something like a fire, you may first need to move to short-term accommodation while we assess the damage or find you longer-term accommodation… For longer decants, it may mean living in an alternative Clarion home, a local council property, or a private rented home.”

Handling of the resident’s decant following a fire in her home

Over the time of her decant the resident lived in nine different venues. The first move was done on the day of the fire, and it was understandable that she would potentially need to move again once the damage and her family needs had been assessed. That was what appears to have happened. Her first stay was for one week. The second was for approximately three months. At that point the decant appears to have been managed reasonably in line with the resident’s needs for secure temporary accommodation and the landlord’s own processes.
After August 2022 and up to her final move home in January 2023 the resident moved seven more times. One of the stays was for only two days. The landlord’s records and complaint response explain that the reasons for the number of moves was partly because the scale of the repairs changed meaning a longer decant than initially expected, and accommodation availability. Other reasons shown in the records centred on the cost of the accommodation in regard to the amount permitted by the landlord’s insurers. These were clearly relevant and important factors for the landlord to consider, and to some extent, given the scale of the repairs, it was possible that providing a single location to stay for the full duration was not feasible or possible.
Nonetheless, the landlord was aware of the resident’s family situation and the impact events were having on her. No clear evidence has been presented of the landlord (at the stage the multiple moves started) considering or balancing her specific needs against the practicalities of the situation. That was counter to the landlord’s vulnerable resident policy, and shows failings in its management of the decant.
After August 2022 the situation became worse in regard to her being moved multiple times in a short period. These were either hotels, serviced apartments, or similar. The landlord’s records state that some of these moves were notified to the resident with little time for her to prepare or make arrangements. Overall, the number of moves the resident had to make, and the management of them, shows a lack of oversight and appreciation of her circumstances.
The evidence shows that by November 2022 the landlord had offered two properties to the resident as possibilities for her long-term decant. In an internal email the landlord stated the properties had been declined by the resident. She explained her reasons for doing so, and the decision was hers to make. Nonetheless, the landlord’s offer would have potentially eliminated the need for the resident to move so frequently, it was in line with its decant procedure, and it showed the landlord was at that point aware of the need for greater stability in her housing.
The length of time needed for the repairs appears to be primarily due to the scale and nature of the damage to the resident’s home. The landlord’s internal correspondence states work could not start until the resident had removed her belongings from the flat, which had happened by early August 2022. Works were finished by early January 2023. Nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation indicates the landlord missed any opportunities to complete the work more speedily than it did. Accordingly, the length of the decant reflected the time needed for the repairs, and not any specific failings by the landlord.
In response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the decant the landlord acknowledged it had not handled it well, and that this had had an impact on the resident’s experience, especially in light of her mental health issues. It explained it had attempted to provide additional support to the resident in recognition of her circumstances through its specialist customer services, and this had included making a safeguarding alert when it had had concerns about her welfare. It explained why the resident had not met the criteria for a permanent managed move, but also confirmed that it had been assisting her to make a mutual exchange application.
In further recognition of the resident’s circumstances the landlord agreed to extend her decant beyond the point when the property was ready to move back to. It did that at the request of the resident’s care team to allow her time to mentally prepare for the return. That was counter to its decant policy, but demonstrated its flexibility to adapt its processes to the needs of its tenants, especially vulnerable ones. As part of its other support it worked with the local authority to try to obtain replacement furniture for the resident, and also arranged some white goods. Not all of these offers were taken up by the resident, but they demonstrated the landlord’s awareness of the resident’s situation and needs, and that it was attempting to assist her with her return to her home.
In its complaint response the landlord explained there had been damage caused at one of the places the resident stayed. This had amounted to costs of £988, which it said it paid for. The original report to the landlord about this has not been seen in this investigation, but its explanation reflects the internal correspondence from its officers and it was not disputed by the resident. Its decision to waive these charges when it would usually have been entitled to recharge the resident further demonstrated its appreciation of her circumstances and its own shortcomings.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £700 for what it recognised was its poor oversight of the decant, and the inconvenience and distress that had caused. That was at the top of its compensation policy’s suggestion for situations where there considerable failure (including the landlord not taking focused responsibility and overview of its services), but where there has been no permanent impact. In this case, there is no evidence the original fire was the result of any failings by the landlord, and the decant was an unavoidable aspect of the scale of the damage caused and time needed to complete the repairs. The landlord’s failure was in not keeping sufficient oversight and awareness of the resident’s decant situation which, if it had done, may have reduced the number of accommodation moves she experienced. At the same time it offered some of its own properties, which also might have reduced the decant’s impact. In that context, the compensation offered by the landlord was appropriately in line with its policy.
As was explained above, the resident told the landlord and the Ombudsman that the number of moves she experienced during the decant impacted on her and her family’s physical and mental wellbeing, and she sought significant compensation because of that. This investigation cannot determine personal injury, and the consideration of the compensation offered centres on what was reasonable in light of the inconvenience and broad distress experienced.
One of the fundamental principles of good complaint handling, which is emphasised in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, is that a landlord learns from complaints and uses them to improve its services. In this case the landlord’s internal correspondence clearly shows it acknowledged it had not handled the decant well, particularly in regard to the number of moves and short notice given. In an email in December 2022 the landlord explained there were lessons it could take from the resident’s experiences, and it committed to doing so.
Overall, it is very clear that the resident found her decant experiences challenging, frustrating, and distressing. In the circumstances, her concerns were wholly understandable. The landlord acknowledged that it had not managed the decant as well as it should, especially in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities. To remedy its service failures it provided a wide range of support and allowances specific to her needs, apologised, took lessons from the complaint, and offered a proportionate and level of compensation. These remedies demonstrated the landlord appreciated the scale and impact of its errors, and were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint.
The further compensation offered to the resident by the landlord in 2024 was outside the complaints process, and done at the landlord’s own discretion. It does not impact on the conclusion reached here that the original compensation offered was reasonable when considered alongside the other remedies the landlord provided.

Response to the resident’s concerns about smoke alarms in her home and communal areas

The resident complained to the landlord that the smoke alarms in the property had not sounded when the fire started. She said they had only started sounding once the fire brigade arrived. She was understandably concerned by this and believed it meant the alarms had not been working. In response the landlord explained it had discussed the issue with its fire safety staff and obtained the fire brigade incident report. It explained in detail why smoke alarms do not always sound immediately, depending on the nature and scale of the fire and level of smoke particles in the air. It also explained how the specific circumstances of the fire and how quickly it was reported to the fire brigade, impacted on whether the alarms sounded or not.
A copy of the fire brigade report and an alarm test done at the time of the fire have been provided for this investigation, along with the landlord’s internal advice from its fire safety manager. All of that evidence supports the landlord’s explanation that the alarms were working, and that they, along with the resident, correctly alerted the fire brigade. Accordingly, the landlord’s response to the complaint was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In line with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of her decant following a fire in her home.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about smoke alarms in her home and communal areas.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged the failings in its handling of the decant, particularly around the number of moves it involved. It subsequently provided a wide range of reasonable and appropriate remedies in light of its failings and in recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the smoke alarms accurately reflected the specialist advice and fire brigade information it received about the issue.