The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212429)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212429

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 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 is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of repairs to living room flooring and staircase;
    2. decision not to replace the internal door architraves to the living room, bathroom and bedrooms;
    3. handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident occupies a three-bedroom house and her tenancy commenced in May 2009.
  2. Prior to the complaint, the resident had reported that spindles were missing from the staircase and the floorboards in the living room were lifting. In addition, after she had arranged privately for the landing to be plastered, the door architraves were recessed which was of concern to her; she stated that she was advised that new architraves would be put around the door casings. She said that workmen had been out to the property but had not completed all the repairs while some work was done to a poor standard and needed to be redone.
  3. The landlord was affected by a cyber incident in June 2022 which disrupted its services for a period of time and affected access to historic information. On 28 July 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord via the portal about the time taken for repairs and the poor quality of workmanship. She also complained about workmen arriving and not carrying out work, missed appointments, workmen arriving without appointment, workmen leaving rubbish in her garden and causing damage to her property, and how the landlord did not engage with her initial complaints.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 September 2022 via social media asking how to get her repairs completed. She had submitted multiple requests and complaints after the landlord had agreed to repair rotting joists and flooring, and to redo the architraves it had previously fitted. The resident also complained about loss of her annual leave days caused by workmen missing appointments. As the resident had not heard back regarding her complaint and repairs were outstanding, she contacted the Ombudsman on 9 September 2022. She said that a supervisor had acknowledged work needed to be redone but that in 5 months she was no further forward in having repairs completed.
  5. Following contact from this Service, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 October 2022. It said it was agreed it would replace all spindles on the staircase. When replacing the spindles, the filler used had not set properly and subsequently the landlord arranged to rectify this. It advised that it was the resident’s responsible to replace the architraves as the plaster work had been undertaken privately. It repaired the spindles on 13 September 2022 and fitted architraves over the originals on the hall and landing side resulting in a gap which would be infilled with timber. It offered £240 compensation made up of£100 for various repair failures, £90 for failure to keep appointments and £50 for the time taken to resolve the complaint.
  6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 3 October 2022 and again on 20 October 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 November 2022. It apologised for the missed appointments. It also stated it was never made aware that plastering had been carried out privately and therefore her request for replacing architraves inside rooms would not be carried out. It said that architraves were purely cosmetic and it did not carry out decorative works. Additionally, it acknowledged that the repairs to the floorboards took longer than it should and noted that the initial repair was carried out with flooring grade chipboard. It apologised that the resident had to repaint the hall but said there were no reports of any damage to paintwork or plastering prior to the complaint. Finally, it acknowledged and apologised for delays in its response at stage 1 and offered a further £50 for failing to address all the resident’s complaint points on top of its £240 offer at stage 1, making its final total compensation offer £290.
  7. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident wants the landlord to complete repairs to internal architraves in the living room, bedrooms and bathroom and to increase its offer of compensation to £600 to reflect the delays, stress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide records relating to the flooring, staircase and architraves such as correspondence and telephone contact notes relating to the resident’s repair reports; any records of the landlord’s investigation into the repairs; copies of any survey or inspection reports; the repairs logs; records of dates that the repairs were attended; and a statement of works completed at each visit. In this case, the landlord has provided no contemporaneous records, although it has provided internal emails that were generated in response to the Ombudsman’s request for evidence. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that a particular action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord experienced a cyber-security incident in mid-June 2022. It is noted this was outside the landlord’s control and the incident impacted its ability to access its repairs history, to process complaints or enquiries and to contact its residents. With that said, in the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report, we highlighted our expectation that landlords have “contingency plans in place in the event of unforeseen critical data incidents, such as cyber-attacks. Any landlord could find itself a victim of one. Landlords should consider how systems and information can be safeguarded in such an event, with planned workarounds to minimise disruption to service delivery”. As such, the landlord ought to have in place reasonable systems, such as back-ups to ensure that it could get back the data within a reasonable time.
  3. The evidence available suggests that the first formal complaint was on 28 July 2022. It is clear that issues had been reported and repairs commenced before July 2022, but there is no evidence of when issues were first reported. The investigation will use the information available and focus on whether the landlord followed its policies and treated the resident fairly in the circumstance.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to flooring and staircase

  1. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of these matters which resulted in detriment to the resident. The landlord acknowledged the floor repair took longer than it should have. 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:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right; and
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. On receiving a report of issues with the living room flooring and staircase, the landlord should have carried out an inspection in good time, established the root cause and an appropriate course of action, be it repair or replace, and undertaken the necessary works to resolve the issue at a time convenient to the resident. The landlord must also keep the resident updated throughout the period, notifying them of progress and any delays.
  3. The landlord’s repair policy distinguishes between emergency and non-emergency repairs, the former being one that “presents an immediate danger to the resident”. It was reasonable that the landlord took the view that the flooring and stair spindles did not present an immediate danger to the resident.
  4. Under this policy, appointments for non-emergency repairs are to be made “at the residents convenience” and will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being requested. The landlord’s website indicates non-emergency repairs have a target to complete the repair within 28 calendar days of it being reported. Its repairs policy states responsive repairs are limited to minor building repairs with a focus on keeping properties in a safe state, fit for habitation and with all components safe and serviceable for day-to-day use by residents. The Ombudsman understands that where specialist assessment and works are required, this 28 calendar days timeframe is not always possible. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to act proactively, not cause unreasonable delay, and keep the resident informed.
  5. With regard to the flooring, given the lack of repairs history as mentioned above, the first available evidence was the resident’s formal complaint dated 28 July 2022; however, the Ombudsman appreciates that this complaint referred to incomplete works and is indicative that the landlord had previously attended the property before July 2022. This has been taken into account in the investigation. Before July 2022, the resident reported an issue with the living room flooring and the landlord agreed to repair rotting joists and flooring.
  6. The resident stated she reported this around March 2022. While the Ombudsman cannot definitively say when the repair requests were first made, it is reasonable to conclude these were made before July 2022. From the limited information we have been provided with, the landlord had an open job for the floorboards which was booked for 9 September 2022. The landlord sent an email to the planning team to bring the appointment forward, but there was no availability.
  7. On 6 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord reminding it that work was agreed to repair rotting joists and flooring. She said she had pulled her carpet up in the living room so the landlord could inspect the floor but had not been given an appointment date for the flooring work. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 9 September 2022 explaining that she was having to walk around on bare floorboards.
  8. The landlord arranged a further appointment for two workmen to attend the property all day to complete outstanding work on 26 September 2022. However, it is unclear if this appointment was attended and, if so, what happened. An internal landlord email dated 28 September 2022 indicated it had replaced several floor joints and 4m2 of flooring in the living room. This would suggest some flooring work was carried out around 26 September 2022.
  9. In the resident’s reply to the stage 1 response, she said the landlord replaced the floorboard with a piece of MDF. She said she was unhappy as the MDF board was not flush with the rest of the floor and ‘bounces’ when walked over and that she was still unable to put carpeting over this. The landlord responded to this in its stage 2 response stating this was an initial temporary repair carried out with flooring grade chipboard – which was of a different thickness to the original boards – not MDF as indicated by the resident. It acknowledged that there were more extensive issues with the floor joists and an internal landlord email indicated the flooring was then completed on or before 21 October 2022. The landlord said that, following replacements of rotten joists and flooring, the floor was now level in each room. It noted there was a 3mm difference in height at the door between hall, living room and kitchen but proposed this could be covered with a threshold. The landlord also commented that it cannot ascertain when this issue was originally reported due to the lack of repairs history.
  10. Between July and October 2022, the landlord failed to update the resident. This was already beyond the 28 days for appointed repairs and the resident frequently chased for updates. When the landlord is unable to follow its outlined timeframes, it is good practice for it to liaise regularly with the resident to explain any difficulties and manage their expectations. However, in this case, there was no evidence the landlord communicated any of these delays to the resident during this period.
  11. The resident has fibromyalgia and reported that this was exacerbated by walking on bare floorboards. It is unclear if the landlord took this into account when scheduling the repairs; however, there is evidence the resident informed it of her health condition on 9 October 2022. The landlord should have sought to carry out repairs to an acceptable standard within a reasonable time frame. The Ombudsman considers the repair took around 90 calendar days from when the flooring was first reported and recognises that due to lack of repairs history it may have been somewhat longer than this. This was a significant amount of time to carry out a floorboard repair and was outside the landlord’s aim of completing non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days. This has been taken into account when considering whether there was an adverse impact on the resident.
  12. With regard to the staircase, the resident acknowledged that she removed the hard boxing-in of the staircase after it was damaged by a fallen step ladder. It is unclear if the resident informed the landlord of her intention to remove this, but the resident said she was told she could remove it. After the hard boxing was removed, the spindles were exposed, of which a number were missing. The resident duly reported this to the landlord; however, it is again not clear when this was first reported.
  13. An element of the resident’s complaint was that she said rubbish was left by the landlord’s contractors. It is noted the landlord did not agree with this and indicated it was left by the resident as a result of her stripping out the staircase boxing. However, the landlord acted fairly and appropriately by agreeing to remove this rubbish around 27 September 2022. This was a satisfactory approach for the landlord to take.
  14. On 6 September 2022, the landlord had an open job for making good previous work to the stairs handrail. This indicated that the initial repair to the spindles was carried out before 6 September 2022. There is also a note stating an workman had done work to the stairs around August 2022. It also noted a job was scheduled for 9 September 2022 to attend the spindles; however, it is unclear if this was attended.
  15. It is noted the resident said she did not ask for all the spindles to be replaced and it was reasonable for the landlord to initially agree to replace only the missing spindles. This was in line with its repair responsibilities which set out that the landlord is responsible for repairs to stairs and banisters. However, following the initial substandard repair carried out before September 2022, the landlord acted fairly by agreeing to replace all the spindles. An internal landlord email indicated that, likely on 26 September 2022, the landlord attended the property to undertake work to the spindles; however, on the resident’s request, it carried out work to the living room floor as she considered the flooring the more pressing concern. This demonstrates a willingness by the landlord to amicably resolve a non-emergency repair that the resident wanted at the time and this was good practice by the landlord. The landlord re-attended to carry out the outstanding spindle work on 17 and 18 October 2022. The resident confirmed on 20 October 2022 that she was happy with the completed spindle work.
  16. Given the lack of repairs history, it is unclear exactly when the resident reported the issue with the spindles, but it is reasonable to conclude it was made before July 2022. Although the landlord initially attended the repair on or before August 2022, it was agreed by both the resident and a supervisor that the initial repair was substandard and it was subsequently completed to standard around 18 October 2022. The Ombudsman considers the repair took around 90 calendar days from when the flooring was first reported and recognises that due to lack of repairs history it may have been somewhat longer than this. Like the flooring, this was well outside the landlord’s target of 28 calendar days.
  17. The resident asserted the landlord’s workmen caused damage to the paintwork and plastering of her son’s bedroom. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said that, having spoken to the area manager, there were no reports of damage to paintwork or plastering prior to the complaint. It has not been possible for the Ombudsman to confirm one way or another the extent of the damage due to the lack of information from both parties. While we cannot ascertain what happened and when and whether the landlord was responsible for this or was made aware of this, the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and then explained its position clearly.
  18. The landlord acknowledged in its formal responses that the flooring and staircase repairs took longer than they should have. In its compensation policy, it says it will offer a maximum of £50 for repairs which have gone over target time. It attempted to put things right by offering compensation of £100 for the service failure in completing the repairs to the floor and spindles, which took into account the time taken to complete work, failure to follow policy or process, and the resident having to repeatedly chase because of the lack of communication.
  19. Given the inordinate delays which resulted in the resident chasing for updates and contacting this Service as well as the fact of the resident’s health condition, the level of compensation offered was not proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident. In this Service’s view, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of flooring and spindles repairs. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord learnt from outcomes and it did not detail in its formal response any learning it had acquired or steps it would take to prevent a recurrence of this situation.
  20. The landlord’s compensation offer of £100 was in line with its compensation policy which suggests awards of £50 to £250 where it has failed to meet its service standards but the failure has had no significant impact on the resident. The resident has not accepted the offer to date and feels that the money offered did not reflect the number of errors the landlord made.
  21. With respect to appointments, in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, it would award £15 for failing to keep an appointment without giving 24 hours’ notice. In its formal responses, the landlord offered £90 for its failure to keep appointments which would equate to 6 missed appointments; however it is unclear exactly when these were. The Ombudsman appreciates the distress caused when annual leave has been taken only for workmen not to arrive, without being informed that this would be the case. This would have caused frustration; and this was clearly a resident who wanted to engage and work with her landlord to resolve the repair issue.
  22. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and compensate the resident for these missed appointments in line with its policy. The Ombudsman recognises the resident complained about taking annual leave days to accommodate scheduled appointments, some of which were not attended by workmen. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will not offer compensation payment for the resident’s loss of earnings when taking time off work to allow access to their home for repairs to be carried out.
  23. This is also consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine repairs. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order for a landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or have failed to resolve the repair issue.
  24. Overall, the landlord failed to undertake the repairs within a reasonable time and missed numerous appointments to resolve the issue. This would have undeniably caused distress to the resident who had to chase repairs over a long period. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs, which was not adequately put right. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there has been a failure that has adversely affected the resident. The Ombudsman has considered this as part of its orders and further compensation is due.

The landlord’s decision to not replace the internal architraves to the living room, bathroom and bedrooms

  1. As previously stated, the limited repairs records history has greatly impeded the landlord’s and this Service’s ability to establish the facts. While it is impossible for the Ombudsman to confirm one way or another what was agreed regarding the architraves, the landlord’s stance was clear in its final response which stated it would not carry out cosmetic work on the architraves inside the living room, bathroom and bedrooms.
  2. The resident acknowledged that, prior to the complaint, she arranged privately to have her landing re-plastered.  It was the resident’s own choice to do this and was not at the request of the landlord; it also appears that the resident did not inform the landlord of her intention. The landlord stated the plaster had been applied up to the original architraves which as a result were recessed, and from the correspondence it appears the resident felt this affected her ability to get a clean line of paint when decorating. The landlord stated that her original request had been for the landlord to remove the existing architraves and put in new ones. The resident disputes that she asked to remove the architraves; it appears that after she reported her issue with the architraves, she was given conflicting information by the manager and a workman. The resident stated the workmen informed her that architraves would be fitted for all doorways, but this Service has seen no email evidence that supports this.
  3. The landlord stated that when the resident requested the architraves be replaced, it advised her that this would be her responsibility given that she had caused the issue by her own works. It also noted this was a purely cosmetic issue as it did not affect the opening and closing of the door.
  4. However, when a workman attended to carry out the staircase spindle repair, he obliged by installing new architraves over the original ones on the landing side and the hallway side. He said this was an appropriate course of action given the amount of work that would be involved in removal of the architraves and disturbance of the plaster. From the resident’s emails to the landlord, it appears this was carried out around July 2022. There was a small gap between the newly fitted architraves and wall which the landlord duly infilled with timber when it attended again on 18 October 2022. The Ombudsman identifies that this was a long time from when the resident first reported the architraves; however, in line with its repairs policy, the landlord may undertake work for which it is not responsible and there is no set time frame for this type of work.
  5. The workman thought he was doing the right thing by fitting new architraves in accordance with the resident’s request whereas the landlord considered the architraves on the landing side were an issue created by the tenant, and a manager had previously declined to carry out work on them. The resident’s view is that new architraves were agreed but the landlord now deems the work to be cosmetic. The resident accepts cosmetic repairs would not be the landlord’s responsibility but that work on the architraves was agreed and partially carried out by the workmen.  The resident feels that as it was agreed by workmen acting on behalf of the landlord, the landlord should stick to their word. The resident informed this Service that she considers the work to the architraves inside the living room, bathroom and three bedrooms is outstanding. She states the architraves on the landing side and hall side have already been done and she fails to see why the landlord completed half of the architrave work if it considers that such work is cosmetic.
  6. It was understandable why the landlord felt the architraves were cosmetic as they had no effect on the function of the door; the doors were still able to be opened and closed. In terms of the landlord’s repair responsibilities, despite it stating in its stage 2 response that architraves are purely cosmetic and it does not carry out cosmetic work, its website states that it is responsible for repairs to internal doors, frames, thresholds, architraves and stops. Its communication, therefore, in relation to whether or not carrying out work on architraves was its responsibility was misleading, and would have caused confusion to the resident.
  7. While the landlord has an obligation to repair damaged architraves, the Ombudsman would reasonably not expect a landlord to carry out a repair or replacement of something that was satisfactory. On 21 October 2022, the landlord considered all issues the resident had raised had been resolved. Additionally, the landlord inspected the property on 31 July 2023 and was satisfied that all works to the property were complete. It therefore did not engage in the mediation proposal put forward by this Service. This was a satisfactory approach for the landlord to take.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s decision not to replace the architraves inside the rooms was reasonable on the basis there was no information to suggest the architraves inside the rooms needed to be repaired. As such, the Ombudsman will not ask the landlord to do any more with respect to the internal architraves. However, if the architraves inside the living room, bathroom and bedrooms are damaged and in need of repair, the landlord should carry this out. In view of this, a recommendation has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord operated an interim complaints policy which was effective from 17 June 2022. Its policy states residents can make a complaint via live chat or online or social media. The landlord operates a 2-staged procedure. On receiving a formal complaint, the landlord aims to acknowledge and log at stage 1 within 10 working days. It aims to respond to complaints received after 17 June 2022 within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, they may request a peer review. On request for a peer review (stage 2), the landlord aims to log and acknowledge within 10 working days and to provide its peer review response in 40 working days.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 28 July 2022, but did not receive a response. The resident therefore referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 9 September 2022 and while she stated at this time that she had made a complaint to the landlord in May 2022, this Service has seen no email or screenshot evidence to corroborate this. On 24 September 2022, the Ombudsman requested the landlord provide a response to the complaint which it subsequently issued on 3 October 2022. This was 46 working days after the formal complaint and was only issued after this Service intervened. This was inappropriate.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued in a reasonable time: the escalation request was initially received on 3 October 2022. The landlord did not reply to this email and the resident rang the landlord on 20 October 2022 to escalate. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 November 2022. This was around 28 working days which was in line with its interim complaints policy which aims for its peer review to be issued in 40 working days. However, it remains the case that it did not adhere to its timescales in its complaints policy with respect to issuing its stage 1 response. Additionally, the landlord did not address all of the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response missing her concerns about workmen arriving with appointments, length of time taken for the repairs, rubbish left in garden, lifting floorboard and its repair and damage to existing painted rooms. The Ombudsman also notes the landlord failed to acknowledge the formal complaint and escalation request and despite her request for a copy of its complain procedure, it is not clear if this was provided.
  4. Overall, the landlord did not dispute there were service failings in its complaint handling. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays and poor communication and complaints handling, for which it offered £100 overall compensation. This was broken down as £50 for time taken to resolve the complaint and £50 for failing to address all the resident’s concerns in her complaint. This was in line with its compensation policy which states compensation payments may be paid at the discretion of the investigating manager and may be offered in recognition of the time and trouble taken by a resident to make their complaint, along with distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  5. The compensation award for its complaint handling failures was also in line with the suggested award in the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which suggests an award of between £50 to £100 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. As such, the Ombudsman considered the landlord adequately put this aspect of the complaint right by way of an apology and its offer of compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to living room flooring and staircase.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to not replace the internal architraves to the living room, bathroom and bedrooms.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress for its failings in complaint handling that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Order and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord must pay the resident a further £150 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of repairs to living room flooring and staircase.
  1. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £290 offered in its stage 2 responses if it has not done so already.
  1. It is recommended that the landlord inspect the internal architraves and if it considers the internal architraves warrant repair, then in line with its repair responsibilities and repairs and maintenance policy, it should carry this out within a reasonable a time.