Clarion Housing Association Limited (202213025)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213025

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 January 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:
1. Handling of repairs to the extractor fans.
2. Response to reports of a water leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a joint shared ownership lease with the landlord, which is a housing association. The lease commenced on 1 October 2019.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat.
For the purposes of this report, the leaseholders are referred to as ‘the resident’. There are no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Summary of events

On 8 July 2020 an ‘end of defects’ report was produced. It noted that due to COVID-19 the end of defects inspection did not take place. It also stated that the resident had reported a damp patch on the living room ceiling.
On 11 August 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that her property came out of the 1 year defects period on 1 May 2020. It said that regular checks were carried out when the property was empty, and any defects noted.
On 20 August 2020 the landlord’s sales team sent an internal email to say the only contact it had with the resident about defects was prior to 2020 lockdown, when the flat was still in the defects period. The leak was raised as an issue and rectified at the time This involved redecorating the area in question because there was no evidence of an active leak.
In her submission to the landlord for the purposes of her stage 2 complaint, the resident advised that water started dripping from the spotlight on 20 January 2021. This occurred during a time of heavy rain and wind. The builder inspected but could not find an active leak.
The landlord’s records show that a further inspection took place on 11 February 2021. The moisture readings taken were normal, and a camera used to detect signs of ingress did not return any positive findings.
On 5 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to chase its response to resolving the defects in her property, which she said she first reported in January. She was concerned the leak would reoccur in heavy rain and was concerned about associated damp. She said the extractor fans in her bathrooms had never worked and the condition of the walls were being affected by water running down them.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 May 2021 to book an appointment to inspect the damp patch on the living room ceiling and the reoccurring leak. Following a number of communications between the landlord and resident regarding availability, an appointment was booked for 24 May to redecorate the stain on the ceiling.
On 26 May 2021 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
2. The builder had investigated the leak and reported that it could not find an active leak in the property.
3. An appointment was booked for 24 May to decorate the ceiling where the stain had appeared, as a previous attempt had not covered it.
4. The complaint was partially upheld in relation to the repainting of the water stain.
5. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in the complaint response and £50 for the delay in painting the water stain.
On 18 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to request a letter to say they would not be liable for any work if the same leak reoccurred. She said they were still waiting for other reported items to be completed which had been outstanding since they moved in.
On 21 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to say it could not state that she would not be liable for any further leaks. It said that as the issue was raised during the defect liability period, the builder would be asked to rectify the problem should it reoccur. As the defect period had expired, the resident would be responsible for any issues which occurred at the property. The only issue that was due to be dealt with was the leak and that had been resolved.
On 18 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to make a further formal complaint about the number of outstanding works to be carried out at the property, including the faulty extractor fans in both bathrooms.
On 31 August 2021 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response as follows:
1. The resident had confirmed that the contractor attended the property on 12 August 2021. The contractor had subsequently advised the landlord that the extractor fans were found to be working as intended.
2. In recognition of the time taken to resolve the complaint it offered £400, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delay in issuing its complaint response.
  2. £200 for inconvenience.
  3. £150 for time and trouble for chasing responses.
On 14 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord raise her concerns about the investigation into the fault with the extractor fan. She requested a copy of her ventilation certificate as it was not part of the sales pack.
On 1 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to report that on 31 of October, water had started dripping through the same spotlight. This was the third leak, leaving the resident feeling frustrated and let down again by the landlord. She asked that the landlord provide a final resolution to the issue.
The landlord replied on the same day, 1 November, to say that the builder would not accept the repair because the defect period had expired. It suggested the resident make a claim to the building warranty provider, National House Building Council (NHBC). It sent a further email to the resident, also on 1 November, to apologise for an error in its earlier email. It said the warranty provider was not NHBC, it was ‘premier guarantee’.
It said that when it visited to make good to the ceiling again in May 2021 there was no sign of any leak in that area. Moisture readings taken at that time showed no sign of recent water ingress, so it would be reasonable to assume that there was no leak at that time, or in the recent past.
It said it would attempt to recall the builder to the issue, because the leak was reported as being in the same place as previously. However, it said it had so far been unsuccessful in doing so and recommended the resident contacting the warranty provider as well. With regard to the problems reported with condensation in the bathroom, and the reports from the electrician, it was in the process of arranging for a surveyor to test the flow rates and provide a report on the ventilation system. If there was a defect, it would attempt to recall the builder to the problem as a latent defect.
On 1 November 2021 the landlord sent an internal email to request that a survey and report on the ventilation system be carried out.
On 9 November 2021 the landlord sent an internal email to clarify whether the work had been booked in because the resident was “chasing regularly.” On 17 November it followed up on the email because it had not received a response and the resident was still chasing. The matter was referred to the repairs team who were asked to respond.
On 1 and 3 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update because she had not heard from the surveyor.
An internal document shows that the resident’s next stage 1 complaint was received on 9 February 2022. This investigation has not seen a copy of the complaint but the landlord’s definition that it was about issues relating to the leak and extractor fan was not disputed by the resident.
On 17 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had not been able to find the exact cause of the leak. It had also been unable to get the original contractor back to investigate. It had contacted premier guarantee who would not consider it because it was a latent defect. It said it intended to instruct another survey to be carried out “as a matter of urgency.”
On 23 February 2022 the landlord’s customer care team emailed the resident to confirm that investigations were ongoing and it would provide an update as soon as possible.
On 24 February 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the contractor would be contacting her shortly to arrange the survey. The builder had said it was willing to return to rectify any issues found. It was also arranging to test the extractor fans.
On 28 February 2022 the landlord’s customer care team emailed the resident to confirm that investigations were ongoing and it would provide an update as soon as possible.
On 2 March 2022 the landlord’s customer care team sent an internal email to advise that responses had not been provided to enable it to issue a complaint response. It said it believed that members of the team were not using the database and support was sought. The request was escalated to senior members of staff on 3 March.
The landlord’s customer care team sent a further holding email to the resident on 2 March 2022.
On 9 March 2022 the customer care team sent a holding email to the resident. An internal email was also sent on the same date to confirm that the ‘delivery team’ had picked up the complaint. It had appointed a consultant to manage the whole process and liaise directly with the resident.
The landlord’s customer care team sent a further holding email to the resident on 21 March 2022.
The landlord’s records dated 25 March 2022 show that it was waiting for an appointment to take place on 8 April before it replied to the complaint. It said it needed to include an action plan in its response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 31 March 2022 to confirm that appointments had been booked for the following week and that once these had taken place it would provide its complaint outcome and response as soon as possible.
On 7 April 2022 a report on defects was produced for the landlord. It concluded that the ventilation was not running at adequate or appropriate rates as required in the bathroom and ensuite. A new valve with built in humidistat should be installed. It noted that no leaks had been reported in the past 2 months. Having carried out tests in the flat above, there were no defects. Damp readings were taken and no abnormal moisture levels were detected. It recommended that the situation be monitored.
On 12 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to seek an update on the survey.
On 13 April 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had received the survey report. It said the balcony above had been tested and there were no further leaks. It advised it would monitor over the coming months and asked the resident to report any further signs of water damage. It confirmed that the ventilation rates for extractor fans were below what they should have been and that it would remedy the issue.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord and resident tried to contact one another to discuss the complaint. The resident eventually emailed to set out her complaint which was acknowledged by the landlord the following day, on 15 April.
An internal email was sent by the landlord on 14 April 2022 which confirmed that issues had been passed between departments since November 2021 and that an inspection did not take place until 7 April 2022.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response.
2. It apologised for the delays in having to raise the issues again and agreed there had been a “lack of communication and the matter was not handled efficiently.”
3. Feedback had been provided to the teams handling the complaint.
4. It was satisfied that the issues were previously addressed in May and August 2021. However, there had been significant delays since November 2021 and therefore the complaint was upheld.
5. The regional director was now handling the case.
6. It offered £300 compensation comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delay in its complaint response.
  2. £50 for the delay in repairing the extractor fan.
  3. £200 for inconvenience.
On 25 April 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say that the solutions to remedy the ventilation rate of the extractor fans were not completely clear and it had therefore requested further information. It apologised for the delay.
The resident replied on the same day, 25 April, to acknowledge the landlord’s position. However, she expressed concern about further damage being caused to the walls should she continue to use the shower.
On 26 April 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the walls had been constructed with moisture resistant plasterboard and were designed to work in damp conditions. It also said that there was some extraction and air movement from the fans and this also limited the potential for damage. The resident replied the same day to say that the paint on the walls had been ruined. They had decided not to use the shower in the meantime which was not fair. She also requested a ventilation certificate for the bathrooms.
The landlord emailed the resident on the same day, 26 April, to confirm that there was no reason for the ensuite to not be used because doing so would not cause any damage. It said that the ventilation certificate formed part of building control sign off and it would not have achieved final certification without it. The resident replied later that day to request a copy of the survey report. The landlord emailed the resident, also on the same day, to confirm that it would contact her again once it had received the report from the consultant.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 26 April 2022, in response to its stage 1 complaint response. She remained dissatisfied about the leak because the ongoing issues were causing inconvenience. She gave the example of having to rearrange furniture or place a bucket underneath the spotlight when they went on holiday. She also expressed frustration that the extractor fans had “never worked.”
On 5 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say it expected to receive the further report at the end of the week and would be in touch the following week to discuss next steps. On 20 May the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it was in receipt of the report which it would review and then contact the resident to discuss. It apologised for the delay in resolving the matter.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the extraction system was not extracting at the correct rates. It intended to follow the recommendation to replace the ventilation units, along with any associated damage caused.
On 21 June 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to obtain suitable dates for installation of the extractor fan. It also said that a water ingress survey had been carried out to the balcony above which showed there was no water ingress. It confirmed this would be monitored, particularly in times of heavy rain.
On 23 June 2022 the resident sent the landlord a report for her stage 2 complaint. A request was made for it to review the level of compensation because the amount did not reflect that the “relentless, ageing saga which was yet to be satisfactorily and efficiently concluded”. She also sought reassurance that if the problem were to reoccur it would be dealt with promptly.
On 1 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update further to its last email dated 21 June.
On 4 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that a contractor had been appointed and that it would follow up to make sure the work was booked in.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to see if she had received contact from the contractor. It confirmed it had chased them directly. An undated email from the resident confirmed that she had been advised a potential start date of 18 July and that the contractor had said it would confirm.
On 15 July 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response, the main points were:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response which it said was due to a cyber attack.
2. There had been no leaks for 2 months prior to the independent property inspection and tests carried out did not reveal any defects. Based on the report, it felt the leak was resolved but that if it reoccurred it should be reported so it could investigate and isolate the issue.
3. It was in the process of checking the warranties of the extraction units and was pricing the works. It would contact the resident in due course to arrange access.
4. It apologised for the delays in resolving the issues and had reassessed the level of compensation awarded at stage 1.
5. The compensation offered at stage 1 did not consider poor communication, delays, misinformation and repeat visits.
6. It offered a further £250 for further failures identified and £50 for the delay in its complaint response.

Events post internal complaints process

Between 19 July and 3 August 2022 the resident and landlord exchanged emails about a start date for works.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 August 2022 to clarify whether the works were to fix the ventilation or to make good the walls in the bathroom as well. She asked for confirmation as to who was doing what.
On 17 August 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to say that a month on from its final response, the extractor fan issue had not been resolved.
On 12 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that the contractor had attended and had told her that the extractor fan was not working because a pipe was not connected. The ceiling had to be opened to connect the pipe which has been filled in. The contractor had said it would return to remedy the paint work. It also confirmed that it would provide a ventilation certificate.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 September 2022 to request that the landlord “properly (professionally) and in a timely manner” carry out repairs to the leak. She said that having advised it that contact would be made with us, the fans had just been replaced and remedial decoration done. The redecoration was poor and needed attention. She also requested a copy of the ventilation certificate.
Between 20 and 26 September 2022 the resident and landlord exchanged several emails in order to clarify which paint colour the resident had chosen to redecorate the ceiling. On 5 October the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it believed work was being arranged for that week.
The resident emailed this Service on 7 December 2023 to confirm that she had been provided with a copy of the ventilation certificate, dated 9 September 2022 and received by her on 23 September. She also confirmed that there were no outstanding works in relation to the leak.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s Obligations, policies and procedures

A landlord’s repairing obligation is under section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the dwelling house.
The terms of the resident’s lease say the:
1. Resident is responsible for the repair and upkeep of the premises.
2. Landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing ventilation apparatus and machinery under and upon the building.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that mechanical and electrical maintenance is excluded from its responsive repairs services.
Up to June 2022 the landlord’s complaints policy set out its 2 stage complaints process in which it aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It aimed to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Following a cyber attack in June 2022, its interim complaints policy said it aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 days and to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy breaks down its payments of compensation as:
1. £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact.
2. £250 to £700 for cases where there is considerable failure but no permanent impact.
3. £700 and above where there has been significant and serious long term affect, including physical and/or emotional impact.

Extractor fans

On 5 April 2021 the resident advised the landlord that the extractor fans in the bathrooms had “never worked.” The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s report which was inappropriate. This was because she was caused inconvenience, time and trouble in having to raise it again in her complaint of 18 July. In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 31 August 2021, the landlord said during its visit of 12 August the extractor fans were found to be working as intended. It is acknowledged that there is no evidence that the resident challenged this outcome immediately after the response was issued.
However, on 14 October 2021 the resident raised ongoing concerns with the landlord. In the landlord’s reply of1 November it appropriately said it would arrange further testing of the ventilation system. On 9 November the landlord noted that the resident was “repeatedly chasing” an update and asked the repairs team to respond. The resident sent chasing emails on 1 and 3 December. It was not reasonable that there had been no progress and no updates provided to the resident 1 month on from when the landlord said it would arrange further testing.
As the landlord’s inaction continued the resident was caused inconvenience and time and trouble in having to make a stage 2 complaint on 9 February 2022. On 24 February the landlord emailed the resident to confirm its intention to test the fans. It is unclear why, nearly 3 months on, it had still not done so and the delay was unreasonable.
By 9 March 2022 the ongoing issue was referred to a senior member of staff who was to manage the situation from that point onwards. The survey was conducted on 7 April. This was 5 months after the landlord originally said it arrange the tests. Furthermore, it is unclear why the outcome of this survey was different to the outcome of the one referred to in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 31 August 2021. Given that the resident’s concerns remained constant throughout this period, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered this point and provide an explanation to the resident.
In her complaint of 5 April 2022 the resident raised concerns about the effect of the increased condensation on the walls. This was not addressed by the landlord in its response but following a further exchange of emails on 25 and 26 April, the landlord advised her that the plasterboard was designed to work in moist conditions and that she could continue to use the ensuite. It failed to recognise her distress about the poor condition of the paintwork which was unreasonable. This demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issues and the distress caused to the resident by the substantive issue.
The landlord received the additional information from the consultant on 20 May 2022 and appropriately advised it would replace the ventilation units as per the advice. By the time of its stage 2 complaint response of 15 July, the landlord was still in the process of arranging the works, almost 2 months later. The works were eventually conducted on or around 9 September 2022. This was 17 months after the issue was first raised by the resident on 5 April 2021 which was unreasonable.
A copy of the ventilation certificate was requested on 14 October 2021 and 26 April 2022. A certificate dated 9 September 2022 was provided on 23 September 2022. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why the original certificate was not included in the sales pack and why it was only able to provide one when the new system was installed on 9 September. This was unreasonable.
In an internal email dated 14 April 2022 the landlord acknowledged that resolution of the issues had stalled since November 2021. In its stage 1 complaint response of 14 April 2022 the landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in repairing the fan and £200 for inconvenience.
In its stage 2 response of 15 July the landlord offered a further £250, considering poor communication, delays and misinformation and repeat visits. The stage 2 response was issued in relation to multiple issues and the landlord did not confirm how the compensation was apportioned. It is therefore difficult to know how much of the additional compensation was allocated to the delays with the extractor fans.
However, the landlord identified and acknowledged its failings and took steps to put things right by:
1. Making an offer of compensation which was reasonable given that there was no significant physical or emotional impact and the fans were working, albeit in a limited capacity.
2. Carrying out works to the ventilation system as recommended by the consultant.
3. Restoring the resident’s position by carrying out redecoration works.
4. Providing a ventilation compliance certificate.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in addressing the resident’s concerns about the extractor fans. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider paying between £250 to £700 for cases where there is considerable failure but no permanent impact. Therefore, this investigation considers that while there were unreasonable delays, and landlord’s handling of the situation could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Leak

The landlord’s records show that the resident reported the leak while the property was still within the defects period, as noted on the end of defects report dated 8 July 2020. An internal email dated 20 August 2020 confirms that the leak was rectified at the time by the builder. There was no evidence of an active leak however, the stained area was redecorated.
The resident reported a further leak to the landlord on 20 January 2021. The builder’s subsequent inspection could not detect an active leak. A more detailed investigation, carried out on 11 February, also did not detect any signs of a leak. Given that this was the second leak in the same location, it was appropriate that a thorough investigation was conducted using specialist equipment.
On 5 April 2021 the resident reported concerns that the leak would reoccur in heavy rain and was concerned about associated damp. The landlord responded appropriately by carrying out an inspection, as confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response of 26 May 2021. The leak was not active at the time of the inspection. However the landlord appropriately agreed to redecorate the area that had not been properly painted over previously. It also offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience of not carrying this out satisfactorily the first time.
On 1 November 2021 the resident reported that a further leak had occurred in the same place on 31 October. In the landlord’s email to the resident on 21 June 2021 it said that because the original leak was raised during the defect liability period, the builder would be asked to rectify the problem should the same leak reoccur. However, when it emailed the resident on 1 November, it said that because the defect period had expired, the builder would not accept the repair. It suggested the resident make a claim to the building warranty provider NHBC. This was an error which it later corrected in a further email that same day.
The landlord’s response was confusing and contradictory which caused further frustration and distress to the resident. This was because she could not be confident that the landlord’s response would lead to a timely resolution of the ongoing intermittent leak.
On 17 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had been unable to get the builder back to remedy the leak. It had contacted premier guarantee but they would not consider it because it was a latent defect. It therefore appropriately instructed another survey to be carried out ‘as a matter of urgency.”
The survey report provided to the landlord on 7 April 2022 noted that no leaks had been reported in the 2 months prior to the survey being carried out. At the time of the inspection there were no defects identified in the property above. No abnormal moisture levels were detected in the property. While there was no action to be taken, it recommended that the situation be monitored.
On 26 April 2022 the resident set out the inconvenience caused to her by her ongoing concerns about the leak, particularly at times when she was absent from the property.
It is acknowledged that it can be difficult to identify the source of intermittent leaks, particularly when they only occur in certain circumstances such as heavy rainfall. This investigation acknowledges the resident’s concerns that the leak may reoccur and the steps she has taken to mitigate any further issues.
The evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to robustly investigate the potential source of the leak. While it has not been possible to trace an active leak it has carried out redecoration of the stained ceiling. It identified a failure in that process and provided redress to the resident. It did this by restoring her position in carrying out further redecoration and offering an appropriate amount of compensation.
There was a further failure in the way the landlord responded to the report of a third leak which took place on 31 October 2021. It provided inaccurate and contradictory information which added to the resident’s distress and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. However, in its stage 2 response of 31 August 2021 it offered £250 compensation in respect of several factors including misinformation.
The landlord did not provide a breakdown of how the compensation was calculated therefore, it is difficult to assess how much was apportioned to the leak. However, the impact on the resident was of a short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident. Considering the landlord’s compensation policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance this investigation considers that on balance, an offer of reasonable redress has been made.

Complaint Handling

On 5 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint about its response to outstanding defects in her property. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 26 May, 26 working days over its target time. It appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation which was reasonable based on the length of the delay.
Section 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) says that in its complaint response the landlord must address all the points raised in the complaint. The resident’s complaint outlined concerns about the leak and the extractor fans. However, the landlord only provided a response in relation to the leak and associated decorative works. This was inappropriate because the resident was caused further inconvenience and time and trouble in having to escalate her complaint to obtain a response.
On 18 July 2021 the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 31 August, 11 days over its target time. It failed to acknowledge and apologise for the delay which was unreasonable, particularly given that this was a repeat of the delay at stage 1.
Following a further leak, the resident made another formal complaint to the landlord on 9 February 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 April, 36 days over its target time. It appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation which was reasonable given the length of the delay.
Evidence shows that the customer care team experienced delays in collating the relevant information to provide a complaint response and that it appropriately escalated this in order to move forwards. The landlord sent holding emails to the resident with regards to its complaint response on 23, 28 February and 2, 9, 21, 31 March 2022.
Section 5.5 of The Code states that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. The landlord’s record dated 25 March 2022 shows that it was holding off issuing the complaint until an appointment on 8 April had taken place. This was inappropriate because it delayed the issuing of the complaint response which caused further frustration and distress to the resident and did not comply with The Code.
On 25 April 2022 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 July, 12 days over its target time. It appropriately apologised for the delay and explained that this was due to a cyber attack. It also offered £50 compensation. The landlord appropriately used the stage 2 complaints process as an opportunity to conduct a meaningful review of its stage 1 response. As a result, it increased its offer of compensation and explained its reasons for doing so.
The landlord failed to issue each of the 4 complaint responses in line with its target complaint responses which was inappropriate. There was a repeated failure which caused time trouble, distress and inconvenience to the resident. The complaint handling failures amount to maladministration.
It is acknowledged that a cyber attack, which was outside of the landlord’s control, contributed to the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response of 11 July 2022. It is also acknowledged that the landlord issued an apology and £50 compensation for the failures in all but 1 of the 4 occasions which was consistent with its compensation policy. However, it failed to offer appropriate redress to the resident for the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint on 18 July 2021.
The amounts of compensation were reasonable when considered in isolation. However, the landlord failed to consider how the culmination of the delays impacted on the resident’s ability to resolve her complaint through its complaints process which was unreasonable. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlord relied on issuing standard compensation of £50 for delays, rather than proactively identifying lessons learnt and making necessary changes to prevent it happening again.
The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 comprised of £50 for the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response of 18 July and a further £100 for the adverse effect of the overall complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of repairs to the extractor fans which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its response to reports of a water leak which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s offer of compensation appropriately reflects the detriment caused to the resident by its failures in its handling of repairs to the extractor fans.
The landlord’s offer of compensation appropriately reflects the detriment caused to the resident by poor response to reports of a water leak.
The landlord repeatedly failed to comply with its complaint response times. It unreasonably delayed issuing a stage 1 complaint response until a certain action had been carried out.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £150 for distress, time and trouble caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the delays in its complaint handling. It should set out why this occurred and what it has done to prevent a reoccurrence.

Recommendation

The landlord should re-offer its compensation to the resident if not already accepted.