Clarion Housing Association Limited (202224047)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224047

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to replace an internal door.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house. She is disabled. She has advised the Housing Ombudsman that the property has a stairlift.
  2. The resident advised that the hallway where her stairlift is situated is dark. This is due to an internal door which does not have a window. The resident has also advised that the door is old, weak, and very draughty. She had asked the landlord to replace the door with one that has a window.
  3. The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response in relation to this complaint. There appeared to be some confusion, as the resident had raised several other concerns. The landlord first addressed this complaint in a stage 2 response on 15 December 2022.
  4. The response stated that the door in question had been inspected in April 2022. It was found not to be faulty. The landlord advised it had not had reports that the door was not working. It advised that there was a gap of 30mm at the bottom of door where the door had been cut. It stated it had not cut the door and was not responsible for fixing this. The landlord acknowledged there had been some confusion regarding which door the resident was complaining about. It offered £100 for the confusion.
  5. The landlord has since offered a like for like replacement for the door. It has stated that it cannot install a door with a window as this is not something it provides. The resident remains unhappy and would like a replacement door with a window.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to replace an internal door.

  1. The resident raised several issues with the landlord and some of the correspondence was unclear on what was being reported. When the resident reported that the door was causing an issue, the landlord should have inspected the door. It took the appropriate action in confirming the door was not faulty.
  2. The landlord stated that it was unable to provide a door with a window as it did not install glazed doors. The landlord also advised that it was not responsible for the door being cut. Although the landlord was not responsible for replacing the door, it did offer a like for like replacement. This was a positive and appropriate action from the landlord.
  3. The Service has not seen evidence which suggests there is not appropriate lighting from artificial sources near the stairlift. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider this and ensure that the resident can safely access her stairlift.
  4. The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request for a replacement door. The Service considers there to be no maladministration in the landlord’s response to replace an internal door.

Complaint handling

  1. The Service recognises that there were difficulties in understanding the complaint. The landlord should have ensured that it sought clarity with the resident if there was confusion. This should have included phone calls. The Service has not seen any records that a phone call was made. However, the landlord has advised us that due to a cyber-attack, several records have been destroyed. As such we are unable to comment whether the landlord acted appropriately in seeking clarity around the complaint.
  2. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response that there had been confusion about which door the resident had been complaining about. The landlord felt that the resident had not been clear about this. However, it did offer £100 as a goodwill gesture for the confusion. The landlord considered the resident’s view and made an appropriate gesture of goodwill.
  3. The Service finds that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to replace an internal door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the like for like replacement of the internal door.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord carry out checks that the hallway has sufficient lighting and does not pose a risk to the resident when using the stairlift.
  3. If it has not already been paid, the landlord should reoffer the £100 as per its stage 2 complaint response.
  4. The Service has seen internal communications from the landlord. In two of these communications the language used was unprofessional. Although this did not affect the outcome of this complaint, the landlord should consider the language used in its communications. It should ensure that all complaints and requests are considered on their own merit and are not affected by any personal opinions.