Clarion Housing Association Limited (202224159)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224159

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 September 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

The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s:
1. reports of repair for:
  1. the kitchen and lounge flooring;
  2. the cistern;
  3. the chipped sink and bath;
  4. the broken gate;
  5. damp and mould;
  6. the skirting board; and
2. the subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a property under an assured tenancy agreement with her landlord that commenced on 12 August 2019. The property is a first-floor flat with two bedrooms and an open-plan kitchen and lounge.
The resident made 12 reports to her landlord between 7 July 2021 and 10 February 2023, for the repairs listed in the complaint above. The landlord cancelled 2 appointments and attended the property 7 times during this period. The resident told this service that she had to chase the landlord on several occasions to get them to raise the correct repairs and arrange appointments. She explained that some of the appointments were missed by the landlord without prior notice. She also said one of the staff members was rude, dismissive, and threatening. When she raised this with the landlord, she asked that this individual did not attend her property again. However, she said this was ignored by her landlord and the staff member continued to attend her property for repairs.
The resident raised a formal complaint about the repairs with her landlord on 7 October 2021. In its stage 1 response dated 2 November 2021, it upheld her complaint, apologised for its delay, and addressed each outstanding repair it had on its system. It stated that it would not replace the flooring in the lounge area as this was the responsibility of the tenant. However, as a goodwill gesture, it said it would patch the broken tiles in the lounge. It also offered £270 in compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 18 November 2021. In its stage 2 response on 14 January 2022, the landlord partly upheld the complaint and apologised for not addressing all the outstanding repairs. It gave appointments to the resident for these and offered an additional £250 in compensation.
The resident explained to this service that she would like the landlord to put things right by:
1. completing the outstanding repairs to a good standard;
2. acknowledging and apologising for how it handled the repairs;
3. providing compensation for the delays and the time and trouble it has taken to pursue the repairs and formal complaint; and
4. reviewing its policies and working practices to ensure that her experience is not repeated for other residents.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out what the Ombudsman can and cannot consider as part of our investigation. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate “complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
The repair to the gate did not form part of the original complaint from the resident on 4 October 2021. This means that this will not be investigated. In the interests of fairness, the landlord should have the opportunity to respond to all complaints through its formal complaint procedure before it is considered by this service. Therefore, the resident will need to wait for the formal outcome of the landlord’s complaint process before it can seek a determination from this service on that point.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states, in clause 5.1, that an emergency repair should be attended to within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporary repairs should be completed. It also states that non-emergency repairs are made at the resident’s convenience and will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, obligates landlords to conduct repairs within a reasonable period once they have been notified of the problem.

The kitchen and lounge flooring

The resident first reported that the kitchen and lounge floor needed to be replaced on 7 July 2021 because it was “falling apart.” The landlord told the resident that it was not responsible for the flooring in the lounge, but it would replace the broken vinyl tiles in this area. However, it did offer to patch repair the floor despite it not being its responsibility. The resident told this service that she did not know the flooring was in poor condition when she mutually exchanged because it was covered. This was because the floor covering in the lounge was inherited from the previous tenants when she mutually exchanged.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response to be in line with its mutual exchange policy. This states that any repair responsibilities of the former tenant will be passed onto the incoming tenant, and they agree to accept the property “as seen.” Additionally, the landlord offered a remedy to this part of the flooring even though it did not have to. Although this service sympathises with the resident’s position, it was her responsibility to thoroughly check the property condition and make sure she was happy with it before proceeding with her mutual exchange application. The Ombudsman cannot find fault in the landlord’s decision not to replace the lounge flooring, as it is not one of its contractual obligations.
The landlord visited the property on 7 July 2021 to survey the flooring. The resident told this service that at this visit, the contractor had made her aware that her landlord “does not do floors,” when she requested the entirety of the flooring to be replaced. The evidence shows that the contractor followed this up with the landlord on 7 September 2021, but the resident was not formally told of the liability of the flooring, until it issued its stage 1 response on 2 November 2021. This is 84 working days after the flooring was reported to it, and by this time the resident had reported the flooring a further 3 times.
The Ombudsman considers this to be an unreasonable delay. The landlord should have contacted the resident promptly to ensure she understood its obligations towards the flooring.
The evidence shows that the landlord made 5 appointments with the resident between 7 July 2021 and 28 March 2023, to patch the flooring in the lounge and replace the flooring in the kitchen. The evidence also shows that the landlord tried to gain access to the property on three occasions but was only successful on two of these. The outcome of the other 2 appointments is unclear. It stated this was because the resident declined the repairs while she was filing a formal complaint and later on the advice of her solicitors. It had also discussed the flooring repairs with the resident on 3 further occasions but did not follow this up with any appointments. To date, the landlord has not completed its replacement of the flooring.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has had access to the property to complete the repairs to the floor and it has failed to do so. Although it is noted that the resident did decline some appointments and this may have contributed to the delay, it had a chance through additional discussions with the resident to make appointments on 3 further occasions.
It was also aware that it needed to consult with the resident’s solicitors as early as March 2023, to agree on the appointments and it did not. Prior to this, the evidence shows it did gain access to the property on at least 2 occasions. Therefore, there is evidence of a service failure because repairs to the flooring should have been completed by following up on the resident’s reports, with appointments, or later by liaising with the resident or her solicitors. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident or her solicitors to arrange appointments to repair the flooring.

The cistern

The resident reported issues with her toilet cistern on 7 July 2021. The evidence does not show that any specific appointments were made to fix this issue. The landlord completed this repair on 7 January 2022. This was 129 working days after it was reported. The landlord recognised that this was not dealt with in its stage 2 response on 14 January 2022, and offered £150 for the delay and inconvenience of this.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord unreasonably delayed repairing the resident’s cistern and that this is a service failure. Additionally, the landlord should have communicated with the resident and been responsive to her repair needs for this issue, but it was not. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has tried to put this right by apologising and offering compensation to the resident.

Chips to the sink and bath

The resident reported the chips in the sink and bath to the landlord on 7 July 2021. The landlord repaired these on 6 December 2021. This was 108 working days after the repair was initially reported to it. There is no evidence that the landlord tried to make any specific appointments to address this issue. The landlord recognised this in its stage 1 response. It apologised for the delays and lack of communication and offered the resident £270 in compensation.
The Ombudsman considers that this is evidence of a service failure because the landlord unreasonably delayed in repairing the chips to the sink and bath. It would have been fair and reasonable for the landlord to have made an appointment to attend the property and rectify this issue much earlier than it did. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has tried to put this right by apologising and offering compensation to the resident.

Damp and Mould

The resident told this service that she had reported damp and mould in the property for several years. The evidence shows that this issue was also reported to the landlord in 2018 by the former tenants. The resident reported this on 7 July 2021. The resident reported this issue again on 4 occasions between 30 June 2022 and 6 March 2023.
The landlord attended the property on 4 occasions during this period. The landlord noted that access to the property was declined by the resident for 1 of those appointments. The evidence shows the issue was highlighted internally on 3 occasions between 14 August 2022 and 27 September 2022. However, there is no evidence that any follow-up appointments were organised.
The landlord’s general approach was to apply a mould wash and stain block whilst enquiries into the roof were undertaken. As part of its investigations, the landlord stated it commissioned a survey of the roof. However, the evidence does not provide any further information about this survey, including when it was completed, or the findings. It also stated in its repair logs that the roof repair was completed in early 2023, but the resident continued to raise reports of damp and mould in the property.
To date, the resident feels that this issue remains unresolved because the landlord has only treated the symptoms and not the cause of the damp and mould. She said that because of the layout of the roof, the problem would return. She also stated that the landlord needed to consider a long-term solution to this issue, such as replacing the roof and/or providing windows with trickle vents to allow proper ventilation in the property.
The evidence shows that the landlord missed at least 3 opportunities to list appointments for this issue. However, the evidence also highlights that the landlord was investigating the cause of the damp and mould by booking a roofing survey. The resident told this service that she believes the roof remains an issue because the damp and mould keep coming back.
The Ombudsman considers that it would have been fair and reasonable to share the outcome of the roofing survey with the resident. This would have allowed her to understand if the roof was, in a specialist’s opinion, the cause of the mould and damp. If it was found that the roof was the cause of the mould and damp, then this service would expect the landlord to have acted upon this information accordingly.
There is no evidence to draw further conclusions on the cause of the substantive issue. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have communicated its findings of the roof survey with the resident, and this is a service failure. This would have allowed all parties to understand what would be required to resolve the cause of the mould and damp.

The skirting board

The resident reported her skirting board was damaged on 7 July 2021. The resident reported this issue on 2 occasions between 7 July 2021 and 6 September 2021. The evidence shows the landlord marked this repair as completed on 26 October 2021.
The Ombudsman considers this to be a service failure because it took the landlord 79 working days to complete the repair. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to complete this repair within a reasonable timeframe, or to have communicated with the resident so that she knew when the repair would have been completed.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s general response times to the resident’s reports of repair were unreasonable. This service notes that the resident did not give access to the property at times, and later requested that the landlord make the appointments directly with her solicitor.
The resident also had requested on at least 2 occasions for a staff member not to attend her property. This was because of historical incidents that this service cannot comment on. However, the evidence shows that the landlord continued to instruct the staff member to attend the property despite the resident’s request. The Ombudsman finds this to be a service failure because the resident felt distressed by the presence of this member of staff. It would have been reasonable to expect that it should have explained why this would not be possible or to have actioned the request. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s concerns about the staff member.
This investigation has also identified a trend of failing to communicate with the resident to account for the progress of the repairs. This often resulted in the resident having to chase repairs and appointments. The evidence also showed that duplicate reports were often raised for the same repair jobs, the original repair jobs were not chased, and appointments were not made at the earliest opportunity. This resulted in repairs taking longer to be completed, or in some instances being left unresolved. As a result, the repeated service failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs, cumulatively amount to maladministration.

How the landlord handled the resident’s subsequent complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy does not have any response timeframes for the landlord to respond to complaints. This is a failure of itself.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that stage 1 responses should be issued within 10 working days and final responses within 20 working days. The landlord’s interim complaint policy sets out that all complaints received before 17 June 2022 would be logged within 10 working days at stage 1. The resident complained to the landlord about the outstanding repairs and the delays experienced on 4 October 2021. It issued its stage 1 response on 2 November 2021. This is 21 working days after the complaint was logged.
In its response, the landlord said that the delays to the repairs were due to staff sickness and confusion over the responsibilities of the floor repair. It apologised and clarified the responsibility for the flooring. It confirmed the appointments for most of the repairs raised by the resident and offered a total of £270 compensation. It also acknowledged that its stage 1 response was delayed and offered the resident £25 for this as part of its compensation figure.
The resident remained dissatisfied and requested an escalation of her complaint on 18 November 2021. She told the landlord this was because it had not addressed all her concerns. The landlord issued its final response on 14 January 2022. This was 38 working days after the escalation request was received.
In this response it apologised that it had not dealt with all the repairs raised by the resident in her initial complaint and the delay in responding. The landlord offered £50 specifically for the delay in responding at the second stage of its complaint procedure. It also apologised for the delay in repairs and offered a total of £250 in compensation to the resident.
Although the Ombudsman finds that the stage 1 response did not address all the repairs, the landlord did identify this, apologise, and offered an additional £50 in compensation to address this failure. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable set of remedies for this failure.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord failed to follow the timeframes set out by the Code for complaint handling. This is a service failure. However, it is noted that on both occasions the landlord tried to put this right by apologising and offering compensation awards to the resident. The Ombudsman determines that the delays experienced in its complaint handling have not been fully addressed by its offer of compensation. This is because fundamentally the resident has had to take time and trouble to raise a complaint in addition to the distress and inconvenience of having to chase the repairs to her property.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £750 which consists of:
  1. £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs
  2. £100 for time and trouble the resident was put to in its handling of the complaint.
2. Appoint a surveyor to inspect the property. The purpose of this is to identify the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor provides a full report with photographs within 14 days of the inspection. The landlord must ensure the inspection report sets out what is required to remedy the issues and whether the roof is the root cause of the damp and mould. The landlord has 14 days from the date it receives the report to book the repairs. It must then write to the resident with a copy of the report and dates that the works have been booked.
3. Provide evidence to this service that all these orders have been complied with.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Consider installing trickle vents in the property.
2. Conduct a case review to identify why all the repairs were not followed up with appointments.