Clarion Housing Association Limited (202314062)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314062

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 July 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 the resident’s reports of damage caused to a window.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, subject to a lease granted in August 2002. The freehold of the building is held by the landlord housing association. The flat is occupied by the resident, his ex-partner and their daughter.
  2. In March 2021 the resident reported accidental damage to one of his windows by the landlord’s maintenance services. The landlord completed an emergency make safe repair and subsequently replaced the window.
  3. The resident reported to the landlord on 17 April 2023 that his window had been smashed by its staff cutting grass. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on his behalf to raise the same matter the next day. The landlord replied to his MP, acknowledging that its grounds maintenance service had been on site. It said that as a leaseholder the resident needed to claim for the damaged window via its insurers and provided their contact information.
  4. On 20 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He raised dissatisfaction with the following:
    1. The landlord’s referral to its insurers to claim for a window repair; he considered the repair to be its responsibility for causing damage.
    2. The inconvenience, time and trouble incurred trying to make a claim and the process he had been required to follow. He requested compensation.
    3. That it was the second time he had been subject to a window breakage.
  5. The landlord provided a response on 5 May 2023, apologising for delay to its reply. It apologised for accidental damage to the resident’s window and ‘any inconvenience’ caused. It explained that it was ‘unable’ to repair the window because the resident was a leaseholder, in line with insurance guidance. It referred the resident again to its insurer and summarised the claim process. It offered the resident £50 compensation for inconvenience.
  6. By email of 21 June 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. He considered the compensation inadequate to address inconvenience caused to him and repeated concerns about the time consuming process for repair. The landlord acknowledged receipt the next day to his councillor, stating it aimed to reply in 10 days.
  7. In/ around June 2023 the resident’s window was repaired by a company he contacted directly. 
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 July 2023, highlighting he had received no reply. He resubmitted his concerns about its reply on 10 July 2023.
  9. On 14 July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident’s councillor, stating it did so having noted they were copied into the resident’s 21 June 2023 email. It apologised for its delay responding and advised it was competing a review of the complaint through the final stage of its complaints procedure.
  10. The landlord sent its final stage response to the resident directly on 20 July 2023. It apologised that the resident had a ‘poor experience’ but explained that broken windows did occur during the ‘growing season’ linked to strimming activity. It considered that it had acted appropriately having referred the resident to its insurers, however it offered to reimburse him directly for the window repair and gave contact details for sending receipt/s. It repeated an apology for inconvenience caused and repeated its £50 compensation offer.
  11. The resident sent receipt/s for payment of the window repair to the landlord on 4 September 2023. The landlord made payment on 12 September 2023.
  12. In referring the matter to this Service, the resident stated that the landlord failed to appropriately accept responsibility for the window damage, causing him difficulty getting the repair completed. He wanted an appropriate level of compensation to reflect the time and trouble to which he was put.

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to a window

  1. Under the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord was not responsible for maintaining or repairing window glazing. This does not mean that the landlord could not be found legally liable outside the terms of this contract for causing damage to the resident’s window. Detailed assessment of potential causes of action that could form the basis of a court or insurance claim eg negligence are outside of the remit of this Service. The landlord arranged for insurance to cover the risk of the leaseholder raising a potential claim and so it could provide compensation outside of a court process. This arrangement was generally a reasonable means of a landlord managing how it handled damage occurring from its accidental damage.
  2. While it was reasonable for the landlord to refer to its insurer to support a window replacement, it is of concern that its records showed no evidence of a timely assessment of any immediate or interim safety or wellbeing risks posed to the occupants. A broken window had potential to pose risks to the resident’s household, for example from excess cold and water ingress or from security considering the ground floor position. The procedure for claiming via insurers was not a swift process.
  3. The landlord’s records show reference to the window still awaiting repair in mid-June, 2 months after the breakage. There is no evidence it gave consideration within this time to potential risks arising or to any mitigating measures available pending repair eg taping up/ boarding the window, providing support to making the claim, regular review of progress of the claim. It was only in mid-July that the landlord’s records showed consideration as to the condition of the glazing and it made a proposal to mitigate delay by offering direct reimbursement.
  4. The resident repeatedly raised to the landlord his assertion that repair to the window was its responsibility. The landlord failed to address this matter directly and communicate reasonably clearly its legal responsibilities to support his understanding of its position and manage expectations. It was reasonable to anticipate the landlord would have regard to its prior direct repair of the resident’s window in 2021 in similar circumstances, particularly as the resident reminded it within his reports. Considering that the landlord was adopting a different position in response to this new damage, clarity of its explanation and differential treatment was important. By failing to provide a direct response to the resident’s assertion and explain clearly why it was not on this occasion repairing the window, it left the resident with difficulty understanding the position. Ultimately, this caused him the time and trouble of raising the matter through its complaint process and referral to this Service.
  5. The landlord told the resident it was ‘unable’ to repair the window. This was not an accurate reflection of the circumstances. It could have decided to agree to repair the window itself; this was a matter within its discretion. However, it had reasonably referred to its insurance which provided cover for such damage.
  6. The mechanism of an insurance claim alone failed to offer the resident a remedy with sufficient regard to the full detriment caused by its accidental damage. The insurance claim by its nature had a narrow focus, intended to cover the cost of repair to the window. However, the impact to the resident from the landlord’s admitted accident was not limited to the repair itself. The resident reported inconvenience and expressed his concerns to the landlord in a way consistent with the issue causing him a level of distress. Although the landlord took timely ownership for its accident, it did not make an offer of compensation to account for this impact to the resident until after he raised a complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy allowed the landlord to proactively consider such an offer, however it failed to do so. This showed a lack of regard to the particular impact of its accident on the resident.
  7. A compensation offer to recognise inconvenience was made to the resident after he had been put to time and trouble raising a complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy set out guided ranges of financial redress, requiring focus upon relevant factors including the cause of the problem eg if caused directly by the landlord. Having regard to the landlord’s own guided ranges, its offer of £50 was disproportionately low. This was the lowest possible offer within the applicable range. While it is noted that the interim physical impact was relatively low, the landlord’s accident provoked a level of distress and inconvenience to the resident. Further, as noted above, the landlord’s failure to directly address the resident’s assertion of responsibility compounded the resident’s dissatisfaction and time and trouble.
  8. The landlord’s internal and external responses to the window breakage did not demonstrate appropriate self-reflection. The resident’s reports highlighted that the accident was the second such event within the space of 2 years. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to anticipate a level of reflection by the landlord of available learning points to improve its future service provision and prevent against repeat accidents. Such learning was required of it in line with it’s the requirements of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) and its own learning principles set out in its Complaints Policy.
  9. However, the landlord’s final response suggested that such accidents took place as an ordinary occurrence. Considering the risks posed by window breakages and in this case the burden of resolution upon the resident as leaseholder, this is of concern as to the landlord’s application of its learning principle. Its response was also insensitive to the resident’s experience; the impact of living with a broken window and sudden time consuming steps required to resolve damage caused by others. The response failed to adopt the appropriate tone of self-reflection and took away from the ability of its apology to put matters right.
  10. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to a window amounted to maladministration. Considering the above assessment of its previously offered financial redress, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident additional compensation reflective of its own guidance and the multiple failings identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint responses were provided to the resident one day outside of the timescales required by the Code at each stage of its process. The landlord apologised for its delay at stage 1. The delay was minimal. It is noted that the landlord’s then complaints policy provided response timescales out of compliance with the substantially shorter Code requirements. However, this Service recognises the landlord was operating an interim policy in reaction to the impact arising from a cyber-attack in 2022. The landlord has since reverted to a complaints policy that complies with Code timescales. No complaint handling failing is according found in relation to its policy timescales.
  2. The landlord’s engagement with the resident during the course of the complaint failed to meet the contact expectations of the Code or its own complaints policy. While the resident raised his complaint directly, the landlord interacted for a period only with their councillor at stage 2. There is no evidence that the resident had requested that the landlord do so. Copying their councillor into their complaint email was not reasonably an instruction to liaise through them. It was evident from the resident’s chasers that he was anticipating and awaiting direct contact and updates. The landlord failed to reply to his chasers or update him directly, adding to his time and trouble across the end of June and early July 2023. By liaising solely with his councillor for this period, the landlord failed to show it was listening to the resident’s voice.
  3. The landlord’s internal handling of the resident’s complaint was subject to multiple administrative issues from review of its records. The landlord’s records show it raising multiple complaint cases in error; this in turn impacting its ability to quickly track the complaint and identify its status. The resident’s escalation concerns were logged and misidentified as an enquiry only, and only referred for stage 2 peer review some 2.5 weeks later once the error was identified. This caused delay, albeit short, to its investigation.
  4. The landlord is therefore responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  5. The landlord’s above identified failings caused the resident to incur time and trouble. By failing to consistently and directly interact with him, it impacted his trust its willingness to listen and added to his overall distress. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to a window.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from a senior member of the landlord’s staff for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £160 compensation. It is comprised of:
      1. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble arising from its response to the resident’s reports of damage caused to a window.
      2. £60 for the distress, time and trouble arising from its handling of the resident’s complaint.

The above ordered compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

  1. Pay the sum of £50 previously offered in its correspondence of 20 July 2023 unless this has already been paid to him.
  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its handling of this case including how it assessed any interim risk/s to the occupants and determine any action/s it should take to prevent reoccurrence of the failings identified. A copy of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman.