Clarion Housing Association Limited (202322885)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322885

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 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:

a.     handling of repairs of cracks to the property.

b.     complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 3-bedroom house. The resident is registered disabled and has physical health conditions that the landlord knows about.
3. On 4 November 2022 the resident reported cracking in the bedroom wall. The landlord attended the property at the end of November 2022 and again at the end of January 2023 to assess the issue. It subsequently raised an order on 8 February 2023 to repair the plaster to the rear bedroom and cracked brickwork. On 21 April 2023 the landlord reattended the property but was unable to complete all the work.
4. On 19 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy that it took the landlord 2 months to inspect the property following her November 2022 report. She added there had been no response since the landlord’s last visit in April 2023 and that the operative who attended was unable to carry out all the recommended work. She explained that she had to chase the landlord to progress matters and that the issues had caused damage to the internal decoration.
5. On 28 June 2023 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its process. In summary, it said:

a.     The resident first reported the issue in November 2022 and apologised that it did not raise the repairs following the surveyor’s visit in January 2023.

b.     Its operative attended the property on 21 April 2023 and filled some minor cracks but was unable to complete all the works needed due to their complexity.

c.      Due to the complex nature of the job, it needed a helibar and it would complete the work on 15 August 2023.

d.     It would offer £300 compensation, comprised of £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused taking into consideration the household vulnerabilities and £50 for failure to complete repairs within its published timescales.

6. In the resident’s escalation request of 18 July 2023 she was unhappy with the compensation offered. She said she had emptied her bedroom for its visit in April 2023 but not all the work was completed. She added that the operative had told her that she would need to sand down the walls herself and that she was unable to do this due to her disability. She explained that the walls in the bedroom had worsened, and she would need to pay to have the walls painted. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s communication. The landlord’s operative attended the property on 15 August 2023 but was unable to complete the works.
7. On 5 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:

a.     It could not see any comment made about sanding down any internal plastering and apologised if this was said at any point.

b.     Its operative would ‘make good’ all work linked to its repairs and leave all walls as a paintable surface.

c.      It apologised that the operative who attended the property on 15 August 2023 was ill-prepared and could not complete the work.

d.     It had rebooked the helibar work for 27 and 28 September 2023 and would investigate and inspect her front bedroom at this time.

e.     It would offer £500 compensation, comprised of £300 as offered in its stage 1 response, £50 for the delay in its stage 2 response and £150 for poor communication and organisation.

8. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she said that some of the jobs were not done properly. She added that the landlord had told her to empty her bedroom but did not complete the work and she was told she had to re-paint the walls herself. She was also unhappy with the delays in responding to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

9. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
10. It took the landlord around 2 months to survey the property following the resident’s November 2022 report of cracks in the bedroom. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, and it is unclear why this survey was not carried out sooner. Furthermore, this Service has not seen a copy of the surveyor’s report which likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping. In any case, the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged it had failed to raise the recommended repairs following its visit in January 2023. Indeed, it appeared the landlord raised the repairs on 8 February 2023, around 3 months after the resident’s initial report. These delays were avoidable, and the landlord failed to act in line with its 28-day repair policy timescale. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely been concerned that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
11. The landlord records showed it arranged to complete the remedial work to resolve the cracking on 21 April 2023. This was over 2 months after it had raised the repair. Moreover, when the landlord’s operative attended in April 2023, they were unable to complete all the required work. The landlord’s stage 1 response suggested that this was due to the complexity of the work and the need to obtain a helibar. Yet the landlord’s 8 February 2023 repair log stated ‘consider helibar fix to two courses’. In view of this, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s operatives should have been aware this was needed when they attended the property in April 2023. This was another failing that delayed getting matters resolved.
12. The landlord records showed that it was not until 31 May 2023 that it raised another repair order. This was over a month after its failed April 2023 visit. This was an unreasonable delay, and it is unclear why it did not raise the order sooner. Furthermore, the landlord scheduled the works for 15 August 2023, around 4 months after its April 2023 visit. While this Service notes that the landlord said that this delay was due to obtaining specialist material (helibar) it should have ordered this earlier. In addition, when the landlord’s operative attended in August 2023 they were again unable to complete the work. This Service recognises that this was the second occasion it had failed to complete the work. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
13. In the resident’s escalation request and subsequent referral to this Service, she was unhappy she had cleared the bedroom herself ready for the work in April 2023, only to have to put everything back again when the landlord’s operative was unable to complete all the work. While the landlord acknowledged the overall delays in completing the repairs, its final response did not address this specific point. This Service understands that this matter would have been particularly distressing for the resident given her physical disabilities. The landlord failed to acknowledge the likely detriment this would have caused to the resident. This was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord who should have shown understanding of the effect this would have had on her.
14. In the resident’s complaint she said that the issues with the property had caused damage to her internal decoration. She repeated these concerns in her escalation request and said she would need to pay hundreds of pounds to have the walls painted. The landlord’s final response said that it would ‘make good’ all the works linked to the repairs and leave all the walls as a paintable surface. However, given the landlord’s failings, it should have offered to re-paint the walls and make good any damaged decoration. The landlord’s make-good obligations apply where damage is caused due to failing to comply with its repairing obligations and where damage is as a result of any repair work. In this case, the landlord did not meet its obligations. Therefore, it should have made good any damage caused to the resident’s decoration and an order is made below for remedy.
15. The resident informed this Service that the landlord completed the entirety of the works to resolve the cracks in the property in March 2024. This Service acknowledges that this was a complex situation that involved underpinning the property. However, it took around 14 months to complete the work and the delays during the period of the complaint were avoidable, Overall, there was a lack of internal organisation and preparation to ensure repairs were raised promptly. Further, the correct materials were not ordered on time, operatives were not adequately prepared to complete the necessary work and the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, often failing to keep her updated on its progress.
16. Although the landlord apologised and offered compensation for most of these failings, it is the Ombudsman’s view, that the compensation offered does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the failings identified in this report. This Service considers that the detriment caused to the resident would have likely been significant, particularly given her disability of which the landlord was aware. Therefore, an additional award of compensation has been made to reflect this. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests awards from £600 should be considered where there has been a significant impact on the resident. This award has considered the landlord’s offer of compensation in its final response.

Complaint handling

17. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 May 2023. However, the landlord did not formally respond until 28 June 2023, over a month later. This was contrary to its complaints policy which states it will aim to respond to complaints within 10 working days. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that her concerns were being ignored. While the landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for this delay it did not offer any financial redress to put things right.
18. The landlord issued its final response on 5 September 2023. This was 35 working days after the resident’s 18 July 2023 escalation request. The landlord again failed to keep to its policy timescales which state that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This was another failing on the part of the landlord that delayed getting matters resolved. However, the landlord acknowledged this in its final response and acted fairly by offering £50 compensation for the delay at stage 2.
19. In the landlord’s submissions to this Service, it said it had reviewed the complaint handling in this case and had ‘raised’ a further £50 compensation for its delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1. Had the landlord made this offer during the complaints process it likely would have been satisfactory in putting things right. As it did not, however, this Service has determined that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Furthermore, it is unclear if the landlord paid this compensation to the resident. It is therefore ordered to do so.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs of cracks to the property.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

22. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:

a.     Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.

b.     Pay the resident compensation of £700 comprised of:

1. £500 as offered in its final response if it has not already done so.
2. A further £150 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs of cracks to the property.
3. £50 for its delay in responding to the complaint at stage 1 if it has not done so already.

c.      Contact the resident and arrange to make good any damage to decorations as result of the repair work.

23. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.