Clarion Housing Association Limited (202327179)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327179

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 September 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 handling of:
1. The installation of a new kitchen.
2. The resident’s reports of staff attending without a scheduled appointment.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy at the property, a 1 bedroom flat. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities as a survivor of abuse.
The property was affected by leaks from above on at least 3 occasions since 2020, most recently in April 2023. The leak was repaired but it caused damage to the resident’s kitchen. The landlord started work to replace the resident’s kitchen on 15 August 2023, however the work was not completed. On 16 August 2023 the landlord attended the property without a confirmed appointment and the resident reported this affected her mental health.
The resident complained to the landlord on 4 occasions between 13 July 2023 and 21 August 2023 when the landlord logged the complaint. In her complaint she said she was dissatisfied with the new kitchen layout. She noted the work was not complete and she was unable to use the kitchen. She also explained she had felt her mental health conditions were triggered by the landlord’s unscheduled visit on 16 August 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 13 October 2023. It said that some of the kitchen work it had completed in August 2023 had been removed by the resident. It confirmed an appointment on 30 October 2023 to complete the remaining work and that it would carefully monitor the job until it was complete. It apologised for its unannounced attendance on 16 August 2023. It offered £250 compensation, comprising £50 for the delayed complaint response, £50 for the delayed kitchen repairs and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused throughout the kitchen replacement.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response as she felt it had not addressed that the new kitchen was unsuitable for her needs. She asked to escalate the complaint on 16 October 2023. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 26 January 2024. It said it was prepared to consider all the resident’s requests, such as more drawer units fitted because of her disability, but it needed the resident to confirm an appointment. It outlined its previous attempts to confirm an appointment and asked the resident to confirm her availability.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service in January 2024. In doing so, she said she wanted the work to the kitchen completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed the landlord and this Service that this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
In communication with this Service, the resident has raised other complaints about security, lighting, and racial discrimination. The evidence shows the landlord logged this under a separate complaint on 2 February 2024. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. For this reason, these complaints have not been assessed as part of this investigation. The resident is advised she can pursue her complaints through the landlord’s internal complaint process and these can be referred to this Service if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
For the avoidance of doubt, the resident has raised an element of discrimination as part of this complaint which has been assessed in the context of this complaint.

The installation of a new kitchen

The resident reported leaks affecting the kitchen on 6 April 2023. In response to this, the evidence shows that the landlord:
1. Attended the property on 6 April 2023 after the resident reported several leaks affecting the property. It is unclear from the evidence what the landlord did on this attendance but its notes said the kitchen cupboards were “falling down” and “full of mould”.
2. Attended again on 6 June 2023 to repair the leaks.
3. Started the works to make good the damage to the ceilings and plaster on 6 July 2023.
4. Booked an appointment for 31 July 2023 to complete the plastering works but rebooked this for 15 August as more time was needed.
The resident has not raised a complaint directly about the landlord’s response to the leak, rather its handling of the repairs required to the kitchen following the leak. However, it is relevant to note that the landlord was aware that the kitchen cupboards were “full of mould” and “falling down” as early as 6 April 2023. It is also noted that it was inappropriate that it took the landlord 2 months to resolve the leaks affecting the kitchen.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it may refer major works to its planned investment team where kitchen replacements are needed. However it notes that work to make the area safe and useable will be completed prior to this. It is unreasonable that the landlord noted the issues with the kitchen cupboards on 6 April 2023 and failed to take urgent action to repair them, even temporarily, prior to replacing the kitchen. The evidence shows the landlord booked an appointment for 1 August 2023 to complete some interim repair works to the kitchen, however the resident reported the appointment was just an inspection and no work was completed until 15 August 2023. It was inappropriate that it took from 6 April 2023 until 15 August 2023 for the landlord to complete any repairs to the kitchen and this is a failure.
This is particularly relevant given the state of the kitchen appeared to pose a health and safety risk to the resident. By 15 August 2023 the resident had told the landlord about 3 injuries sustained from parts of the kitchen falling on her. In an incident report logged by the landlord on 21 July 2023, it said although it could not confirm if the resident’s injury was sustained because of a falling cabinet, it had missed the opportunity to prevent the issue as it had been reported on 6 April 2023 and the kitchen was over 20 years old. This is a significant failure and concerning that, even after drawing this conclusion, it took the landlord almost 4 weeks to start work to the kitchen.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to offer any interim repairs to the kitchen units. An order for an additional £150 compensation has been made below in recognition of the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for failures that had a significant impact on the resident for which the landlord has failed to offer proportionate redress.
The landlord attended on 15 August 2023 to replace the kitchen but did not complete the work. In her complaint of 21 August 2023 the resident raised the following issues:
1. The landlord had only replaced the base cabinets and had not accounted for the wall unit which had fallen off the wall prior to its attendance on 15 August 2023.
2. As a result, the resident purchased her own unit to put on the wall and asked the landlord to reimburse her for this.
3. The new kitchen did not have any drawers.
4. The resident had paid to treat and repaint the walls which had been affected by mould as a result of the historical leaks.
5. The landlord had not confirmed when it would be returning to complete the remaining work which included the tiling, flooring, and sealing of the kitchen.
6. She had been eating takeaway every night as the kitchen was not functional and this was costing her a lot of money.
7. The old kitchen had been dumped in the front garden which was causing issues with the neighbours.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 13 October 2023 as follows:
1. It had inspected the remaining work required to the kitchen in September and booked an appointment to complete this work on 30 October 2023. It said it would be monitoring the work through to completion.
2. Its contractor had noted that the resident had removed areas of the tiling and splashback after it had completed this work and it would therefore be the resident’s responsibility to put this right.
Following the resident’s escalation request on 16 October 2023, the evidence shows:
1. On 24 October 2023 the landlord introduced a Resident Liaison Officer (RLO) as the resident’s single point of contact for the kitchen works.
2. The landlord confirmed an appointment for 30 October 2023 to complete the kitchen works.
3. The appointment on 30 October 2023 was cancelled at the request of the resident.
4. On 12 November 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the work it would be completing was: fitting ends to the worktop to get rid of the chips; fitting plinths either side of the oven; mastic the worktop to the wall and patch repairs to the floor tiles. It asked for her availability to complete the work.
5. On 20 November 2023 the landlord offered for the RLO to meet with the resident prior to works taking place to offer any additional support that may be needed.
6. On 30 November 2023 the landlord confirmed it would also be renewing the splashbacks, flooring and would install the unit the resident had purchased if possible. It said it would not be able to install a unit with drawers. It asked for her availability.
7. On 6 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said the kitchen was still non-functional. The resident informed the landlord she had had a mental breakdown as a result of the landlord’s inaction. The landlord responded reiterating the scope of works previously sent and requested the resident’s availability.
8. The landlord contacted the resident again on 12 December 2023 and 10 January 2024 requesting the resident’s availability.
9. The resident contacted the landlord on 11, 12 and 15 January 2024 and said she had had some medical issues. She reiterated that she needed drawers fitted in the kitchen.
10. The landlord responded on 15 January 2024 and asked for the resident’s availability for an inspection to assess the additional work requested. The resident responded on 16 January 2024 and said she felt the landlord should not require another inspection after it had already inspected 4 times.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 January 2024. It outlined it attempts to confirm a date to complete the work and said:
1. It was happy to consider all the resident’s requests, such as installing drawers, but it needed access to confirm the feasibility of the works.
2. It would reimburse the resident for the wall cabinet the resident had purchased. It asked the resident to provide a receipt for this.
3. It would consider removing a redundant pipe in the kitchen depending on feasibility.
4. It asked the resident to contact the RLO to confirm her availability for an inspection to assess the works requested by the resident. It would then confirm when the works would be completed and how long they might take.
The landlord acted reasonably in making several attempts to contact the resident to confirm her availability. The landlord’s internal emails show that following the resident’s complaint escalation, it considered the resident’s vulnerability and what other support it could offer. It is positive this led to the landlord agreeing to go above and beyond on the scope of works it would usually complete when replacing a kitchen. However, given the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities prior to starting the kitchen replacement, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to take this approach at an earlier stage.
The evidence shows the kitchen replacement was to be completed by its planned investment team. The landlord has not provided its planned investment work policy, however it is reasonable to conclude that a level of resident engagement is expected when major works, such as a kitchen replacement, are carried out. The landlord’s website says:
1. It will appoint a Resident Liaison Officer (RLO) as the first point of contact for all queries relating to the kitchen replacement.
2. Residents will be included in the design process, where possible, for example for colour choices in kitchens.
3. Residents will have the opportunity to make the landlord aware of any disability adaptations they may require. In some cases the landlord may ask for a report from a Occupational Therapist to confirm the resident’s requirements.
The landlord did not offer the support of an RLO until 24 October 2023. There is no evidence of the resident having any involvement in the design process and no evidence of her being asked if she required any adaptations. It is understandable that the landlord may have wanted to complete the work quickly due to the urgency of the issue. However it was unreasonable that this was at the detriment of the service offered to the resident. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £150 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused during the kitchen replacement. The landlord did not offer any additional compensation at stage 2.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes it will make offers over £250 for distress and inconvenience caused where there has been a considerable failure but no permanent impact on the customer. Although it is positive that the landlord offered £150 at stage 1 and made multiple attempts to resolve the issue for the resident following her complaint escalation, it failed to recognise that it had missed the opportunity to do so at a much earlier stage in the process. It also failed to acknowledge or apologise for failing to fully consider her vulnerabilities and involve her in the design process. Therefore an additional £100 compensation should be paid for the distress and inconvenience, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The resident told the landlord she felt discriminated against on 10 August 2023. She said this was because she had not been contacted about the design for the kitchen. She also told the landlord she felt discriminated against on 10 and 13 January 2024 because the landlord was refusing to install drawers in the kitchen which she required because of her disability. There is no evidence of the landlord addressing these concerns directly. It is not for this Service to assess whether discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010 has occurred, which would be a matter for the courts, rather to consider how the landlord handled any reports of discrimination. The landlord’s stage 2 response does demonstrate that it considered its obligations under the Equalities Act 2010 to consider the resident’s requirements and was willing to offer a flexible approach to resolve the issue. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to acknowledge the allegations of discrimination and failed to apologise for not addressing the matter earlier. An order for an apology has been made below.
The resident raised concerns about various costs incurred throughout the complaint. The costs were for:
1. A wall cabinet she had purchased herself.
2. Mould treatment she had paid for.
In its stage 2 response the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for the wall cabinet. It asked the resident to provide a receipt as proof of purchase. This was a reasonable approach. It would be reasonable for the landlord to apply the same approach to the mould treatment and an order has been made below to reflect this.
The resident also raised a concern about the expense incurred as a result of purchasing takeaways because she considered the kitchen to be non-functional since 15 August 2023. The landlord has not commented on this element of the complaint. The evidence suggests that the landlord considered the kitchen to be functional and therefore the landlord holds to obligation to reimburse the resident for these costs. However, it is unreasonable that the landlord failed to obtain further information about why the resident felt she could not use the kitchen to prepare food.
The resident has informed this Service that the work to the kitchen remains incomplete. Orders have been made below for the landlord to contact the resident and agree a way forwards. The resident is encouraged to engage with the landlord in this process.
In conclusion, although it is positive that the landlord attempted to achieve the resident’s desired outcome in its stage 2 response, the landlord failed to appropriately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and offer this solution at a much earlier stage. It was reasonable that the landlord wanted to complete the kitchen replacement with some urgency however this resulted in the resident missing the opportunity to have her say in the process. The landlord also failed to offer proportionate redress for the failures identified. For this reason, this investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement. Orders for an apology and an additional £250 compensation have been made below. This is line with this Service’s remedies guidance for failures which had a significant adverse impact on the resident but no permanent impact.

The resident’s reports of staff attending without a scheduled appointment

The evidence shows the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and requirements for advance notice on all appointments. The resident has also shown this Service photographs of her front door which holds a sign that says she does not want unscheduled visitors. The landlord was aware these steps were necessary for the resident to feel safe in her home.
On 11 August 2023 the landlord asked the resident if it could visit the property on 16 August 2023 to investigate a reported incident that a kitchen cabinet had fallen and injured the resident. The resident replied and said the kitchen was booked to be replaced on 15 August 2023 and so would need to be inspected before then. There is no evidence of the landlord replying.
The landlord visited the property on 16 August 2023, without a confirmed appointment, and the notes from the visit say that the resident did not respond to the doorbell from the main communal entrance. The landlord gained entry to the communal area, saw the resident in the communal garden and spoke to the resident through the window. She told the landlord she wasn’t expecting a visit and said it was not a good time. The landlord’s notes further state that the resident asked the landlord if it still wanted to see the kitchen and showed the landlord the progress made on the new kitchen installation. In her complaint of 21 August 2023 the resident told the landlord this unscheduled attendance was traumatic and the experience had triggered anxiety, panic attacks and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that it should not have attended without a confirmed appointment and apologised for the distress caused. It said the issue had been raised directly with the staff member and team manager. It explained that the staff member had likely not been made aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It said it had since ensured all teams were made aware of the need to check for vulnerability alerts on its system to alert them to potential vulnerabilities or requirements before attending appointments. It confirmed that all relevant staff members had access to this information now.
The landlord acknowledged its failure, apologised and explained what it had done to prevent the issue from happening again in future. Overall, this was a reasonable response. However, given the significant impact the issue had on the resident it was unreasonable that the resident had to wait almost 8 weeks to receive this in the stage 1 complaint response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have separately acknowledged this issue or have provided reassurance on the matter prior to issuing its full complaint response given the nature of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the severity of the impact on the resident.
In conclusion, the landlord acted reasonably in acknowledging its failure, apologising and identifying what it could do to improve in future. However it was unreasonable that the landlord did not address the resident’s concern more quickly. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation specifically in recognition of the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its delay in addressing the resident’s concerns about its unscheduled attendance on 16 August 2023. The overall delays in issuing the complaint responses have been assessed below.
The resident has informed this Service that the landlord has recently attended without a scheduled appointment. No further details have been provided on this attendance. Based on the time passed between the issue reported in this complaint and the more recent report of an unscheduled attendance, this investigation has not assessed the recent report. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident about this and confirm if she would like to raise a complaint about its handling of the matter.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that it may not treat first requests for a service as a complaint. If it rejects the complaint on this basis it will provide an explanation to the resident. The resident first complained to the landlord on 13 July 2023. The resident also asked for a complaint to be logged on 21 July 2023. The landlord responded to the resident on 21 July 2023 and said the enquiry had been referred to the correct department for investigation and that a complaint could be raised after they had the chance to respond.
The resident asked the landlord to log a complaint on 10 and 21 August 2023 and the landlord formally logged the residents complaint on 21 August 2023. If the landlord felt the resident’s contact on 13 and 21 July 2023 and on 10 August 2023 was a first request for a service it should have clearly explained this to the resident. The landlord acted inappropriately in delaying the logging of the resident’s initial complaint. It is inappropriate that resident had to request this 4 times before the landlord acknowledged the complaint. This is a failure and the landlord should pay £25 compensation in recognition of the additional time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay in logging the complaint.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy which detailed a 20 day response time for stage 1 complaints and a 40 day response time for stage 2 complaints. These timescales are not compliant with the timescales outlined in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the landlord has since updated its policy to comply with the Code, therefore no further orders have been made on this matter. The landlord took almost 8 weeks to issue its stage 1 response. In the stage 1 response, the landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in sending the response. This was a proportionate offer of redress in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for the impact the minor delay had on the resident.
The Code says that complaints should be concluded when actions to resolve a complaint have been outlined and complaint responses should not be delayed until the actions have been completed. The landlord took almost 15 weeks to issue the stage 2 response and failed to acknowledge this within its stage 2 response. The evidence shows that the landlord made continued attempts to resolve the situation for the resident after she had requested to escalate her complaint, but it was inappropriate for the complaint to have remained open for such a long time. The landlord should pay an additional £50 compensation. This is proportionate, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, to the impact of the delay in issuing this response.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord failed to address the resident’s comments about the lack of drawers and wall units or the costs incurred from purchasing the wall cabinet, takeaways, and mould treatments. The resident escalated the complaint on this basis as she felt the landlord had not fully addressed her concerns. The landlord did not address that it had failed to fully respond to her complaint within its stage 2 response. This was a failure and an order for an additional £50 compensation is ordered below. This is in recognition of the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of needing to escalate the complaint because the landlord had failed to fully address her concerns.
The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify improvements to service delivery. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response identified an improvement to prevent instances such as the unscheduled appointment on 16 August 2023. However it did not identify any learning from the kitchen replacement complaint and this is a failure. Under paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to reflect on this case and identify improvements for handling similar cases in the future.
In conclusion, the landlord failed to proportionately compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the delays in issuing the stage 2 complaint response. It also failed to use its complaint process to identify learning and improvements and did not address all the issues raised by the resident in its complaint responses. Therefore this investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Orders have been made below for £125 compensation and a case review to reflect on the learning from the case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the installation of the new kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff attending without a scheduled appointment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures outlined in the report.
2. In addition to the £250 already offered in the stage 1 response, pay the resident £425 comprising:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the installation of the new kitchen.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s reports of staff attending without a scheduled appointment.
  3. £125 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint.
3. Confirm an appointment to inspect the remaining kitchen repairs and following this inspection:
  1. Within 1 week, confirm the outcome of the inspection and the scope of works to be completed. The landlord must confirm to the resident a plan to complete the works, including details of how long the work will take and how many operatives will be required.
  2. Within a further 4 weeks, complete all repairs outlined within the confirmed scope.
4. Contact the resident regarding her claim for reimbursement for the wall cabinet and mould treatment. Upon receipt of proof of purchase confirm to the resident what will be reimbursed. If the request is rejected, this must be put in writing with an explanation for the rejection.
5. Complete a case review, under paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, to identify learning from this case. The landlord must provide a summary of this review to the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident about her report of a recent unscheduled attendance at her property. The landlord should confirm if the resident wishes to raise a complaint about its handling of the matter.