Clarion Housing Association Limited (202009271)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009271

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 July 2021

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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of electric sockets not working in the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of a problem with one of the windows in the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in early 2020. The property is a two-bedroom flat. The resident lives there with her two young children. The monthly rent for 2020-21 was £547.95.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord has an obligation to keep the system for supplying electricity in working order.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including electrical hazards. The HHSRS guidance says that measures to lessen the likelihood of occurrence and reduce harm outcomes include that the installation, that is, the supply/meters/fuses/wiring/sockets/light fittings/switches to be maintained in good repair.
The landlord’s void standard says that all void properties are to receive a full NICEIC inspection with a “clean” certificate to be issued before the void is handed back as ready to let. As a minimum any and all works highlighted as category 1 or 2 should be completed and a certificate issued on completion of these items.
All windows should be left fully operational – fully opening and closing, window furniture operational and wind/weather tight and restrictors fitted where appropriate. The kitchen must be left in a clean and sound condition for the incoming tenant. Best endeavours will be made to match as closely as possible where partially replacing kitchen components (units, worktops, tiles etc.).
The landlord’s responsive repair policy categorises repairs as either emergency or non-emergency. An emergency repair is one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. Any emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Further repairs may then subsequently be required.
Appointments for non-emergency repairs are offered at the resident’s convenience within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure where it aims to resolve the complaint within ten working days at stage one and 20 working days at the final stage. If it is unable to resolve the complaint within these timeframes, it is to keep the resident informed, explain why there is a delay, and provide a timescale of how long it would take the resolve the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that a payment can be made to maintain good relations between it and a resident where any inconvenience has been caused by its actions or failure to act. Examples of such failures include any inconvenience suffered or a degree of disruption to the household; repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem and time taken to resolve the complaint.
The policy further explains that landlord will pay £15 where it misses an appointment without giving 24 hours’ notice and that it may offer compensation for loss of room use. The definition of an unusable room is considered on a case-by-case basis, but common reasons include having no electricity at all in a room. Compensation may be offered as a proportion of the weekly/monthly rent. The amount paid will be based on a pro‑rata amount of the net rent according to the number of unavailable rooms. The loss of a bedroom is compensated at 30% of the monthly rent.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. During lockdown the landlord operated an essential repair service only inside properties.
The landlord began operating a critical repairs service with effect from 24 March 2020. On 1 June 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords saying that “where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works”’

Summary of events

On 4 November 2019 a domestic electrical installation report was completed. It noted that the overall condition of the installation was “satisfactory”; however, it identified several issues which were classed as “C2 – potentially dangerous”. The C2 issues were spotlights in the lounge not wired correctly; flat sockets in the whole property on a radial, “overloading circuit possible”; and faulty and damaged accessories throughout. In internal emails, the landlord noted that there was an error in this report and it should have been classed as “unsatisfactory”.
Following electrical work at the property, on 12 December 2019 a second domestic electrical installation report was completed. This noted that the overall electrical condition of the property was “satisfactory”. It did not identify any potentially dangerous issues.
Two electrical contractors attended the property hereafter. For ease I shall refer to both as “the contractor”.
On 6 February 2020 (the day after the tenancy started) the resident reported no electricity at the property. This was raised as an emergency repair. The repair log notes that this was resolved the same day “no power to lights now fixed x 4 lights and x 3 switches removed and x 2 lights replaced in order to fix the fault. All lights left in working order”.
On 7 February 2020 the resident reported no power to the sockets in the property. This was raised as an emergency repair; however, the contractor could not gain access.
On 11 February 2020 the resident reported that the issue with the electrics had not been resolved. This was raised as an emergency repair. The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 February 2020.
The contractor attended on 17 and 18 February 2020 and noted that they had partially restored power to the property but the issue required further investigation noting “fault on flat ring”. This was raised as an emergency repair.
The contractor was due to attend on 21 February 2020 to carry out a test but that was cancelled as they did not carry out such tests as part of an emergency appointment.
On 25 February 2020 the resident reported that sockets in the property had not been working for around two weeks. This was raised as an emergency repair. On 26 February 2020 the contractor attended and noted that only the sockets in the kitchen were working along with one in a bedroom and another in the hallway; the other bedroom sockets and all sockets upstairs were not working.
On 10 March 2020 the contractor identified a damaged cable that they were unable to repair at that visit. There is no evidence that there was any further contact between the landlord and the resident until July 2020.
On 1 July 2020 the resident reported that none of the sockets were working on the first, second or third floor of the property.
On 11 September 2020 the contractor noted that multiple sockets had no power and a full electrical test would need to be undertaken as soon as possible.
On 16 September 2020 the landlord confirmed to the resident that the contractor would attend on 19 September 2020. The final complaint response confirmed that the electrical problem was fully resolved on 24 September 2020.
Meanwhile, on 7 September 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the delay in resolving the problem with the electric sockets and about a window in the second bedroom that she said was broken as it would not open or close properly, meaning there was a constant breeze into the room. In relation to the electric sockets the resident said she had been without access to them for seven months despite her calling “hundreds (no exaggeration) of times and having many call outs”.
On 14 September 2020 the landlord arranged a roofing company to look at the window; the repairs log suggests that the window was replaced. The final complaint response confirms this matter was resolved in November 2020.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The main points of this response were:
1. All outstanding work to the property, including repairs to the electrical sockets, had been completed.
2. Its roofing contractor had attended on 2 October 2020 to measure up the window in the smaller bedroom for renewal.
3. It offered compensation of £230 made up of:
  1. Delay in carrying out a repair £50.
  2. Missed appointments on 17 and 21 September 2020 £30.
  3. Goodwill payment due to inconvenience caused £75.
  4. Repeat visits to resolve an outstanding issue £75.
The landlord upheld the complaint and explained how the resident could escalate her complaint.
On 14 October 2020 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint saying she was unhappy with the amount of compensation it had offered and that there had been more than two missed appointments.
On 16 November 2020 the contractor confirmed “a lot of the works were done to the lighting and smoke alarms”.
On 20 November 2020 the landlord issued its final response under its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. Electrical sockets: An electrical safety report, which identified several “C2” marks which meant the property was deemed potentially dangerous, was issued before any remedial works were completed on 18 December 2019 to bring the property to a satisfactory standard prior to being let out.
2. The final electrical certificate was issued on 20 December 2019 confirming that the electrical installation at the property was sound at the time of testing. The landlord attached a copy of that certificate.
3. In March 2020 the contractor identified that the electrical sockets would need rewiring. There was a subsequent delay as a result of the pandemic because rewiring was not categorised as an essential repair. When it resumed non‑essential repairs, a new job order was raised on 10 September 2020 and the rewiring works were completed on 24 September 2020.
4. Window: A roofing contractor attended the property on 2 October 2020 to measure the window for renewal. The contractor contacted the resident on 17 November 2020 to confirm that an appointment had been booked for 19 November 2020 for the Velux window to be fixed. The landlord identified no service failure.
5. Redress: In the stage one complaint the resident was awarded £30 for two missed appointments, from 17 and 21 September 2020. The landlord said it had not identified any other missed appointments but said it would consider this further should the resident provide further information.
6. It offered a further £100 discretionary compensation payment for the delay in pursuing other repairs (windows, trip hazard, bathroom tiles and scraped bath).
7. It offered a further £50 discretionary payment for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage two and apologised for that.
8. Total compensation offered was £360 made up of:
  1. Delay in completing the electric socket repair £70
  2. Repeat visits to resolve outstanding electric socket repair £70
  3. Time and effort in pursuing the electrical socket repair £70
  4. Time and effort in pursuing the outstanding repairs £100
  5. Delay in logging and acknowledging the stage two complaint £50
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she had no electrical sockets in two bedrooms from when they moved in for eight months. She added that the children were unable to use their bedroom – they could not have extension leads going up to that bedroom and there was no lighting for that room also. She said only two sockets were working in the property – one in the kitchen and one in the living room. The resident added that the window was now repaired but the contractor had said other windows should be replaced also as they were crumbling.

Assessment and findings

Reports of electric sockets not working in the property

The contractor recognised that there was an issue with the electric sockets in mid-February 2020 (paragraph 20); they identified a damaged cable in early March 2020 (paragraph 23). The landlord was therefore aware from that time that there was a problem that required further investigation. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to take action at that time. Even if it had treated it as a non‑urgent repair, it should have been resolved by the end of March 2020; the landlord missed an opportunity to rectify this matter before the first lockdown started. There is no evidence that it tried to take any action until September 2020 (paragraph 25) after prompting by the resident in July 2020 (paragraph 24).
The landlord contended that this was a non-essential repair (paragraph 33.c). However, this conflicts with earlier repairs to the sockets that the landlord deemed as emergency repairs (paragraphs 18, 20 and 22). It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated the repair of the damaged cable as an emergency repair as the contractors had established that the wiring was not in a good condition and this was a hazard (paragraph 4).
There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord during the first lockdown. However, given that there was a damaged cable that the contractor was unable to repair (paragraph 23), it is reasonable to reach the conclusion that the resident was without power from all but two of the sockets in the property from 26 February (paragraph 22) until the matter was resolved on 24 September 2020 (paragraph 27).
The landlord recognised that the lack of sockets would have caused inconvenience to the resident and her family and awarded compensation of £140 (paragraph 33.h).
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In this case, in light of the impact on the resident and her family the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate. The children’s bedroom was effectively out of use from mid-February to mid-September 2020. It was not reasonable to use extension cables to power the bedroom as this would be unsafe as a trip hazard as well as being potentially unsafe to overload the sockets that were working. This period covered the first lockdown and beyond when schools/nurseries were closed for a significant period of time and therefore the area of the property that could be lived in was restricted.
The landlord may offer compensation for the loss of room use and specifically for no electricity as per its compensation policy. The loss of a bedroom is 30% of the monthly rent (paragraph 11). It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered compensation of this type when considering the impact on the resident and her family.
This Service considers that the resident was without the use of a bedroom for seven months. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have awarded 7 months at 30% of the monthly rent of £547.95 which amounts to £1,150.70. This amount supersedes the previous sum awarded of £140.
The landlord awarded £70 for the time and trouble taken by the resident in pursuing the electric socket repairs (paragraph 33.h.iii) as well as £30 for two missed appointments (paragraph 29.c.ii) These sums were appropriate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy (paragraph 10 and 11).
The resident says that there were more missed appointments and the repair log is not clear on when appointments have been made or not. However, this Service considers that the compensation awarded as a result of this investigation reflects the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and her family overall and have not considered further the issue of missed appointments. This compensation is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been a failure over a considerable amount of time to address repairs.

Response to the resident’s reports of a problem with one of the windows are the property.

The repair log did not evidence any action with regards to a window until after the complaint was made to the landlord in September 2020 at which time the landlord arranged for its contractor to visit. The matter was resolved November 2020. The time taken was reasonable given that repeat visits were required to evaluate the issue, measure for a new window and then install it. In the landlord’s final complaint response said it had identified no service failure.
The resident confirmed that the problems with this window were resolved; however, she had concerns about other windows, and I have made a recommendation, below, about this.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint responses at both stages one and two were not appropriate as they were both issued outside the timescales of the complaints procedure (paragraph 9) taking 23 and 27 working days, respectively.
In its final complaints response, the landlord recognised the delay at stage two and awarded compensation of £50; it did not recognise that the delay at stage one for which this Service considers a further £100 would be appropriate as this reflects a similar delay and is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of poor complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of electric sockets not working in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of a problem with one of the windows at the property.

Reasons

The landlord missed an opportunity to investigate and resolve the problems with the sockets in the property before lockdown. It took no action during lockdown despite being aware that there was a damaged electricity cable in the property. As a result, the resident and her family were without the use of a bedroom for seven months. While the landlord awarded compensation, it was not proportionate to the impact on the household; nor did the landlord consider the range of options available to it under its compensation policy.
The landlord did not issue its complaint responses within the timescales set out in its complaints procedure. It recognised the delay at stage two and awarded compensation but did not recognise the earlier delay.
The landlord’s response to the report of the window repair was appropriate.

Orders

The landlord shall pay the resident the compensation of £1,400.70 within four weeks of the date of this report, minus any sums relating to this complaint that have previously been paid. This is made up of:
1. £1,150.70 loss of bedroom for seven months.
2. £70 time and trouble pursuing the electric sockets issue.
3. £30 two missed appointments.
4. £150 complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Writes to the resident to confirm what action it will take in respect of the other windows of the property which the resident said the contractor stated, “were crumbling”.
2. Pays the resident the sum £100 for delays to various repairs (which were not included as part of this complaint – see paragraph 33.f).