Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212372)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212372

Clarion Housing Association Limited

3 July 2024

 

Amended at Review


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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of the property condition when it was let.
    2. The resident’s reports of sewage in the property and garden.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor. The resident held an assured non-shorthold tenancy which started on 18 March 2022. The resident had a number of vulnerabilities which the landlord was aware of. This included anxiety, panic attacks, depression, PTSD, eating disorder and a history of addiction. The landlord recorded that she had spent the last two years in supported accommodation, which it had also managed.
  2. The resident viewed the property before signing the tenancy. During the viewing, she noted that there was contaminated sewage waste in the front garden and asked for this to be removed and for the area to be disinfected. The resident was given a gas safety record with the tenancy paperwork which showed that the boiler was not safe to use. The boiler was later repaired on 30 March 2022.
  3. On 4 April 2022, the resident reported a blocked drain in the back garden that was causing sewage to overflow. The resident asked to be decanted to another property temporarily as the landlord had been unable to resolve the matter, but this was denied. She remained in contact with support workers from the supported accommodation where she lived previously, and on 12 April 2022, they allowed her to move back into the supported accommodation temporarily while repairs were ongoing. The support workers told the repairs team that this was because of her vulnerability and health needs.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 13 June 2022. She noted a number of concerns, including that there were ongoing sewage issues at the property, and that the landlord was not following its vulnerable residents policy. Between making the complaint and receiving the response, the resident was allowed to move permanently back into the supported accommodation, and she ended her tenancy at the property. This occurred on 25 July 2022.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 December 2022. This was provided following 2 contacts from the resident’s MP and 2 contacts from this Service. It said that the drains repair was a complex matter, and it took time to establish whether it was the responsibility of the landlord or of the water company. It told her that she was a general needs tenant and so she was responsible for reporting, and allowing access for, repairs. It offered £250 compensation which consisted of £50 for its complaint response being delayed. A further £200 was in acknowledgement of the time taken to resolve the complaint, inconvenience, the household’s vulnerabilities, repeat visits and misdirection.
  6. The resident was unhappy with this response. On 3 December 2022, she told the landlord that the award of compensation was insulting and discredited the harm she was caused. The landlord advised her, on 6 December 2022, that she should provide details of her dissatisfaction to be able to escalate her complaint.
  7. On 22 December 2022, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. This was done through her support workers at the supported accommodation. She noted that the dates provided in the complaint response were inaccurate. She reported concerns with the boiler not being safe to use when her tenancy started. She said that its failure to offer a decant and provide reasonable adjustments meant that she had to return to supported accommodation.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 17 January 2023. The landlord provided the same information it had offered in its stage 1 complaint response. It said it appreciated that it may not have been a “pleasant experience” but that it had no reason to increase its offer of compensation as it had considered all the concerns. It offered an additional £50 for its complaint response being outside of its expected response times, bringing the total compensation offered to £300. It gave her details of how to submit a personal injury claim if she wanted compensation towards loss of possessions or income and for any injuries.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation that the landlord awarded. She asked this Service to investigate her complaint.

Post internal complaints procedure

  1. On 25 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord for clarification of how it calculated the amount of compensation. The landlord responded on 31 January 2023. It said it could not offer a detailed explanation as each complaint is reviewed on its own merits and that compensation was mostly discretionary.
  2. On 11 July 2023, this Service contacted the landlord and requested evidence regarding the complaint. On 1 September 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and said that following an evidence request from this Service, it had reviewed its information regarding her complaint. It said it had obtained information which was not considered in the earlier part of the complaint process and said this may have been impacted by a cyber-security incident. It said it had not provided sufficient support to her as a vulnerable customer and apologised for this. It increased its offer of £300 compensation given in its final complaint response to £2,010.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated in her complaint that her health had been affected by the situation. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The resident’s reports of the property condition when it was let

  1. All landlords are required to provide new tenants with a copy of a valid gas safety certificate before they move in. The resident was given a gas safety record with her tenancy documents. The gas safety record was dated 20 October 2021 and it stated that the boiler was not safe to use.
  2. The resident’s tenancy started on 18 March 2022. The resident contacted the landlord to arrange for the boiler to be repaired and its heating contractor attended on 25 March 2022. It was unable to repair the boiler at this appointment and so it attended again on 30 March 2022 and successfully repaired it. Due to the boiler not working, the resident had no access to heating or hot water between 18 March 2022 and 30 March 2022.
  3. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint, made on 13 June 2022, she noted concerns about the boiler being unsafe when her tenancy started and that she had no access to heating or hot water until it was repaired. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 December 2022. Its response relied on incorrect information being given from its heating contractors who said that the resident had failed to allow access for the boiler repair and that it was still not completed as of June 2022. The landlord said the correct process had been followed for the gas to be uncapped and any repairs to be completed. It did not respond to her point about the boiler being unsafe or being without heating or hot water. It was inappropriate for it to not consider the impact of this on the resident.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy allows compensation for loss of amenities, including gas and heating supply. This is awarded at £5 per day for the duration of the issue. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay compensation of £60 for the 12 days where the resident was without heating and hot water. In addition, the landlord is recommended to consider the Gas Safety Regulations 1998, and as amended in 2018, to ensure that all new tenants have a copy of a gas safety certificate showing the appliance is safe to use. This is because it offered the property without ensuring that it had taken action to rectify the issues raised on the certificate.
  5. The resident said that she requested a repair for the windows to be replaced on 22 March 2022. The landlord’s repair logs note it attended on 30 March 2022, and this resulted in the windows being ordered for replacement. The evidence then shows that the next appointment was booked for 23 June 2022 to carry out the following works – ‘Living Room – x1 window sill x1 fixed window x1 sash opener weights to be adjusted and ease adjust window. Kitchen – x1 kitchen window sill to be replaced and ease adjust window’, as such the repairs were reasonably completed.
  6. During the viewing of the property, the resident saw what she believed to be sewage contaminated waste in the front garden. On 28 January 2022, she emailed the landlord to confirm her interest in the property but requested that the waste was removed, and the area was disinfected before her tenancy started. It is evident from records that the waste was removed prior to the tenancy start date, in the rear garden and the area was also disinfected. However, the landlord did not provide any confirmation of this or evidence that it had disinfected the area in its communication with the resident nor in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. There was also confusion caused, as the resident raised issues about waste in the front garden and from the evidence, whilst this was just soil, there remains a failing in the way the landlord responded to the resident. As there was waste in the neighbour’s front garden, it is understandable that the resident would have been concerned about it moving to her front garden as there was already waste in her back garden. The landlord ought to have reassured the resident that the soil in her front garden was not waste and would be removed but the front garden need not be disinfected. The communication around this matter was insufficient and left the resident feeling that her concerns were not being adequately addressed.

The resident’s reports of sewage in the property and garden

  1. In the landlord’s vulnerable residents policy, it states that it identifies vulnerability when the resident applies for housing and can seek information regarding the vulnerabilities from any member of its staff who has contact with the resident. In this case, the landlord would have had evidence of the vulnerability from both the resident and from its supported accommodation team. Its policy states that during the letting of a property, it can make referrals for support from both external support agencies and from its own tenancy sustainment services. This Service has seen no evidence that suggests it made such referrals.
  2. The landlord’s policy states that it will support vulnerable residents with repairs and that it would note such vulnerabilities on its records so that it can deliver its service appropriately, and that it is tailored to the needs of the household. It defines three categories of factors for defining vulnerability. From the landlord’s records of the resident’s vulnerability, the resident would meet two of these categories. These are the resident’s ability to act, engage and cope due to her mental health needs and the resident’s experience of an exceptional life event due to having recently moved from supported accommodation.
  3. On 6 April 2022 and 8 April 2022, the resident asked to be decanted to another property temporarily while the sewage works were going on, due to her vulnerability. She was first told that it was after working hours and so there was nobody available to assist which was not a reasonable response. She did not hear back from the landlord the following day and so when she requested this again, it denied her request. The landlord did not provide evidence to this Service of why it refused the decant at this time. This was not appropriate.
  4. On 8 April 2022, the resident told the landlord that she was immuno-compromised and that she needed the property to be cleaned and sterilised for her to be able to live there. She had only stayed 2 nights at the property due to the sewage being walked into her property and the risk of further sewage leaking in from the garden. The landlord deployed an operative with disinfectant to clean the small areas which went ahead on 10 April 2022, it said it was not a specialist clean because this would have taken too long to arrange at short notice. The resident reiterated that she wanted the property cleaned on 11 April 2022. The landlord responded and said that it had arranged for a specialist contractor to clean the rear garden, the walkway through the property, and the front garden. This took place on 19 April 2022 with the areas where sewage had been walked into the property being cleaned.
  5. On 11 April 2022, the supported accommodation team told the landlord that the resident could not live there as it was a health and safety hazard. They reiterated that she was vulnerable and noted that the resident felt more dependent and vulnerable than when she first moved in to supported accommodation. The landlord told the resident, on 11 April 2022, that a decant was still not required at that time. It did not provide any evidence of how it came to this decision. A surveyor had not attended the property at this time.
  6. The landlord did not appropriately investigate and consider the resident’s request for a decant in April 2022. It provided no assurance as to when it expected to resolve her issues and, given her vulnerabilities, this understandably added distress and inconvenience to the resident. Due to this, the supported accommodation team allowed the resident to move back into the supported accommodation temporarily on 12 April 2022. It is believed that without the actions of the supported accommodation team, the resident would have remained in a property which they said was impacting on her needs as a vulnerable resident.
  7. The landlord did not offer a decant to the resident, despite being told she had been allowed to move back into the supported accommodation temporarily because of the property condition. It is evident from an internal email on 20 May 2022 that the landlord considered the resident to have been decanted, despite it refusing this itself. The resident ultimately was unable to move back into the property due to a decline in her health. She ended the tenancy at the property and had to permanently move into the supported accommodation on 25 July 2022. The supported accommodation team told the landlord that the property was unhabitable and was a threat to the resident’s wellbeing.
  8. On 19 May 2022, the landlord was aware of the property not having a functioning toilet because of the ongoing sewage issues, but it still reiterated its stance that the resident did not require a decant. The landlord had not completed a surveyor inspection to assess the property despite repeated requests for a decant and being told that the property was unhabitable. On 6 June 2022, a member of the landlord’s management said that if the issues were not resolved by the end of the week, a decant would need to be arranged. This was because the supported accommodation could not continue to temporarily house the resident. It is unclear why the landlord noted that a decant was required at this point given its ongoing stance towards the request for a decant.
  9. A surveyor inspection was arranged for 9 June 2022 and the surveyor said in its follow-up email that they were embarrassed it had taken so long to resolve the issues for the resident. They noted that while it seemed that the sewage issue had been resolved, they could not guarantee that it would not happen again, and that sewage may come back up and into the property. The surveyor said they did not inspect the drains and instead they confirmed that there were no smells of sewage present in the flat.
  10. The resident said that the ongoing sewage works on the pipes below the flat concerned her. The resident was vulnerable and was told again that a decant was not required despite the surveyor acknowledging they had not inspected the drains. This was not appropriate as it could not determine the safety of the resident moving back into the property. This was at a time when the resident was temporarily living in supported accommodation and the landlord’s position regarding the decant would have understandably added to distress and inconvenience to her. She was concerned that at any point she may be expected to leave the supported accommodation and return to a property with sewage concerns.
  11. The decant not being offered, or appropriately considered, at the time of each request was a failing by the landlord. The landlord was dismissive of the resident’s concerns, and it did not appear to have considered her concerns seriously and its responses lacked empathy. It was evident that sewage waste was being walked into the flat each time an operative attended. Given the circumstances, the lack of resolution to the sewage issue and the resident’s known vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to consider decanting the resident, but it did not do so.
  12. The landlord said that the works to identify the source of the blockage in the underground pipes was complex. It was evident that there was a dispute over whether it was the responsibility of the landlord or the water company. The repair was first requested on 4 April 2022 and the landlord’s internal records shows that the dispute over responsibility was present until at least 29 June 2022. While it is acknowledged that such matters can be difficult and time consuming, it did not do enough to appropriately support the resident during this period.
  13. As the landlord was aware of the resident’s support needs and vulnerabilities, it would have been expected for it to have considered reasonable adjustments in how it responded to the resident. This is especially relevant under the Equality Act 2010 and the landlord’s vulnerable residents policy.
  14. On 11 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said she had been in tears over having to take responsibility of contacting the water company. She said she was not equipped to deal with the situation and was not offered any support by the landlord with this. It responded and said it would contact the water company for her. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer this to the resident, the landlord still expected the resident to attend the repair appointments. This was during a time when the landlord knew the resident had returned temporarily to the supported accommodation because of the stress that the situation had caused her.
  15. The resident told the landlord that she had attended 23 repair appointments including 2 appointments where a contractor did not attend. The resident said she felt that she had to act as a project manager despite requests for the landlord to support her with manging the repair appointments. This Service has seen evidence of the resident having to ask for reports from the landlord and show these to the water company. This was an unreasonable way for the landlord to expect its vulnerable resident to manage repairs.
  16. The resident said that she asked the landlord for support in managing the repairs and she asked if it could attend the appointments on her behalf. She said that she was told this was not possible and that the landlord told her she would be in breach of tenancy if she did not allow the repairs to go ahead. The resident said that she understood this as a threat of eviction which would have understandably added further distress and inconvenience to her at an already vulnerable time. This is not considered as a fair and reasonable response by the landlord to a reasonable adjustment request from the resident. While this Service has not received evidence of this being said by the landlord, the resident did then raise this point in her stage 1 complaint.
  17. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it said that when residents accept a property, it is their responsibility to report repairs and arrange a suitable time for the repairs to be completed. It said it could not have a member of staff wait at her property for repairs to be completed and that the property was a general needs property with a general needs agreement. This response was dismissive and did not consider the resident’s vulnerability or follow its own vulnerable residents policy regarding reasonable adjustments.
  18. In January 2024, this Service published a spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights – relationship of equals. In this report, we highlight that the notion of general needs housing does not mean no needs. Given the failings identified in this report, an order has been made for the landlord to review this spotlight report and to consider how it might ensure that it is better equipped to respond appropriately to situations, such as in this case, going forward.
  19. It is unclear why the landlord chose to respond with this stance. A member of the landlord’s repairs management team had sent an internal email on 13 April 2022 and asked the repairs team to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities in its actions. They said that the resident may require extra support from the landlord as she had just moved on from supported accommodation. They asked it to explore the option of installing a key safe to allow contractors access to the property while the resident was not staying at the property.
  20. Despite this reasonable request, the landlord still expected the resident to manage appointments herself. On one occasion, despite being aware she was temporarily living at the supported accommodation, it expected her to be at the property at 4am to allow operatives access to the property and the drain in the back garden. It told her it would not attend on her behalf, and she would need to be at the property. The landlord repeatedly failed to follow its vulnerable residents policy and failed to consider reasonable adjustments to support the resident during the duration of the tenancy. The landlord could have offered further support through involvement tenancy sustainment officers or including support workers in meetings or appointments.
  21. Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord was expected to demonstrate it understood the resident’s needs and outlined how it would meet them. The landlord did not do this, and it further failed to identify in its complaint responses that they had failed to meet her needs.

The associated complaint

  1. The complaint was made by the resident on 13 June 2022. The resident and the supported accommodation team tried to get updates from the landlord, but it did not provide a response. The resident contacted her MP who contacted the landlord twice, but this Service has no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided a response. The resident contacted this Service for support and this Service contacted the landlord on 30 September 2022 and 23 November 2022 to ask it to provide a stage 1 complaint response.
  2. The landlord eventually provided the stage 1 complaint response on 2 December 2022. This was 123 working days after the complaint was made. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code states that complaint responses at stage 1 should be within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. The stage 2 response should be within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint escalation. The landlord’s response time far exceeded the timeframe set out in the Code, albeit its later response at stage 2 was offered within an appropriate timescale.
  3. It should be noted that the landlord is using an interim complaints policy with non-compliant timeframes for responses. It has a timescale of 20 working days at stage 1 and 40 working days at stage 2. The landlord has previously advised this Service that it will revert to a Code compliant complaints policy in April 2024.
  4. In both the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, there were inaccuracies in the dates that it said that events had occurred. This was despite the resident questioning these dates in her complaint escalation. It said the drain repair was reported by the resident on 8 April 2022, but its records show this was on 4 April 2022. It also said the complaint was made by the resident on 30 October 2022, but it was made on 13 June 2022. It is evident that its record keeping is accurate as it was able to provide this evidence to this Service. It is also reasonable to conclude that, given these errors, the responses were not reviewed for accuracy before sending.
  5. The landlord awarded compensation of £250 in its stage 1 complaint response. This was made up of £50 for the delay in its complaint response and £200 for the time taken to resolve the complaint, inconvenience, household vulnerabilities, repeat visits and misdirection. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she remained unhappy with the level of compensation the landlord offered for its failure to consider her needs as a vulnerable tenant. It increased its offer of compensation to £300 at stage 2.
  6. The £300 compensation offered by the landlord consisted of £100 for the delay in it issuing its responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 and of £200 for the handling of the substantive issues. It advised her that she could submit a personal injury claim or request for reimbursement of loss of earnings if she wished to pursue these matters. The landlord’s complaint responses were dismissive of the resident’s concerns, and it did not acknowledge the extent of its failure to consider her vulnerabilities by making reasonable adjustments in line with its vulnerable residents policy. The responses also did not address all aspects of the complaint such as whether the resident’s boiler was safe to use or the point regarding the windows being rotten. Its attempt at redress was therefore not sufficient and the compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified.
  7. Following the landlord’s final complaint response and after this Service had notified the landlord of investigating the complaint, the landlord contacted the resident. On 1 September 2023, it said it had found information that had not been considered in the complaint process and suggested this may have been a result of a previous cyber-security incident.
  8. The landlord told the resident that it did not provide sufficient support to her as a vulnerable customer and apologised that the situation had occurred. It increased the offer of compensation from £300 to £2,010. This was made up of £300 from its previous offer and additional compensation totalling £1,710 for damage to her personal items, including flooring, a sofa, a chest of drawers and a mattress. The landlord’s offer of £300 covered a number of failings, £200 of which was for its handling of the substantive issues, which would have included consideration of the household vulnerabilities. Its relatively small offer in relation to the impact on the resident indicated that its assessment was not fair or reasonable. It lacked empathy for the considerable distress that the resident had experienced, and the landlord was already aware of her vulnerabilities before she was offered the property.
  9. The landlord should have considered this information at the time of the complaint which would have meant that it did not need to revise its offer of compensation. The significant increase in compensation consisted of additional compensation for damaged items. Despite its apology and acknowledgement of its lack of support for the resident who was vulnerable, it did not offer sufficient compensation towards the distress and inconvenience that was understandably caused to the resident. The landlord did not adhere to its vulnerable residents policy or properly consider any reasonable adjustments for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the property condition when it was let.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of sewage in the property and garden.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident with specific reference to how it failed to follow its vulnerable residents policy and how it unreasonably put responsibility on the resident to manage the repairs herself. This apology should be from the landlord’s chief executive.
    2. Pay the £2,010 compensation it has already offered, if it has not already done so. This should be paid to the resident directly and not to the rent account.
    3. Pay £60 compensation for no access to heating or hot water from 18 March 2022 to 30 March 2022. This should be paid to the resident directly and not to the rent account.
    4. Pay £1,200 compensation for its failure to consider the resident’s vulnerability in her reports of sewage in the property and garden.
    5. Provide training for its staff managing complaints regarding its complaint response timeframes and the importance of abiding by the times set out in its policy. This should also include the importance of providing a response that responds to each aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to self-assess against this Service’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights – relationship of equals. The landlord should provide responses against each of the points listed in the recommendations section for landlords (pages 62-64). It should provide a copy of the self-assessment to this Service, setting out how it intends to act upon these recommendations.
  3. The landlord should provide compliance with these orders within the timeframes set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider whether its vacant property and/or lettings procedures needs to be revised to ensure that new tenants have a copy of a gas safety certificate that shows the appliances are safe to use.
  2. The landlord should consider whether it is able to revert to its Code compliant complaints policy in April 2024, or sooner, as previously advised to this Service.