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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202218666)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218666

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 June 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:
    1. Handling of repairs.
    2. Response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of staff.
    3. Response to the resident’s re-housing request.
    4. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property since July 2000. The property is a one bedroom first floor flat.
  2. On 26 March 2021, the landlord was granted a court injunction to carry out a gas safety inspection at the resident’s flat. An appointment was made for 28 September 2021. As the landlord was unable to gain access, the appointment was rebooked for 7 October 2021. The landlord was not able to gain access.
  3. On 27 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and said it had a court injunction to allow access to carry out a gas safety inspection. It said it had booked an appointment for 4 November 2021, and failure to comply with a court order would allow it to use reasonable force to gain entry.
  4. On 19 January 2022, the resident reported a fault with a bathroom tap, which he said caused a flood.
  5. Following contact from the Ombudsman, on 7 February 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about an attempted “illegal eviction”. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord again on 14 March 2022, about the resident’s complaint about an outstanding repair to a bathroom tap, the conduct of staff, and the handling of his complaint. The resident said he wanted the landlord to complete the repairs, address staff conduct, and investigate his complaint.
  6. In its complaint response on 6 May 2022, the landlord said it had arranged an appointment to repair the bathroom tap, assess damage, and inspect for damp and mould. On staff conduct, it said it would investigate the resident’s concerns in line with its internal procedures. It apologised that the resident had to chase the repairs and a complaint response. Because of this, it offered £100 compensation for inconvenience and £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  7. On 12 October 2022, the resident told the landlord the compensation offered was derisory and not acceptable.
  8. The resident reported a fault with a window on 16 November 2022. The landlord carried out a temporary repair the same day and told him the window would be fully repaired in a month’s time. The repair was completed on 19 December 2022.
  9. On 4 January 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord about the resident’s complaint about the bathroom tap, damp and mould, a broken window, a pest infestation, the response to a request to be rehoused, conduct of staff, and the handling of his complaint.
  10. In its final response on 17 May 2023, the landlord said it had repaired the bathroom taps on 26 May 2022, inspected for damp and mould on 29 May 2022, and repaired the broken window on 19 December 2022. It said as the window was repaired outside its 28-day target, there had been a service failure. On staff behaviour, it said it stood by its position in its first complaint response and wanted to clarify that forced entry did not amount to an unlawful eviction action. On pest infestation, it said it had no records of any reports. On the request to be rehoused, it said he did not qualify and advised him about a mutual exchange. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint. It offered £100 for the delay in escalating the complaint and £100 for the delay in repairing the window.
  11. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he was refusing to accept the compensation as it was derisory in comparison to the trauma he faced due to an attempted unlawful eviction by the landlord and misconduct by officers. He said his life had been put in danger.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained that the landlord did not rehouse him. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the assessment of housing needs (which usually fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman). Therefore, this part of the complaint is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, the Ombudsman can look at how the landlord responded to his request and whether it acted reasonably.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation, and the structure and exterior of the property. This is confirmed in the repairs policy and means the landlord had a general obligation to repair the tap and window. The landlord did not dispute that it was responsible for the repairs.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says non-emergency repairs will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
  3. On 19 January 2022, the resident told the landlord that over the previous weekend, a hot water tap in the bathroom had broken and sent water cascading over the floor. He asked the landlord to repair the faulty tap. On 14 March 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord as the resident said the tap had not been repaired.
  4. In its complaint response on 16 May 2022, the landlord said its contractor had tried to contact the resident on 6 May 2022 to arrange an appointment but was unable to contact him by phone. It said a repair appointment had now been arranged for 26 May 2022.
  5. It is unclear from the records provided, why the landlord did not respond to the report of a broken tap until 6 May 2022, over 3 months after it was reported and 6 weeks after the Ombudsman contacted the landlord. It said it tried to contact the resident by phone on 6 May 2022, but could not contact him. At this stage, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to try other methods if it was unable to contact the resident by phone.
  6. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not meet the obligation to repair the tap in line with its repairs policy. The tap should have been repaired within 28 days, instead it took over 4 months. This was a failure by the landlord. However, the Ombudsman has noted that there was no significant detriment to the resident as there are no reports that he did not have water in the bathroom. The landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the repair and offered £100 because of its failure. The Ombudsman has found that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  7. On 16 November 2022, the resident reported a fault with a window. Records show the landlord carried out a temporary repair the same day. However, a full repair was not carried out until 19 December 2022, which was slightly outside the landlord’s 28-day target.
  8. The resident said he had to sleep with the window closed because of the fault and was concerned about the effect damp and mould would have on him. Records provided by the landlord show it had inspected the flat in June 2022 and found no evidence of damp and mould.
  9. In its final complaint response on 17 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged it had not met its 28-day service standard, apologised for the delay in carrying out the repair to the window, and offered £100 compensation. The Ombudsman has found that this was reasonable redress in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of staff

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was staff misconduct. Instead, the Ombudsman can determine whether the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint in line with its policy, and whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
  2. The Ombudsman has noted that as part of his complaint, the resident referred to the actions of police officers. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the police, and so cannot investigate this part of the complaint. If the resident wishes to take forward this part of the complaint, he should do so through the police complaints procedures.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it will investigate complaints, this includes complaints about staff conduct. The policy says it will respond to initial complaints within 10 working days, and where a complaint is escalated, it will respond within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  4. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord had a legal obligation to carry out a gas safety inspection. The landlord says that as it had been unable to gain access to the property to carry out an inspection, the court had given it an injunction to give it access to the property. This injunction allowed the landlord to use forced entry, if necessary, for the sole purpose of carrying out a gas safety inspection and carrying out any necessary work related to gas safety. The Ombudsman cannot question the decisions of courts.
  5. Records show the landlord made attempts to carry out a gas safety inspection at appointments at the resident’s property in September and October 2021. It is unclear from the records provided whether the landlord wrote to the resident to give notice of these appointments. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 27 October 2021 and advised the resident that the court had awarded the landlord an injunction to allow access to carry out a gas safety inspection. It told the resident it had booked an appointment for 4 November 2021. It said failure to comply with a court order would allow the landlord to use reasonable force to affect entry to carry out the works. The Ombudsman has found that this was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The Ombudsman has not seen a record of the outcome of the visit on 4 November 2021. However, records show that on 7 February 2022, the landlord acknowledged a complaint from the resident about “an illegal eviction”, and on 14 March 2022, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 March 2022, and asked him for more information about his complaint. In his response on 24 March 2022, the resident said the landlord had tried to “unlawfully evict” him and brought 4 police officers and “a gang of what looked like far-right mercenaries”. He said the landlord forced entry at a time when COVID-19 was “rampant”. He referred to his vulnerabilities and said because of this, the landlord put his life at risk. He said he wanted the housing officer sacked for gross misconduct, illegal eviction, and harassment.
  8. In its complaint response on 16 May 2022, the landlord apologised that the resident felt his life was in danger. It said it had a court injunction to complete the annual gas service, and all visits were lawful. It said his allegations of staff misconduct would be investigated in line with its internal procedures. However, it would not be able to advise him on the outcome, but it would use the findings to provide feedback and identify any further training that may be required.
  9. The Ombudsman has found that although there was a delay in responding, this was a reasonable response at this time. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to provide a resident with details of the outcome of an investigation into a staff member.
  10. On 4 January 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord as the resident said he had escalated his complaint and had not received a response. In its final response on 17 May 2023, the landlord said it had reviewed the resident’s housing file and interviewed the officer who the allegations had been made against. It said it was satisfied the allegations made by the resident were incorrect. It also said that during the first attempt to carry out the inspection, its staff observed the resident say he had a gun and threatened to shoot them. It said under these serious circumstances, it responded appropriately by calling the emergency services. It said the inspection was rescheduled, and it coordinated the visit with the police, which it said was reasonable and proportionate.
  11. The Ombudsman has not seen contemporaneous notes from the landlord on what occurred during the attempted inspections in September and October 2021. However, in a situation where serious threats had been made or had been perceived to have been made, it would be reasonable for a landlord to request support from the police.
  12. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident complained about the landlord’s staff and police entering his flat during COVID-19. He said this caused him trauma and put his life at risk. The regulator of gas engineers, Gas Safe, said that during the COVID-19 pandemic, landlords were required to find a balance between ensuring people were protected from fatal risks arising from carbon monoxide exposure or gas explosion, while doing what they could to protect people from COVID-19. It said the suspension of gas safety checks was not permissible, as it would unnecessarily put tenants at increased risk. It said each property should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  13. The Ombudsman has noted the court gave permission during the COVID-19 pandemic for the landlord to carry out a gas safety inspection, and the landlord had written to the resident about the appointment on 4 November 2021. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of what measures the landlord took during the inspection to minimise the risk of transmitting the COVID-19 virus. Because of this, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord considered the circumstances of the case. However, on the balance of wider safety, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord acted reasonably in carrying out the inspection.
  14. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was a delay in responding to the complaint about staff conduct, which the landlord apologised for. However, the landlord appears to have responded to the resident’s complaint appropriately. In its first response, it said it would investigate and use the findings to improve its service. It reasonably told the resident it could not tell him about the outcome of an investigation into a staff member.
  15. The Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of the landlord’s investigation or contemporaneous notes from the events in September to November 2021, which the landlord referred to in its final response, and so is not able to comment on this. However, given the background to the case, with court orders and a perceived or actual threat, the Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably in carrying out the gas safety inspection. The landlord also confirmed the action was not taken to enforce an eviction. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of staff.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s re-housing request

  1. The Ombudsman has noted that in his complaint, the resident referred to the condition of his property going back over several years. In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman will look at the landlord’s actions from when the resident told it he wanted to move to another property on 24 March 2022.
  2. Records provided by the landlord show the resident said he wanted to be rehoused to a first-floor property, with adaptations for his complex. This was in response to the landlord asking him on 22 March 2022 how he wanted his complaint about repairs and staff conduct to be resolved.
  3. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord did not respond to this point in its complaint response on 16 May 2022. Although a housing transfer was not part of the complaint originally made by the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond to this request at this stage in the complaints process.
  4. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 4 January 2023. Amongst the issues raised in the escalation request was the landlord’s response to the request to be rehoused due to the condition of the property.
  5. In its final response on 17 May 2023, the landlord said management transfers were reserved for a small number of cases where there was serious antisocial behaviour or harassment that puts a resident’s life at risk or where a resident has had a significant change in their circumstances and is no longer able to access their home. It said as these circumstances did not apply in the resident’s case, the other option available to him was a mutual exchange. It said full details were on its website and its customer services could assist him.
  6. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord clearly set out its position in its final response but could have advised the resident sooner that he did not qualify for a management transfer and what his options were. The failure to set this out in its stage 1 response was a service failure by the landlord. This meant there was a delay in the resident having an opportunity to consider a mutual exchange. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, service failure is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a minor failure. Because of this, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident with £50 for the failure to provide timely information on his housing options.

 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to respond to initial complaints in 10 working days. When a complaint is escalated, it aims to respond in 20 working days. This approach is in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  2. On 7 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge a complaint he had made through the Ombudsman about an illegal eviction. The landlord said it had tried to contact him by phone but was unable to get through. It said his complaint had been passed to the relevant business area for a response.
  3. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 7 March 2022, as the resident said he had not received a response. The landlord sent its first response on 16 May 2022. As well as offering compensation for other failings, it apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £25. This was reasonable.
  4. Records provided by the landlord show on 12 October 2022, that the resident said the compensation offered was “derisory”. It is unclear from the records provided by the landlord whether the resident had previously asked for his complaint to be escalated. However, this was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction with the outcome, and the complaint should have been escalated at this time.
  5. On 4 January 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and said the resident had not received a response to his request to escalate his complaint. The landlord sent its final response on 17 May 2023, which was over 4 months after the Ombudsman contacted the landlord, and 7 months after the resident said the landlord’s offer of compensation was derisory. In mitigation, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord emailed the resident on 27 January, 24 February and 10 March 2023 to update him about delays in sending a response.
  6. In its final response, the landlord apologised for difficulties he had in escalating the complaint, which it said was due to an administrative error. It also apologised for the delay in sending a final response and offered £100.
  7. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord did not follow its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code. There was a delay in responding to the original complaint, which the landlord apologised for and offered compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint in October 2022, and then took over 4 months to issue a final response after it had been contacted by the Ombudsman. The resident had to chase for a response, which caused inconvenience. The Ombudsman has found this was failure by the landlord. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord offered £100 in its final response, which was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  8. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident did not accept compensation for delays in complaint handling and repairs offered by the landlord at stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the amount of £325 offered during the complaints process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of staff.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s re-housing request.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 for the failure to provide timely information on housing options.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reoffer £325 compensation awarded at stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process.