Clarion Housing Association Limited (202223101)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223101

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 May 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 handling of cyclical decorations.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 1992. The property is a basement flat in a converted house. There are 4 other households in the building, flat b, flat c, flat d, and flat e. The landlord is a housing association.
3. On 18 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him that in the coming weeks it would be carrying out external cyclical decorations to the property. It provided a schedule of works it intended to carry out. In July 2022, it wrote to the resident again stating it would start works very shortly and provided a reduced schedule of works. The works were completed in August 2022.
4. In September 2022, the resident complained to the landlord on behalf of himself and the other residents in the block. He stated that in their collective view the works had not been completed to a good standard and all the residents in the block were unhappy with the quality of the works. The scope of the works was not in line with the schedule he received in May. This included that the main entrance door had not been replaced as he had been told, works did not start on the day the landlord said they would, and scaffolding was not removed in a timely manner when the works were completed.
5. In its stage 1 response the landlord’s position was the scope of the works had not changed in between May and July. It acknowledged that its contractor had not communicated well enough with him in respect of the change to the start date, reasons for not replacing the main entrance door, and a meeting it had been asked to arrange. It acknowledged the resident contacted it to ask when scaffolding would be removed. It offered £150 in recognition of the issues.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. He stated the landlord was incorrect when it said the schedule of work had not changed between May and July, he was not happy with the quality of the work carried out, and the main entrance door was not in good condition and should have been replaced. He provided photographs of areas that had been painted and requested an independent surveyor assess the quality of the works.
7. In its final stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the schedule of works had changed. It said this was a result of an administrative error which meant the resident received a schedule that was not applicable to his block. It apologised it had not identified this during its stage 1 complaint investigation and acknowledged the different schedules caused confusion and raised his expectations. It offered an additional £100 in compensation. In respect of the door replacement and standard of work carried out, it upheld its stage 1 response and compensation offer of £150. The total amount of compensation offered by the landlord was £250.
8. The resident remained disatisfied and escalated the complaint to this service. To resolve the issue the resident wants the landlord to complete the works to a higher standard.

Assessment and findings

9. The landlord’s approach to carrying out cyclical decorations is set out in its Planned Investment policy. Its states the objective of this policy is to ‘ensure high quality service is provided when delivering planned work’.
10. On 18 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him it would carry out external works to the block starting on 24 May 2022. It enclosed a schedule of works. This included roof repair works, concrete and external wall repairs, repairs of rainwater goods, and painting of soffits and guttering. On 8 July 2022, it sent a reduced schedule of works but failed to explain the reasons for this. The landlord’s approach lacked courtesy and caused the resident disappointment and uncertainty. Where a landlord decides to vary works it has already informed the resident will take place, the Ombudsman expects the landlord will explain this in a timely manner to ensure it appropriately manages the resident’s expectations.
11. The resident was also informed by the landlord that the main entrance door would be replaced at the same time as the external works. The documents provided show that at some stage after this the landlord decided the door did not need replacing and it would repaint it. The landlord was entitled to rely on evidence it had to support its decision to repaint the door rather than replace it, however, the landlord did not explain its change of decision to the resident until it received his stage 1 complaint. The landlord apologised and acknowledged it had not communicated effectively on the issue. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
12. When the works set out in the July schedule were complete the resident contacted the landlord to express concerns about the standard of the works. He also queried why it had not carried out the works set out in the May schedule. In response to this the landlord asked its contractor to invite the resident to a meeting at the property to discuss matters. The contractor did not do this, so the resident only became aware of the meeting when the landlord telephoned him on the morning of the meeting to confirm his attendance. While the landlord did apologise to the resident for the situation, it does not appear to have investigated why the contractor did not act on its instruction to invite the resident to the meeting. The situation caused inconvenience to the resident who had to hurriedly reorganise his day to attend the meeting. The landlord and contractor’s disorganised approach was unreasonable and unfair.
13. The resident attended the meeting and expressed his concerns to the landlord and the contractor about the standard of the works carried out. The landlord has provided a handover form in relation to the meeting. This shows the outcome of the meeting was the landlord and contractor agreed satisfactory completion of the works. The Ombudsman notes a section of the form where the resident should sign to indicate they are happy with the works carried out. This is not completed, and the landlord has not recorded the residents feedback on the handover form. Resident feedback is an important means by which the landlord can understand how its contractors are performing and understand its resident’s satisfaction with works carried out. The Ombudsman’s view is that it was unfair and unreasonable for the landlord not to have documented the residents feedback and concerns when it had invited him to the handover meeting. This undermined the residents trust and confidence in the landlord.
14. On 9 September 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the issues. The resident stated he was complaining on behalf of himself and 3 other households in the block. He said that ‘none of the residents are happy with the finished works’. In its stage 1 complaint response it demonstrated that it knew none of the residents in the block were happy with the standard of the works, but the landlord has not provided any evidence that it contacted any of these residents to gain their view. The landlord appears to have considered the resident’s complaint in isolation which meant it missed an opportunity to gather feedback available to it that the finished works were not of an acceptable standard to other residents in the block. The situation left the resident frustrated and feeling he was not being listened to.
15. In respect of the delay in the start date of the works the landlord acknowledged its contractor had not communicated appropriately with him about the matter. It said its contractors had been made aware they needed to improve on keeping residents informed. The Ombudsman considers the landlords response lacked detail. It could have provided more detail around this, for example by confirming it had spoken to, or written to its contractors about the matter.
16. In relation to the different work schedules the landlord initially stated the schedule of works had not changed between May and June. This caused frustration to the resident and resulted in his request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. It was only at stage 2 the landlord conceded there had been an administration error, in that its contractor sent out a schedule of works that did not apply to his block. It should have identified this earlier given the difference in schedules was an integral part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord offered a further £100 for this failing. In addition to the £150 it offered at stage 1 for the inconvenience caused.
17. In respect of the delay in removing the scaffolding, the documents provided show the landlord wrote to the resident informing him the scaffolding would be removed on 5 August 2022. In its complaint response it acknowledged the resident had contacted it on 15 August 2022 to complain the scaffolding had not been removed on the specified date. The landlord removed the scaffolding on 18 August 2022. This was 10 working days after the date the landlord specified. The landlord did not apologise or acknowledge the delay was a service failure that caused annoyance and inconvenience.
18. In relation to the standard of work that was completed by the landlord’s contractor, this complaint highlights a ‘gap’ between what the parties view as an acceptable standard of work. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s view of what was acceptable workmanship, but the landlord does not appear to have given serious consideration to the resident’s views, (which were the contractor did not carry out appropriate preparation and infilling of surfaces prior to painting, which in the resident’s opinion, resulted in an overall rough finish). It also had information that other residents in the block were unhappy with the quality of the work, however, in its complaint responses it maintains that works have been completed to the standard it expects. The landlord appears to give more weight to its own opinion which is likely to undermine the landlord tenant relationship. The landlord is encouraged to reflect on the difference between its own quality expectations compared to that of the residents. It should consider how it might be able to bridge the gap to demonstrate that it is listening and acting upon resident’s views.
19. The Ombudsman has identified service failures that occurred during the landlord’s delivery of its cyclical decoration programme which led to an unsatisfactory experience for the resident.
    1. It sent out a detailed schedule and then replaced this with a reduced one but did not apologise for the error or provide any explanation to the resident at the time.
    2. It did not start the work until almost 3 weeks after the date it specified and did not offer any explanation or apology to the resident for the delay.
    3. The landlord and contractor’s disorganised approach to the handover meeting on 28 July 2022 caused the resident inconvenience and frustration. It then did not record the resident’s concerns on the handover form.
    4. It misinformed him it would replace the main entrance door and when it changed its plan, it did not communicate this or provide an explanation of its reasons until he made a formal complaint.
    5. The scaffolding was not removed until 10 working days after the date the landlord specified, and it did not apologise or communicate  with the resident about the situation.
    6. The landlord does not appear to have acted on information available to it, that other residents in the block are unhappy with the standard of the works. 
20. The landlord has acknowledged some of the failings in its complaint responses and paid £250 compensation to the resident. However, there are some failings that the landlord has not acknowledged or addressed such as the impact on the resident due to its disorganised approach to the handover meeting and its failure to communicate around the delayed start date of the works and the delay in removing the scaffolding.
21. The Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of cyclical decorations and makes an order for additional compensation below.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of cyclical decorations.

Orders

23. The landlord must apologise for its handling of the issues.
24. The landlord must pay an additional £100 in compensation for the failings in its communication about the start date of the works, handover meeting and removal of scaffolding.
25. The landlord must undertake a post works satisfaction survey with all the residents of the block. It should consider the feedback it receives and inform the residents of its findings and any action it intends to take. The outcome of this exercise should be shared with this service.
26. Within 4 weeks the landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders.