Clarion Housing Association Limited (202229298)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229298

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 March 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:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let;
2. handling of the void works and repairs at the property;
3. handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since November 2022. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow.
The resident describes himself as vulnerable and disabled. He said he moved from his previous property as it no longer met his needs because of his disabilities. The evidence shows that the landlord knew about the resident’s vulnerability at the start of his tenancy.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. For non-emergency repairs, it will offer an appointment to the resident within 28 days of a resident reporting a repair.
The landlord’s void policy states it will ensure that an empty property is inspected, repaired, and left in safe and suitable state for re-letting. It states that all tests, inspections and works are completed in line with relevant legislation and best practice prior to letting.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents’ policy states that it will identify vulnerable residents and record any vulnerabilities identified. It will consider what additional support, consideration or variation in its usual service provision is appropriate for vulnerable residents.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer between £50 and £250 for a service failure which had some impact on the resident. It will award between £250 and £700 compensation where there were considerable failures with no permanent impact on the resident. The policy states it will award compensation over £700 to reflect service failures which had a long term impact on the resident.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 20 working days and a stage 2 within 40 working days. It states when responding to a complaint, the landlord will address all the points raised and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The landlord works with contractors to carry out the repairs in its property. It should, however, be noted that even when using contractors, the landlord retains its obligations and responsibilities as the landlord.

Summary of events

On 4 November 2022, the resident reported that the boiler was not working. The contractor attended several times to repair the boiler. The landlord’s contractor made a note of a conversation it had with the resident on 4 November 2022. He told the resident he had notified the landlord on 19 August 2022 (prior to him moving in) that the boiler was “at risk”.
The contractor noted that it had to order parts which delayed the repair. It said the repairs were completed on 14 November 2022, and it kept in contact with the resident during that time. The resident said he was without a working boiler for 12 days.
While the boiler repairs were ongoing, the resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2022. This was a few days after he had moved in. He raised several concerns about the standard of the property. He said that the boiler had not been made safe or fixed prior to him moving in and had not worked since he moved in. He acknowledged that the landlord provided him with 2 small heaters, but he said those were costly to run and did not heat his home.
In addition to the boiler, the resident reported several other issues to the landlord. He reported broken guttering, not having enough ‘fire alarm’ in the property, or electrical sockets in the kitchen. He said there was some dangerous electrics, which prevented him from connecting his cooker. He added that he could not use his washing machine because the electrical socket was broken.
In December 2022, the resident reported a leak under his sink, which the landlord considered to be a routine repair. The landlord completed the repairs 2 weeks later.
The resident reported his toilet was not flushing on 13 December 2022. The landlord attended the following day and had planned to instal a power flush on 29 December 2022. The landlord’s repairs log noted that the job was cancelled, it did not note the reason for the cancellation.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 30 December 2022. The complaint was as follows:
1. The property was advertised on “the medical” side of the local authority’s website. He said that, although the landlord had been aware of his disabilities, it moved him into a property which was not up to standard.
2. The resident reiterated the list of repairs he had previously reported. He also said that the landlord was aware that the boiler was unsafe in August 2022, but had not fixed the problem before he moved in.
3. He had no heating or hot water for the first 3 weeks of his tenancy. As a result of this, he said he had to move out. He had also asked the landlord to install a different boiler but he said he had no response.
4. Although the landlord attended, it was unable to fix the issue with the toilet flush or the leak under the kitchen sink. He said it took 2 weeks to resolve the leak.
5. He said the landlord failed to return his calls or emails over the previous weeks. He also said he had made 4 formal complaints to the landlord since November 2022, but had received no acknowledgement or response. No copies of the complaints were provided to this Service.
6. The landlord’s failings had caused him distress and inconvenience. He reported feeling vulnerable, he said he had not settled into his new home because of the issues and his health had deteriorated.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 January 2023. It was as follows:
1. It had considered the property in a ready to let state in September 2022, with “no repair issues reported”. However, after considering the repairs reported by the resident since November 2022, it accepted that the property had not been in the “correct state” when the resident moved in.
2. It said it attended the property several times since November 2022 to carry out the repairs identified. It confirmed that it would install a toilet power flush on 25 January 2023. It also said this was the only outstanding repair.
3. It offered £390 compensation to the resident for its failings. This was made up of:
  1. £100 for failing to resolve the boiler repair within a reasonable time. This also reflected the inconvenience caused to the resident;
  2. £140 for the loss of heating and hot water;
  3. £150 discretionary payment to reflect the other repairs issues, the inconvenience, and time and trouble this caused the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 January 2023 and said the landlord had failed to fix the toilet as planned. The resident said he had expected the toilet to be fixed that day. He explained that he had to fill a bucket of water to flush his toilet, which he found difficult to do due to his disabilities. He said he felt ignored, isolated, and the issues had affected his mental health. He also reported having some issues with his shower.
On 31 January 2023, the resident reiterated what he told the landlord 7 days earlier and requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He added that the shower was not working and was “dangerous”. The landlord acknowledged his request on the same day.
On 24 February 2023, the resident provided the landlord with a list of unresolved issues at his property. He said that:
1. the front door lock was insecure;
2. there was a leak under the property;
3. the toilet was not working;
4. the shower was not working and he could not use the bath due to his health;
5. the heating system was old and costly to run;
6. some of the window seals were broken.
On the 10 March 2023, the resident reported further issues with the toilet.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 March 2023, it was as follows:
1. It acknowledged that when the resident moved in, it identified some issues with the boiler. It said the boiler had not worked between 2 November 2022 and 14 November 2022. It offered to refund the rent for that period to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. It explained that its approach was to repair boilers when possible and confirmed that the resident’s boiler would be replaced as part of its planned future programme. It said it did not have a date but expected the boiler to be replaced. However, it explained that the resident’s boiler was 10 years old and it expected boilers’ life expectancy to be between 13 and 15 years.
3. It apologised for the delay in addressing the issue with his shower and confirmed an electrician would inspect it.
4. It explained an appointment to fix his toilet had been cancelled by mistake, it said a new appointment had been made for 5 April 2023.
5. In addition to the above, it said it would arrange to refresh the seals around the rear window and door, repair the lock, replace the missing vent, and investigate the external cracked waste pipe. It also provided target dates for the completion of those repairs.
6. It said that on 23 February 2023, it asked the resident whether he required support, the resident said he did not. However, following the resident’s complaint, the landlord wanted to reiterate its offer to support the resident with help managing his bills. It also signposted the resident to its website for information.
7. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said this was due to higher customer contact.
8. It offered an additional £553.39 compensation to the resident to reflect the distress, inconvenience, and time and effort caused to the resident by its failings. This was in addition to the compensation it had offered at stage 1 and was equivalent to:
  1. £253.89 rent refund for the delay repairing the boiler;
  2. £50 for the delay in responding to the resident’s query about a boiler replacement;
  3. £100 for not responding promptly to his reports of the shower not working and the broken windows seals. It recognised that it failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities;
  4. £50 in compensation for responding to the complaint outside its published time frame.
The resident contacted this Service on 12 April 2023. He said he was dissatisfied with the landlord stage 2 response. He explained that the landlord failed to complete 3 of the repairs by 7 April 2023, as agreed at stage 2. He mentioned that the toilet remained in disrepair. The resident described how the experience had impacted on his health, he said he felt “ helpless and powerless”.
On 21 April 2023, the resident informed the landlord he was dissatisfied with its stage 2 response. The details of the communication were not shared with this Service.
The landlord noted on its repair log that the repairs to the toilet were completed on 29 April 2023.
On 10 May 2023, the landlord noted on its repair log that the resident said it had left the shower unsafe. The resident said it missed the appointment to repair the shower because the landlord gave him the wrong date. The log said the job was completed on 16 May 2023.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord acknowledged a new complaint made by the resident on 21 April 2023. This complaint was about its failure to complete all the repairs as agreed in the previous stage 2 response.
The resident said to the landlord on 12 May 2023, that due to the leak under the bungalow, he could not use his washing machine and the kitchen sink.
On 12 June 2023, the landlord’s repairs log noted that there was an external water leak under the property, which it fixed on 28 June 2023.
To address the resident’s further complaint, the landlord carried out a further review of the ongoing complaint. It provided its final response on 26 June 2023. It said the resident had raised issues about the shower and the outstanding repairs. The landlord disputed that, at any time, it had left the resident’s shower unsafe. It also explained that the shower had safety features to reduce risks. It acknowledged that some repairs to the external drainage were outstanding. It said it had attempted to gain access to carry out the repairs and had been unable to do so. It confirmed that it would be in contact with the resident to arrange a new appointment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident expressed concerns about how the experience of moving into the property had caused him distress and had affected his health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact the events had on his health, he has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.
Prior to this investigation, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The investigation reviewed 13 determinations made by the Ombudsman over a six-month period up to June 2022. The investigation identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The investigation resulted in a special report which was published in October 2022 and can be viewed at Special report on Clarion | Housing Ombudsman Service (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its improvement plan and the Ombudsman is monitoring its progress in making the changes that are needed.
Some of the events in this case took place over the same period as that investigation and some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant in this case. While these have been referred to these in this report, the Ombudsman has not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.

The condition of the property when let

The landlord’s void policy outlines what residents can expect from their new home. It states that the landlord will ensure that an empty property is inspected, repaired, and left in a safe and suitable state for re-letting. The policy sets the intention of the landlord and as a result, a resident’s expectations. Residents moving into one of the landlord’s properties would expect to settle and enjoy their new home from the start. In this case, the resident said that from the day he moved in, he informed the landlord of his concerns with the standard of the property.
At the start of his tenancy, the resident identified and reported several repairs to the landlord. It is acceptable for a resident to move into a property with some works outstanding depending on the impact of the works identified. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to discuss the outstanding repairs with the resident and provide the time scale for completion of the works.
In this case, the landlord said that, in September 2022, it considered the property was ready to let with “no outstanding repairs reported”. It is unclear whether the landlord knew of any repairs prior to the resident moving in, or how it satisfied itself the property was ready to let. In its stage 1 response, the landlord admitted that the property had not been in the “correct state” when the resident moved in. This shows that the landlord recognises that it should have identified further repairs during the void period. It could have then carried out the repairs prior to the resident moving in or discussed any outstanding repairs with the resident. The resident could have then made an informed decision as whether he wished to accept the property as it was, or delay his moving date until the repairs were completed.
The evidence shows that the boiler was one of the repairs, the landlord should have identified prior to the resident moving in. The Ombudsman recognises that there are different accounts of when the landlord first became aware of the issue with the boiler. The contractor’s log indicates it told the landlord in August 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out any repairs to the boiler between August 2022 and when the resident moved in. The landlord said the property was ready to let in September 2022 with “no repairs being reported”, which suggests that the landlord did not have a record of the issue with the boiler. The landlord’s records did not match the contractor’s log.
The evidence shows different accounts of when the landlord first became aware of the issue with the boiler. It is unclear whether this was due to some miscommunication, lack of process or an administrative error. However, it does raise concerns about the effectiveness of the landlord’s record keeping and void management procedure. The landlord should have been aware that the contractor had concerns about the boiler, its processes and record keeping should have flagged up the issue. Good record keeping is essential for the landlord to make informed decisions and to ensure the safety of residents. In this case, the lack of evidence showing the history and checks of the void raises concerns about the landlord processes, record keeping and risks in ensuring resident safety.
Additionally, in cases when the landlord delegates the void work and inspections to a contractor, it retains its responsibilities as a landlord. It must satisfy itself that its properties are ready and safe to let, it cannot assume that if no repairs are reported, the property is safe. The landlord is also expected to keep records to show how it knew and can evidence that a property was safe to let.
In this case, the landlord provided no evidence to support its conclusion that the property was safe to let in September 2022. No evidence was seen that the landlord followed a process to “sign off” the property as safe to let. No evidence was provided of a void inspection sheet or data entries (or similar) ensuring all safety and void policy obligations were met and on record. The landlord should have also been aware of the contractor’s concerns about the boiler. The evidence further raised concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and void management procedures. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to keep record of how it satisfied itself and recorded the property was safe to let.
An important aspect of dispute resolution is for a landlord to investigate how failings occurred. In this case, the landlord recognised its failings during the complaint process. However, it did not explain how the failings occurred and how the property was let with some outstanding repairs. If it had investigated the underlying cause of the failings, it might have identified that its systems and procedures were insufficiently robust or there had been a miscommunication. This is an essential step towards learning and preventing the failings reoccurring in the future. It would have also reassured the resident that he had been heard and lessons had been learnt. This was a missed opportunity.
Overall, it is unclear whether the landlord was aware of any outstanding repairs at the property prior to the resident moving in. This raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and its procedures in the management of voids. The landlord could not evidence to this Service that it had records to support its view that the property was safe in relation to the boiler. The landlord admitted that the property had not been up to standard when the resident moved in. While the landlord took actions once it knew about the repairs, it did not show how the failings occurred and how it had satisfied itself that the property was safe and ready to let. In addition to failing to identify the repairs prior to the resident moving, it also failed to demonstrate learning and show how it will prevent this from happening again. The landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, it also impacted on the resident landlord relationship right from the start of the tenancy.
After considering all circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman determines there was service failure on the part of the landlord. The landlord has offered the resident some compensation for its handling of the repairs. While it acknowledged its failings, it did not offer compensation in relation to its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let. In this case, it is reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation as a form of redress for this element of the complaint. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidance, which are published on its website, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation. This is to reflect its failing in responding to the resident concerns about the condition of the property when let. The compensation also reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Repairs

From the start of the tenancy, the resident requested the landlord carry out several repairs in his property. He reported that his boiler was not working on 3 November 2022. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours or make safe. In this case, the contractor’s log shows that it initially attended to the issue within the landlord’s set time frame. However, it also shows that it then took 12 days to fix the boiler. It is accepted that the procurement of parts can take time. It is important that when this happens, the landlord keeps the resident updated. In this case, the contractor kept in contact with the resident throughout, which was appropriate and in line with what is expected of a landlord.
The evidence shows that once the landlord became aware that the resident was without heating or hot water, it provided the resident with 2 small heaters to heat his home. While this was reasonable and in keeping with its obligations, the landlord did not show that it took any actions when, a week later, the resident said the heaters did not heat his home and were costly to run. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess whether the heaters were sufficient for the size of the home and consider offering additional heaters. The landlord could have done more to help the resident, especially as this was during the winter months and it was aware of the resident’s vulnerability. The resident said the lack of heating in his home caused him significant distress and he moved out of his home until the boiler was fixed.
When the resident mentioned his concerns about the running cost of the heaters, the landlord should have provided its position regarding the costs. It could have considered helping the resident with the costs. The landlord also failed to identify this issue for the resident during the complaint process. Therefore, an order has been made below to reflect the landlord’s failing to explore this with the resident.
The landlord’s vulnerability policy states that it will consider whether a vulnerable resident requires additional support. The evidence does not show that the landlord offered to sign post the resident for support, such as budgeting advice given the concerns raised around heating costs. It would have been in keeping with its policy for the landlord to discuss support at the point this concern was raised by the resident. It is recognised that in February 2023, when the resident reiterated the issue of the cost of the heating system, the landlord reacted promptly and offered support. Whilst this was appropriate and in keeping with its policy, it was approximately 3 months after the resident first expressed concerns about the cost of heating his home. This initial delay was unreasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence shows that the repairs reported by the resident in November 2022 were mostly completed by January 2023. It is, however, unclear whether this timeframe was reasonable. The landlord’s repairs log does not show that it had logged the repairs reported in November 2022. The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report says that good records are essential. It assists landlords to deliver efficient and effective services. It also provides an audit trail. The absence of records of some of the repairs raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s failings to keep accurate records, made it difficult to get a full picture of what happened once the repairs were reported in November 2022. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it keeps an accurate audit trail of the property’s repair history.
However, the landlord has logged the repairs the resident reported since December 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out some of the repairs within a reasonable timeframe and in keeping with its policy. For instance, the resident reported a leak under his kitchen sink which was fixed within 2 weeks. While this was reasonable from the landlord and in compliance with its policy, the Ombudsman has identified failings in the landlord’s handling of other repairs.
The resident reported an issue with flushing his toilet on 13 December 2022. The landlord noted that it had planned to instal a new flush on 29 December 2022, and then cancelled the job. While it might have been necessary to cancel the appointment, the landlord should have informed the resident. It would have been appropriate and expected from the landlord to explain the reasons for the cancellation and discussed the next steps for the repair with the resident. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord effectively communicated with the resident about the issue. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to continue using a bucket of water to flush his toilet and had no indication of when the repair would now be completed.
After the resident made a stage 1 complaint and further reports about the toilet, the landlord fixed the toilet approximately 4 months later. While it can be reasonable and necessary to make several visits to complete a repair, in this case, the landlord did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay or consider the impact of the delay on the resident. This was an unreasonable time frame to complete this type of repair. This left the resident having to flush his toilet with buckets of water for months, this was unreasonable. The evidence does not show that the landlord considered the resident’s disabilities or assessed whether it needed to adjust its response to complete that repair. This caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, who had to raise the repair several times to get a resolution.
The resident also reported an issue with his shower in January 2023, and explained that due to his disabilities he could not use the bath. While the landlord apologised and offered compensation for the delay in addressing the shower, this was 2 months later. The landlord offered no explanation for the delay in resolving the issue, which was unreasonable. In addition, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to consider adjusting its time response to repair the shower to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. There is no evidence that it did. This would have shown the resident that the landlord understood and considered his needs and helped rebuild trust with the resident.
Additionally, the resident reported a leak under his property in February 2023 and then again in May 2023 and in June 2023. While the landlord attended the property twice, it is unclear whether it carried repairs on each visit. However, the landlord’s repair log shows that the landlord took 8 weeks and 6 weeks respectively to respond to the resident’s reports. This is significantly outside its repairs policy. As a result of the landlord’s failings, the resident had to report the issue several times and raise it as a complaint before it was addressed. This caused inconvenience to the resident, who spent time and effort seeking a resolution.
The resident raised a stage 1 and stage 2 complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs. At both stages, the landlord recognised its failings to complete some of the repairs in keeping with its policy, to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, and respond to some of the resident’s queries. While this was reasonable from the landlord, the evidence also shows that it failed to carry out some of the actions it agreed at each stage.
For instance, it said in its stage 1 response that it would repair the toilet within 2 weeks and did not. At stage 2, it agreed to complete several repairs and provided a time frame for each repair but failed to complete most repairs as agreed. For a landlord to rebuild trust with a resident, it is essential that it demonstrates that the resident can trust it will provide what it promises. This is especially important as part of the dispute resolution. However, in this case, the landlord repeated its failings to handle the repairs within its own set time frames, that were specifically set in response to the complaint. This impacted further on the landlord and resident relationship.
Furthermore, the landlord also failed to demonstrate it had put measures in place to prevent repeating the failings. At both stages of the complaint, it acknowledged that it had failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities while handling the repairs. While this was appropriate, the landlord repeated the same failings following each complaint stage. This was unreasonable and lacked empathy for how disrepair can have a greater impact on a resident with a vulnerability. This further eroded the resident’s confidence in the landlord and impacted on their relationship.
In summary, while the landlord addressed some of the repairs in accordance with its repair policy, it also failed to complete other repairs within its set time frames. The landlord offered no reasonable explanation for the delays in completing some of the repairs and did not keep the resident updated. The evidence also shows that it failed to consider the resident’s vulnerability on several occasions. It did not evidence that it assessed whether it should adjust its service delivery to meet the resident’s needs or explain the delay in offering support. The landlord’s record keeping also raised some concerns and does not provide a complete history of the repairs for the property. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the resident repairs.
During the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident. It also offered £893.89 compensation to the resident. The level of compensation offered was in keeping with its compensation policy.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation to reflect its failings. It is acknowledged that the landlord made an offer to pay of £140 compensation to the resident for the loss of heating and hot water, and this was in keeping with its compensation policy. However, the landlord did not show that it considered aggravating factors when it calculated the compensation. Its offer was too low and it did not reflect that the disrepair had a greater impact on the resident as a result of his disability, an order will be made for the landlord to pay an additional compensation to reflect this.
Additionally, the landlord’s offer of compensation does not reflect the landlord’s delays in exploring how it could support the resident. It also does not reflect that the landlord did not to complete the actions it agreed following its stage 2 complaint response. As a result of those failings, the resident had to contact the landlord several times to resolve the issues.
In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidelines, which are published on the website, an order is made for the landlord to pay the resident £1,243.89 in compensation, this replaces the landlord’s previous offer. This is to reflect the impact the failings had on the resident.

Complaints handling

The Ombudsman’s special report referred to above highlighted the following common points of failure in the landlord’s handling of complaints which are relevant in this case:
1. Inadequate analysis of what had gone wrong.
2. Insufficient offers of redress to put things right.
3. A lack of evidence of learning from the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that when responding to a complaint, the landlord will address all the points raised and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In this case, the resident said the landlord failed to acknowledge his previous complaints. While there is no evidence the landlord received previous complaints from the resident, the landlord did not respond to this element of the resident’s complaint. While the issue was not raised beyond stage 1, it would have been in keeping with its policy for the landlord to respond to the resident as part of its stage 1 response. This was unreasonable from the landlord and left the resident with unanswered issues.
The landlord said to the resident that the purpose of the stage 2 was to determine whether its stage 1 response was reasonable and in line with its policy. As such, you would expect the stage 2 review to identify any failings within its complaint handling at stage 1. The landlord failed to identify that it had not responded to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling . The landlord could have done more to explain what went wrong. This was also a missed opportunity to put things right and provide a thorough response to the resident’s complaint.
Following the stage 2 response, the resident informed the landlord on 21 April 2023, that he was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged this as a complaint. The resident also raised issues with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to his shower in May 2023. The landlord responded to the resident on 26 June 2023, it said this was an addendum to the stage 2 response and the final response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s policy does not provide a time frame for a third complaint response; however, the landlord responded within the time frame as set for a stage 2 response.
The Complaint Handling Code sets the requirements for landlord’s to operate effective complaint handing. The Code says a 2 stage landlord complaint procedure is ideal. This ensures that the complaint process is not unduly long and gives the resident the opportunity to respond to the landlord’s investigation. It also provides the landlord with an opportunity to review its first response and issue its final response at stage 2.
In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide a final response to the resident, instead of initiating a new stage 1 complaint. Although the landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s new complaint, the evidence shows that it was directly linked to his ongoing complaint. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to respond via an addendum to the stage 2 response and provide an outcome to the resident . There is no evidence that the resident was dissatisfied, or that there was any detrimental impact with this course of action.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond to all the issues raised by the resident at his stage 1 complaint. It is recognised that the resident did not raise those issues beyond stage 1. However, in keeping with its policy the landlord should have addressed every issue raised by the resident as part of the complaint process. Therefore, there was a service failure on the part of the landlord in its handling of the complaint.
It is acknowledged that the landlord offered £50 compensation to the resident for its complaint handling failures. However, the compensation did not reflect its failings to respond to all the issues raised by the resident within his complaint. In line with the Ombudsman remedies guidelines, which are published on the website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failures. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure on the part of the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of the repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure on the part of the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not show that it took the appropriate actions to satisfy itself that the property was safe and ready to let, as per its policy. It could not evidence records to confirm its safety checks. From its own admission, the property had not been up to standard when the resident moved in. In addition to failing to identify the repairs prior to the resident moving in, the landlord failed to evidence learning, and show how it will prevent this from reoccurring. Its failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, it also impacted on the resident landlord relationship.
Although the landlord responded to some of the repair requests within its set time frames, it also failed to complete some repairs in accordance with its repair policy. It offered no reasonable explanation for failing to keep the resident updated and for the delays in completing some of the repairs. The evidence shows that it failed to consider the resident’s vulnerability on several occasions. The landlord’s record keeping also raised some concerns and does not provide a complete history of the repairs for the property.
The landlord failed to respond to all the points raised by the resident as part of the complaint process as per its policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report;
2. pay the resident £1,493.89 compensation directly to the resident (the landlord is to deduct any compensation it has already paid to the resident as part of this complaint). The compensation is equivalent to:
  1. £943.89, which is the compensation the landlord has offered during the complaint process.
  2. £100 to reflect the loss of heating and hot water and the greater impact on the resident due to his disability.
  3. £150 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings to respond to his concerns about the condition of the property when let.
  4. £250 to reflect the inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the landlord’s failing in handling the repairs.
  5. £50 to reflect the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failures
3. To comply with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to review the case with the relevant teams/contractors to identify learning and measures to prevent those failings from reoccurring. The review should include, but not be limited to, documenting the procedures for ensuring all void safety checks are recorded and checked in the void process. The outcome of the review with actions, timescales and conclusions should be shared with this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its record keeping system and self-assess itself against the KIM report. The report can be accessed at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf.