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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202223067)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223067

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a lack of loft insulation and the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The landlord said the resident’s tenancy started on 5 August 1985. It has not provided a copy of the tenancy agreement to this Service. The property is a 3-bedroom, first floor flat.
  2. The landlord said it has no vulnerabilities or disabilities recorded on its system for the resident. The resident told the landlord she has a progressive lung disease and is hard of hearing. She also informed this Service that she has depression.
  3. In January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request a repair to her kitchen sink. She also asked the landlord to install loft insulation.
  4. On 11 April 2022, the resident made a formal complaint. She referred to an outstanding sink repair, lack of action following her request for insulation, and a radiator leak. She said she raised a complaint the previous month but had not received a response.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 May 2022. It apologised for the delay responding to the resident’s complaint. It said a surveyor would update the resident in due course about her concern regarding loft insulation. It explained it contacted its repair team to find out exactly what work it would carry out within the property and promised to update the resident. It offered £50 compensation for the delay responding to the complaint and £250 for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 June 2022. She said the landlord had made a repair appointment for 17 June 2022, yet no-one had contacted her to explain what the repairs would consist of.
  7. The resident approached this Service in December 2022. We asked the landlord to issue its final complaint response to the resident. Within our correspondence, we also informed the landlord that the resident was concerned about damp and mould within the property.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 April 2023. It said a site visit took place on 2 March 2023. It said it would pass the resident’s concerns regarding loft insulation to the roofing team to action once it had resolved the water ingress matter that it identified during the site visit. The landlord recognised several failings and offered the resident an additional £500 compensation.

Events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

  1. In June 2023, the resident told the landlord the matter was still unresolved. The landlord agreed to review of the complaint.
  2. On 29 September 2023, the landlord issued an addendum to its stage 2 response. It said a surveyor inspected on 21 August 2023 and outlined several works which it scheduled for 5 October 2023. These works included mould treatment. It had also arranged a roof inspection to take place on 5 October 2023. The landlord awarded £300 additional compensation, bringing the total award to £1100.
  3. The resident initially accepted the landlord’s complaint response. In November 2023, she contacted this Service and explained the mould wash, the upgrade of loft insulation, and roof repairs remained outstanding.
  4. In April 2024, the resident said mould treatment was outstanding, and she felt the landlord had not installed the new insulation correctly.
  5. In June 2024, the landlord told this Service that a further mould wash, rendering repair and guttering repair had been scheduled for July 2024.

Assessment and findings

  1. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of a resident. Nor can we calculate or award damages. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. This Service can only investigate matters which have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. We recognise during the complaints process, other repairs and concerns were either raised by the resident or identified by the landlord during its inspections. However, as these did not form part of the complaint initially raised by the resident, the Ombudsman will not assess the landlord’s response to them within this report.
  3. The resident explained the landlord has since resolved her complaint about the kitchen and radiator repairs. As such, this report will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a lack of loft insulation and the associated complaint.
  4. This report covers events from the date the resident raised the repair request in January 2021 up to the date of the landlord’s complaint addendum in September 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a lack of loft insulation and the associated complaint

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. Landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, as per the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS), which includes excess cold.
  2. The resident initially reported the lack of loft insulation to the landlord on 31 January 2022. She explained the property was an old house conversion and due to the impending energy price rise, she needed to do everything possible to help keep the house warm. The landlord failed in its commitment for a surveyor to contact the resident to discuss her repair request.
  3. The landlord’s records show that following the resident’s complaint in April 2022, it emailed its contractor the same day and asked it to arrange an operative to install insulation in the resident’s loft. Evidence shows the landlord contacted its contractor on 4 occasions throughout April 2022 and May 2022 about this. During this time, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord had oversight of the matter and was trying to progress it.
  4. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord informed the resident that it had spoken with its regional maintenance manager about the loft insulation. This manager had followed up with the planned investment team to find out what team would be doing this work and when they would be attending. Considering the landlord’s obligations under the HHSRS and the resident’s concerns about the lack of insulation, the Ombudsman finds it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident, discuss her concerns and arrange a loft inspection within a reasonable period.
  5. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a work order to inspect the loft and insulation on 11 October 2023. This was 88 weeks after the resident initially reported the lack of insulation in January 2022. Evidence shows an additional appointment regarding replacement loft insulation was scheduled for 22 May 2024 – 120 weeks after the resident initially reported the repair. The landlord explained it needed to complete roofing work before it could address the loft insulation. However, the Ombudsman is of the view the significant delay outlined above was unreasonable and caused substantial distress to the resident.
  6. There is little evidence that the landlord gave the resident’s concerns the appropriate attention in the circumstances. The resident contacted the landlord many times from January 2022 to April 2024 trying to progress outstanding repairs, including the replacement loft insulation. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to act sooner to investigate and resolve the matter. Furthermore, the resident made the landlord aware that she has a progressive lung disease. From the records available, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s medical information or explore her needs when handling her request for works. Throughout this case, the landlord missed opportunities to proactively deal with the resident’s concern. This demonstrates the landlord did not take her reports seriously or treat her fairly.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  8. The Ombudsman recognises that following a cyber-attack, the landlord had an interim complaints policy from 17 June 2022 which set out response timescales as 20 working days for a stage 1 response and 40 working days for a stage 2 response. For complaints logged before 17 June 2022, it said it would manage resident’s expectations if it was unable to progress some or all aspects of complaints.
  9. The resident initially complained on 11 April 2022. The stage 1 response was issued 34 working days later. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 June 2022. The stage 2 response was issued 220 working days later. Even when considering the landlord’s revised complaint handling timescales, the landlord kept this complaint open for an excessive period. It also failed to provide meaningful updates to the resident.
  10. The stage 2 response was the landlord’s opportunity to put matters right for the resident. It should not have taken a further complaint response from the landlord to try to resolve the situation. The “complaint addendum” dated 29 September 2023 cannot be considered as reasonable redress as it took place 5 months after the landlord had completed its complaint procedure.
  11. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) sets out 3 compensation ranges we consider when determining cases. In the Ombudsman’s view, the compensation initially offered at stage 2 was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The increased offer of compensation in September 2023 falls within our highest range of compensation for situations where there has been a long-term impact on the resident. After considering the information available, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s increased offer of £1100 to be appropriate and in line with our guidance.
  12. While the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord increased its compensation offer to an appropriate sum in September 2023, it is a concern that it did so 5 months after the completion of its internal complaint procedure. Additionally, it failed to conclude the work within a reasonable period following this. This demonstrates the landlord failed to put things right or learn from outcomes.
  13. Overall, the Ombudsman concludes there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue and the resident’s complaint. The complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool in resolving the resident’s concerns but instead compounded the detriment caused. Due to the cumulative failings identified, the length of time this occurred for, and the level of detriment experienced by the resident, this constitutes maladministration.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a lack of loft insulation and the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident the £1100 previously offered (if it has not yet done so).
    3. Review events from the date of the addendum up to the date the loft insulation work was completed. The landlord must consider whether further compensation is due for any avoidable delays or poor service. The landlord must write to the resident setting out its position.
    4. Update its system records with the resident’s vulnerabilities, subject to any data protection requirements.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.