Clarion Housing Association Limited (202311324)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311324

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 July 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 the resident’s: 
   1. Reports of repair to communal front door lock. 
   2. Reports about the direction of the communal rear door. 
   3. Reports about signage on the communal rear door.  
   4. Associated formal complaint. 

Background and summary of events 

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy for a flat in a low-rise purpose-built block of 8 flats.  
3.  A Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) conducted in March 2021 said that the communal exit door did not open in the direction of travel but was not required to. It said that the communal rear exit door from the storage room was not a designated fire exit and the ‘fire exit’ sign should be removed and replaced with an ‘exit’ sign. 
4. The resident submitted a complaint on 22 March 2023 that the lock repair she had reported on 16 March 2023 was still unresolved, despite her chasing. The landlord had raised a repair appointment for 17 April 2023 which the resident felt was unacceptable given the access issues. 
5. In its response of 30 March 2023, the landlord said that the job had been raised to the wrong contractor in error but that an operative had been due to attend on 29 March 2023. It awarded the resident £50 compensation for ‘misdirection and inconvenience’. 
6. The resident escalated the complaint on 31 March 2023, stating that there was something stuck in the lock and a locksmith was required. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 June 2023, noting that the resident also wished to complain about the rear door opening inwards. It said that the front door was fixed on 19 April 2023 and that there were no plans to change the direction of the rear door as this was not deemed necessary in the FRA of March 2021. It offered further compensation of £200 to include £50 for the delay in the complaint response. 
7. Following contact from this Service, the landlord issued an addendum to its final response on 29 September 2023. It reiterated its previous stance regarding the direction of the rear door and said that the door had been labelled as a fire door, but that signage was removed on 31 May 2022. The resident says that the fire door sign remains, and she wants the rear door to open outwards.  

Assessment and findings 

Scope of investigation  

8. The resident brought an earlier case to this Service under reference 202107881. This complaint concerned remedial works identified by a FRA in 2021. In the investigation report issued by this Service on 27 May 2022, it was noted that the landlord was not required to change the direction of the door but that over the course of the complaint, it agreed to do so. The Ombudsman noted that “given the concerns about how much the door opened this was a reasonable action to help resolve the complaint.”   
9. The direction of the door was not part of the outstanding issues brought to the Ombudsman in the previous case. The Ombudsman did not make any orders in relation to the direction of the door. As the action complained about occurred after the date of the previous final response, it did not form part of the earlier investigation.  
10. The landlord was therefore required to open a new case and respond to the complaint that it had not arranged the repair it offered in its final response dated 27 May 2021, being the reversal of the direction of the door.  This investigation relates to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to do so.  

Assessment  

Lock repair front door 

11. The landlord’s online repairs guide says that emergency repairs will be responded to within 24 hours and that this includes broken front door locks where the tenant is locked in or cannot secure their home. It says the landlord is responsible for communal doors. No information has been found or provided regarding timescales for non-emergency repairs. In this case, the Ombudsman does not consider the repair to have been an emergency, but would expect it to be completed in a reasonable timescale 
12. In this instance, the resident reported the broken front communal door repair on 16 March 2023. She was chasing the repair and had calls dropped and had to use the online chat as calls were not returned. The resident said that tenants were only able to access the building if they were buzzed in, or via the rear entrance. She felt this was not suitable if no one else was at home, late at night or for those with young children or accessibility needs.  
13. The landlord reported that contractors had attended on 16 March 2023, 20 March 2023, 27 March 2023 and 29 March 2023 but the lock was not fixed until 19 April 2023. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience and said the stage 1 response could have been clearer. It said that it was unclear why the job was not passed to the correct team initially, but that feedback would be given. 
14. The landlord also said that adequate notes were not made when the resident called, which resulted in her having to call again. It said staff would be reminded to ensure all calls were logged correctly and repair processes started to minimise this going forward.  
15. In total, £200 was awarded to the resident in respect of the delay to the communal front door repair. This acknowledged the repeated visits, failure to return calls, inconvenience, and disruption. 
16. The Ombudsman recognises the frustration felt by the resident in having to chase the repair and the many visits made by contractors. The resident experienced inconvenience and was uncomfortable having to use the rear access to the block, particularly at night. It is fair in all the circumstances that this is recognised by the landlord with a financial remedy. 
17. The sum of £200 awarded is within the range of remedies recommended by the Ombudsman for cases of maladministration where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord acknowledges that there were failings and has apologised. It said that there were lessons learned from the complaint, which is welcomed by the Ombudsman.  
18. Accordingly, the sum already offered by the landlord in respect of the delays in the repair to the front door is reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.  

Direction of rear door  

19. The 2021 FRA report said that escape routes were clear at the time of the survey. Under ‘other significant hazards’ it said all issues were deemed satisfactory. It further said that final exits led to a place of total safety and the means of escape was suitable and sufficient for the risk. Further, the width of the landings/staircase and exit was adequate and exit doors were easily opened. It clarified that, whilst exit doors did not open in the direction of escape, they were not required to. 
20. Despite this, the landlord said that it would reverse the direction the rear door opened. It was reasonable for the resident to have expected that this would take place. At the very least, if it was then decided that the door would not be reversed, the landlord could have advised the resident and explained its reasoning.  
21. In its final response (peer review addendum) dated 29 September 2023, it quoted the previous response dated 27 May 2021 which said, “the repair has been raised with a view to changing the door to open outwards”.  The landlord felt that this did not guarantee that the work would be undertaken, as it was dependent upon further assessment.  
22. The resident feels that the landlord should have reversed the door as it said it would and the landlord apologised for any misunderstandings. The Ombudsman was also assumed that the door would be changed, while it is acknowledged that the landlord is not obliged to do so. The landlord was already aware that it was not obliged to change the door direction, and it has not explained why it then changed its stance.  
23. The landlord could have shown more consideration in its communications. The resident’s expectations would have been raised, quite understandably, by what the landlord had said previously. Thus, there was service failure in the adequacy of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the door to be reversed.  
24. In light of the foregoing, an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident to remedy the inadequacy of its response in this matter. This sum is commensurate amount for cases of where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. The landlord should also issue an apology letter to the resident that its previous commitment was not met, regardless of whether it was required to do so.

Signage on rear door 

25. No repair timescales have been provided by the landlord, nor information found online to advise when residents should expect non-emergency repairs to be carried out. Although this was not a repair as such, the Ombudsman would look to see the matter resolved within a reasonable time of the landlord advising it would do so.  
26. In this instance, the FRA dated March 2021 noted that the rear exit door from the storage room was not a designated fire exit. It said that the ‘fire exit’ sign should be removed and replaced with an ‘exit’ sign. 
27. It is not clear when the signage issue was raised again by the resident, but the ‘peer review addendum’ dated 29 September 2023 noted that the rear door was previously labelled as a fire door. It continued, “my investigations have confirmed that this signage has since been removed on 31 May 2022”. 
28. The resident submitted photographs taken on 9 June 2022 which show the fire exit signs still in place on the rear door, which she said was still the case in October 2023.  
29. No evidence has been submitted to support the landlord’s statement that the fire door sign was removed in May 2022. The landlord said that ‘investigations confirmed that signage was removed,’ which does not suggest that an inspection took place to verify this conclusively.  
30. The landlord’s delay in taking the action required by the FRA, and refusal to engage with the resident on this issue would have been frustrating for her. It is appreciated that the resident would be concerned about fire safety and this inaction would reasonably cause distress.  
31. The sign should have been replaced in 2021 and appears not to have been replaced since. The landlord should take immediate steps to rectify this. It should also compensate the resident for her time and trouble in having to chase this issue.  
32. The sum of £100 would be at the top end of the Ombudsman’s recommended remedies for cases of service failure. This sum is appropriate in instances where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not acknowledge these and fully put them right. 

Complaint handling 

33. The landlord’s interim complaints policy in place effective June 2022 says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 within 40 working days.  
34. In this instance, the resident submitted the stage 1 complaint on 22 March 2023 and the response was issued on 30 March 2023, within the timescales. The resident submitted the stage 2 complaint on 31 March 2023, but the response was not issued until 29 June 2023. This was due on 24 May 2023 under the interim complaints policy, so was over a month late. 
35. The landlord offered compensation of £50 at stage 2 in respect of the late response to the complaint. This sum is in the range of remedies recommended by the Ombudsman for cases of service failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome but may include distress and inconvenience.  
36. Accordingly, the sum already offered by the landlord in respect of the delays in the complaint handling is reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.  

Determination (decision) 

37. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue of the repair to the communal front door lock satisfactorily.  
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding: 
    1. The direction of the communal rear door. 
    2. The signage on rear door.  
39. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the issue of complaint handling satisfactorily.  

Orders  

40. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident a total of £200, (in addition to the £250 already offered), comprising: 
    1. £100 in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the direction of the communal rear door. 
    2. £100 in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding the signage on the communal rear door.  
41.  The landlord should also: 
    1. Issue an apology letter to the resident that its previous commitment to reverse the door was not met. 
    2. Replace the rear door signage as directed in the 2021 FRA.  
42. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that the above orders have been complied with, within 4 weeks of this determination. 

Recommendations 

43. It is recommended that the landlord pay the sum of £250 already offered – being £50 at stage 1, and £200 at stage 2 of the internal complaints process – as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.