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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202313537)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313537

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 December 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement key fob.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident was given an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 26 November 2018. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The landlord has confirmed it has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, including mental health issues. The resident advised the landlord on various occasions that he suffered from mental health issues.
  3. The property is a one-bedroom, first–floor flat in a block. The property is one of 3 flats in a separate corridor in the block and a door entry system restricts access to this corridor. A key fob is required to access the communal corridor. The resident’s property is managed by a managing agent and the landlord has a separate team responsible for liaising with managing agents.
  4. The resident phoned the landlord on 19 January 2023 to request a replacement key fob for the communal door entry system following the theft of his keys, including the fob. The landlord noted that the matter was urgent as the resident suffers from mental health issues and receives support from the mental health team.
  5. During the remainder of January and February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord several times to request the fob. He explained that he was struggling with his mental health because he was unable to access the building without a key fob. He advised the landlord that he needed to leave the building to attend therapy sessions and receive support.
  6. During this period, the landlord attempted to contact the managing agent for the property as the agent was responsible for providing key fobs. However, the landlord left various messages for the managing agent and on 28 February 2023 the landlord raised the matter with its managing agents team who then chased the managing agent for the key fob.
  7. The landlord’s records state that the key fob was hand-delivered to the resident between on 9 March 2023 at 6.18pm. The resident then submitted a complaint on 16 March 2023 regarding the landlord’s handling of his request for a replacement key fob.
  8. The landlord stated in its stage one reply that it had not found any service failures in its handling of the request for the replacement key fob. However, it accepted in its stage 2 reply dated 12 July 2023 that there had been service failures and it offered compensation of £200 (£100 for the service failures in dealing with the request for the replacement key fob and £100 for the delay in replying to the resident’s stage 2 complaint).
  9. The resident contacted this Service on 14 July 2023 and stated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 reply and the amount of compensation offered. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 May 2024 and advised him that it had reviewed its handling of the matter. As a result, it accepted that it had not suitably considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or any adjustments it could have made to limit the impact on the resident. It therefore wished to increase its offer to £450 (£350 for the handling of the replacement fob and £100 for the delay in the stage 2 reply).
  10. The resident contacted this Service on 20 May 2024 to advise that he was still unhappy with the landlord’s offer because it did not reflect the extreme trauma he had experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised the landlord on 5 April 2023 and on various other occasions that the reported delay in supplying the replacement key fob had severely affected his mental health, caused him trauma, left him feeling suicidal and left him with deep depression.
  2. The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option. The Ombudsman has, however, assessed the service the landlord provided and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused.
  3. On 5 April 2023, the resident advised the landlord that the issues that had caused him distress dated back to 25 July 2022. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from January 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement key fob

  1. The landlord’s key and fob management policy states: “Where managing agents are responsible for managing reprogramming or replacement requests for keys or fobs then [we] will signpost customers to the appropriate agent”.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023 to request a replacement key fob for the internal communal door as his keys and fob had been stolen. The landlord’s notes stated that the request should be marked as urgent as the resident suffers from mental health issues and was receiving support from the mental health team. The notes added that the resident had been calling other residents using the entryphone system to provide access. However, during the previous night he had stayed outside in the cold until the landlord’s cleaners gave him access at 6am the next day.
  3. The landlord established that a managing agent was responsible for providing replacement fobs and therefore tried contacting the managing agent on 20 and 23 January 2023. The landlord was unable to get a response from the agent and therefore on 23 January 2023, the landlord provided the resident with the managing agent’s contact details.
  4. The landlord’s key and fob management policy states that it will signpost residents to the managing agent in cases where the agent is responsible for providing replacement fobs. Therefore, the landlord’s actions were in line with its policy. However, the view of this Service is that it was inappropriate to signpost the resident to the managing agent because the resident was known to be vulnerable and the landlord had itself experienced problems contacting the agent. The landlord was also aware of the urgency involved as the resident had explained on 19 January 2023 that he had spent a night in the cold because he could not get access to the building. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply dated 12 July 2023 that it should not have asked the resident to contact the managing agent directly.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023 and explained that the matter was causing him stress because he was constantly chasing the landlord for updates. He explained again that he suffered from mental health issues and he was very anxious about the situation. He added that there were tensions with neighbours because he was regularly disturbing them by calling them on the entryphone to request access. He advised the landlord that he had to attend therapy sessions and had to go for mandatory walks and therefore it was essential he had a replacement fob.
  6. The landlord chased the managing agent again on 2 February 2023 following the resident’s call. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that at this stage the landlord raised the issue with its managing agent team. Given the urgency and the difficulties experienced by the landlord contacting the managing agent, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not escalated the matter to its managing agent team. It had been 2 weeks since the resident reported the issue on 19 January 2023, which was an unreasonable delay given the resident’s vulnerability.
  7. During the remainder of February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for updates and the landlord chased the managing agent. On 28 February 2023, the landlord contacted its own managing agent team regarding the issue. The managing agent team said it had been advised by the managing agent that they had spoken to the resident and had given him a fob in the interim.
  8. However, having reviewed the evidence, the Ombudsman is of the view that it does not support the managing agent’s statement that it had given the resident a fob in the interim. For example, the landlord’s records show that the resident phoned the landlord on 2, 3, 6 and 8 March 2023 to report that he had still not received the key fob. The resident has also confirmed to this Service that he did not receive a fob from the managing agent on 28 February 2023.
  9. It was unreasonable that by 8 March 2023 the resident had still not received the replacement key fob, despite describing the impact the matter was having on him. For example, on 6 March 2023 he phoned the landlord and said he was unable to leave the property to dispose of his rubbish. The resident confirmed to this Service that it meant the rubbish was affecting the hygiene in his property.
  10. On 8 March 2023, the resident phoned the landlord and advised that he felt isolated in his property as he was unable to leave. Following the contact from the resident, the landlord raised safeguarding concerns with its safeguarding team and, as a result, the police and an ambulance attended the property.
  11. The landlord’s records show it advised the resident on 8 March 2023 that he would receive the replacement fob on the next day. However, the resident phoned the landlord again on 9 March 2023 and explained that he had not received the key fob. He said that he had been taken to hospital on 8 March 2023 as he felt suicidal. He reiterated that he was unable to leave the property and this was impacting on his mental health.
  12. The landlord’s records state that the managing agent hand-delivered the replacement key fob on 9 March 2023 at 6.18pm.
  13. It had therefore taken 7 weeks for the resident to receive a replacement key fob. This was unreasonable given that the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability and had been made aware since 19 January 2023 of the detrimental impact the resident was experiencing as a result of not having a fob.
  14. Based on the extent of the delay in supplying the resident with a replacement fob, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord gave sufficient regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
  15. The Ombudsman has noted that the managing agent was not appointed by the landlord and operated independently of the landlord. The evidence indicates that this lack of a direct contractual relationship between the landlord and the managing agent was a factor in terms of the delay in obtaining the key fob. For example, the landlord experienced difficulties in obtaining a response from the managing agent. Nevertheless, this investigation has found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement fob:
    1. The landlord signposted the resident to the managing agent on 23 January 2023, even though it knew the resident was vulnerable and it had itself experienced difficulties contacting the agent.
    2. The landlord did not escalate the request for the replacement fob to its managing agent team until 28 February 2023, which was almost 6 weeks after the resident had first requested the fob.
    3. It took 7 weeks from 19 January 2023 for the resident to receive the replacement fob. The delay meant that the resident was unable to leave his property when he wanted to and this caused isolation. It also impacted on his therapy sessions and other commitments relating to his wellbeing.
    4. The landlord did not give sufficient regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities or any adjustments it could have made to limit the impact on the resident.
  16. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  17. The landlord acted fairly by using its stage 2 reply to acknowledge various service failures in handling the resident’s request for a replacement fob. It apologised for the delay in the resident receiving the replacement fob and offered £200 compensation (£100 for the service failures and £100 for the delay in sending the stage 2 complaint reply).
  18. The landlord demonstrated some learning by stating in its stage 2 reply that it would liaise with its managing agent team to improve working practices.
  19. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation for its handling of the replacement fob and does not consider that this offer puts things right in terms of the level of detriment to the resident. In particular, the offer does not sufficiently recognise the impact on the resident caused by not having a fob for 7 weeks. The impact included isolation, effects on his mental health and emotional wellbeing, his inability to attend therapy sessions and other activities linked with his wellbeing, the accumulation of rubbish in his property and the anxiety caused by having to contact neighbours for access to the building.
  20. Due to the level of detriment to the resident, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay financial redress of £700. This sum is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which states that awards of up to £700 are appropriate where there has been considerable failure. It is also in the range of sums shown in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
  21. This Service has noted that the landlord offered the resident £450 on 3 May 2024 following a review of the case (£350 was for the service failures in handling the request for the fob and £100 was for the delay in the stage 2 reply). The landlord accepted that it did not suitably consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or any adjustments that could have been made to the service to limit the impact on the resident. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  22. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and increased the offer of compensation, it is not clear why the landlord did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure, rather than some 9 months after its stage 2 reply. This was a missed opportunity to provide a more reasonable offer of compensation to put things right. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has taken the landlord’s offer into account and has stipulated in the order that the landlord may deduct £350 from the £700 ordered if this has already been paid.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. At the time of the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord had in place an ‘interim’ complaint policy, which consisted of a 2-stage complaints process. The policy stated that stage one complaints would be dealt with within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days. The interim policy was put in place after the landlord fell victim to a serious cyber-attack.
  2. The resident made a stage one complaint on 8 March 2023 and the landlord sent its stage one reply on 31 March 2023. The landlord therefore took 17 working days to reply, which was within the 20-working day target for stage one complaints shown in its interim complaint policy.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 April 2023 to explain that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his request for a key fob. The landlord appropriately treated this as a stage 2 complaint and sent its stage 2 reply on 12 July 2023. The landlord therefore took 66 working days to reply, which was longer than the 40-working day target in its interim complaint policy. The time taken for the landlord to reply was therefore inappropriate.
  4. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response, which it said was due to higher customer contact at that time. The landlord offered compensation of £100, which was in the range of awards shown in the landlord’s compensation policy for “a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses…”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord therefore offered reasonable redress to the resident for the delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement key fob.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

 

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to pay the resident a total of £700 compensation. The landlord may deduct the £350 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should reoffer the resident the £100 offered for the delay in sending the stage 2 reply if this has not already been paid.