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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202118676)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118676

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding:
    1. Gas safety checks at the property.
    2. Payment of court fees in relation to an injunction for gas safety checks.
    3. The landlord’s mergers from 2016.
    4. The amount of rent charged.
    5. Queries relating to her tenancy agreement.
    6. Repair requests.
    7. Her associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of a one-bedroom flat, owned by the landlord. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 21 May 2023, stating that her tenancy type and landlord details were incorrect. She said the landlord should have offered her social housing, but it gave her affordable housing. She said the landlord had not completed any repairs since she moved into the property.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 July 2023, stating that the resident was given the landlord’s new name when it merged in 2016, signed a 5-year assured shorthold fixed term tenancy agreement in 2018, and her tenancy details had not changed from her previous tenancy agreement. It asked her to request any required repairs. It offered her £50 compensation for delays in responding to her complaint.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process on 14 July 2023. The resident explained that this was because the landlord had placed her under the incorrect subsidiary in its group when it merged again in 2018, which affected her rent and benefits. This was also because her repairs had not been responded to, apart from a single unannounced and missed attendance.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 October 2023. It reiterated its stage 1 response. It said it would review the resident’s tenancy agreement at the end of her current tenancy. It offered an additional £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She wanted it to change her tenancy agreement from a fixed term tenancy to an assured lifetime tenancy, which she originally had in 2002.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraphs 41.c., 42.m., and 42.d. of the Scheme:
    1. Gas safety checks at the property.
    2. Payment of court fees in relation to an injunction for gas safety checks.
    3. The landlord’s mergers from 2016.
    4. Amount of rent charged.
  3. The landlord has an ongoing injunction regarding its dispute with the resident over granting access for gas safety checks in the property, and these matters were subject to court proceedings for the injunction. The resident also questioned the validity and fairness of the fees imposed by the court for the injunction proceedings. Paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme says we cannot consider complaint about matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceeding where judgement on the merits was given. Therefore, these elements of the complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. The resident has raised questions in relation to the landlord’s mergers from 2016. Paragraph 42.m. of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints about matters which relate to the processes and decisions concerning a member’s governance structures. Therefore, as issues regarding the landlord’s mergers relate to the processes and decisions concerning its governance structures, this element of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. The resident has complained about how much rent she should be paying and the increase in her rent. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states we may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This element of the complaint is therefore also outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident complained about the validity of her 2018 tenancy agreement. She said the landlord gave her the wrong tenancy type.
  2. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, the issue of whether it gave her the right tenancy type in 2018 is outside the scope of this investigation because her complaint about this was made more than 12 months after this occurred in 2023. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s query.
  3. The resident said she requested repairs in 2019, however there is no evidence to show she raised this issue as a formal complaint to the landlord within 12 months of the matter arising. As stated above, Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme applies here as well. Therefore, this report focuses on repair requests that were made 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint on 21 May 2023.
  4. The landlord has provided limited information in relation to resident’s subsequent repair requests, which has impacted our ability to effectively assess the timeline of events. We have therefore relied on the evidence provided to determine this case.

Queries relating to tenancy agreement.

  1. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident stated that her tenancy details were incorrect. She said the landlord gave her an assured shorthold monthly 5-year fixed term agreement, but that this should have been an assured lifetime tenancy like she had prior to 2018.
  2. In her escalation requests and in subsequent correspondence to the landlord, the resident insisted that the landlord gave her the wrong tenancy type. She said that her previous address was a social housing tenancy, which she believed was a lifetime tenancy that could be transferred. She said the landlord did not transfer this previous tenancy to her new tenancy in 2018. She explained that having incorrect housing information was affecting the amount of rent she paid, her water bills, and her benefits.
  3. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord explained that it would have verified and confirmed all tenancy documentation prior to the resident signing them in 2018. It said it would review her tenancy agreement when her 2018 tenancy ended, and it provided her with copies of her tenancy agreements for the various properties she resided in prior to her 2018 tenancy.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 October 2023, 2 days after its stage 2 final response. It informed her that it made an error in its final response. It said she should have retained her assured tenancy from 2002 and it would contact her to resolve the issue.
  5. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 25 October 2023 that she signed a new tenancy agreement that would start from 1 November 2023. She said the landlord offered her an assured non–shorthold tenancy agreement, and it informed her that the new agreement was a lifetime tenancy agreement.
  6. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident went to a significant effort to get the matter resolved and would have understandably experienced distress and inconvenience at having to insist that the tenancy agreement was wrong. It would have been ideal for the landlord to have checked the resident’s tenancy details properly at stage 1 of its complaints process; this might have resulted in an early resolution of the complaint. However, it reviewed its decision after its stage 2 response. It contacted the resident promptly, apologised for its error and offered the correct tenancy agreement. Its actions after it realised its error amounts to reasonable redress. This is because she indicated to both the landlord and the Ombudsman that the new tenancy agreement was the only remedy she sought to satisfactorily resolve her complaint about this.

Repair requests

  1. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident stated that she made repair requests which it had not completed since 2019. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that it raised an appointment on 17 March 2023 in response to the resident’s request for repairs to the guttering and front door lock. It said the resident cancelled this appointment. It said its operative contacted the resident to arrange another appointment to complete outstanding repairs, but she advised that she was unaware of any repairs booked and requested for the appointments to be cancelled. The landlord advised the resident to contact it if she required it to complete repairs and it would book the relevant appointments for her.
  2. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence in relation to the resident’s repair requests, however there is no evidence showing that the resident challenged its version of events, or that she gave it or us any evidence to the contrary. It was reasonable of the landlord to ask her to request for any required repairs. There is no evidence to show that she made a new request asking the landlord to complete repairs to the guttering or front door lock.
  3. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord again asked the resident to report any repairs required to the property to its repairs team and it provided the details of its repairs team.
  4. The landlord’s actions in contacting the resident to book a new appointment after she cancelled the initial appointment of 17 March 2023 was reasonable. It was also reasonable of it to remind her how to book repair appointments. There was therefore no failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s evidenced repair requests.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operated an interim complaints policy in 2022. It stated it would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. It would issue a response within 20 working days at stage 1 and 40 working days at stage 2. If it was unable to respond within its time limit at stage 1 or 2 of its complaints process, it would contact the resident to explain the delay. It would also provide a timescale for when it would issue a response. It would agree with the resident their preferred method of communication and the frequency of update required.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that, since this complaint, the landlord has amended its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that complaints should be responded to within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Paragraph 6.4 of the Code states that landlords must decide whether they require an extension to this timescale when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
  3. The resident made her formal complaint to the landlord on 21 May 2023. It acknowledged her complaint on 6 June 2023, within 10 days working days in line with its complaints policy. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 July 2023, within 35 working days. This was 15 working days outside its complaints policy. There is no evidence to show that it contacted the resident requesting an extension or explaining the delays, this was a further failing.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding and offered £50 compensation for this delay. It was appropriate of the landlord to acknowledge the delayed complaint response and offer compensation.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 July 2023. It acknowledged her complaint on 31 July 2023 and said it would respond within 20 working days. It contacted her on 17 August 2023, 4 working days after it said it would respond, and informed her that it would respond within another 20 working days.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 October 2023. 61 working days from when the resident made her escalation request on 14 July 2023. There is no evidence to show that it requested or agreed an extension with the resident. This was a failing and not in line with its complaints policy. It is understandable that this delay would have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  7. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  8. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it received the resident’s escalation request on 14 July 2023. It said the request was not actioned and it logged her emails incorrectly onto the inactive stage 1 process. It apologised for this error and said it would learn from the complaint. It stated it would remind its contact staff to ensure they log all emails and call notes correctly and they start the relevant process. It said these steps would ensure the mistake did not happen again in future. It said there was service failure in relation to its complaint handling and offered £100 compensation. This was in addition to the £50 previously offered in its stage 1 complaint response. It met the range of compensation set out in its compensation policy for such failures to reply to communication or meet service standards causing distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. This offer also exceeded the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation for this, which suggests offers in the range of £50-£100 for such failings causing service failure. 
  9. This Ombudsman Therefore finds that the landlord’s offer of compensation for its handling of the resident’s associated complaint, acknowledgement of its failings, apologies, and learning from outcomes satisfactorily resolved the failings with respect to its handling of the formal complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made reasonable redress by offering redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s queries relating to her tenancy agreement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has made reasonable redress by offering redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pays the resident the £150 compensation it previously offered if it has not done so. The finding of reasonable redress for its complaint handling is dependent on the payment of this sum.