Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212143)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212143

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 February 2025

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 response to the resident about:
   1. A claim for a fall.
   2. Entry fobs.
   3. Staff conduct.
   4. Its complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block. The resident is noted to have vulnerabilities.
3. The resident reported in June 2020 that she tripped on a manhole outside her property. The landlord subsequently raised a repair for the manhole and staff including a surveyor completed accident reports. The resident later contacted the landlord on various occasions as she believed the surveyor was assisting with an injury claim.
4. In March 2021, the resident paid for 2 entry fobs, which she reported not receiving in May and August 2021. The landlord arranged for the fobs to be delivered in September 2021. The resident later reported in December 2021 that she had still not received them.
5. In May 2022, the landlord’s parking contractor raised concern about calls from the resident. The landlord called the resident and noted that she was warned about her conduct. The resident later called the landlord in December 2022, where it was noted that she was unhappy that staff had said they were a parking manager, threatened her with breach of tenancy and mentioned her mental health.
6. On 6 April 2023, the landlord raised a complaint it received via the resident’s MP. She raised dissatisfaction with a lack of response to her 2020 injury claim after staff visited and said they would pass the issue to the landlord’s insurance. She dissatisfaction that she had not received the fobs she had paid for. She raised dissatisfaction that when staff called her about a parking ticket, they threatened her tenancy and accessed her personal information.
7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 22 May 2023. It said that the purpose of a surveyor visit was to check on the resident and review the subject of the accident. It said that she would need to make a claim to its insurance team and apologised if she was not previously aware of this process. It apologised that the fobs were not delivered, and said this was now being progressed. It said that it had previously considered the issue involving the staff closed. The landlord apologised for its delayed response delay, its failure to send the fobs, and the resident’s time and trouble pursuing her complaint, and awarded £150.
8. The resident requested escalation of her complaint. She raised dissatisfaction with being contacted by staff to pay £150 for her accident. She was unhappy that the landlord told her to make a claim and said she had done this in previous correspondence. She was unhappy with the response about staff. The landlord subsequently posted the replacement fobs in early August 2023.
9. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 13 September 2023. It explained that the £150 was for service failings and was not for her accident. It apologised if she was misinformed that the issue would be passed to its insurance team and detailed how to make a claim. It said it followed policy and procedure during the call and did not agree there was a service failing for this. It apologised that there had been further delays in respect to the fob and its complaint response and awarded a further £125.
10. The landlord wrote to the resident in August 2024 after contact from the Ombudsman. It apologised that it had not adequately recorded her vulnerabilities, confirmed it had updated her account, and awarded £100.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The resident complains that she suffered a fall in 2020 which she holds the landlord liable for. The Ombudsman is unable to assess events in respect to the fall or decide an amount of personal injury compensation.
12. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for the impact on mental or physical health, as only a court can. This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of our Scheme that says we will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”
13. This is also because the resident’s complaint was made in 2023 and over 12 months after events in 2020. This is in line with paragraph 42.c. of our Scheme that says we will 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.”
14. The resident has also complained about landlord staff accessing her personal information. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to determine whether the landlord breached the resident’s personal data, as the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints this. The resident has the option to contact the ICO. This is in line with paragraph 42.j. of our Scheme, that says we will not investigate complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
15. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably on receipt of the resident’s complaint in 2023, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, which our assessment goes on to do.

The landlord’s response to the resident about a claim for a fall

16. The evidence shows that on 16 June 2020 the resident reported that she had tripped on a manhole. The landlord processed this report in line with a relevant health and safety policy, and arranged surveyor and repairs visits for the manhole. The resident called the landlord in August 2020 and said she wanted to claim compensation. The landlord told the resident that she would need to write in to make a claim. The resident was unhappy with this, and subsequently continued to contact the landlord.
17. The evidence then shows that a surveyor carried out a follow up visit to the accident site in line with the health and safety process. The resident says that this surveyor said they would refer her personal injury claim and that she later received no response to her claim. The landlord discussed this with the surveyor, who disputed they committed to refer a claim, and said they advised the resident to submit a personal injury claim.
18. The Ombudsman is unable to be definitive about what the resident was told. However, the evidence indicates that in August 2020, and within around 2 months of the fall, the resident was made aware that she needed to take further action to progress a claim. This reflects the landlord’s policy and internal discussion at that time that she would need to submit a claim to its insurance team. The evidence does not show that the landlord’s surveyor gave any expectancy they would submit a claim, and their account is supported by their completed form in 2020 that states she was to submit a personal injury claim.
19. The landlord’s complaint response confirmed to the resident how to make a claim and apologised for any misinformation. The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s fall and the lack of progress in the claim will have been distressing and frustrating for her. However, the landlord’s response was reasonable given the evidence. The response followed appropriate investigation and discussion with the surveyor and its insurance team. The landlord rightly said that the resident needed to take further action to submit a personal injury claim. The landlord reasonably apologised for any lack of clarity the resident may have previously had about correctly making a claim. However, we do make a recommendation to the landlord to advise its customers in writing about how to make a claim, where possible.
20. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that compensation in complaint responses was satisfactory compensation for her personal injury claim. However, it is evident that the compensation was intended to be for the service failings in the complaint, not compensation for her personal injury. The Ombudsman, as indicated above, does not have the jurisdiction or expertise to decide what an appropriate amount would be for the personal injury claim. If the resident wishes for the landlord to consider compensation for her personal injury claim, she has the option to make a claim to its insurance as detailed in the landlord’s stage 2 response, if she has not done so already.

The landlord’s response to the resident about entry fobs

21. The resident complained about delays receiving entry fobs she paid for in March 2021. The evidence shows that the fobs were originally sent to a former address 5 months after she paid for them. The resident then reported lack of receipt of the fobs in December 2021 and May 2023 and she did not receive them until August 2023. This was around 29 months later, a significant length of time, which is not appropriate.
22. The landlord took action after the complaint to arrange for the fobs to be provided to the resident. It acknowledged and apologised for its service failings. It awarded a total of £275, of which a share of £100 in the stage 1 response and £75 in the stage 2 response was for the fobs. This includes the delay from the stage 1 response to when the resident eventually received the fobs. The landlord’s compensation policy does not specify amounts for delays supplying fobs, but £175 is in line with what our remedies guidance considers applicable where there has been maladministration but no permanent impact.
23. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was overall reasonable. It took effective action, sought to acknowledge and put right all its service failings, and offered reasonable compensation for the failings evident. This does not mean that we think that the landlord’s handling or impact on the resident was “reasonable,” but reflects that there were failings, which the landlord appropriately acknowledged and remedied for in line with our approach.

The landlord’s response to the resident about staff conduct

24. The resident was unhappy about a call to her from staff in May 2022 after concerns raised by a parking contractor. She was unhappy they said they were a parking manager, unhappy they threatened her tenancy, and unhappy they used her mental health issues to scare her to apologise for her behaviour. The landlord discussed the complaint with staff and responded that it was satisfied that policy and procedure was followed for the call.
25. The landlord did not directly review the call, so we cannot say what was said, but organisations commonly delete calls after short periods. The resident’s description of the call does not indicate significant failings. The staff were a manager and a lead representative for the parking contract, so their identifying themselves as a parking manager reasonably reflected their role in the call. The tenancy terms and conditions include expectations about behaviour to contractors, so it is reasonable for staff to verbally warn about consequences if these continue to be breached. It is not evident that the landlord’s expectations of the resident were any different to anyone else. The landlord records tenant information which its staff will access when performing their roles.
26. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s report that staff referenced her mental health. This is not satisfactory. The resident complained about a lack of response to concerns she raised in December 2022, 5 months previously. The landlord should have acknowledged the failure to reply to this. The resident was also clearly distressed about the call and the landlord’s December 2022 call notes described her as emotional and upset. The landlord should have acknowledged her experience of events and apologised for any distress she may have been caused by the call, even if it found no failings. Its response lacked sufficient consideration and sympathy for the resident and her stated vulnerabilities.
27. The above leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about staff conduct and to order some compensation, which takes into account the compensation it already offered and what our remedies guidance says is applicable for the service failures evident.
28. The compensation ordered is intended to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the service failings evident in the complaint, and is not intended to address any claim for the impact on her mental health. This is because the Ombudsman, as indicated above, does not have the jurisdiction or expertise to decide what an appropriate amount would be for claims about the impact on physical or mental health. If the resident wishes for the landlord to consider further compensation for this aspect, she has the option to make a claim to its insurance as detailed in the landlord’s stage 2 response, if she has not done so already.

The landlord’s complaint handling

29. The resident complained about issues such as staff conduct in a December 2022 call to the landlord. The landlord raised a complaint from the resident on 6 April 2023 which it received via her MP. The landlord’s 22 May 2023 stage 1 was provided with a delay of almost 3 weeks. The stage 2 response was delayed by around 6 weeks. These delays will have caused time and trouble and distress and inconvenience to the resident, and will have undermined her confidence that the landlord was doing all it could to resolve matters.
30. The landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 and 2 responses were delayed, and awarded £100 specifically for delays in its complaint responses. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and with what our remedies guidance considers applicable where there has been maladministration but no permanent impact. The landlord’s response therefore reasonably demonstrates that it sought to acknowledge and put right the complaint in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
31. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord therefore responded reasonably in respect to its complaint handing, and leads us to find reasonable redress in its complaint handling. This does not mean that we think that the landlord’s handling or impact on the resident was “reasonable,” but reflects that there were failings, which the landlord appropriately acknowledged and remedied for in line with our approach.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about a claim for a fall.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about staff conduct.
33. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident about entry fobs.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

34. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to apologise to the resident and pay £50 compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused to her by its response about staff conduct.
35. The landlord is recommended to re-offer the £375 total it previously offered, if this has not been paid.
36. The landlord is recommended to advise its customers in writing about how to make a claim, particularly those with vulnerabilities.
37. The landlord is recommended to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights and its staff training needs, to ensure that its staff handle any vulnerabilities sensitively and appropriately when engaging with its customers.