Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212172)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212172

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 November 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 repairs and a bathroom renewal.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident applied for a mutual exchange (MEX) to the property (a 3 bedroom house) in August 2021 and it was approved on 21 September 2021, subject to landlord references and a surveyor inspection. A surveyor attended in October 2021 and identified a series of repairs which the landlord has accepted took longer than anticipated to arrange. The landlord was advised on 25 January 2022 that all requested repairs had been completed and an inspection was conducted on 18 February 2022. The resident moved in to the property with her children in February 2022.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 1 March 2022 about the delay in it dealing with the MEX, and the property inspection being flawed. She said the property was in disrepair and was not up to minimum standards.
5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 April 2022 it:
   1. Apologised for the delays, which it attributed to the pandemic.
   2. Apologised that electrical checks were not competed until 12 days after the resident moved in and that there was a delay sending the tenancy agreement.
   3. Said it would renew the kitchen, which would include an upgrade to wiring and the replacement of all internal doors. These works should be completed in 28 working days.
   4. Said a bathroom renewal would be done under its planned investment program which started in 2023 and was due to complete in 2024.
   5. Listed various other repairs it would carry out.
   6. Offered £325 compensation (£25 for responding late to the complaint, £50 to recognise the time taken to resolve the complaint and £250 for its failure to follow process/policy, repeat calls, lack of ownership taken, repeat visits and any inconvenience suffered or a degree of disruption to the household).
6. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the response on 11 April 2022.
7. As a result of the necessary repairs, the resident was decanted from 20 May to 28 November 2022, when she stayed with her mother.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 December 2022. It again apologised for delays and for the kitchen not being renewed under planned works. It said repairs had been delayed and some had not been picked up at stage 1. It offered £6,484.16 compensation (in addition to the £325 payment made at stage 1) as follows:
   1. £3,584.16 to clear rent arrears, which had accrued while the resident was decanted.
   2. £800 as:
      1. Discretionary compensation for time taken to resolve the complaint.
      2. Consideration of the household vulnerabilities including age.
      3. Recognition of any failure to follow process/policy.
      4. Repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem.
      5. Repeated failures to reply to letters, return phone calls or resident repeatedly having to chase
      6. Misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information.
   3. £350 for the error with MEX and information received on completion of works, including door repairs.
   4. £200 for the delay in approval of MEX.
   5. £1,200 for the long stay in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of repairs.
   6. £250 for complaint handling.
   7. £100 for the delay in providing a stage 2 response.
9. In January 2024, the resident was advised by the landlord the bathroom would not be renewed by April 2024 as it needed to reprioritise projects.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident’s original complaint related to the landlord’s handling of the MEX and a number of repairs that were needed. The resident has confirmed that she accepted the compensation offered at stages 1 and 2, expecting her bathroom to be renewed as promised and outstanding repairs completed. The resident has complained that these issues relating to the original complaint remain outstanding and they are, therefore, the focus of this investigation.

Landlord’s handling of repairs and bathroom renewal

11. The evidence shows the resident was advised by the landlord that she was due for a bathroom renewal survey under its planned investment programme to start in 2023 and complete in 2024. In addition, she says the landlord agreed to carry out the following repairs which remained outstanding following the decant:
    1. Issues with the windows and a hole in her bedroom window with wire in.
    2. The front and back doors were not up to standard as they were getting jammed, and sometimes could not be locked/unlocked. She was told by contractors they were not fitted correctly. As a result, the property felt cold and draughty, and she had been advised the back door needed a draught excluder.
    3. The “box” by front door had a hole in that needed to be repaired.
    4. A hole in her son’s wall needed to be repaired and there was an uncapped plug that needed to be addressed.
    5. Two bedrooms had lining paper put up, but underneath the walls required replastering.
    6. Two internal doors had been hung incorrectly.
    7. There was mould in the downstairs toilet.
12. Bathroom renewals are dealt with by the landlord as planned works and its Planned Investment Policy says it will continuously enhance/update its stock condition data and identify properties/estates that are in “need of attention”. It has an annual programme which sets priorities for budgeting and programming the planned major works and projects that have been agreed in the Regional Investment Plan meetings.
13. In January 2024, the resident was advised by the landlord the bathroom would not be renewed in April 2024 as planned because it was prioritising other projects. It said it would more likely take place in 2026. The fact that the landlord had to reprioritise its finances is not, in itself, unreasonable. It is important for landlords to make the most effective use of the limited resources available to them and they have wide discretion to apply funds to their housing stock accordingly.
14. However, the landlord had clearly accepted that the bathroom needed work and had agreed to renew it when it assessed the property. The resident had been given clear timescales for the work, and waited a long time for it to be done; so, to then be told it would be delayed, was inevitably disappointing. This must then be balanced with the fact that the bathroom is usable and the landlord has made it clear that the resident should continue to report any repairs as usual. The bathroom has had a mould treatment in the past, and the shower replaced.
15. However, the resident had relied upon the information provided by the landlord, and her expectations were not effectively managed. If there was a possibility the landlord may reassess its funding for works at the property, it should have made it clear to the resident that there was no guarantee the replacement would be done by April 2024. This Service is not in a position to tell the landlord how to manage its finances; so, it cannot reasonably tell it to carry out the bathroom renewal any sooner than is now planned. However, its failure to adequately manage the resident’s expectations amounts to maladministration and the resident should be compensated for that. The Ombudsman has taken this in to account when assessing matters overall.
16. In terms of the other outstanding repairs, the landlord has said it has no record of there being any. However, internal emails sent by its staff from February 2023 show that the resident had been in touch a number of times to report that there were several repairs that still needed to be completed. There is no evidence to show that the resident made the landlord aware of all the specific issues listed above, but the landlord did note she was unhappy and had to chase on a number of occasions.
17. An internal email sent on 27 February 2023 reported that the resident had “consistently” said since December 2022, that there were outstanding repairs following the decant, including a draught, and that it should be addressed as a complaint. However, internal emails from 1 and 2 March 2023 indicate it dismissed this on the basis that all matters were resolved, which is unacceptable and amounts to maladministration.
18. The landlord’s records show someone did attend on 10 March 2023, but it is not known what action, if any, was taken to address matters. The landlord again noted on 23 March 2023 that the property was still cold and there were outstanding issues that needed resolving. The resident again chased the landlord over blown windows on 27 April 2023 as well as a toilet seat being broken, issues with door handles and draughts.
19. Based on the evidence, this Service cannot say for certain whether the landlord was aware of all the issues the resident claims were outstanding from December 2022. However, its Responsive Repairs and Maintenance Policy says non-emergency repairs should be completed as soon as possible and within 28 days. In this case, the landlord knew the resident was claiming repairs were outstanding from December 2022. If this did not correlate with its understanding, a reasonable response would have been for it to promptly arrange an inspection to review the resident’s claim. Particularly having just accepted a number of failures in its service, as set out in in its stage 2 response.
20. Since December 2022, the landlord has carried out some repairs, for example to the windows and doors. It also did a mould treatment in January 2024 throughout the entire property. However, there is clearly a dispute between the parties over what repairs are outstanding and who is responsible for them. For example, the landlord has reviewed a number of images provided by the resident showing wallpaper peeling, but says this would be her responsibility, as per its “Responsibility for repairs” guidance. This guidance does say a resident is responsible for decoration, but in this case, the resident says plaster is coming off the walls underneath the wallpaper, and the guidance makes it clear, that if that is the case, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to fix.
21. In order to remedy matters, the landlord should compensate the resident to recognise that she has had to chase on a number of occasions and escalate her complaint for over 18 months to get matters resolved. Taking in to account the mismanagement of expectations over the bathroom renewal and the resident having to chase the landlord for so long to address the outstanding repairs, £600 compensation is considered reasonable in the circumstances.
22. In addition, the landlord should attend the property and meet with the resident who has concerns over the repairs it plans to carry out, and agree a schedule of works, in order to put things right. This should clearly state what work is needed and who is responsible for it.

Landlord’s complaint handling

23. The landlord had a 2 stage Complaints Policy at the time the complaint was made, which said it would investigate a complaint at stage 1 and if a customer was unhappy with the outcome, it offered a peer review. No timescales for responding were provided.
24. At stage 1 the landlord took 28 working days to respond to the complaint. It acknowledged the complaint response was delayed and paid £25 compensation. This offer of compensation was not in line with its Compensation Policy at the time, which said it would pay compensation of between £50 and £250 where there had been a service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. In this case, there was a relatively short delay in the landlord responding, which may have caused the resident some frustration, but that was minimal. However, compensation of more than £25 would have been appropriate.
25. The resident made it clear on 11 April 2022 that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, but it took 188 working days for the landlord to issue a response at stage 2. At this point, the landlord recognised it did not sufficiently address the complaint at stage 1 and it appropriately recognised that by paying £250 compensation. It also paid an additional £100 compensation due to the delay in issuing its stage 2 response.
26. While it is positive that the landlord recognised its failings, its Compensation Policy says it would usually pay compensation of between £250 and £700 when there was a considerable failure but no permanent impact. Failing to respond to the complaint at stage 2 for approximately 8 months amounts to a significant failure in the Ombudsman’s opinion. Particularly when there had been a delay at stage 1, and this further delay shows it had failed to learn from its mistakes. This was a considerable oversight; therefore, its offer of £100 compensation, was insufficient.
27. Having said that, at both stages 1 and 2 the landlord offered an additional payment in recognition of several other failures. At stage 1, that amounted to £250 and at stage 2, it was £800. While one of the points these payments were attempting to remedy was in relation to the “time taken to resolve the complaint”, the landlord had already made separate compensation offers to remedy the delay in complaint handling. Therefore, making a separate reference to the time taken to resolve the complaint, appears to be a duplication. In future, the landlord should make its compensation offers clearer and more specific, in order to not cause confusion.
28. Where there has been maladministration, as there has been here, the landlord’s guidance on remedies suggests compensation of up to £700 would be reasonable. This Service’s guidance suggests up to £600. Overall, the landlord has paid the resident £375 compensation for the delays at both stage 1 and 2, as well as not addressing the complaint sufficiently at stage 1. It has also paid a further £1,050 compensation, some of which sought to recognise its failures in complaint handling. Taking all that in to account, the overall amount offered is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect; so was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs and a bathroom renewal.
30. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its poor complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Meet with the resident and agree a schedule of outstanding works.
    3. Pay £600 compensation for its handling of the bathroom renewal and outstanding repairs.
32. Within 4 weeks of the schedule of outstanding works being agreed, the landlord is ordered to complete all repairs it is responsible for.

Recommendations

33. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £6,809.16 it offered at stage 1 and 2 (in addition to the £600 ordered above). This offer recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.
    2. Review the way it words its remedies; in particular, to ensure it provides a more clear and detailed breakdown of compensation, when it is being attributed to multiple issues.