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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202213014)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213014

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 August 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 landlords handling of the defects to the residents property.
    2. The landlords handling of the defects to the residents boiler.
    3. The handling of the resident’s complaint and the amount of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a new build property, with the landlord, under a lease which commenced 30 June 2022. The property is a 2-bed house in which the resident has a 45% share. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The property was brand new when the resident moved in. Shortly after moving in, 14 July 2022, the resident had the need to report a number of defects in the property. The residents new home was within a defects liability period, so any defects reported were the responsibility of the builder. There were arrangements in place for defects to be reported to the landlords aftercare team and not directly to the builder.
  3. On 23 August 2022, after chasing her reported defects and receiving no response, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord, about the amount of time it was taking to resolve them. She raised particular attention to the issue of the response to a boiler fault which resulted in her being without hot water for 8 days.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 February 2023, in summary it said: that it upheld the residents complaint. It noted delays by the builder, in providing outcomes within a reasonable timescale for the defects in the residents property, communication from its Customer Care & Quality team was not to a satisfactory standard, prior to the formal complaint being made. For this it apologised. It offered the resident £440 compensation. This was for 8 days loss of hot water at £5 per day, from 09 August 2022 to 16 August 2022. And for defects not being repaired within an adequate timescale, even though some defects were raised within the lifetime of the complaint.
  5. The same day the resident requested escalation of her complaint as some of the defects were not detailed in the response. She also said it had taken an inordinate amount of time to resolve, as well as an immense amount of time and inconvenience chasing the developer. She did not accept the amount of compensation offered.
  6. On 4 April 2023, the landlords final position on the matter was that it did not uphold the residents complaint. The stage 1 reply had responded to all aspects of the residents’ complaints and a review of the compensation offered, found it to be appropriate and in line with its policy. It acknowledged it had not responded with in its complaint response time and awarded £50 compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the defects to the residents property.

  1. Following the handover, of a newly built property in the UK, there is a builders defect liability period. This is typically 12 months from completion of the construction work but is dependent on individual contracts. During this period, the builder is contractually obliged to remedy any defects that arise in the building through faulty workmanship, design, or materials.
  2. The residents property was newly built when she took over the lease on 30 June 2022. The landlord appropriately issued the resident with a homeowners user guide (HUG) which set out that her property was in a 12-month defects liability period and that the builder was responsible for any defects that arose from build during that period.
  3. The terms of the lease state that although initially the property is not owned outright, the resident ( leaseholder) does have the normal responsibilities of a full owner. Which includes:
    1. Repairs – keeping the premises clean and in good and substantial repair and condition.
    2. Gates and fences – to maintain renew repair and clean all boundary fences walls hedges and gates on the premises.
    3. Garden maintenance.
  4. The HUG appropriately explained that the property was under a warranty. This meant when the defects period ended as a shared owner under the terms of the lease the resident could still raise certain issues with the landlord up to 2 years post build, with her building warranty. This can extend further for certain structural items until the warranty expires.
  5. To assist in resolving and to have oversight by the monitoring of defects, the landlord set up an aftercare team for residents to report any defects through. This is common practise and was reasonable.
  6. There was a 4-tier defect response time which ranged from 24hrs for emergency defects to 12 months for routine defects that can be left without too much inconvenience to residents or their neighbours. The landlord had also set these details out in the HUG which was appropriate.
  7. Prior to handover of the property from the builder to the landlord, it completed 4 void inspections, to ensure any snagging works were identified and completed and that it had been cleaned to an appropriate standard, which was reasonable.
  8. The resident reported defects that needed repairing to the landlord, from 14 July 2022. It is assumed that the landlords aftercare team would then have liaised with the building contractor to get the defects remedied within the timescales prescribed.
  9. Although it was clear the builder was responsible for rectifying the defects, it was not clear from the HUG who was responsible for communicating with the resident following the reports, on the actions to be taken and appointments arranged. Records of those reports have not been provided to this service, so it was not clear what the landlord did on receipt of those reports or what the resident was advised. Without evidence the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedure.
  10. However it was noted in the landlords complaint response that its investigation had identified that “communication was not upheld to a satisfactory standard” by the team dealing with it, for the period between the residents reports 14 July 2022 and her complaint made 23 August 2022. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this service failure, which was reasonable.
  11. The poor performance and delayed response times the resident experienced was down to the building contractor, and outside of the landlords control. It was evident that the landlord was undertaking its responsibilities to raise the defects and chase up the building contractor, until the defects were resolved. It was also evident that the landlord was in regular communication (telephone and email) with the resident and keeping her informed, even when things were not progressing.
  12. The landlord eventually brought in its own contractors to carry out minor repairs such as the toilet flush, to bring some delays to an end, which was reasonable. It was unable to do this with the more significant defects as this would jeopardise the residents warranty, so it had no alternative but to continue to pursue the building contractor which it did.
  13. The landlord, whilst it cannot share business sensitive information, gave assurances to the resident that the contractors poor performance was being addressed at the highest level. This most likely would have been in relation to the terms of the contract, breaches, and penalties available, which was appropriate.
  14. The resident reported surface cracks appearing in her property. It is common for there to be slight movement as a new build property settles and dries out in the first year, which often results in surface cracks appearing. This is normal, and it is usual practice for these to be addressed at the end of the defects period. It was therefore reasonable that they would be given a priority level of 4 (12months) and attended to at the end of the defects liability period and not when reported.
  15. It is acknowledged that the number of defects that occurred and the time it took to resolve them, was not appropriate and extremely frustrating for the resident. However building contractors failing to meet their responsibilities under defects liability clauses, has become increasingly common in the past few years. This has been attributed to the shortages in and spiralling costs of building materials, a labour crisis, and the recent economic climate.
  16. The Ombudsman recognises that this is extremely frustrating and inconvenient for new homeowners affected, but acknowledges that it is a problem which is outside of the landlords direct control.
  17. The actions the landlord had taken, to pursue the residents defects with the building contractor, reporting and chasing them, carrying out minor works itself and enforcing the terms of the contract are all that the landlord, could reasonably be expected to do in these circumstances.
  18. The delay in some of the issues outstanding was acknowledged as not being down to the building contractor. This included the street lighting which was not working on part of the estate. The street lighting was provided by the contractor, but connection was the responsibility of a third-party provider, whose response times were outside of both the landlord and contractors control. There was however evidence that the landlord was working proactively to get this resolved.

The landlords handling of the defects to the residents boiler.

  1. Part of the residents complaint was that she had reported that her boiler had a fault on the 9 August 2022. No one attended, leaving her without hot water until it rectified itself 8 days later. When the resident was contacted, she requested that boiler engineers attend to check out the boiler in case it happened again.
  2. The landlord acknowledged that a delay had occurred because a mistake had been made, instead of passing the report as a defect to the building contractor, the landlord had raised it as a standard repair in error. This was later cancelled when it became apparent it was a defect and not a landlord repair.
  3. The landlord apologised for this error, and offered the resident compensation for a partial loss of amenities for 8 days which came to £40. This was considered reasonable redress for a service failure which had a short-term impact, and was within the range the Ombudsman would recommend.
  4. It is understandable that the resident would have concerns about the boiler breaking down again, and would want reassurance. However, it was not unreasonable that the landlord would not agree to raising a defect when the boiler was no-longer faulty. A boiler engineers attendance when the boiler was fully functioning, would have resulted in a recharge to the landlord. It would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to agree to this.
  5. The advice given to the resident to contact them if or when a further report occurred with the boiler was appropriate.

The handling of the resident’s complaint and the amount of compensation offered.

  1. In July 2020, the Housing Ombudsman published a new complaint handling code, with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) became statutory on 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements.
  2. On 17 June 2022, the landlord implemented an Interim Complaints Policy, to assist it with the response of complaints following a cyber-attack and loss of data. It was accepted that response times may be delayed as a result, and its policy response times were temporarily extended; Stage 1 complaint response time was 20 working days, and a Stage 2 complaint response time was 40 working days, which was not compliant with the Code.
  3. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on the 23 August 2022 and the landlords formal response was issued on 17 February 2023. The response was provided once the defects in the residents complaint were completed. This resulted in a 125 working day response time which extensively exceeded the timescales recommended in the Code and the landlords revised policy response times.
  4. The landlord did recognise this was a failing, it apologised to the resident and awarded her £100 compensation. It was noted that any detriment to the resident from a delayed response was mitigated against, by the actions of the investigating officer, who kept in regular contact with the resident, continued to  progress the defects and kept her updated and informed. Because of this the offer of compensation was considered to be reasonable redress.
  5. The Ombudsman’s position, however, is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent.
  6. Through the duration of the complaint, the resident increased the number of defects she wanted considered in the complaint. These included cracks above doors, paint peeling, 2 plug sockets coming away from the wall, an extractor fan and toilet flush not working properly, and a gravel board required under a fence panel behind the shed.
  7. As the stage 1 response had not been issued it was appropriate for the landlord to add these issues to the current complaint. Had the response gone out, the landlord would have had to log these as a separate complaint.
  8. The landlord was not responsible for the general delays in addressing the defects, nonetheless, it acknowledged the poor performance of the building contractor and the inconvenience, time, and trouble this had put the resident to. In response it calculated an award of compensation that it would have considered had the delays been down to its own contractors.
  9. It was not obliged to do this; its compensation policy is designed for putting things right when it has made mistakes, or its services have fallen below its agreed service standards. This was not the case in this instance, it was the building contractors performance that was at fault, so this was considered a reasonable gesture by the landlord.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 February 2023, because she did not think the amount of compensation offered was reflective of the 7-month delay, she had encountered and the time and inconvenience she had been put to.
  11. While the landlord felt some issues could have been better explained, and the minor repair undertaken by its own contractors could have been considered earlier, it did not uphold the residents complaint. This was because it felt the stage 1 response had adequately compensated the resident in line with its compensation policy for any failing identified.
  12. The stage 2 response was issued on 4 April 2024, which was within the landlords revised complaint policy response timescales of 40 days. It was not clear when the temporary revised complaints policy ceased to be used. The stage 2 response awarded a further £50 compensation for not meeting its published complaint response time which suggests it had reverted back to the 20 days. The acknowledgement and financial award was therefore reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the defects to the residents property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the defects to the residents boiler.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the handling of the resident’s complaint and the amount of compensation offered.

Recommendation

  1. The finding of Reasonable Redress is dependent on the landlord paying the compensation if offered to the resident, if it hasn’t done so already.