Clarion Housing Association Limited (202222858)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222858

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 February 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of costs to run temporary heaters.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garage door.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bedroom ceiling in a previous property.
4. The landlord’s handling of reimbursement for window fittings.
5. The landlords handling of his reports that it ‘blocked’ the resident’s emails and recalled emails it sent to him.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that it discriminated against him.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a 5-year fixed term tenancy with the landlord since January 2022. Prior to this, the resident held an assured tenancy with the landlord at a different property. The resident occupies the property with their spouse and 4 children. The landlord is a housing association.
After moving into the new property in January 2022, the resident complained about the landlords handling of 3 repair issues at the previous property. He also complained about the landlord’s communication about an issue relating to window fittings at the new property, the landlords handling of his email communications, discrimination and prejudice by the landlord and the landlord’s complaint handling. The matters were considered by the landlord under 1 complaint.
In December 2021, the landlord’s heating contractor supplied the resident with 4 temporary heaters due to a heating issue at the property. The resident states the landlord informed him he would receive a payment of £5 per heater, per day, until the issue with the heating was resolved. The resident did not receive the payment and complained.
The landlord’s final position was that he had not experienced a total loss of heating and the temporary heaters were offered as a support measure to the resident because he had reported some radiators in the property were not giving out enough heat. On this basis it declined to offer any payment for the use of the temporary heaters. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and escalated his complaint to this service. To resolve the issue, he wants to be compensated for the costs of using temporary heating.
The resident reported that the garage door needed repair. The landlord did not complete the repairs within the timescales set out in its service level agreement. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaints process and offered a refund of 3 weeks garage rent. The resident remained dissatisfied and considers the compensation should be increased.
In respect of the bedroom ceiling at the previous property, the resident contended the ceiling needed a repair, but the landlord delayed in carrying these out because it knew he would be shortly moving out. The resident stated the ceiling then ‘collapsed.’ In its stage 1 response the landlord offered £150 in compensation for the issues. At the peer review stage, the landlord declined to offer further compensation. The resident was dissatisfied with this and escalated the complaint to this service. To resolve the issue, he believes the compensation should be increased.
In respect of the reimbursement for window fittings, the resident complained he had to chase the landlord for information about the process of reimbursement. At stage 1 of the complaints process the landlord upheld the complaint and offered £50 in compensation. The resident was dissatisfied with this and escalated the complaint to peer review stage. At peer review stage the landlord did not address the issue. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this service.
In respect of email communications, the resident states the landlord had ‘blocked’ emails he sent to it and that it had ‘recalled’ emails that it sent to him. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated it was not aware that it had blocked his emails and requested details of the blocked emails. In respect of emails it had recalled, it confirmed that it had identified 3 or 4 emails that were recalled after being sent. It stated that it could not explain why they had been recalled. It stated that it had received his response to those 3 or 4 emails so any attempt at recalling the email had not worked. The resident was dissatisfied with this and escalated the complaint. At peer review stage the landlord stated it had not received details from him about the blocked emails so was unable to comment further. In respect of recalled emails, it said that it had not found anything to suggest emails to him had been recalled. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this service for consideration.
The resident complained the landlord had discriminated against him. At stage 1 the landlord did not address this part of the resident’s complaint. At peer review stage the landlord apologised that he felt that way and set out its expectations of staff members. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the complaint to this service. To resolve the issue the resident wants the landlord to investigate his allegations.
The resident complained about the landlord’s complaint handling. At stage 1 it apologised for its delayed stage 1 response but did not offer any compensation. The resident was dissatisfied with this and escalated the complaint. At peer review stage the landlord offered £50 in compensation. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this service for consideration.

Scope of Investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord discriminated against him. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the actions, or inaction, of the landlord or its staff amounted to discrimination. That is a decision for the courts. The Ombudsman can look at how the landlord handled the residents reports and whether it has followed its policy, procedure, and best practice.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the resident’s request for a refund of costs to run temporary heating.

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 and stage 2, which it calls ‘peer review stage’.
The landlord’s compensation policy states ‘In the event of no heating as a result of an outstanding repair and where temporary heating has been offered, it will pay ‘£5 per day after 7 days of the initial report’.
The records provided indicate that the resident reported no heating or hot water and was provided with temporary heaters by the landlord on 12 December 2021. The resident states the landlord told him he would receive £5 per day, per heater. The landlord disputes that it told the resident this. The landlord did not provide the payment and the resident made a complaint.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord asked the tenant to provide a copy of the fuel bill for the period the heaters were in use and the fuel bill for the corresponding period in the previous year. This would allow it to identify any additional usage so that it could consider appropriate compensation. The Ombudsman finds this was unreasonable because there is no requirement within the landlord’s policy and procedure for the resident to provide evidence of fuel usage when the landlord has supplied temporary heating.
At peer review stage the landlord disputed that it had told him he would receive £5 per heater, per day, and stated the resident did not meet the criteria for receiving a payment because he had not experienced a total loss of heating. This was at odds with its stage 1 response and would have been confusing to the resident. Additionally, the contractor’s records confirm the resident reported no heating or hot water on 12 December 2021.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord agreed to consider compensation at stage 1 but made a request of the resident that was not based on its policy and procedure. At peer review stage it changed its mind about offering compensation stating the resident’s situation did not meet the criteria. This was unfair and unreasonable because the records confirm the reason the temporary heaters were provided was because the resident experienced no heating or hot water.
The Ombudsman finds the resident did meet the criteria to receive a payment under the landlord’s policy and procedure. The Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s request for a refund of costs to run temporary heating and makes an order for reimbursement in line with its policy and procedure and orders additional compensation of £50 for the residents time and trouble pursuing the matter.
Looking at the period for reimbursement, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should reimburse the resident £5 per day for 16 days for the following period, 19 December 2021 (7 days after the initial report) to 3 January 2022 (the last day of the tenancy).

The landlords handling of repairs to the garage door.

The landlords’ repairs service level agreement states it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
On 10 August 2021, the resident reported a broken garage door. The landlord raised this on a 28-day priority. This means the landlord was supposed to complete the repair by 7 September 2021. The repair was not completed until 21 September 2021. This was 14 days past its due date. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence that the landlord agreed the new timescale with the resident or explained its reasons for the delay. The situation caused inconvenience to the resident. At both stages of the complaints process the landlord acknowledged it did not meet the timescale set out in its service level agreement.
As part of its complaint investigation the landlord spoke with the resident. To resolve the issue, he wanted a refund of the rent charged for the time the garage door was broken. The Ombudsman finds the landlord was not required to offer a refund of rent for the first 28 days while the work was within target. The landlord exceeded the repair timescale by 2 weeks and offered a refund of 3 weeks garage rent. This totalled £27.51. The Ombudsman finds the landlord offered redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint.

The landlords handling of repairs to the bedroom ceiling in a previous property.

The documents provided show that on 7 December 2021, the resident reported an issue with the bedroom ceiling. The landlord attended on 8 December 2021. This was in line with its service level agreement for emergency repairs. The landlord’s records indicate that the landlord’s contractor found the ceiling was ‘secure,’ and the bedroom deemed safe to use. It ordered follow on works to take place on 30 December 2021. This was a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances.
In January 2022, as part of his stage 1 complaint the resident stated the bedroom ceiling had ‘collapsed’ on 14 December 2021. The documents provided do not show this was reported to the landlord or that it was brought to the landlord’s attention during December 2021.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s approach in that he had the impression that the landlord delayed carrying out follow on works by waiting until he had moved out of the property on 4 January 2023. The records provided show the landlord had plans to carry out substantial repairs to the property after the resident moved out. In view of the fact the ceiling was secure, and the bedroom deemed safe to use, the Ombudsman finds the landlords decision to wait until the void period to carry out further works was a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord did not detail any service failings on its part, however, it offered £150 compensation for ‘repair issues’. It broke down its compensation offer as:
1. time taken to make a complaint.
2. disruption to household
3. resident having to chase repeatedly.
4. misdirection
5. failure to take ownership.
The resident remained disatisfied and escalated his complaint to peer review stage. At peer review stage the landlord’s position was that it believed its compensation offer was reasonable and in line with its policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy states, ‘compensation payments will be considered on a case-by-case basis,’ and that it will award compensation of between £50 and £250 where there are instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.
The Ombudsman has not been able to identify any service failures or unreasonable delay in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the ceiling but finds there was some impact on the resident between 7 December 2021 and 4 January 2024 (when the tenant vacated the property). The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of £150 was in line with its procedure and was reasonable and proportionate to the issue. The Ombudsman finds the landlord offered redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlords handling of reimbursement for window fittings.

The landlord’s customer service standards states ‘We will provide services that are easy to access and respond promptly to your enquiries.’ It also states it will ‘reply to emails and online enquires within 5 working days on average’.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay between £50 and £250 where there is a service failure.
The resident was offered a management transfer to a new property. As part of this, the resident was informed by the landlord that it would reimburse the costs of window fittings at the new property. On 5 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord raising a query about how to reclaim the costs of the window fittings. The resident had to chase the landlord for the information on several occasions after this. The records indicate the landlord did not respond to the resident’s query until 25 February 2022. This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
In its stage 1 response the landlord upheld the complaint, apologised for the poor level of customer service he had received and offered £50 in compensation. The Ombudsman finds the landlords compensation offer was in line with the amounts set out in its policy and considers the landlord offered redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports that it blocked his emails and recalled email communications it sent to him.

The resident complained the landlord had blocked his emails. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 25 January 2022, it asked the resident to provide details of the emails that had been blocked so that it could investigate further. The landlord overlooked that it had already provided an explanation to the resident on 21 January 2022. The explanation provided was that the landlord’s server was ‘down’ on 1 and 2 January 2022 and no emails sent to the landlord on that day were delivered and were ‘bounced back’. In respect of emails that it had recalled, it explained that a member of staff inadvertently included a colleague’s direct email address instead of the organisational email address, so attempted to recall the email so the correct information could be added.
In its complaint response dated 25 January it should have confirmed its findings of 21 January 2022. Instead, it asked the resident to provide examples of when his emails had been blocked.
At peer review stage the landlord again overlooked the explanation it provided to him on 21 January and complicated the matter by saying it would not comment any further on the blocked emails. It also stated it had not been able to find any evidence that it had recalled emails sent to him. This was at odds with the explanation it gave on 18 January and with its stage 1 response that admitted it had recalled an email. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s approach would have been confusing to the resident.
The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord investigated the matter promptly, appropriately and provided a detailed explanation to the resident on 21 January 2022. However, this information was not carried across to the complaint investigation leading to contradictory complaint responses at stage 1 and 2. This was confusing to the resident and undermined the residents confidence in the complaint investigation. The Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports that it blocked and recalled emails.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports that it discriminated against him.

On 7 January 2022, as part of its complaint investigation, the landlord spoke with the resident. The resident informed the landlord that he had experienced discriminative treatment by it. On 17 January 2022, during email communication with the landlord the resident stated that he would consider seeking legal advice about the discrimination and prejudice he and his family had experienced from the landlord.
Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 outlines the Public Sector Equality Duty. This means that landlords who exercise public functions must consider and have due regard to the need to:
1. Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and any other conduct prohibited by or under the Act.
2. Advance equality of opportunity between individuals who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not.
3. Foster good relations between individuals who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not.
The landlord has not provided any policy or procedure documents that set out how it will deal with allegations of discrimination, bias, or prejudice. Nor has the Ombudsman found this in the housing policies section of the landlord’s website. The Ombudsman considers it essential for the landlord to have its equality policy and procedure kept alongside its customer service commitments to its residents. This means it is visible to residents and they know how to report discrimination and what to expect from the landlord. Additionally, the landlord understands its role and responsibilities when it receives an allegation that is has discriminated against a resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the matter of alleged discrimination and its peer review response stated it was sorry that the resident felt that he had been discriminated against. It wrote that it expected staff to treat everyone with dignity, courtesy, and respect. The landlord’s complaint responses did not properly address the issue and did not reassure the resident that it was taking the matter seriously. This undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord.
The Ombudsman expects that when a resident complains about discrimination or unfavourable treatment, the landlord will act swiftly and robustly to investigate the matter. This would include gathering information about the events and actions which were felt to be discriminatory, speaking with staff members or contractors involved, explaining to the resident what it had investigated and its findings, and then upholding or not upholding the complaint within its complaint response.
The landlord may find it beneficial to review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights, ‘Relationship of Equals.’ The report highlights that landlords must consider and investigate allegations of discrimination. Failure to do so compounds the resident’s existing view they are being treated unfavourably. It is also important the landlord investigates these so it can ensure it is providing a fair, equitable and lawful service.
The Ombudsman is concerned the landlord has not provided any evidence that it carried out an investigation into the alleged discrimination. This was unfair and unreasonable and caused frustration and distress to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports that the landlord discriminated against him.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy in effect at the time of the complaint states ‘We aim to resolve stage 1 complaints within 10 working days’, and peer review complaints within 20 working days.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 7 January 2022. This means the landlord should have provided its stage 1 response by no later than 21 January 2022. The landlord provided its response on 25 February 2022. This was 5 weeks past its due date. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that this timescale was agreed with the resident. This response time was not in line with its complaints procedure or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The situation caused inconvenience to the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised for the delay and informed the resident that if he was dissatisfied with its response, he should request an escalation within 20 working days.
On 1 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord stating his view that the landlord’s stage 1 response was ‘insulting’, ‘the way he had been treated was unacceptable’ and requested a phone call or zoom meeting to talk about the issues.
After this, the documents show the parties engaged in extensive email communication about the issues, but the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show the landlord escalated the complaint. Given the resident had expressed he thought its stage 1 response was insulting, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord should have treated this is a request to escalate the complaint to the next stage. Because it failed to do this it caused a 9-month delay in the resident receiving the peer review response.
On 3 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord stating, ‘this is taking forever’. The situation caused inconvenience and distress to the resident and undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord. On 19 December 2022, the landlord provided its peer review final response to the resident. This was almost 9 months after the resident informed the landlord that he thought its stage 1 response was insulting.
It is acknowledged the landlord experienced a cyber-attack in June 2022, and introduced an interim complaints policy (effective 17 June 2022). This policy states it would aim to respond to peer review stage complaints within 40 working days. Even taking into account the impact of the cyber-attack and the amended complaints response times, the 9-month delay was unacceptable.
In respect of the resident’s complaint about discrimination, the landlord did not respond to this at stage 1 of the complaints process and provided a shallow response at stage 2. This was not in line with the complaint handling code which states the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
Overall, the landlords handling of the complaint was unsatisfactory. Its complaint response times were not in line with its policy and procedures or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. It failed to escalate the resident’s complaint after his email of 1 March 2022, which caused a 9-month delay in providing the resident with a final response. The complaints process was unduly long and the resident experienced frustration and uncertainty.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation for its delayed peer review response. The Ombudsman’s view is that this amount does not go far enough in recognising the 5-week delay at stage 1, and the 9-month delay at peer review stage. The Ombudsman considers an additional amount of £300 would be more appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a refund of costs to run temporary heaters.
2. Reasonable redress by the landlord for its handling of repairs to the garage door.
3. Reasonable redress by the landlord for its handling of repairs to the bedroom ceiling in a previous property.
4. Reasonable redress by the landlord for its handling of reimbursement for window fittings.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s email communications.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that it discriminated against him.
7. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Begin an investigation into the residents reports of discrimination. The landlord should meet with the resident to understand why he feels discriminated against. It must explain how it will carry out the investigation, who it will speak too, and what information they will be able to share with the resident. It should have a SMART ( Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timebound), action plan and explain any frequency of updates and when they will respond with the outcome of its investigation. The landlord must update this service with the findings of its investigation.
3. Provide this Service with its policy and procedure documents that set out how it will investigate allegations of discrimination.
4. Register for the next available webinar on the Ombudsman’s latest Spotlight report, which looks at attitudes, rights, and respect in social housing.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident £1080.00. This comprises of;
1. £350 for the failings in its complaint handling (this includes the £50 offered at peer review stage. If this has already been paid the landlord must pay £300)
2. £600 for the failings in its handling of the resident’s report that it discriminated against him.
3. £80 for the resident’s costs in running temporary heating and an additional amount of £50 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the issue.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of the report.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to pay the compensation amount of £227.51 it offered at stage 1 of the complaints process if this has not already been paid. This was £27.51 in respect of 3 weeks garage rent, £50 for chasing information about window fittings, and £150 for repairs to bedroom ceiling.
The landlord and resident may wish to consider mediation to try and mend the landlord, tenant relationship, and discuss the issues and concerns. The resident is not obliged to attend if he does not wish to.