Clarion Housing Association Limited (202223908)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223908

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 June 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of property defects.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder in a part ownership scheme with the landlord, and the landlord is the freeholder. The resident purchased the leasehold to the property in March 2022. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for her. Under the terms of her lease, the resident was responsible for repairs at the property. However, the property was newly built when the resident purchased the lease, and a 12 month ‘defect period’ applied.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2022 to report she was unable to properly close and lock the patio door at the property. The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 May 2022, and reported defects to the flooring. It is unclear whether any repairs took place at that time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 June 2022 to make a complaint, and said she had reported a number of “fault[s]” with the property shortly after moving in. She said she “made several attempts” to chase up the repairs, but was “getting nowhere”.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint the response on 9 January 2023. It stated “due to the lack of response” from the developer it had passed the outstanding defects to its own contractor to rectify. It outlined the outstanding defects and explained the issues would be “rectified” by its contractor. It also advised the floor would be repaired and only replaced in places it could not be repaired. It apologised for its handling of the defects and offered £500 in compensation for the “non completion of defects with in a reasonable timescale”. It also offered £100 for the delay in providing the complaint response. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and its position on the replacement flooring. She asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 12 January 2023.
The landlord and developer completed an ‘end of defect’ inspection on 8 March 2023, and identified the works to the flooring and patio door remained outstanding. It also identified several other defects that needed rectifying. Its report did not set out when the outstanding repairs would be completed.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 16 March 2023. It outlined the outstanding defects, who was responsible for completing them. The flooring and patio door issue were both still outstanding, and it said it contactor planned to inspect the flooring on 10 April 2023. It stated the developer was responsible for fixing the door, but did not give a date when this would happen. The landlord set out its position in relation to the flooring that it would not be replaced with a “different/higher specification” floor. The landlord restated its offer of compensation from its stage 1 response. It offered a further £250 for the delays in resolving the defects, and a further £100 for the delay in sending its stage 2 response.
The resident contacted this Service on 19 May 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. The resident stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final position that it would not replace the flooring with “like for like” throughout the property.
The patio door was repaired on 6 July 2023 by a contractor for the developer. The landlord told this Service that the resident disagreed with the proposed works to the flooring, and following “considerable negotiations” the flooring was replaced on 23 October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Property Defects

The landlord’s ‘new home information pack’ for residents states that following the completion of a new property the resident is able to report defects to it for a period of 12 months. The defects section of the pack states that defects should be reported to the landlord and not the developer. It states it has 4 levels of priority for responding to defects, which are:
1. Priority 1 (24 hour response time: emergency defects that cause loss essential facilities, or affect the security of the building.
2. Priority 2 (7 day response time): defined as causing a loss of facilities that will become life threatening or lead to a loss of essential facilities.
3. Priority 3 (28 day response time): defects which can be deferred without causing serious inconvenience to residents.
4. Priority 4 (12 month response time): defects which can be left until the end of the defect liability period without causing inconvenience to the residents.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it has 3 bands for awarding compensation, which are:
1. £50 to £250 for failures resulting in “some impact” on the resident
2. £250 to £500 for “considerable” failures with no permanent impact on the resident
3. Above £700 for failures resulting in “significant and serious long term” impact on the resident.
The landlord had a ‘service level agreement’ (SLA) with the developer of the resident’s property. It states if the developer fails to comply with its defect obligations the landlord may correct the defect itself and charge the developer the costs of doing so. The agreement set out that it is not obliged to take this approach. The SLA sets out the same priority timeframes as listed above.
The resident was evidently unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the defects, in particular the repair/replacement of the flooring, after she exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, in March 2023. However, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of matters it has not had the opportunity to respond to as a complaint. Considering this, our investigation has focused on the events up until the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in March 2023. Given the resident’s concerns about its handling of matter after this period, we have made a recommendation below.
As part of her complaint, made in June 2022, the resident raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of multiple defects throughout the property. The landlord responded to these concerns in its complaint response. However, when the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, she asked us to consider the landlord’s handling of the flooring and patio door issue. Considering this, our investigation has primarily focused on its handling of those issues.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the role of this Service is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has accepted that its handling of the matter was poor and offered the resident a total of £750 for its handling of the defects. It is not possible to determine how the compensation offered was calculated against individual defect and the delay. As such, this investigation has considered the overall offer of compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident, as a whole. However, to promote learning for the landlord, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the defects the resident remained unhappy with, and identified areas of particular concern, and points of learning.
The resident put the landlord on notice about the issue with the patio door on 8 April 2022. The evidence available for this investigation shows it did not pass this report on to the developer until 10 May 2022, over a month after it was reported. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its SLA and information pack. Considering the resident had raised a concern about the security of the door, it is concerning it took no action for a month. It is noted that the landlord raised it as a priority 2 defect, when it passed it on to the developer, this was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the 1 month delay was unreasonable. The resident was evidently concerned and distressed that she could not secure the door, the unreasonable delay increased that distress.
In relation to the flooring, the evidence indicates that the landlord did not arrange for an inspection the floor within a reasonable timeframe. The resident was inconvenienced by needing to raise the issue again in her complaint of June 2022. She also sent a further email in July 2022, where she expressed frustration at not receiving a receiving responses to defects she had raised. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter, and the resident was cost time and trouble by needing to chase it up.
The evidence shows that the landlord arranged an inspection of the flooring in July/August 2022 (the exact date is unclear). We have seen an internal email from 26 August 2022 where the landlord set out its position on the flooring. It had decided not to replace the entire floor at the time, as it was “not defective”, but would repair parts that needed it. While not an unreasonable position to adopt, given what was reported, we have seen no evidence that this was communicated to the resident. Doing so would have helped manage her expectations. That it did not was a shortcoming in its communication about the issue, which caused an inconvenience.
It is noted that the developer was responsible for the defects reported, and the landlord was the resident’s point of contact for defects, as set out in the information pack. It is evident that the developer did not conduct repairs to the defects in a timely manner in line with its SLA with the landlord. While this delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, the evidence indicates the landlord’s communication with the developer and resident about the issues was poor.
We have seen evidence of the landlord chasing the developer, and its contractors, for responses to the defects raised. We have also seen evidence that the landlord updated, and apologised, about the delays on 9 November 2022 and 15 December 2022. While this was appropriate to do so, given the delays and issues with its contractor/developer it would have been appropriate for it to provide more regular updates, for transparency. This would have helped reassure the resident it was taking her concerns seriously, and manage her expectations about the delay. It is noted that the landlord decided to take on the repairs of the defects itself due to issues with the developer. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, and evidence it sought to resolve the issues for the resident.
It is noted the landlord assigned its contractor to attend to the defects. That it did not take this action for 6 months after the resident first complained, and nearly a year after it was on notice, was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by living with the reported defects for an unreasonable period before the landlord took the appropriate action.
The landlord’ stage 1 complaint response, of January 2023, was detailed in terms of setting out its understanding of the repairs, which was appropriate. It was also reasonable to explain its contractor had taken over (due to the developer not responding). However, that it did not set out when it hoped to complete the individual repairs was unreasonable. Considering the inconvenience, time and trouble caused, setting this out would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and provide reassurance of when it hoped to complete the repairs.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also set out its position in relation to the flooring. It explained it disagreed with the developer that it was not defective and needed repairing, it also set out its position in relation to repairing it. It is noted the resident was disappointed with the decision. But, it set out its position with clarity and gave reasons why. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
After the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, it conducted its end of defect period inspection, in March 2023. Much of the works remained outstanding including the patio door, and flooring issue. Given the timeframes set out in its information pack, this was inappropriate. The resident was inconvenienced by further delays in progressing with the matter. Despite identifying failings in its handling of the matter, the landlord failed to put its admitted failings right by attending to the defects in a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord stated, in its stage 2 response of March 2023, that “confusion” with the developer had contributed to a further delay. It cited that the developer had taken responsibility for some of the defects without its knowledge. This evidently would have caused confusion and delay. However, the tone of its response was inappropriate. Given it was the point of contact for the defects, better communication with the developer would have been appropriate. Its comment lacked transparency and a failure to assess its own shortcomings in its oversight of the issues.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the failings of its stage 1 response and outlined timeframes in which repairs, it had taken over, would be completed. This was appropriate in the circumstances and shows it sought to manage the resident’s expectations. However, that it was silent on timeframes for the repairs the developer was completing was inappropriate. The landlord was the resident’s point of contact on defects, as set out in its information pack. It is therefore reasonable to expect it to seek clarification from the developer on when the repairs would go ahead, and pass this information on. The resident was inconvenienced by not knowing when, or if, the developer would complete repairs to the identified defects.
The stage 2 response provided a further explanation about the floor, which was appropriate. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident was disappointed with the landlord’s final position. However, it outlined its position with clarity and explained its reasoning. It is noted that the landlord later changed its position and replaced the flooring in October 2023. We note the resident was unhappy with its handling of the floor issue throughout 2023. As outlined above, the landlord’s handling of the matter after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure is not within the scope of this investigation. As such, we have made a recommendation below.
This Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to offer compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings. It is noted that the £750 it offered went beyond the maximum compensation set out in its compensation policy. Given many of the defects remained outstanding at the time of its stage 2 complaint response, its final offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. Its complaint responses were detailed in relation to the outstanding issue, but showed little learning, or what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. Such an approach would have helped build trust with the resident. Considering the above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the issue, and have made a series of appropriate orders below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints procedure and will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Its policy states that it will acknowledge residents complaints within 5 working days.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 9 June 2022. This Service has seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint at the time. This was a failing in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days, with the landlord setting out its understanding of what the complaint is about. That the landlord did not do so means the resident missed an opportunity to ensure it had the correct understanding of his complaint, and was left not knowing when, or if, it would respond to her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 147 working days after it was made. This was a further failing its complaint handling and evidence the landlord operated a protracted and unfair complaints process for the resident. The landlord appropriately apologised, and offered redress for the delay. However, it offered no explanation about the delay, or what it would do to prevent similar delays in the future. This was inappropriate and it missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident, and reassure her it had taken steps to improve its service.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 46 working days after the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. As with its stage 1 response it also apologised and offered redress for its complaint handling delays. However, it failed to put right its earlier failing and show learning about its complaint handling. This was inappropriate and a further shortcoming in its complaint handling.
The landlord offered £100 for the near 6 month delay at stage 1, and £100 for the much shorter delay at stage 2. This was inappropriate. It is noted that this sum was offered for differing periods of delay. This indicates that, rather than giving due consideration to its compensation guidance and the individual delays in each complaint, the landlord may have fettered its discretion. It applied a set level of compensation for delays for differing lengths of delay. Considering the lack of learning and its approach to redress, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. As such a series of orders are set out below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of property defects.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,200 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £950 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response (if it has not already done so).
  2. A further £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of defects.
  3. A further £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints about the importance of meaningful complaint investigations that focus on:
  1. Showing learning about admitted failings.
  2. Showing learning and transparency about complaint handling delays.
  3. Offering an appropriate level of redress that considers the individual circumstances of the complaint.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to conduct a review into its handling of the resident’s reports of defects including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should consider:
1. Following up on reports of defects, and booking repairs in a timely manner.
2. Its poor communication and oversight with the developers/contractors.
3. Its poor communication and lack of updates provided to the resident.

Recommendations

Considering the resident’s concerns about its handling of the flooring issue, after she exhausted its complaints procedure, the landlord may wish to open a complaint investigation into its handling of the flooring issue from March 2023 onwards.