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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202226466)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226466

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 October 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:

  1. Internal repairs to the resident’s property including repairs to the toilet door, floorboards and the kitchen and dining room.
  2. Pest control work.
  3. The associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. She occupies a 4-bedroomed house (the property).

3.             The resident reported a leak in her kitchen to the landlord on 8 November 2021. She said the leak had caused a kitchen unit to fall off and she had been shocked by the light switch. The landlord attended the same day to isolate the lights. It returned on 23 November 2021 but was unable to gain access, and then inspected the leak on 1 December 2021. It found that the leak was caused by the resident using the bath above the kitchen as a makeshift shower, which had allowed water to leak into the floor and the ceiling below. The landlord’s records on 6 January 2022 noted that repairs to the kitchen unit, damaged floorboards, and damage to the ceiling remained outstanding.

4.             The resident called the landlord on 13 January 2022 to request a surveyor. Its records noted that it terminated this call because of the resident’s behaviour. She next called on 31 May 2022 to report a new leak. The landlord attended the same day and found there was no leak but it noted that there were outstanding repairs to the walls, floor and bathroom door lock. On 4 August 2022 the resident reported that mice were entering her home through holes in the property. There was no evidence the landlord responded to this.

5.             The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 16 October 2022. She said:

  1. Her electrics, kitchen fittings and appliances were damaged by the leak in 2021.
  2. The roof was leaking and the landlord had erected scaffolding 2 months ago but had not completed work to repair the roof.
  3. Mice were entering her property through holes in the property.
  4. Her wallpaper in the kitchen and dining room was damaged and peeling off.
  5. The kitchen wall fittings were falling off.
  6. The landlord did not respond to her calls.
  7. Her heating was erratic which affected 3 household members who had health issues.

6.             The landlord inspected the property on 3 November 2022 and raised repairs which included:

  1. Pest baiting.
  2. Removing peeling wallpaper and stain-blocking the ceiling.
  3. Removing floorboards under the stairs to inspect for leaks.
  4. Bathroom repairs.

7.             The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 8 November 2022. It said that it had been unable to investigate the resident’s report of historical repairs and explained that a cyber-attack had prevented it from accessing its records since June 2022. The landlord confirmed that it had carried out a survey to address the resident’s repair reports. It said that it had found no evidence of a current leak, and it would complete the identified remedial repairs. The landlord said that although it was unable to confirm the resident’s report of incomplete historical repairs, it did not dispute these and offered her £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs.

8.             The resident escalated her complaint on 13 November 2022. She highlighted that the landlord had not addressed the following repairs:

  1. Floorboards upstairs and in the dining room which required repair.
  2. The toilet door handle needed to be fixed.
  3. The kitchen needed new units and shelves.
  4. Redecoration work. The resident felt it unfair that she was responsible for redecoration following repairs.

9.             The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 18 January 2023 repeated that it was unable to verify the resident’s reports of historical repairs due to its records being unavailable. It said all repairs identified in its inspection were complete (including the toilet door handle) apart from pest control, which it had attempted to contact the resident to arrange. It confirmed it would not be carrying out redecoration work. The landlord said it would leave surfaces ready for the resident to decorate and offer her a paint pack. It also confirmed that no work to the kitchen was due.

10.        The landlord acknowledged that it had not inspected the floorboards and offered £50 compensation for this. It also offered £50 compensation for its delayed complaint response, and £100 compensation to acknowledge there were signs of minor historical leaks which were now dry. This brought its total offer of compensation to £550.

11.        The resident informed the Ombudsman on 10 April 2023 that the pest infestation was resolved, however the toilet door handle lock, kitchen units, and redecoration remained outstanding. The landlord renewed one kitchen cabinet on 16 June 2023.

12.        On 2 July 2024 the resident told us that the toilet door lock had been replaced. She disputed that the landlord had repaired the wall in the kitchen properly as she felt it was “weak” from water damage. The resident also disputed that the landlord had done enough to renew the kitchen and felt that it should be fully replaced. She also felt that the heating systems should be replaced.

Scope of investigation

13.        The resident said, in her stage 1 complaint, that she was unhappy with repairs which had been outstanding for 3 years. With the passage of time, it is not possible to make a reliable determination on historical events as the evidence available may not be reliable or complete.

14.        The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the matters occurring. This enables the landlord to investigate issues while they are ‘live’. Therefore, this investigation has focused on events from 8 November 2021, 12 months prior to the resident raising her complaint. This is in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which were not made to the landlord within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.

15.        The resident told us on 2 July 2024 that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs, including repairs to her windows. The records show that she reported the damp and mould to the landlord in October 2023, 9 months after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal procedure.

16.        In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the landlord must be given the opportunity to respond to the resident’s complaint before the Ombudsman considers it. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of work associated with the resident’s reports of damp and mould will not be considered in this investigation as we do not have evidence to show this issue has gone through the landlord’s complaints process. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the landlord about her concerns. If she remains unhappy with the landlord’s final response to her complaint, she may be able to bring the complaint to this Service at that stage.

17.        In her stage 1 complaint to the landlord, the resident said that her heating system was unreliable. The landlord did not respond to this in its stage 1 complaint response, and the resident did not raise the issue when she escalated her complaint. As the landlord did not respond to this, we are unable to make a determination on this aspect of the complaint. However, this investigation will assess whether there were failures in the landlord’s complaint responses and the heating issue will be considered in this context.

Assessment and findings

18.        The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord experienced a cyber-attack in June 2022 which prevented it from accessing its records from before this date. Its annual report and accounts for 2022 to 2023 said “By Christmas, we had largely reinstated all of our systems fully following the cyber-attack our organisation was subjected to in June 2022.” The landlord therefore had access to its records before it issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 18 January 2023, and we will consider this in our assessment of its response to the complaint.

The toilet door repair

19.        The landlord’s “responsibilities for repairs” webpage states that it is not responsible for repairing door furniture fitted by the resident. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy states that non-emergency repairs – those which are not an immediate danger to people or the property – should be completed within 28 days.

20.        The resident first reported the faulty toilet door handle on 13 November 2022. The landlord did not dispute its repairing responsibility for the handle and therefore it should have completed this repair within 28 days, in line with its repairs policy. It said, in its final complaint response to the resident on 18 January 2024, that it had completed the repair on 18 November 2022. Therefore, it appears the door handle was repaired in good time.

21.        However, on the same day of the final complaint response, the resident emailed the landlord to dispute it had completed the repairs it had agreed on, without specifying which repairs. There was no evidence of the landlord responding to this. It was unreasonable that it did not reply to the resident to clarify what she considered to be outstanding. It should have contacted the resident to confirm if the disputed repairs were satisfactorily addressed in its final complaint response. If not, it should have carried out further repairs or inspected as appropriate.

22.        The resident told us on 10 April and 14 November 2023, that while the landlord had overhauled the handle, it had not fixed the lock. She confirmed to us on 2 July 2024 that the toilet door handle and lock repair was completed.

23.        The landlord’s repair records do not show when the toilet door handle was fully repaired. On 25 June 2024 the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that it had provided all the repair records it had. This was approximately 18 months after the landlord had reinstated its systems and therefore it should have had access to its complete repair records. The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management’ report sets out that poor repairs record-keeping leads to delays and poor outcomes for residents. In this case, the poor records of the door handle repair likely contributed to the excessive time taken to complete the repair to a satisfactory standard.

24.        While the lack of a lock on the toilet door may have been a minor inconvenience, this was over a significant period. During this time, the resident would have expended time and trouble in pursuing the repair. To recognise this, the landlord should pay her compensation. This will be discussed in more detail below in this assessment.

The kitchen repairs and redecoration

25.        The landlord’s terms and conditions of tenancy state that the resident is responsible for decorating the rooms in the home as often as necessary to keep the property in good decorative order.

26.        The landlord’s repair responsibilities webpage states, under ‘interior and decoration’ that it is responsible for “Fixing damage caused by our repairs”. Residents are generally expected to redecorate the interior of their own properties. However, when a landlord has not fulfilled its repairing obligation, and this has led to damage to decorations, the Ombudsman would expect it to put this right for the resident.

27.        The reported kitchen and dining room repair issues were damage to:

  1. kitchen units and shelves,
  2. the walls, and
  3. wallpaper.

28.        The resident said that these repair issues were caused by a historical leak. The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 8 November 2021 which had caused a kitchen wall unit to fall off. While the landlord’s electrician attended the same day to make electrics safe, its multi-skilled operative did not attempt to attend to investigate the leak until 15 days later. This was an unreasonable delay. Given that the leak had the potential to cause damage to the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to attend within 24 hours as an emergency to find and stop the leak. If further repairs were needed after the leak was stopped, these could be arranged at a later date, within 28 days.

29.        The landlord’s records then show that it delayed unreasonably in carrying out follow-on repairs. On 6 January 2022, 2 months after the leak, the landlord noted that the repairs for the kitchen unit and water damaged ceiling were outstanding. The resident chased the repairs on 13 January and 31 May 2022, when the landlord noted that the kitchen unit had been refitted but the walls had not been repaired.

30.        The landlord did not complete the repairs to the walls until 12 January 2023, after the resident chased these again on 30 December 2022. The landlord did not inspect the kitchen until 21 April 2023, and it overhauled the kitchen unit on 16 June 2023. This was after the resident chased it on 31 March 2023. The landlord took excessive periods of 14 months to repair the walls and 19 months to repair the kitchen.

31.        The landlord has not made the report from its inspection on 3 November 2022 available to the Ombudsman. However, the excessive repair timeframes and additional effort required of the resident to progress these repairs indicated that it did not fully consider all the repair issues at the time. The landlord’s final response showed a lack of engagement with the resident’s concerns about the kitchen. It said, “It is my assumption that your concern is more due to the pest issues in these areas rather than repairs.” The landlord should have clarified with the resident what her concerns with the kitchen were and set out what steps it would take to resolve this. If the landlord did not agree that the whole kitchen needed to be replaced, it should have explained this clearly to the resident, setting out the reasons for this decision.

32.        While there were failures by the landlord in its handling of the kitchen and wall repairs, this does not make it responsible for carrying out redecoration. There was no evidence that the landlord was responsible for the damage caused to decorations by the leak. Given that the landlord’s records show the leak was traced to the resident using the bath in an unintended way, it was reasonable for the landlord to maintain that redecoration would be the resident’s responsibility. It was not disputed that the landlord stuck back wallpaper and offered the resident a paint pack during the course of repairs. As there was no obligation on it to carry out full redecoration, these measures were reasonable in the circumstances to assist the resident with redecorating.

33.        The landlord’s stage 1 and final complaint responses directed the resident to its liability insurer to claim for damage to her decoration and possessions. Since she said that the damage was caused by the landlord’s negligence, it was reasonable for it to refer her to its insurer. The landlord would not be expected to pay a claim for negligence outside of the insurance process as landlords are entitled to use insurance as a means of managing such costs. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of insurance claims as the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, it is outside of our remit to assess the insurer’s actions, we can only comment on the landlord’s actions.

34.        To recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, and her time and trouble in chasing the kitchen and wall repairs, the landlord should pay her compensation. This is discussed in more detail below. As the resident continues to dispute whether her kitchen should be replaced and whether the wall repairs were adequate, the landlord will be ordered to inspect the kitchen cabinets, shelving and walls. The landlord should share the findings of its inspection with the resident and if it does not agree that further repairs are necessary it should explain the reasons why.

Repairs to the floorboards

35.        The landlord was aware that repairs to the resident’s floorboards were needed from 6 January 2022. It did not complete this work until 24 March 2023, over 14 months later. As mentioned above, it should have completed this non-emergency repair within 28 days, however it was significantly delayed. The landlord has not explained the reasons for the delay so the Ombudsman can only conclude it was unreasonable.

36.        When the landlord became aware of the work on 6 January 2022, it was not affected by the cyber-attack. Therefore, there were no mitigating factors preventing it from completing this repair until the cyber-attack spanning June to December 2022. Between January and June 2022, there was no evidence of the landlord attempting to arrange the work. This was despite it noting again on 31 May 2022 that the repair was outstanding, and the floorboards posed a trip hazard. This has been considered when looking at compensation.

Compensation

37.        The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the resident accepted that she had experienced detriment in pursuing the repairs. It offered her £350 compensation to recognise this. While the landlord’s offer of compensation was positive, it did not provide a clear explanation of how it arrived at this figure. This was understandable at the time as since it said it did not have access to its records, there was no way for it to confirm it had made an appropriate offer of compensation. However it should have reviewed this offer in its final response as by that time it had regained access to its records.

38.        In the landlord’s final response, it awarded a further £100 for “minor historic roofing issues”. It was unclear why it offered this, as it was not based on any new information. It relied on the same inspection on 3 November 2022 as it had for its stage 1 response. It also offered an additional £50 compensation to recognise it had not addressed the floorboard repairs in its earlier response.

39.        Overall, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not reasonable, as it did not take into account the full history of repairs. Although it had reinstated its systems by the time of its final complaint response, it still maintained that it did not have access to its records. This meant that its offer of compensation was not proportionate. To recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience, and her time and trouble, caused by the handling of the repairs, including the significant time taken to resolve these, the landlord must pay her compensation of £1,000. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation for the repair issues which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

40.        The award of £1,000 is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view on our website. This provides for awards of £600 to £1,000 where there have been failings which had a significant impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time. This award is to recognise that there were a number of failings by the landlord which went unresolved for a significant time.

The landlord’s handling of pest control work

41.        The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy states that it is only responsible for eradicating infestations in areas it manages or owns, or those caused by its actions or lack of action. Otherwise, the policy states that the landlord is only responsible for blocking access points in the structure of its properties, and residents are responsible for dealing with infestations in their individual properties.

42.        The resident first reported on 4 August 2022 that rodents were entering her property from the holes in her floors and walls. There was no evidence of the landlord responding to this request. This was a failure by the landlord as it should have inspected the repair issue. The Ombudsman appreciates that this was during the period of the landlord’s cyber-attack. Nevertheless, it was unreasonable that the landlord provided no response at all to the resident’s report.

43.        The resident needed to report the issue again in her stage 1 complaint on 16 October 2022 before the landlord inspected on 3 November 2022. It found that rodent baiting needed to be completed before it could carry out proofing work to the walls and floors to prevent further access. There was no obligation on the landlord to carry out rodent eradication as set out in its pest and wildlife policy. Although it was expected to carry out proofing works to remove entry points for pests. However, given that the resident had complained about outstanding historical repairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to take on the pest control work in order to help progress the other repairs.

44.        While the landlord acted reasonably to take on the pest control work, it failed to manage this effectively. There was no evidence that the pest control work started promptly. The landlord’s final stage complaint response said that it had attempted to contact the resident on 4 occasions between 11 November and 14 December 2022 to arrange pest control. However, it has not provided any evidence of this contact with the resident to the Ombudsman. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 January 2023 to say she had only been given contact details for the pest control service that day. When there is no evidence of the landlord’s actions, we are unable to determine that it acted, or communicated, appropriately. The evidence provided by the landlord does not detail its pest control work. However, it was not disputed that pest control work was done, and this started sometime after the final stage complaint response on 18 January 2023 and was completed sometime prior to 10 April 2023. This was when the resident confirmed to us that the pest infestation had been resolved.

45.        From the Ombudsman’s experience of similar cases, the approximately 3 months between 18 January and 10 April 2023 was a reasonable period over which to complete a programme of pest baiting. However, the landlord took an excessive period to begin the work, taking at least 5 months from 4 August 2022 onwards to begin it. It also did not demonstrate effective communication with the resident about the work. This led to distress, uncertainty, and inconvenience for her. To recognise this, the landlord should pay £200 compensation to the resident. This award is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, mentioned above. This provides for awards of between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, which the landlord did not acknowledge or put right.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

46.        The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out how member landlords should handle complaints. The version of the Code that was in force at the time of the complaint said that “handling a complaint should include an assessment of what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues”.

47.        It was reasonable that the landlord, in its stage 1 response on 8 November 2022, said that it could not provide a full response to the resident’s report of historical repairs due to the effects of the cyber-attack. However, it was unreasonable that it repeated this in its final response on 18 January 2023 as it had access to the historical repair records prior to issuing its final response. Therefore, the landlord demonstrated a lack of transparency in its final response. It did not comply with the Code as it did not consider all the available evidence when investigating the final stage complaint. This led to it not providing a full response to the resident’s concerns.

48.        The resident’s stage 1 complaint highlighted that the heating in the property was “erratic”, and 3 members of the household had health issues which could be affected by this. The landlord did not respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its responses and there was no evidence that it did any work to the heating system. This was inappropriate as the landlord should respond to all reports of repairs and respond to all issues raised in a resident’s complaint. It was evident that the heating issues were not resolved as the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 2 July 2024 that the heating system did not work in all rooms. The landlord will be ordered to investigate this as a new complaint.

49.        The landlord’s final response recognised that it had responded outside of its published timescales. The landlord’s interim complaints policy at the time stated that final complaint responses should be provided within 40 working days. The landlord exceeded this by 5 working days, and it was appropriate that it recognised this delay and offered compensation for this. However, it did not recognise that it had previously failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 – it had not addressed her heating concerns. Therefore, the landlord did not consider all of its complaint handling failures or provide appropriate compensation for these.

50.        There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It caused her distress and inconvenience by not addressing her complaint about heating issues. To recognise this detriment, the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation. This replaces its previous offer of £50, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid. This award is in accordance with our remedies guidance, above, which provides for awards of £50 to £100 where the landlord has failed to fully put right all the failings found by the Ombudsman. The landlord must also contact the resident to gather information about her heating issues and investigate this as a complaint.

 

Determination

51.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

  1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of internal repairs to the resident’s property including repairs to the toilet door, floorboards and the kitchen and dining room.
  2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of pest control work.
  3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

52.        Within 2 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has contacted the resident about her complaint about the heating system and responded to this as a stage 1 complaint through its internal procedure.

53.        Within 4 weeks the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has:

  1. Paid the resident compensation of £1,300. It may deduct the £550 it offered the resident in its complaint responses if it can evidence it has already paid this. This award is made up of:
    1. £1,000 for its handling of internal repairs to the resident’s property including repairs to the toilet door, floorboards and the kitchen and dining room.
    2. £200 for its handling of pest control work.
    3. £100 for its handling of the complaint.
  2. Carried out an inspection of the resident’s kitchen and walls to address her concerns. It must provide a report to both the resident and the Ombudsman on the standard of these which confirms if any elements require replacement. If any elements do not require replacement the report must explain why. If any repairs are required, it must complete these in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.