Clarion Housing Association Limited (202226716)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226716

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 April 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to her request for repairs to defects with her new-build home.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a five year fixed-term assured shorthold tenancy, which began in March 2019.
The landlord has advised that the resident was the first occupant of the property after it was built. The property is a three-bedroomed bungalow.
The landlord has explained to us that its process for signing off all newbuild properties was as follows:
1. The warranty provider inspects the property and signs it off;
2. Building Control inspect the property and sign it off, including all certification;
3. Its employer’s agent inspects the property, records any outstanding snags, and issues a practical completion certificate.
The landlord provided residents with a guide to their new-build homes on the estate, which:
1. Advised that the ventilation/ extraction system was designed to be constantly run;
2. Explained what is meant by the 12-month defect period, and advised that it would arrange an end of defects inspection at the end of the period. It explained that during this inspection, it would check any works undertaken to remedy defects that had already been reported, and could check any new defects the resident raised. It asked residents to report any defects they identified directly to it, rather than its development contractor;
3. Set out the timescales it would respond to defects within:
  1. 24 hours for emergencies;
  2. 7 days for defects which could cause a loss of essential facilities;
  3. 28 days for defects that could be “deferred without causing serious inconvenience” to residents;
  4. “routine 12-month defects”, which would be left until the end of the defect period and applied to issues which would not cause an “inconvenience” to residents or their neighbours;
4. Advised the conditions in which its contractor would be responsible for “making good” after a leak. It said its contractor was not responsible if a leak had resulted from “resident damage or misuse”;
5. Said that residents would be asked to sign to confirm that each defect had been resolved to their satisfaction;
6. Listed “how to unblock my toilet” as a frequently asked question.
The landlord experienced a cyber–attack in June 2022, and has advised that some of its records have been lost as a result.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process, in line with our complaint handling code.

Summary of Events

The landlord has advised us that it did not record any snagging issues (outstanding repairs or patent (visible) defects) at the point it accepted handover of the property from the developer.
Once the resident moved in, the landlord recorded that she had reported defects with the below items during 2019:
1. The fitting of a bedroom window and the living room window;
2. The inside lock to the property entrance door;
3. A broken part to the drainage of her kitchen sink, resulting in a leak;
4. A leak under the bathroom sink;
5. Loose guttering to the front of the property;
6. Broken soft close brackets (understood to be to the kitchen units);
7. Water backing up and overflowing the shower cubicle tray;
8. Leaks to the kitchen and ensuite bathroom radiators;
9. Blocked toilets, related to a drainage issue;
10. Failed mastic to the bathtub and in the kitchen.
The landlord’s records show it completed repairs to the bedroom window, inside door lock, kitchen sink drainage, leaking bathroom sink, loose guttering, and broken closers for the kitchen cupboards during 2019 and within its target timescales.
It also marked its repairs to the bathroom and kitchen mastic as completed on 28 November 2019, 27 days after its target date.
The landlord’s records show it missed its target timescale for the shower tray by two working days, and an issue with water backing up in it was completed 60 working days after its target. It marked these repairs as completed on 2 December 2019.
The landlord had marked repairs to the blocked toilets as due by 30 November 2019, and closed the repair on 14 February 2020.
The landlord’s records show it also missed its target timescale for the repair to the ensuite radiator, which it marked as complete on 22 January 2020 (27 working days late), and it did not mark the kitchen radiator leak as having been completed.
The landlord has recorded that the defect period ended on 14 February 2020, but has also advised us that it ended in April 2020. It appears that different teams have different dates recorded as the handover date for the property, and it is not clear what the reason for this discrepancy is. The defect period was the time in which the landlord could raise patent defects to the developer and ask it to put them right. Its warranty for serious latent defects remained in place.
The landlord has explained that, during the coronavirus pandemic, it sent letters to residents and asked them to confirm any outstanding defects at the end of the defects period. It said it did this in this case, and that the developer allowed “a few months grace” after a cut-off date in April 2020.
The landlord has confirmed that the resident supplied it with a list of outstanding defects and repairs issues on 24 June 2020. It carried out an end of defects inspection on 30 June 2020, which was comprehensive and listed 22 issues requiring remedy internally and externally. The issues it identified included the fence, which it said needed adjustment, and a problem with the slabs in the garden.
There is a gap in recorded activity, and its records next show that the landlord spoke to the resident regarding defects at some point between 15 and 22 February 2021.
The resident called the landlord on 23 March 2021 and expressed her frustration that she had called “every week for a year” regarding the “ongoing issues with the property”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 July 2021, and referred to a recent incident in her neighbourhood which had been reported to the police. She asked the landlord if it could put a fence between her property and adjoining garages, and asked it to complete the outstanding repair works to her garage.
There is then a gap in recorded communication between the resident and landlord. The resident chased the landlord on 12 October 2021 as she was aware that the surveyor who had been dealing directly with her, regarding the outstanding repair works, had left the previous week. It advised her that it had not yet replaced the individual.
There is another gap in communication, until the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint from the resident in March 2022. It tried calling her on 23 March 2022 to “scope” the details of the complaint, and it spoke with her for this reason on 24 March 2022. It noted that the resident wanted “multiple” issues that she had raised with the property to be “resolved”, for “the entire property to be inspected”, and for it to “consider compensation”.
The landlord then appeared to arrange “weekly update” calls with the resident. On 1 April 2022 the landlord called the resident and discussed a survey that was due to take place that day, and she explained the surveyor had told her they would only inspect the guttering on the garage. The landlord told the resident it would “look into getting a full survey carried out”.
On 8 April 2022 the landlord’s complaint handler advised the resident they had not “received a full response” to their enquiries and had “escalated” them.
On 12 April 2022 the landlord confirmed that the resident was aware a survey had been booked for 23 April 2022. The complaint handler agreed with the resident that they would not call the following week, but would next be in contact after the survey had been done.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord’s complaint handler spoke with the resident, who confirmed the survey of the property had taken place that day. The complaint handler said they would chase the results of the survey the following week.
A note in the landlord’s contact records show that it advised the resident at around 2pm on 4 May 2022 that its surveyor was running late for an appointment which had been booked for 12pm that day.
On 5 May 2022 the landlord spoke with the resident during an update call, explained the works it had raised, and agreed to pass on an additional matter regarding the shower door to its surveyor.
On 12 May 2022 the landlord’s complaint handler called the resident with an update on their complaint investigation. They noted that the resident told them the surveyor had not attended to the guttering that day and no-one had contacted her regarding this, and that she requested a repair to the loft hatch, which she explained was letting in drafts and rattling.
On 17 May 2022 the resident told the landlord she had waited at home for its contractor to attend eight times, and it had not turned up.
On 20 May 2022 the landlord’s complaint handler called the resident to confirm the outcome of their complaint investigation. The resident expressed her concern that the outstanding works would not be completed, and the complaint handler advised her that they would set themselves a task (understood to be a reminder on its computer system) “to ensure it”, and that the resident could reopen the complaint if needed.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response letter to the resident on the same day. It:
1. Acknowledged the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction with several issues that had “been present” since she moved in, including a collapsing barrier fence, lack of guttering on the garage, “multiple issues” in the ensuite bathroom, damaged kitchen flooring and regular flooding of the front path;
2. Advised that these issues were included in a longer snagging list the resident had reported to the landlord on 24 June 2020;
3. Explained the issues had initially been dealt with as defects by its surveyor, until they had left in October 2021. Some issues had been “attended to” but not resolved permanently, and others had been “surveyed multiple times” but not been repaired;
4. Acknowledged that on 7 March 2022 it had advised the resident that the defect liability period had in fact ended on 31 January 2020, and the issues should be reported to its repairs team;
5. Explained that as part of its response to the resident’s complaint, it had carried out two surveys, the first on 1 April 2022 when it inspected the exterior of the property, and had not entered the property because the resident had been unwell, and the second on 29 April 2022 when it inspected the interior of the property;
6. Confirmed it had repaired the ensuite shower door and tray on 10 May 2022;
7. Accepted that there was a service failure due to a missed appointment for the guttering repair on 12 May 2022;
8. Confirmed it would repair the fence on 26 May 2022, a further survey of the guttering would be carried out on 27 May 2022, the loft hatch would be repaired on 8 June 2022, the front door handle and lock by 8 June 2022, and ‘attend’ to the heating on 16 June 2022;
9. Explained that it would not compensate the resident for the redecoration of her home, as this was her responsibility under the tenancy agreement. It advised the resident to claim the costs through her “home insurance”;
10. Advised the resident it had identified service failure due to the length of time the issues had been outstanding, its lack of communication and “failure to adequately manage [the resident’s] expectations during this time”;
11. Offered the resident £1415 compensation “in recognition of the issues” (£15 of which was for the missed appointment on 12 May 2022), and a further £50 for its failure to provide the complaint response within its published timeframes;
12. Explained how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s records show it completed work to the ensuite shower door and tray in May 2022. The landlord’s records show it completed work to the heating, front door and lock, and loft hatch in June 2022.
The resident chased the outstanding repairs to “30 defects” on 6 October 2022, and explained that she had “waited for 18 months” and felt “she [was] getting no communication at all”. The landlord’s records show that its staff identified the need to respond “before” the matter became a complaint.
On 9 November 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed that it had escalated her complaint to stage 2, and that it would aim to respond within 20 working days. It explained it was experiencing “issues” with its IT systems due to the “cyber-security incident” (understood to be the cyber-attack in June 2022), and that it would contact her if this caused a delay to the progress of the case.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 10 November 2022, and clarified the repairs that were still outstanding. The landlord told the resident that “many items” that she had raised were not included at stage 1, and “therefore in a review this will not be included and no failure in service will be warranted”, it added that it could “only review the contents of the stage 1 letter”.
On 7 December 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it would aim to provide its response by 16 December 2022, apologised for the delay, and said it would let her know if there were any further delays. It appears from the landlord’s records that it spoke to the resident on 19 December 2022, although it is not clear what was discussed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 23 December 2022, and asked her to contact its repairs team regarding “other” repairs she had raised. It:
1. Acknowledged the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction with outstanding repairs to the ensuite window and extractor fan, leaking taps in the bathroom, defective mermaid panelling, defective guttering on the garage, loose internal door handles and kitchen cupboard doors, and the damaged fence;
2. Confirmed it had replaced the front door handle and lock, and repaired the loft hatch on 8 June 2022, and its heating and gas contractor had attended on 16 June 2022;
3. Confirmed it had inspected the mermaid panelling, repaired the internal door handles, kitchen cupboard doors, fencing and “attended” to the guttering on 24 November 2022;
4. Advised it would complete works to the soak-away for the garage guttering on 3 January 2023 and apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the matter, and the inconvenience the resident had been caused;
5. Confirmed that it had inspected the kitchen flooring for hazards, had found none, and would not carry out further works to it;
6. Advised it had “attended to” the relaying of the paving slabs in the back garden, which it said was to prevent flooding, and that its surveyor would carry out an inspection;
7. Advised that the resident’s recent report of an overhanging tree would be dealt with under a separate complaint, and it had eased and adjusted the ensuite bathroom window, attended to the ensuite extractor fan, and replaced the bathroom taps on 24 November 2022, all of which it considered to be new repairs, which did not form part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint;
8. Advised it considered its stage 1 response to be “fair, reasonable and accurate”;
9. Offered the resident an additional £200 compensation for the inconvenience she had been caused by having to repeatedly chase a resolution;
10. Apologised that the resident “had cause to complain”;
11. Signposted the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023, and explained that she did not want to accept a resolution to the complaint without “communication” with it. She told it “no communication [had] been made since the start of her complaint”, and it noted that it would arrange for “verbal contact” with her. The resident chased for this contact on 17 January 2023, and told the landlord she was “very upset”. The landlord advised her it would call her the next week to check how the repairs were going.
The resident has explained to us that she was worried nothing would change if she accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation, and that the works would be left incomplete.
The resident has explained that the landlord’s surveyor advised her that the faulty kitchen unit should be replaced, but the landlord has sent operatives to repeatedly repair it. There is still a build up of water by her back door when it rains, due to an issue with the paving slabs in the garden.
The resident has also explained to us that she wanted a like for like extractor fan to be fitted in the ensuite, as she believed it would be more effective at preventing damp and mould. The landlord’s records from January 2023 indicate that the resident originally had an extractor fan that activated when the bathroom light was turned on, and the landlord wanted to replace it with a model that had a separate pull string to activate it. The resident explained that she felt the landlord’s offer of an additional £200 was “an insult” as she had been caused “extreme stress” and had lost earnings whilst waiting in for appointments.
In December 2023 the resident advised us that the landlord had missed an appointment scheduled for treatment of mould, which she has explained she has continued to have problems with after the landlord fitted the replacement extractor fan.
The resident has advised us that she called the local environmental health department at her council due to the outstanding works and ongoing problems with the ensuite shower room. She has advised us that it ordered the landlord to take down the ceiling, rectify the ventilation, skim the walls and repaint.
The resident has explained that she has experienced further disruption whilst awaiting the repairs to be completed, and that her ensuite shower room is now functional after repairs were carried out in February and March 2024. However, she is disappointed that the landlord has left it in need of redecoration, and she had expected it to make good the room.
The resident was disappointed that the landlord used “cheap” parts to replace items that should have been new – for example the bathroom tap. The resident said she would be happy to buy parts if the landlord would fit them, and explained that she felt its attitude was “you get what you are given”.
She questioned whether its repairs staff had the necessary skills to remedy the defects, and explained that the information they had been given by the landlord, when they attended, did not contain sufficient detail so that they could arrive prepared for the work. The resident also explained that the appointment slots did not appear to leave enough “contingency” time for issues that arose during repairs, which meant that a new appointment would need to be booked, often this was not available until at least three weeks later. The resident has had to take time off work to be present for the appointments.
The resident has explained that she found the whole experience very difficult, and that it took a toll on her mental health. She was pregnant and then had a new baby to look after. On one occasion she was distressed to see mould near her baby’s cot. She and her partner lost earnings each time they had to take time off work to be present for appointments.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for repairs to defects with her new home

The landlord has not advised that it has had particular problems in providing evidence for this case. We have previously advised that, in relation to the cyber attack, it is our view that the landlord is responsible for the security of its records, and for making sure that it has adequate systems in place to ensure it can appropriately assess and respond to complaints from residents at all times.
The landlord has advised that it did not identify any patent defects with the property when it accepted handover from the developer in 2019. One of the longest-running issues was with the guttering to the garage, and this is something that, in our opinion, could have been picked up prior to the resident’s occupation of the property.
The landlord’s records show that its team responsible for defects recorded making phone calls to the resident without adding a note to explain what had been discussed. This is in contrast to the notes left by its teams responsible for rent accounts and complaints, and has been unhelpful in terms of understanding what it had communicated to the resident.
The landlord did have a defects management process in place, and its documents show it provided guidance to the resident regarding this, including its commitment that residents would be asked to sign to confirm that all defects had been resolved satisfactorily at the end of the defect period. It carried out a comprehensive defects inspection in June 2020, which identified 22 outstanding defects. This should have enabled it to manage the works in an appropriate way.
It is disappointing then, that the landlord did not appear to take an organised approach to the management of the defects in the resident’s property after that point. We acknowledge that there was a lockdown implemented due to the coronavirus pandemic in late March 2020, and the landlord would have been managing different guidance about safety over subsequent months. However, it had completed an inspection in June 2020, which would have led the resident to believe matters were progressing. Once aware of the matters, it should have dealt with them as soon as feasible. However, its next records relating to the defects are from February 2021, over seven months after the inspection. The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right in March 2021, when the resident told it she had called every week for a year without the issues being sorted. It would have been appropriate for it to consider whether it should log a complaint at this point.
As it was, there is little record of further communication for the rest of that year. When the member of staff leading on the works left the business in October 2021, the landlord did not appoint a replacement point of contact from within its existing staff in a timely way, even though the staff member’s exit was planned.
It is understandable that by March 2022 the resident had submitted a complaint to the landlord. During the investigation, another inspection was carried out to capture all outstanding repairs issues. The landlord carried out works in May and June 2022.
The landlord’s records do not confirm that it completed work it had scheduled to the fence in May 2022. It also appeared to leave the ensuite window, and bathroom taps, incomplete.
When the resident contacted the landlord regarding “30” outstanding defects in October 2022, it identified that many were new repairs issues. It would have been helpful if it had confirmed to the resident which these were, so that she could be confident it had recorded, and would respond to, all matters she had raised.
The resident viewed the ventilation problems, leaks in the pipework, and problems with her shower room as part of the defects process. There has been a large amount of work carried out to the room during 2024 to rectify underlying problems with the room, which suggests that the repairs carried out in 2020 were not sufficient to remove the issues, and the landlord’s complaint responses demonstrate that it also understood these matters to be unresolved defects, even if it later decided to manage the repairs through its standard repair process.
The landlord offered £1,465 compensation in May 2022 as part of its stage 1 complaint resolution. This figure was of a reasonable level at that time. Given the further disruption the resident experienced whilst waiting for the repairs to be completed, it would be appropriate for it to increase this figure to reflect the additional impact on the resident through 2023 and into 2024.
The landlord’s failings in the handling of the defects are due to poor communication and oversight of the list of defects, and then due to an unreasonably long time taken to rectify the issues. This has left the resident without confidence that the matters were understood, and actively being resolved. We accept that this uncertainty can lead to distress for residents, and the resident has advised this was the case for her.
The resident raised valid concerns around the landlord’s planning, scheduling, and communication of repairs with its operatives. It should consider whether the resident’s observations could assist it in improving the way it does this in future.
In order to reflect the period of time that this complaint has remained unresolved, we consider that reasonable redress from the landlord should include making good the shower room, including redecoration of the walls and ceilings after the repairs it recently completed. This is an important gesture that would demonstrate to the resident that it has taken on board the difficulties she has experienced whilst waiting for the works to be done, over a significant period of time.
At times the landlord suggested that it would credit part of the compensation to the resident’s rent account. We remind the landlord that we ask for compensation to be paid directly to residents, rather than used to offset arrears. Our current complaint handling code has recently been published and sets out our expectations in respect of this.
The landlord told the resident that it could only look at its stage 1 response letter in its investigation of the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This approach risked its ability to fully understand what had gone wrong, and the potential to miss opportunities to put things right and implement appropriate learning from the resident’s case.
The landlord should have at least advised the resident of how to log a fresh stage 1 complaint for matters that were outside the scope of the existing complaint, however it would have been more appropriate to have ensured that all defects were considered as part of its stage 2 resolution. This would have ensured that it took into consideration the length of time since the issues were first reported, and the overall failings it had identified in its stage 1 response.
The regular weekly update calls the landlord carried out whilst investigating the stage 1 complaint did appear to be an effective way to ensure it followed up with the resident and tracked and escalated the completion of outstanding tasks in a timely way. It should consider whether a similar, regularly planned approach to contact would help it deliver an improved customer service, for example, whilst any promised actions as part of a complaint remedy remain outstanding, and also as part of its management of defects to new-build properties.
Due to the number of issues that had been reported, and the inter-related nature of many of them, the landlord would have benefitted from taking a project-management approach to resolving them. For example, appointing a lead person to have overall oversight and responsibility for their scheduling and completion. This would ideally have been a member of its defects, or, later, repairs team, but once its complaint team had sight of the issues the landlord should have used its complaints process to ensure the matters were appropriately resolved. As it was, the resident experienced another year of uncertainty around the completion of the repairs after the complaint process had concluded, and the landlord never fully resolved the matters of drainage around the slabs in the garden.
The landlord did not use the complaints process to give the resident a voice. She explained that she did not want “cheap” replacements, and wanted items to be replaced like for like, and offered at one point to buy the items herself if the landlord would fit them. It did not explain to her why this was not possible or whether it had considered her requests.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to defects with her new-build home.

Reasons

The landlord made steps to resolve the matters regarding the defects, and acknowledged that it took too long to do this. However, there are significant areas of learning for the landlord to take from the resident’s experience. The resident has felt unheard and the matters had not been fully resolved for a long time after the internal complaints process had ended. The landlord’s offer of compensation at that point would have been acceptable, if it had successfully completed the actions it had promised within a reasonable timeframe. As it failed to do so, it is now appropriate for the landlord to increase its offer, to reflect the further unreasonable delays the resident experienced.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must directly pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience she and her family have experienced since it concluded her stage 2 complaint.
The landlord should confirm to the resident details of all listed outstanding repairs issues it has on record, and confirmation of whether these are all being treated as ‘responsive repairs’ outside of its defects process.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should redecorate and make good the resident’s shower room, including painting of the walls and ceilings.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord reviews its systems and processes for recording and managing outstanding defects to ensure resolved in a timely way. We recommend this includes consideration of whether it would be better able to fulfil its responsibilities if its team responsible for defects records the details of its calls on its customer service system, used by its arrears and complaints teams, and consideration of whether requiring regularly scheduled contact from its defects management team could help ensure defects are addressed in a more satisfactory way.
We recommend that the landlord invite the resident to join any relevant resident panels, focus groups or consultations it may hold in the next couple of years, that would enable her to give feedback and suggestions around the management of repairs appointments.
The landlord has a sign off process which should ensure clear separation of defects and ongoing responsive repairs for residents. We recommend it examine whether it is making use of this to ensure that residents are communicated with clearly about the end of the defects response.
The resident raised valid concerns around the landlord’s planning, scheduling, and communication of repairs with its operatives. We recommend it consider whether the resident’s observations could assist it in improving the way it does this in future.