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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202228664)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228664

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the property. It became the resident’s landlord in 2017 following a merger.
  2. The landlord has recorded that the resident has dyslexia and prefers to communicate by telephone.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident had raised multiple queries about his service charges from 12 January 2021. The landlord had investigated and removed some charges which had been incorrectly applied. It also credited the resident’s rent account to remove the historical charges for those items.
  4. The resident continued to challenge various items of his service charge and made a formal complaint. The complaint completed the landlord’s process on 14 September 2021 but the resident was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation it had offered. Multiple emails and calls were exchanged between the resident and landlord from 14 September 2021. During the communication, the resident raised his dissatisfaction with various issues including items within his service charge and the amount of compensation offered.
  5. The landlord met with the resident on 14 October 2021 to discuss his concerns but the resident remained dissatisfied. A further meeting was scheduled but it was cancelled by the resident.
  6. Between 21 February 2022 and 28 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord 4 times asking it to explain his services charges. He said he was paying for services that were not being provided and was still waiting for the landlord to increase the compensation it had offered in its complaint response.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 May 2022 saying it had incorrectly charged him for communal electricity and lighting costs. It had removed the charges and credited his account the amount he had been incorrectly charged from 2016-17.
  8. In early June 2022 the landlord experienced a cyber attack which shut down its computer systems and telephone lines. Its services were restored incrementally but the landlord’s delivery of its overall service was disrupted for many months.
  9. Between 3 August 2022 and 8 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times about his request for compensation. The landlord was unable to retrieve his account details or the previous correspondence it had sent. The resident continued to chase for an increased compensation offer.
  10. On 9 September 2022, the landlord logged a formal complaint. It gave its stage 1 response on 23 September 2022 in which it:
    1. Apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint which was due to the cyber attack affecting its computer systems.
    2. Said it had investigated his service charge queries, had removed the incorrect charges and refunded his rent account.
    3. Said it should have resolved his queries and his complaint sooner and should have addressed his request for compensation. It offered £250 compensation for the inconvenience caused. It could not pay this straight away because of continuing issues with its computer systems.
  11. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 23 September 2022. He said he was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered.
  12. Between 28 September 2022 and 10 October 2022, the resident chased the landlord for an increased compensation offer.
  13. The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 27 October 2022 in which it:
    1. Apologised for the delay in giving its response. It was still experiencing disruption from the cyber attack.
    2. Said the compensation it had offered at stage 1 was in line with its policy. It would not increase its offer.
    3. Confirmed his complaint had completed its process. He should contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  14. The resident sent further emails to the landlord between 27 October 2022 and 25 November 2022 asking for more compensation. The landlord wrote to him again on 1 December 2022 saying it had considered his requests for higher compensation but its position had not changed. It repeated that his complaint had completed its process and he should contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  15. On 17 February 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his service charge queries and the amount of compensation it had offered him. He said the landlord had not responded to his emails or his requests for it to call him.

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may decide not to consider complaints that are brought to us more than 12 months after completing the landlord’s complaint process.
  2. We have reviewed the landlord’s records and correspondence relating to the complaint that completed its complaint process on 14 September 2021. We are satisfied that the landlord’s response adequately explained the resident’s right to bring his complaint to us if he remained dissatisfied. We note that the landlord also gave this information in emails it sent to the resident.
  3. We considered whether the resident’s dyslexia had prevented him being aware of his right to bring his complaint to us. We noted that the landlord had spoken to the resident about his ability to bring his complaint to us.
  4. We are not aware of any other reason why the resident would not have been able to bring his earlier complaint to us within 12 months of completing the landlord’s complaint process. As such, we have decided that the resident’s earlier complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. The scope of this investigation is the queries the resident raised about his service charge charges from 21 February 2022 and the complaint logged by the landlord on 9 September 2022. We have only referred to the resident’s earlier queries and complaint where necessary to give context but we have not considered them in making our determination or orders.
  6. The resident believes that the landlord’s handling of his service charge queries, other issues he had reported, and its communication with him generally have caused him anxiety and depression. He believes the landlord should compensate him for this. Whilst we empathise with the resident’s situation, the Ombudsman cannot make conclusions about the cause of the resident’s anxiety and depression.
  7. Allegations of damage to health are more appropriately addressed by the courts and we cannot include the resident’s allegations in our investigation. We note that the landlord had previously advised the resident that he could make a claim against its liability insurance.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s service charge queries

  1. The resident had made several requests for the landlord to explain his service charges to him from 21 February 2022. He made some of his requests by telephone and also sent emails. It is not clear from the evidence we have seen what specific charges the resident was concerned about. It is clear that he felt he was being charged for services that the landlord was not providing.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to his queries by sending a letter on 19 May 2022 which was almost 3 months after the resident had asked for an explanation of his charges. This delay was not reasonable and caused inconvenience to the resident who had to chase the landlord for a response.
  3. The evidence suggests that there may have been other communication between the landlord and resident as its response addressed specific issues. For example, it addressed why other residents did not pay some charges and that issue was not raised by the resident before the landlord’s response in the evidence that we have seen. This suggests that the landlord may not have recorded all contacts with the resident.
  4. The landlord’s response of 19 May 2022 shows that it had reviewed the charges it had applied. It gave an appropriate explanation of its removal of service charges for communal electricity and lighting, the amounts it had credited his account with, and the period the credits covered. It also confirmed that no charges for communal electricity or lighting had been applied before 2016-17.
  5. The landlord’s response also attempted to address why some other residents may not pay some service charges. It explained that there were different types of tenancy and how rent was calculated for an “affordable” tenancy type. However, it did not explain how this was relevant to the resident’s tenancy or why it meant that some residents paid different charges. As such, the landlord’s response did not adequately address this point.
  6. It was reasonable that the landlord offered to meet the resident to discuss his concerns about grounds maintenance.
  7. Part of the complaint that the resident brought to us was that the landlord had failed to respond to his emails and requests for it to call him. After the initial delay in the landlord responding to his service charge queries on 19 May 2022, the resident had sent further emails between 3 August 2022 and 8 August 2022. In those emails he asked the landlord to call him about his compensation request 3 times.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord had arranged to call him on 11 August 2022. We have seen no records of the call or details of the matters discussed. This could suggest that the call was not made or that the landlord had not kept a record of it.
  9. We have seen no evidence that the resident disputed the landlord’s conclusion that the only incorrect charges had been those for communal electricity and lighting, or the credits the landlord applied. The evidence suggests that the only outstanding issue was that the landlord had not offered compensation.
  10. The landlord later offered £250 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response of 23 September 2022. This was made up of £150 for the time it had taken for it to resolve his query and £100 for not considering paying compensation at the time.
  11. The Ombudsman considers the amount offered to be reasonable redress for failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.

Handling of the associated complaint

  1. Following the cyber attack, the landlord had operated an interim complaints policy from 17 June 2022. The interim policy said that the landlord would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and provide a response within a further 20 working days. It said it would acknowledge escalation requests within 10 working days and provide a final complaint response within 40 working days.
  2. The timescales in the interim policy for acknowledging complaints and responding to them were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time. However, the Ombudsman had accepted that the cyber attack had affected the landlord’s ability to meet the timescales within the Code and that its interim policy was reasonable at the time.
  3. The landlord has since reverted to a complaints policy that complies with the response timescales within the Code.
  4. The landlord has a separate compensation policy which sets out how it will consider offering compensation when there has been a service failure. Its policy at the time said that it might consider offering compensation up to £250 where it had failed to return contacts or failed to use a resident’s preferred contact method. The policy explained that higher awards would be considered where service failures had a greater impact or where they had continued for a “considerable” period of time.
  5. It was appropriate that the landlord logged a formal complaint on 9 September 2022. The resident’s emails of 30 August 2022 and 2 September 2022 clearly expressed that he was dissatisfied that the landlord had not responded to his multiple requests for compensation.
  6. We have seen no evidence that the landlord told the resident that it had raised a complaint before 15 September 2022. This was only 2 days later than the 10 working day timescale for acknowledging complaints in its interim policy.
  7. However, its failure to tell the resident that it had logged a complaint sooner meant that he sent 3 further emails between 13 September 2022 and 15 September 2022 chasing the landlord for a response before it told him it had logged a complaint. As such the delay caused some inconvenience to the resident and was a service failure.
  8. The landlord gave its stage 1 response of 23 September 2022 within 9 working days of logging the resident’s complaint. This was within the timescales set out in the Code at the time as well as being within the timescale set in the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
  9. Further, the landlord’s response acknowledged that there had been a delay in it resolving the resident’s service charge query and agreed it should have considered offering compensation sooner. Its offer of compensation was in line with its policy at the time.
  10. The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 27 October 2022 which was 24 working days after the resident had asked to escalate his complaint. This was within the 40 day response timescale set by the landlord’s interim policy and only 4 days later than the response timescale required by the Code at the time.
  11. The evidence we have seen shows that the landlord had reviewed its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and its compensation offer. The landlord’s decision that the amount of compensation offered was sufficient redress for the failings it had identified was reasonable. The landlord’s stage 2 response explained how it had calculated the £250 compensation offered at stage 1 and confirmed that the offer was in line with its policy. 
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy says that residents can appeal a compensation decision. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord reviewed its compensation offer after the end of its complaint process when the resident remained dissatisfied. It was also reasonable that the landlord’s letter to the resident repeated that his complaint had completed its process and that he could contact the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  13. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within the 10 working day timescale of its interim policy caused inconvenience to the resident. This amounts to service failure in the landlord’s handling of his complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge queries.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of his associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £75 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its failure to acknowledge his complaint within its policy timescales.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered through its complaint process if it has not already done so. Payment of this sum is the basis on which the Ombudsman made the determination of reasonable redress.