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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202234694)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234694

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 February 2025


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:
    1. Handling of repairs to the property’s front door.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The landlord had no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household. However, during the complaint the resident told the landlord she had a child with disabilities. It said it would contact her to update its records.
  2. On or around 7 June 2022 the resident reported an attempted break-in via the front door. The incident damaged the door’s glass and its alignment. On 17 June 2022 the landlord experienced a cyber-security attack. It lost access to and control of its day–to–day computer systems.
  3. On 16 October 2022 the resident made a complaint. The front door remained damaged and the landlord had failed to keep a repair appointment on 11 October 2022.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 3 November 2022. It said sorry for its delayed complaint response and explained the disruption caused by the cyber-security incident. It apologised for the missed appointment, the inconvenience caused, and its failure to tell her about staff sickness. It rebooked the repair to replace the front door glass on 11 November 2022 and offered £115 compensation.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 November 2022, 30 December 2022, and 28 March 2023. She was unhappy with the repair delays and the lack of communication from the landlord.
  6. On 3 February 2023 the landlord wrote a stage 2 response. It said sorry for the repair delays, missed appointments, and poor communication. It offered £460 compensation in addition to the £115 awarded at stage 1 of its internal complaints process (ICP).
  7. On 23 June 2023 the landlord wrote a second stage 2 response. It repeated its summary of events and apology. It recognised further delays and missed appointments to resolve the repair. It increased its stage 2 offer of compensation to £720.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She felt the damage had affected the security of the door and described it had made her feel anxious. She believed it should pay her more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within the resident’s correspondence she said the landlord’s repair delays had caused her anxiety and stress.
  2. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor award damages. Whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate if the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.
  3. Our decision considers whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. If we find failure by a landlord, we can consider any distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of repairs to the property’s front entrance door

  1. The landlord’s reporting repairs, access, and service standards document accepts repairs to windows and doors are its responsibility.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that repairs fall into 2 main categories. These are emergency and non-emergency repairs. It states it will respond to an emergency repair within 24 hours to make safe or complete a temporary repair. And it will offer an appointment within 28 days for a non-emergency repair.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay:
    1. £15 for each appointment it fails to keep, without giving 24 hours’ notice
    2. £10 for repairs that go over its response target time, plus £2 per day for each additional day, up to a maximum of £50
    3. compensation between £50 to £700 for instances of service failure depending on the effect on the resident
  4. The landlord does not dispute the resident reported a damaged front door in June 2022. It is however unclear why we could not identify this on its repair records. While we acknowledge it experienced the cyber security attack around this time, it still had a responsibility to record and monitor this repair.
  5. On 15 September 2022 the landlord raised a repair to replace the cracked glass in the front door on 11 October 2022. It did not attend or inform the resident that its operative was unwell. This did not demonstrate effective communication. Nor did it meet its repairs and maintenance policy to give the resident 24 hours’ notice. It was also beyond the landlord’s 28 day non-emergency repair time.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 3 November 2022 apologised for its failures. It rearranged the repair appointment for 11 November 2022 and offered £115 compensation. Its offer included £15 for the missed appointment, £50 for the repair being beyond its response time, and £50 for the inconvenience caused. This offer was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy and demonstrated its attempt to put things right.
  7. That said, the landlord stage 2 response on 3 February 2023 accepted it had cancelled the repair on 11 November 2022. It did this in error which caused the resident to lose a day of annual leave. It accepted that its communication remained poor, and it had also been unable to replace the glass during its rearranged repair on 14 November 2022.
  8. Furthermore, it said it also needed its contractor to assess the alignment of the door and issues with the lock. However, it is unclear how it had communicated the separate jobs to the resident.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 3 February 2023 accepted its continued repair handling failures. It offered an additional £410 compensation. This included £300 for the inconvenience, £60 for 4 missed appointments, and £50 for the repair delay. This was consistent with its compensation policy and demonstrated it recognised it had not delivered its services in line with its policies.
  10. However, the landlord’s evidence to us describes this response as a ‘draft.’ It is therefore unclear whether the resident received it. This may explain the resident’s further escalation request on 28 March 2023.
  11. While we acknowledge the landlord’s systems had only partially returned on 1 September 2022, this did not demonstrate it had gained control of its repair records. Nor that it had put a process in place to monitor outstanding matters effectively. This did nothing to reassure the resident or improve the resident and landlord relationship.
  12. On 23 June 2023 the landlord sent another stage 2 response. It recognised there had been further failures with its handling of her repair. It explained how the glass and door alignment had been the responsibility of separate teams and acknowledged delays by its specialist contractor. It accepted it had not communicated effectively and this had caused her time and trouble to repeatedly chase the delay and for repeat visits to resolve the problem.
  13. The landlord increased its offer of compensation. It offered an additional £150 for the inconvenience caused. And an additional £60 for 4 more missed appointments between 3 April 2023 to 12 June 2023. This was a total of £620 compensation for its repair handling failures. Its recognition of more missed appointments and further inconvenience was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  14. When there has been an admission of failure, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
  15. The landlord has shown it accepted its service fell short. It took steps to resolve the repair and recognised its failures in its complaint investigations. It apologised and offered £115 at stage 1 and £620 at stage 2 for its repair delays. This was a total of £735. This was consistent with its compensation policy and in line with our remedies guidance.
  16. We would therefore have made a finding of maladministration but for the steps it took to put things right. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Complaint handling

  1. Due to a cyber security incident, the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint. Under that policy, the landlord would issue a stage 1 response within 20 working days, and a stage 2 response within 40 working days of an escalation request. The landlord’s system started to gradually return from 1 September 2022.
  2. We have been unable to identify if the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 16 October 2022. While the absence of the acknowledgement is not appropriate, it sent its stage 1 response on 3 November 2022. This was within its interim response time.
  3. The stage 1 response on 3 November 2022 accepted it had not met its repair response times and missed appointments. It accepted the resident reported the repair in June 2022 and apologised. It explained the disruption caused by the cyber incident and rearranged the repair. This demonstrated the landlord using its complaints process to put things right.
  4. That said, while we acknowledge the landlord was recovering from a cyber incident, its stage 1 response contained no evidence of learning to prevent similar delays happening in the future.
  5. There is evidence the resident attempted to escalate her complaint in November and December 2022. The landlord wrote a response on 3 February 2023, in which it offered £50 for its complaint handling delays. However, it is unclear why the resident asked to escalate her complaint again on 28 March 2023.
  6. The landlord’s evidence indicates two different repair teams considered the resident’s complaint at various points. It appears to have treated the front door glass and the door’s alignment issues as separate jobs and complaints. This may have contributed to the poor communication regarding this matter. It was unreasonable that the resident had needed to continue chasing the landlord.
  7. The landlord sent a second stage 2 response on 23 June 2023, in which it repeated its apology and acknowledged repeat failures to keep repair appointments. While it remained satisfied with how it had investigated the resident’s complaint at stage 1, it offered an additional £50 for its delays to provide its final response. This was a total of £100 compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling.
  8. This demonstrated the landlord considered the resident’s feedback regarding the timeline of events. The stage 2 demonstrated a thorough investigation in to the delays and the resident’s experience. But it again failed to demonstrate any learning.
  9. Furthermore, its response of 23 June 2023 failed to accurately recognise the difference between its initial £115 offer at stage 1 and its first stage 2 response. This caused confusion during our investigation and demonstrated a complaint handling training need.
  10. Based on our findings, the landlord generally followed the Code while navigating the loss of systems caused by the cyber security incident. Where it did not, it apologised and offered £100 compensation. This was consistent with our remedies guidance. It is therefore our finding that the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress.
  11. Complaint handling issues identified in this case are similar to cases we have already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous training orders. Therefore, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already complied with. The landlord should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this case that require further action.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s front entrance door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reoffers the resident £835 offered during its ICP, if not already paid.
  2. We recommend that the landlord ensures that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the circumstances of the resident’s household.