Clarion Housing Association Limited (202300891)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300891

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 May 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 reports of a power outage at the property and damage caused to his personal belongings.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The tenancy agreement is a legally binding document between both parties which sets out the terms of the property occupation. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the tenancy agreement. The property is a flat and the resident was an assured tenant. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident ended their tenancy with the landlord in July 2023.
4. On 30 September 2022, the resident reported a power outage at the property to the landlord. In response, the landlord logged an emergency out of hours repair, but nobody attended.
5. The repairs log demonstrates that a new emergency out of hours repair was logged on 1 October 2022 for the same issue. Over the weekend, the resident chased the landlord several times and was advised the electrician was delayed and he may have to wait 48 hours until attendance.
6. On 3 October 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord by email. In the complaint, the resident also said that he had reported electrical issues to the landlord in the months before the outage. The resident also highlighted that frozen food had been lost as a result of the power outage and his weekend plans were disrupted.
7. Later on the same day, 2 electricians attended to the property. One electrician worked on the fuse box, and the other was to reinstate the electricity supply. Following these visits, the electricity was reinstated but it was noted the light switch had blown to the living room as a result of the initial power outage. The damaged light switch was one the resident installed himself. The resident also said that, during these visits, the electricians took some photographs of damaged cabling.
8. On 10 October 2022, the resident had a further visit from 2 electricians to complete some final electrical repairs and replace the light switch that was damaged as a result of the initial outage. When the electricity was reinstated during this visit, the resident states there was a power surge which resulted in the light fitting on the ceiling being damaged. This service has not been provided any notes from the landlord about the outcomes of these visits. The light fitting to the ceiling was also something the resident installed himself.
9. In an email sent by the resident to the landlord on 14 October 2022, the resident summarised the damage that has been caused and requested for this information to be included in his original stage 1 complaint.
10. The landlord contacted the resident on 31 October 2022 to discuss the complaint that had been raised. At this stage, the landlord noted the resident was seeking compensation to replace the damaged light switch, light fitting, and frozen food loss. The landlord then provided the resident with details of how he could make a claim for this damage on its public liability insurance. The resident did so on 7 November 2022.
11. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 November 2022. In the response, the landlord accepted there had been a service failure as it had not responded to the original emergency appointment within its repairs policy timescales. It offered a total of £215.97 at stage 1 by way of compensation. This was comprised of:
    1. 1 week rent refund: £85.97
    2. Missed appointment: £30
    3. Complaint response outside timescales: £50
    4. Continuously chasing: £50
12. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on the same day the stage 1 response was issued. In his request to escalate, he explained he was dissatisfied with the compensation offered.
13. In December 2022 and January 2023, the resident chased the landlord seeking updates on the status of the stage 2 complaint as he had not received any further information from the landlord on its progress.
14. The stage 2 complaint response was issued on 15 March 2023. The response increased the compensation offered to a total of £465.97. This was comprised of the compensation already offered at stage 1, plus an uplift of £250:
    1. £100 for the delay in responding to the stage 2
    2. £150 for the inconvenience caused to the resident
15. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained it would not provide compensation for the damaged light fittings as the landlord was not responsible for these as it was something the resident had installed himself without permission from the landlord. The landlord also explained it had no records or reports being made of electrical issues in the flat following the storage heater and fuse board upgrades which took place in May 2022.
16. The resident responded by email on 15 March 2023 accepting the compensation as an interim payment but confirming that he would be contacting the Housing Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. The resident is seeking additional compensation as a result of the distress and inconveniences caused by his experience.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the power outage and follow-up repairs

17. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to repair and keep in proper working order the installations in the dwelling for the electricity supply. This means the landlord has a general obligation to maintain the installations in the property for the electrical supply.
18. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms that an emergency repair should be attended to within 24 hours of it being reported. The policy states that, at this visit, works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed but subsequent follow-up works may be required.
19. The landlord’s initial response was appropriate. It recognised its repair responsibility to resolve the issue and arranged an emergency out of hours appointment. The logging of this repair was in accordance with its obligations set out in its repairs and maintenance policy. However, the landlord did not meet the repair timescales outlined in its policy for the first visit despite logging the repair. The resident was left without electricity supply to the property for 3 nights. The electricity supply was reinstated to the property 3 days after it was first reported. During the period without electricity, the resident regularly chased the landlord for updates. The resident was advised the electrician was delayed. It was appropriate to tell him what was happening. These delays, however, would have caused the resident notable inconvenience, uncertainty, and distress about what was happening with the repair.
20. In relation to the resident’s assertion that the contractor incorrectly reinstated the electricity supply at the follow up visit to replace the light switch and complete the final repairs – although we do not doubt the resident’s testimony – this Service cannot establish any evidence to support this from the information provided by both parties. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, there is no written record in terms of repair outcomes or notes from the repairs operatives; nor has the resident provided any documentation to support this proposal other than the statements outlined in his letter. When there are conflicting accounts of what happened, or with insufficient evidence to confirm either way what the operative did during their visit, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman, as an independent arbiter, to establish that the repair should have been completed in a different way.
21. However, the absence of repair outcomes being provided to this Service indicates potential difficulties with record keeping by the landlord. It’s important that the landlord ensures it can access outcomes of repairs on behalf of its contractors and in-house operatives and a recommendation on this has been made for the landlord to consider in this report.
22. Throughout the duration of the electrical issues, the resident said he felt unsafe in the property. This was further compounded by the resident discovering what appeared to be burn marks near some cabling in the property. The landlord provided reassurance in its final complaint response that the smoke alarms were still working, and the resident’s safety was not jeopardised. Given that the resident raised concerns about feeling unsafe at stage 1 and at stage 2 of the complaints process, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide this reassurance sooner on in the process. These factors would have understandably caused the resident to feel distressed about the safety of his property. The landlord could have provided assurance to the resident, as noted in its fire safety management policy, on how the landlord ensures that its contractors are accredited in line with current registrations and are appropriately qualified. This failure has been taken into account when looking at compensation, as detailed below in this report.
23. This service notes that throughout the complaint and the resident’s interactions with the landlord, references were made to the storage heater and fuse board upgrade in May 2022. In these interactions, the resident stated he had reported issues with the electricity supply prior to the power outage in September 2022. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that, following its enquiries, it had no evidence of reports being made to the landlord or its contractors about electrical issues following the upgrade. In the absence of any evidence of this being reported, the landlord’s response to investigate and make enquiries on this in the stage 2 was reasonable. The landlord can only respond to repairs which residents report to it.
24. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role 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, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies which is published on our website.
25. The landlord offered a week’s rent refund, compensation for the missed appointment and the inconvenience caused, and a payment for the resident having to continuously chase the landlord. While this offer was reasonable, the landlord should have gone further by acknowledging how the resident felt unsafe in the property. It is therefore appropriate for an additional £150 payment to be made in recognition of the distress this situation undoubtedly caused to the resident.
26. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to assess the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident the full amount he is seeking in relation to his damaged belongings. This is because it is not the Ombudsman’s role to investigate liability insurance claims. The landlord’s insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the claim to its liability insurer. This is because landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the cost of such claims.

Complaints handling

27. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales for fully responding to complaints:
    1. 20 working days at stage 1
    2. 40 working days at stage 2
28. The policy states that complaints logged at stage 1 will be logged and acknowledged within 10 working days. Similarly, requests to escalate a complaint to stage 2 will be logged and acknowledged within 10 working days.
29. In addition, the policy provides that if the 40 working day timescale cannot be met at stage 2, then the landlord will provide regular updates to the resident explaining why there are delays.
30. The landlord’s timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints is not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code says landlords should respond within 20 working days at stage 2 of their complaints process. Landlords are expected to self-assess against the latest version of the Code by 30 June 2024. We recommend that the landlord reviews its stage 2 response timescales as part of this self-assessment.
31. At both stages of the resident’s complaint, there were notable failings by the landlord in adhering to its policy. The Ombudsman notes the following failings in handling the complaints:
    1. Failure to acknowledge stage 1 complaint within 10 working days
    2. Stage 1 response issued late (raised on 3 October 2022 and response issued on 14 November 2022)
    3. Failure to acknowledge stage 2 complaint within 10 working days.
    4. Stage 2 response issued 4 months after the resident’s request (escalation raised on 15 November 2022 and response issued on 15 March 2023)
32. In both stage 1 and stage 2, the landlord recognised it had failed to meet its timescales as outlined in the policy and apologised for the delays. It also offered compensation at both stages in recognition of these delays. This was comprised of:
    1. Stage 1 delay: £50
    2. Stage 2 delay: £100
33. The resident chased the stage 2 escalation request multiple times after the original request. The stage 2 escalation request was not formally acknowledged until 1 February 2023.
34. This points to communication challenges, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to recognise this when responding to the stage 2 by way of an increased compensation payment.
35. There was a 2-and-a-half-month period where the resident had no updates or communication from the landlord about the status of the stage 2 complaint. When the stage 2 complaint was eventually acknowledged, the landlord acted reasonably and communicated the delays in issuing the final stage 2 response but the delays prior to this point were not acceptable.
36. Throughout this period, the notes provided to this service demonstrate that the landlord was acquiring information from various internal departments about the complaint.
37. While the landlord did offer £150 in compensation for the delay in responding to both stages of the complaint process, the amount offered was not reflective of the length of time the resident was left without updates or information. It is therefore appropriate to provide a further uplift of £100 in recognition of the complaints handling delays. When determining compensation, the Housing Ombudsman has considered the length of time taken and the delays in handling and responding to the complaints.
38. This additional compensation ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of both its handling of the reports of the power outage and its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £715.97 compensation. This is comprised of the following:
    1. £465.97 already offered at stage 2 of its complaints process, unless this has been paid already.
    2. Additional £100 for the impact of the delays in acknowledging and responding to the stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint process.
    3. Additional £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the electrical issues.
41. Any payment should be made direct to the resident and not offset against any possible former rent arrears.
42. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to issue a written apology to the resident in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
43. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

44. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its data sharing arrangements with external contractors to ensure its staff have appropriate access to repair notes and visit outcomes to prevent similar experiences for its residents in the future.