Clarion Housing Association Limited (202306182)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306182

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the standard of workmanship and repairs to the bathroom and kitchen.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 4-bedroom house. The landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities for the household. During the course of this complaint the resident’s husband stated that he had limited mobility.
The resident’s husband raised a formal complaint on 28 October 2022. The complaint was in relation to the refurbishment works for the kitchen and bathroom, which took place in June 2022. He outlined the following issues:
1. The new bath had a chip in it prior to it being installed in the property. He said he asked for it to not be installed and for the landlord to provide a replacement instead. He said the contractors ignored his request and proceeded to install it.
2. The taps for the bath broke within 3 weeks and he had to use the shower. He said he had limited mobility and was unable to use the bath in that time. He said he also needed a wider bath, similar to his previous one.
3. The contractors installed the wrong stand for the bathroom basin, despite him asking them not to.
4. The flooring in the kitchen and bathroom had been replaced with cheap lino. He said the bathroom flooring did not lay flat and the kitchen floor was torn when it was installed.
5. The bathroom and kitchen fans were cheap and not like the previous ones.
6. The kitchen sink had been replaced with a cheap sink which had become rusty, was bent, and the water did not drain from it properly.
7. The cover on the boiler was an eyesore and did not fit. A gas engineer had put a notice on it saying that it should not be used.
The resident’s husband said he was told the quality of the works and fixtures were to the landlord’s specifications. He said he had spent a considerable amount of time trying to contact the landlord about the issues and it had been very stressful. He said he wanted the landlord to put together a plan to ensure the work was finished properly and to an acceptable standard.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 15 November 2022. It said it had repaired the chip in the bath and the broken tap, so they were now in good working order. It said following an inspection of the works completed, it was satisfied that the work had been completed to an acceptable standard. It said there were no defects in the flooring and the kitchen sink was a standard replacement. The landlord said that if the resident’s husband wanted a wider bath, he would need to obtain an occupational therapist recommendation. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered £150 compensation for the service failure for the damage to the bath and the delay in repairing the tap.
The resident escalated the complaint on 28 November 2022. She said the person who carried out the inspection was the person who was in charge of the original works. The resident felt that the person was not impartial and it was not surprising that they thought everything was acceptable. The resident said the contractors had just patched up the chip in the bath, rather than replacing it. She said the kitchen sink was uneven and showing signs of rust. The resident re-iterated the issues her husband had previously raised, as well as issues with the cupboard units and the toilet. She said the landlord did not address those in its response.
The resident felt there was no need to “burden” the NHS regarding the occupational therapist. She said her husband was a blue badge holder and she could forward a picture of his pass. She asked for an impartial person to inspect everything and make arrangements for the necessary replacements.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 January 2023. It said its planned investment area manager (AM) inspected the property on 5 January 2023. The outcome was:
1. The kitchen sink was not rusty, however, it had a very small dent in it. It could not confirm if it was like that when fitted, or damaged afterwards. The AM offered to replace the sink.
2. It does not enclose boilers in kitchen upgrades. It said its contractor boxed in the pipes and forgot to leave access to inspect the flue. As such, when the gas engineer visited to service the boiler, it was condemned due to the flue not being accessible. The AM said this would be rectified.
3. The kitchen flooring had a very small mark/scratch on it, not a tear, which was likely due to the fridge/freezer being moved. It said the contractor confirmed there was no mark when it was installed but the resident disagreed. The AM concluded that the mark was so small that it did not warrant replacing the whole flooring.
4. The bathtub chip was repaired, however, the AM offered to replace the tub for one of the same size. The AM explained that the resident would need to contact an occupational therapist should they require a wider tub for medical reasons. It said a new standard size tub would be fitted in the meantime.
5. The bath mixer had broken again which had now been fixed. The AM explained it did not need to be pulled with excessive strength.
6. The landlord referred to other issues which were not raised as part of the original complaint and provided its position on those.
The landlord found that there had been no additional service failures in addition to those identified in the stage 1 response. It apologised for any difficulties the resident had experienced and offered a further £150 in compensation. It said £100 of it was discretionary compensation for the inconvenience caused and £50 was for the delay in responding to the resident.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. On 21 August 2023, she said the landlord had still not completely resolved the repairs. She said she had to continually chase the landlord to complete every issue which was stressful and draining.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the standard of workmanship and repairs to the bathroom and kitchen

The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping the systems for supplying water, gas, and electricity in good working order.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) refers to the hazards associated with fuel combustion products. It states that they can be caused by incomplete or improper combustion of the fuel, blockages, or other defects to the flue. It states that this can include where a flue has not been properly serviced, cleaned, or maintained. To assess for the hazards, it outlines that a visual inspection of the flue would be required. It says if there are indications of above average risk, further investigation and a safety report from a qualified engineer would be required.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at that visit. It states that for non-emergency repairs, repairs will be at the resident’s convenience and offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy says that the landlord requires an occupational therapist referral for all aids and adaptations requests, both major and minor.
The landlord’s major works policy states that if it is planning to improve a home, it will contact the resident in advance and let them know its proposal. It states that a resident liaison officer (RLO) will be appointed who will be the main point of contact before and during the works. The policy states that if an adaptation is required then the resident should let their RLO know at the earliest opportunity. It says that the resident may be advised to request a visit from their local authority’s occupational therapist.
The major works policy also states that if any problems arise during the work, to contact the RLO as soon as possible. It says that its contractors will aim to sort out any complaints within 10 working days. If the resident does not feel the complaint has been resolved internally, it said they can raise it with the landlord, using its complaints procedure.
The landlord’s records evidence that prior to and during the commencement of the works, it contacted the resident in line with its policy. The records show that the resident had the opportunity to choose designs and colours for certain elements. It showed that the works were not booked in by the RLO until the resident was satisfied. The works started on 24 May 2022. There is a record dated 13 June 2022 which was a general visit to see if the resident was happy with the ongoing works and it noted some snags. There is no evidence of the resident requesting any adaptations prior to the works commencing. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to have fitted its standard fixtures.
On 16 August 2022 and in the formal complaint, the resident’s husband requested a new bath. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response which was to contact an occupational therapist. She offered to provide her husband’s blue badge instead. In line with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy, a blue badge would not be sufficient for the landlord to carry out an adaptation request. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to reiterate its advice in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman understands that following the stage 2 response, the resident obtained an occupational therapist referral and the landlord agreed to the request.
The records show that the resident’s husband raised that the bathroom tap was not working on 22 July 2022. He contacted the landlord again on 9 August 2022 to state that he was still waiting for the landlord to complete the snags. He said this included the bathroom tap. The taps were changed on 16 August 2022 and the landlord noted that the resident also wanted a new bath, new sink, and new flooring. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident or her husband prior to the formal complaint 2 months later, which was a failing.
It was reasonable upon receipt of the complaint for the landlord to liaise with the planned investment team about the resident’s concerns. On 1 November 2022 the team stated that it visited the property a while ago and took photos. It said the snags had been resolved and the chip in the bath was repaired. It was noted at the time that the resident was not happy with the quality of the materials used such as the kitchen sink. Unfortunately, the landlord’s records do not evidence when that visit took place, therefore it cannot be determined whether its response was reasonable, or in line with its policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all the issues raised by the resident which was a failing. It simply stated that it was satisfied the work had been completed to an acceptable standard. This was not sufficient and it would have been reasonable for it to have addressed each issue raised. It is not surprising that the resident then escalated her complaint and did not feel the inspection was carried out properly. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its repairs service.
In the formal complaint the resident’s husband raised that the cover on the boiler was “disgraceful” and a gas engineer had placed a sticker on it stating that it should not be used. The landlord’s records do not indicate when the gas engineer visited or the action taken once it was aware that the boiler had been condemned. The stage 1 response did not acknowledge this issue. In the stage 2 response, the landlord suggested that the boiler was condemned due to the gas engineer being unable to access the flue during a service. It said this would be rectified.
It should be noted that the Ombudsman is not a regulatory body and does not regulate compliance with specific gas safety technical standards. However, it was not disputed that a gas engineer had condemned the boiler and the flue could not be accessed. The role of the Ombudsman is to determine whether the landlord handled the issue of gas safety and risk to the resident in a reasonable manner. In this case, the landlord has not evidence that it handled the issue appropriately or in line with its obligations under the HHSRS.
Given the assessment provided by the gas engineer, the landlord should have taken steps to address and rectify the issue as soon as possible. There is no evidence that the resident stopped using the boiler. However, the risks associated with its use were assessed by the gas engineer as high, which likely caused distress. It was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the risks were appropriately managed and remedied. It was not appropriate that the resident had to chase the landlord to acknowledge this issue. It is further concerning that even after it said it would rectify the issue in the stage 2 response, the resident contacted the landlord 2 months later to ask when it would be done. This was a serious failing which the landlord did not put right for the resident.
It was positive that following the resident’s concerns regarding impartiality of the previous inspection, the landlord arranged a further inspection. The stage 2 response gave a more detailed account of the concerns which were raised and the landlord’s position on each one. It would have been reasonable for it to have provided timeframes for any repairs identified. This would have helped manage the resident’s expectations and evidenced that it was following its repairs policy.
The landlord apologised for any difficulties but said it did not identify any additional failures to its stage 1 response. While an apology was appropriate, there were additional failures which the landlord needed to put right. This was namely the boiler and the failure to address all the issues in the stage 1 response.
Despite not acknowledging any additional failures, the landlord offered an additional £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident. It also offered £50 in recognition of its delay in responding to the complaint. The landlord’s compensation will be assessed later in this report. As already stated, the resident contacted the landlord 2 months after the stage 2 response to state that the repairs were yet to be completed. This suggests that the landlord did not learn from its outcomes and continued to fail to act in line with its repairs policy.
It is unclear whether all repairs have been sufficiently completed in the property. The Ombudsman requested an update from the landlord regarding this and it has not been provided. An order will be made in relation to this.
To conclude, the landlord failed to evidence that it had put things right for the resident and it failed to sufficiently address the risks associated with the boiler. This likely caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the standard of workmanship and repairs to the bathroom and kitchen.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time applied a 2 stage procedure. It states that at stage 1 of its procedure a complaint must be acknowledged and logged within 10 working days. It says it must be responded to within 20 working days of it being logged. The policy states that following the stage 1 response a customer can request a peer review. It says it will acknowledge peer review requests within 10 working days and aim to resolve them within 40 working days.
The complaints policy states that its principles include putting things right within reasonable timescales and fully recording details, actions, and investigations of the complaint at all stages.
The landlord’s compensation policy suggests that to award compensation in the range of £250 and £700, there would have been a considerable failure but no permanent impact on the resident. It gives the following examples:
1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes.
2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
3. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address relevant aspects of the complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving the issue.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident and said it was due to the festive period. It offered £50 in recognition of that, which was reasonable.
As previously highlighted, the landlord’s stage 1 response did not address all the issues raised by the resident. This caused the resident to have to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints procedure was an opportunity for the landlord to investigate the complaint and put things right for the resident. It is a failure that it did not do so. The Ombudsman is particularly concerned at the landlord’s lack of response regarding the boiler. This was dismissive of its obligations outlined in the tenancy agreement and in accordance with the HHSRS.
The landlord did not acknowledge all the failures identified and therefore its position regarding the stage 1 response being fair, reasonable, and accurate was incorrect. There were also aspects of its response where it referenced visits and actions which were not included in its records. Examples of this are that there was no record of when the boiler was condemned and no records of when the landlord first inspected the property following completion of the works. This made it difficult for the Ombudsman to determine whether its responses were in line with its policy. As per its complaints policy, the landlord must ensure it fully and accurately records details, actions, and investigations of the complaint. The Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord did this.
The landlord has since updated its complaints policy which is now in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The code became statutory from 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords are obliged by law to follow its requirements. Therefore, no orders will be made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and to provide a better service to residents.
The landlord offered a total of £300 which was broken down as:
1. £150 in its stage 1 response in recognition of the damage to the bath and delay repairing the tap. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused and the resident having to chase the landlord.
2. A further £100 for the inconvenience the resident had experienced.
3. £50 for the delay in providing a response to the complaint.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s compensation offer for its identified failures was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy. However, there were additional failures by the landlord which had not been put right. As such, the Ombudsman orders an additional £350 which is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for where the landlord made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to all its failings. The £350 is broken down as:
1. £200 for failing to fully consider the risks associated with the boiler and respond in line with its policies and obligations under the HHSRS. This likely caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
2. £100 as despite outlining the action it would take in its stage 2 response, it has not evidenced that it put things right within a reasonable timescale.
3. £50 for the additional complaint handling failures.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the standard of workmanship and repairs to the bathroom and kitchen.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must confirm if it has completed all the outstanding repairs. If any remain outstanding, the landlord must provide the reason(s) why, with defined timescales for when they will be completed.
The landlord must pay the resident £650 in compensation. This is inclusive of the £300 it previously offered.
The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord should liaise with the resident and update its records to reflect any reported vulnerabilities in the household.