Clarion Housing Association Limited (202311909)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311909

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 December 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s communication about car parking provision.
2. The landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat, since 18 October 2022. The resident lives in the property with her daughter who was 5 years old at the time of the complaint. Her daughter is vulnerable due to a diagnosis of sickle cell disease; however, the landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
On 5 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord if she could rent a parking space or garage from it. On 13 January 2023, it advised her to check its website where it advertised any garages that were available. It noted that the resident said that there was a contact number for the managing company that dealt with parking near the property and she would contact them about a parking space.
On 6 February 2023, the resident reported that there was no heating or hot water in the property. An engineer attended the same day and subsequently noted that he had rectified the issue.
On 7 February 2023, the resident reported that she had no hot water. An engineer attended the following day and closed the job. They noted that the hot water was lukewarm when other taps were in use, but this was typical for a combination boiler.
On 13 February 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had no hot water again. An engineer ordered parts and fitted them on 28 February 2023 but this did not rectify the fault. A further part was ordered and fitted on 24 March 2023 which resolved the issue.
The resident complained on 21 February 2023. She said that she had received a parking ticket and a £100 fine. She said that when she signed up for the property, the landlord had told her she would need to call a parking company to arrange to park outside. However, when she did so, the company said that they did not deal with that location. She then called the landlord and it told her that it could not arrange a parking bay. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 24 February 2023.
On 8 April 2023, the resident reported that she had no heating or hot water again. The landlord booked an appointment for 11 April 2023 but when the engineer attended, he said he could not access the property. However, the resident said she had been at home all day. The landlord arranged another appointment for 15 April 2023. During this appointment, the engineer discovered that there was an issue with the gas supply and said that the gas supplier would need to investigate. There is no evidence that the landlord offered any assistance to the resident with this.
The resident reported that she had no heating or hot water again on 18 April 2023. An engineer attended on the same day but found no faults. They noted that an emergency control valve was turned off which they said was consistent with the engineer’s report of 15 April 2023 and that the gas would need to be reinstated once the supplier investigation was complete.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 5 May 2023. It apologised for the delay with providing the response and said that:
1. The officer that completed the sign-up for the property said that they advised the resident to either contact the parking contractor whose contact details were on the warning notice by the property or the local authority to obtain a permit for street parking.
2. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the parking ticket but said that it could not reimburse the £100 fine.
3. It was not obliged to provide parking; however, she could contact the local authority to obtain a street parking permit.
4. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in providing the complaint response.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 6 May 2023. She said that the neighbourhood officer did not tell her to contact the local authority about a parking permit at the sign-up. She also said that she had no hot water for 2 months. She declined the £50 compensation offered.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 3 July 2023. It said that:
1. It had not advised the resident that parking was guaranteed at the property.
2. The property was situated in a controlled parking zone and she could apply for a permit from the local authority.
3. It owned 2 disabled bays and 3 parking bays for contractors but no other parking was available on site. Its records showed that she did not need a disabled bay but it asked her to let it know if this was not the case.
4. She had been issued a ticket because she had parked in a space that she had no permit for. This was her responsibility and therefore it could not intervene or reimburse her for the fine.
5. It had spoken to its contractors and found that she had reported that she had no heating or hot water on 15 April 2023. When engineers attended, they found there was no gas supply. They attended again on 18 April 2023 and found that the emergency control valve was turned off on the boiler. They turned it on and left her with a working boiler.
6. It re-offered the £50 compensation awarded at stage 1 of the process.
The resident informed this Service in December 2024 that she has still not secured a permanent parking space near the property. She said that this causes difficulties due to her daughter’s medical condition and she has asked the landlord for a disabled parking bay.

Assessment and findings

Car parking

The resident’s tenancy agreement contains a service schedule which lists the services included. This does not include provision for car parking.
The landlord’s systems show that the block has 2 allocated disabled parking bays (allocated to the 2 adapted units in the block) and 2 contractor visitor parking bays.
The landlord advertised the property via the local authority’s choice-based lettings scheme. The advertisement said that applicants should check the parking at the viewing.
The resident said that she told the landlord that she needed a parking space at the sign-up and the landlord said that she would need to call its parking company to arrange one. However, the landlord has disputed this and has said that the advice it gave at the signup was to call the number on the car parking signage by the property. If they were unable to help, she could then call the local authority to see if they could offer parking. The landlord did not take contemporaneous notes regarding the advice it gave regarding car parking at the sign-up.
In the absence of any evidence to support either version it is impossible to prove or disprove what advice the landlord gave at the signup. Best practice would have been for the landlord to make a note of the advice it gave at the time and to offer thorough advice regarding the parking options for residents in the block. However, it had no obligation to provide car parking, and this Service has seen no evidence that it promised the resident that car parking would be available. The Ombudsman appreciates that the car parking situation would be frustrating for the resident. However, it was not the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that car parking was available for her.
The landlord’s garages, parking spaces, and sheds policy states that it has a number of garages and parking spaces that are available to let to residents at its discretion. It says that they are let following advertisement of a vacancy and that it does not maintain a waiting list.
There is evidence that the resident called the landlord in January 2023, to ask if she could rent a parking space or garage from it. The landlord noted that it called her back and advised her to check its website for garage vacancies. This advice was appropriate and in accordance with its policy.
The resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for the parking ticket she received. The landlord was not responsible for the resident’s decision to park in a space without a relevant parking permit and there is no evidence that the landlord advised her that she could do so. Therefore, it was justified in its decision not to reimburse the parking fine.
In summary, the landlord could have offered more thorough advice at the time of the sign up and taken notes regarding the advice it gave. A recommendation has therefore been made to improve its service by updating the advice it gives in the future. However, it had no obligation to provide car parking at the property and there is no evidence of maladministration in its communication about car parking provision.

Boiler repairs

The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy says that an emergency repair would be one that would jeopardise the health and safety of the resident. It says that it should attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.
The landlord’s records show that it attended each new report of a lack of heating and hot water at the property within 24 hours, which was in accordance with its policy.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time said “where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant, and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.”
The resident did not raise the complaint about the delay in the boiler repair until the stage 2 escalation request. Therefore, in accordance with the Code, the landlord should have raised this as a new complaint. However, it did not. The 2-stage complaint process is important to ensure that the initial response is subject to internal review by an alternative officer. This will help to ensure that the investigation has been carried out thoroughly and all avenues of redress have been explored.
This was especially important in this case because the landlord did not consider all the repairs reports of a lack of heating and/or hot water in its stage 2 complaint response. It only considered the reports of 15 and 18 April 2023. Had it investigated all the reports of a lack of hot water since February 2023 it would have found evidence that the resident had no hot water from 13 February 2023 until 24 March 2023. She has advised this Service that she informed the landlord at the time that her daughter had a diarrhoea bug and therefore the lack of hot water was particularly problematic, and this caused additional distress and inconvenience. There is evidence that the resident called the landlord to chase up the repair which cost her time and trouble.
The landlord’s compensation policy in place at the time said that if a resident had no hot water because of an outstanding repair it would pay £5 compensation per day after 7 days of the initial report. The resident had no hot water for 40 days and therefore the landlord should have offered £160 compensation in accordance with its policy. The landlord should also have considered whether there were any additional vulnerabilities within the household that might be exacerbated by a lack of heating or hot water or any interim measures it could take to alleviate the situation. However, there is no evidence that it did so.
The landlord’s failure to follow the Code, investigate the resident’s reports of a lack of hot water thoroughly, or to follow its compensation policy cost the resident time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint to this Service.
Therefore, considering all the above there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to pay a total of £360, made up of £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused, plus £160 for loss of amenity.

Complaint handling

The Code also said that landlords must log a complaint within 5 days of receipt and respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 10 working days. An extension to this timeframe should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The landlord was using an interim complaints policy at the time of the complaint which stated that it would log a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of receipt and respond within 20 working days of it being logged. If the resident remained dissatisfied this would be escalated to a peer review stage which would be resolved within 40 working days. This policy was therefore not compliant with the Code. However, the landlord now has a new policy in place which is Code compliant.
The landlord took 48 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint and a further 39 working days to provide a stage 2 response. This unacceptable delay and failure to follow the Code caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling failures. The level of compensation offered by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman’s awards set out in the remedies guidance. This Service therefore finds that there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication about car park provision.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 5 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings in this case.
2. Contact the resident to confirm the vulnerabilities within the household and ensure that it updates its databases accordingly.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £360 comprising:
  1. £200 to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the boiler repairs.
  2. £160 for loss of amenity, in accordance with its compensation policy.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation previously offered if it has not already done so.
The landlord should investigate all parking options available to residents in the block and update its databases accordingly. It should also pass this information to the resident to ensure that she has explored all parking options.
The landlord should ensure that all future advertisements for the properties within the block clearly state that parking is not provided. It should also consider changing its sign-up paperwork to ensure that officers are prompted to explain parking options at future sign-ups.

43. The landlord should provide an update in writing to the resident regarding the status of her request for a disabled parking bay.