Clarion Housing Association Limited (202312013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312013

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 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 response to:
1. The resident’s:
  1. Concerns about the communal lift.
  2. Complaint about a staff member.
2. A fault on the fire panel.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is joint assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 9 September 2014. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the first floor.
A medical letter dated 17 July 2007 confirms that the resident has a congenital disorder called ‘klippel feil syndrome’ and ‘goldenhar syndrome.’ His symptoms include congenital fusion of the cervical vertebrae, nystagmus (“involuntary vibrating movements of the eyeballs”), deafness, weakness of the left hand and arm. It stated that he has a balance problem because of fused neck bones. He has to hold onto the stair rail climbing up and downstairs due to “unsteadiness, dizziness and clumsiness.”
The landlord is a leaseholder of the properties within the block under a head lease with the freeholder. The freeholder is responsible for the repair or maintenance of the internal and external communal areas. The freeholder has discharged its duties to a managing agent who provides the management services on its behalf.
The landlord has advised this Service that there is a fire alarm panel located within the ground floor lobby with fire detection heads fitted to each floor. Its function is to sound in the event of a fire to alert residents. However, there is a ‘stay put’ policy in place for the block. Therefore, its purpose is not to signal to residents to evacuate in the event of a fire.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2022 regarding the lift being out of service. The complaint was upheld.
On 30 September 2022 the resident reported that the lift was out of service. He was reliant on the lift and the situation was having a “significant” impact on him. He also reported that the fire panel was faulty. The light on the main panel was amber and a warning “disablement” was displayed. Works to the lift were completed on 3 October and the fire panel was repaired on 11 October.
In an email to the landlord on 29 October 2022 the resident complained about the conduct of its staff member. He said they had failed to assist him when he requested a move to an alternative property because the current one was unsuitable due to the issues with the lift. He was also concerned he had been given inaccurate information regarding the landlord’s transfer register.
On 14 December 2022 the managing agent reported to the landlord that the fault was still present on the panel. It sent a further email on 19 December to say the issue had been resolved.

Complaints process.

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 30 September 2022, as follows:
1. The lift was breaking down on a “weekly basis”.
2. He was disabled and could not use the stairs due to “spinal pain and dizziness.”
3. He became scared and panicked when he had to use the lift. He feared getting stuck inside because there was no phone signal inside the lift and no emergency contact.
4. The fire system did not work because the main panel was displaying “disablement” and the light was amber.
5. Its inaction had compounded his “pain and panic.”
On 17 October 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, the main points were:
1. The managing agent was aware of the problems the resident had reported with the lifts.
2. The lift was repaired on 3 October and was working “as it should.” The fire panel was repaired on 11 October.
3. Its housing team had provided support and advice and had confirmed the property was “fit for purpose” with an “adequate” fire system.
4. There was no failure of service and the complaint was not upheld.
5. It signposted the resident for support with its personal wellbeing and tenancy sustainment teams.
On 29 October 2022 the resident set out his stage 2 complaint, as follows:
1. It had failed to respond to his concerns about “nearly weekly” lift failures or about there being no emergency contact in the lift which made him worry about getting stuck.
2. It had ignored his health condition and disability which prevented him from using stairs.
3. No one had fixed the fire “since the pandemic.” He said he had attached images of the fire system panel displaying 2 amber lights and the warning “disablement”. Therefore the information provided by the landlord was inaccurate.
4. A member of staff visited him during November 2021 to carry out a risk assessment for his disability. He gave them his medical reports but he felt they were only there to make sure he did not cause damage to or a fire in the flat.
5. He asked to be transferred due to his disability, overcrowding and unsuitability of the property but this was refused “without good reason.” The member of staff told him the landlord did not hold a transfer register however this was not in line with its allocations policy.
6. They advised him to make an application to the local authority however, he said he had already done so. They asked him to email a copy of the application so they could discuss it with the local authority on his behalf. However, they did not provide any help and had not replied to his emails since then.
On 17 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
1. It apologised for the delayed complaint response and offered £100 compensation.
2. It acknowledged it should have investigated the historical reports of the lift breaking down and not focussed on the one incident.
3. A new managing agent had recently been appointed. Therefore, it was unable to establish if the previous one carried out repair on 16 October 2022 because it was no longer in communication with them.
4. It raised the fault with the new managing agent who attended on 13 December 2022 and confirmed there was a fault on the display. It attended again on 16 December and advised there was no longer an error on the panel and the system was functional. It apologised for any distress caused.
5. It did not operate a transfer list for the resident’s area because all its properties were given directly to the local authorities for direct nomination from their waiting list. There was a “small amount” kept back for management moves which was permitted under its allocations policy.
6. It set out the circumstances under which a management move might be approved.
7. It understood the resident’s concerns about the lift outages and the impact this had on him. However, he did not meet the circumstances for a management move. The advice he had been given was correct and it did not uphold the complaint.
8. If the resident felt the property was not suitable due to his medical needs he should make an application to the local authority. It signposted him to its personal wellbeing and tenancy sustainment.
9. The member of staff visited the resident in September 2021 to carry out a Person Centered Fire Risk Assessment (PCFRA). This was to assess for the presence of risks of fire in property, not to discuss the resident’s request for a transfer. The resident may have misunderstood the purpose of the visit.
10. It acknowledged there were no notes of the visit on its system and it had advised the member of staff that they must make detailed notes in future. The member of staff had said he gave the resident advice about moving and suggested he contact the local authority. They had asked the resident to provide his completed application form so they could discuss it with the local authority. This did not happen because the member of staff did not receive the application.
On 3 July 2023 the resident submitted a webform to this Service to ask that we investigate his complaint. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response in relation to its transfer policy and his ongoing concerns about the lift. He was worried there was no phone connection in the lift and that he might be trapped in the flat in the event of a fire because he could not use the stairs. He wanted to be moved to a ground floor flat or the lift to remain in working order. The complaint became one we could investigate on 15 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The head lease between the freeholder and landlord says that at any time during the term the freeholder may on service of notice on the landlord nominate a trust, management company or other competent body to manage the estate and to undertake the provision of services referred to in Schedule 3.
Schedule 3, part 2 says that the freeholder is responsible for:
1. Inspecting, servicing, maintaining and repairing all communal apparatus, plant, machinery and equipment within the building.
2. Providing, maintaining, operating, renewing and replacing any fire alarms and ancillary apparatus and fire prevention and firefighting equipment and apparatus in the common parts.
The landlord’s allocations policy says it offers a percentage of its available homes to people nominated by the local authority. In most areas this is usually 75% but the percentage can vary based on local authority or property type and size. In some areas this may be as high as 100%.
Its management transfer policy says that residents who need to move to level-access accommodation due to ongoing medical needs are not within the scope of the policy. This is because they are already given “high priority” within the allocation policy or by local authorities via the nomination arrangements where it does not maintain its own housing register.
Its interim complaints procedure for complaints received since 17 June 2022 says it will acknowledge and log complaints within 10 working days of receipt. It will provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.

Scope of the investigation.

This service has been provided with evidence that there were further lift failures after the landlord issued its final response on 17 January 2023. In his contact with this service on 3 July 2023 the resident raised concerns about being trapped in the flat in the event of a fire.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if appropriate.
This investigation has also been provided with evidence that the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding new issues around his request for rehousing and parking permits. We are investigating these complaints under case reference 202444359.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal lift.

On 30 September 2022 the resident reported a lift breakdown. On 3 October the landlord emailed the managing agent to request an “urgent” update on the lift repair. It noted the resident was “reliant” on the lift and that the situation was having a “significant” impact on him. It advised that earlier emails had not been answered which was concerning given the “significance” of the lift outage. It did not receive a response so it emailed again on 4 October to escalate its query.
The managing agent replied on 5 October 2022 and confirmed it raised an order with its contractor on 30 September. The contractor attended on the same day, 30 September, to isolate the lift. Works were completed on 3 October and the lift returned to service.
The landlord acted appropriately by monitoring the managing agent’s response to ensure the issue was resolved on that occasion.
On 6 October 2022 the landlord emailed the managing agent to query a recent update that parts were needed because the lift was breaking down “every other week.” It appropriately asked what steps were being taken to prevent further incidents. The managing agent replied on the same day to assure the landlord that its contractor had inspected all the lifts due to the issues. It was confident the problem “should not be a regular occurrence.” However, as discussed below, the landlord failed to communicate this information to the resident to reassure him the matter was in hand by setting out steps taken.
The resident’s complaint of 30 September 2022 set out the difficulties he experienced when the lift was out of service. The landlord’s communication with the managing agent acknowledged the extent to which the resident relied on the lift. The lift was out of service for 4 days on this occasion however, the evidence shows there had been ongoing issues.
Given the above, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have developed a support plan with the resident to be actioned in the event of a lift breakdown. There is no evidence that it did so which was a failure. Furthermore, it showed a lack of regard for its duty under the Equality Act 2010.
The resident’s complaint of 30 September 2022 also raised concerns about the assistance available to him in the event of a lift breakdown. He clearly set out the distress this caused him however, the landlord failed to provide clarification which compounded his distress.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about a staff member.

In his stage 2 complaint of 29 October 2022 the resident complained that the Neighbourhood Response Officer (NRO) had given incorrect information in response to his request for a transfer. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 17 January 2023 provided an appropriate response which was in line with its allocations and management moves policy.
The resident also raised concerns about the NRO’s conduct during their visit to carry out a PCFRA. He had given them medical reports to support his request for a move but felt they were “not helpful.” He said they had failed to follow up in assisting him with his transfer application to the local authority.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 17 January 2023 said that the purpose of the visit was to carry out a PCFRA not to discuss the resident’s transfer application. Its response lacked empathy and demonstrated a lack of a customer centric approach which is particularly important for vulnerable residents. The landlord confirmed that it had taken appropriate action regarding the record keeping failure it identified.
The landlord also said that having spoken to the NRO they advised they had been unable to assist the resident because he did not send a copy of his housing application that he submitted to the local authority. However, the evidence shows that on the 17 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord attaching a copy of his application. Therefore, its response was not accurate.
The landlord’s failure amounts to service failure because there was a minor failure in the service it provided which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a fault on the fire panel.

In his email to the landlord on 30 September 2022 the resident reported the issue with the fire system panel. The managing agent’s email to the landlord of 10 October confirmed it raised an emergency works order “as soon as it was aware.” It is unclear when it became aware therefore this investigation is unable to make a determination on this point.
The managing agent provided a further update on 11 October 2022 to say it was being repaired that day and that it had asked for photographs to confirm it was no longer showing a fault. The landlord responded on the same day to ask that it confirm when it was “fully operational.”
On 12 October 2022 the managing agent emailed the landlord to confirm that the fire panel was fully functional but that there had been a delay because a part had to be ordered. Given that this investigation does not know when it became aware of the issue it is not possible to assess whether the delay was reasonable.
It was reasonable that the landlord would rely on the report from the managing agent for confirmation that the repair had been resolved. However, it is noted that it did not request to see the photographic evidence which was a short coming. This is because it could have fully satisfied itself the repair was resolved and could have relied on it in the event of a dispute.
In his email to the landlord on 29 October 2022 the resident said the panel had been faulty since the pandemic and no one had been to fix it. He therefore challenged the information provided by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response. This Service does not doubt the resident’s account about the duration of the fault. However, there is no independent evidence to corroborate events. Therefore, it is not possible for this investigation to make a determination on this point.
An internal email dated 9 December 2022 referred to a new managing agent having been appointed. During a recent meeting with the landlord they had agreed to visit on 13 December and inspect the panel. While this was positive, this was over a month after the resident advised the fault was still present. That the landlord did not take prompt action to satisfy itself that the panel had been repaired was inappropriate.
On 14 December 2022 the managing agent emailed the landlord to confirm that its inspection revealed the fault was still present. It said it would carry out a full service to ensure the problem was resolved.
This supports the resident’s assertion that no one had been to fix the fault which caused him ongoing distress. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was provided in good faith and to the best of its knowledge.
On 19 December 2022 the managing agent emailed the landlord to confirm the panel was “left in working order” on 16 December. It said that there was an issue with the “AOV within core 3 which has been left open and should remain so until the part arrives.” It said it was waiting for a quote to be able to carry out the repair.
However, on 3 January 2023 the managing agent advised the landlord it had not received the job sheet but had been advised that the panel needed to be reset because it was showing an error. It said it had ordered the part and hoped the AOV would be repaired that week or next.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided an update to the resident regarding steps taken by the new managing agent to inspect and repair the fire panel. This was inappropriate because it caused uncertainty for the resident which compounded his distress.
In its email to the managing agent of 11 October 2022 the landlord queried the integrity of the panel while it was showing the fault. It specifically queried if it would still work as it should in the event of a fire. On 12 October the managing agent replied to advise that it was “fully functional.”
On 14 December 2022 the landlord asked the managing agent for confirmation about the functionality of the panel while the fault was displayed. The managing agent replied on the same day to confirm it “hoped” that before Christmas it could be “comfortable” the system was working.
On 29 December 2022 the landlord emailed the managing agent to ask for details of the “exact” issue and asked for confirmation on whether the fault would have compromised the system in the event of a fire. The managing agent provided a detailed response as to the nature of the issue but did not provide a response regarding the integrity of the system.
It was positive that the landlord considered the functionality of the system while the fault was showing. However, given the potential health and safety risk, it did not go far enough to satisfy itself that the system was working correctly while it was displaying the fault.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on landlord’s engagement with private freeholders and managing agents says that residents should be able to hold the professionals responsible for the quality, safety and management of their homes to account. In turn, landlords should also be able to hold third party freeholders and managing companies to account in relation to discharging their responsibilities.
In the circumstances it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have pursued its query with the managing agent and in the event it failed to provide an adequate response, considered contacting the freeholder to explore if they could intervene. That it did not do so is evidence that the landlord did not do all it could to satisfy itself that the resident’s safety was not compromised which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 30 September 2022. The landlord appropriately provided its response on 17 October within its timescales.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) requires landlords to respond to all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint response failed to address the resident’s concerns about the difficulties caused by the lift breaking on a “weekly basis.” This was particularly inappropriate given its duty under the Equality Act 2010. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns about provision for assistance in the event of an emergency when inside the lift. The general tone of its response lacked empathy which was inappropriate given the evident distress caused to the resident.
The resident’s frustration regarding its stage 1 response was set out in his stage 2 complaint which he emailed to the landlord on 29 October 2022. The landlord provided its response on 17 January 2023 which was 53 working days later and 13 working days over its target. The landlord’s response appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £100 compensation.
Its stage 2 complaint response the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it failed to respond to the historical issues at stage 1. However, having done so it then failed to put things right by providing a detailed response at stage 2.
The Code says that where a resident raises additional complaints during the investigation, and the stage 1 response has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
During his stage 2 complaint the resident raised concerns about the conduct of a member of staff that had not been raised previously at stage 1. The landlord failed to open a fresh stage 1 complaint and instead provided a response at stage 2. This meant the resident did not benefit from a 2 stage complaints process before exhausting the landlord’s internal process which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not go far enough to recognise the resident’s individual circumstances which exacerbated the impact the issues had on him. In the resident’s contact with this Service on 3 July 2023 he expressed concern that the landlord had not considered his rights as a disabled person.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Previous determination

Following a previous determination under case reference 202233437 the landlord confirmed that during March 2024 it carried out staff training on the new complaint handling code and its new complaint policy. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make a further order in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal lift.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about a staff member.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a fault on the fire panel.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
  2. Confirm how the resident should raise an alert in the event of an emergency in the lift including a lift entrapment.
2. Pay the resident £450 compensation comprised of:
  1. £150 for the distress caused by the failures in its response to the resident’s complaint about the communal lift.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its response to the resident’s complaint about a staff member.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its response to a fault on the fire panel.
  4. £150 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has offered if this has already been paid.
3. Contact the resident to agree a formal plan of action setting out how it will support the resident in the event of future lift failures. The plan should be confirmed in writing and a copy provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out a review of the failures identified in this report. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.