Clarion Housing Association Limited (202314967)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314967

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her washing machine.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which started on 9 December 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. Whilst there are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the housing records, she told the landlord she suffered from depression and anxiety.
The resident told the landlord on 9 December 2022 that repairs needed to be completed in the property before she could move in. She said there was a hole in the bedroom floor, cracks in the bathroom ceiling and the kitchen units were in a poor condition. She also noted the vinyl flooring in the kitchen and bathroom had lifted.
The landlord inspected the property on 20 December 2022 and raised repairs. This included replacing kitchen unit doors, tiling around the cooker space, replacing a window latch in the living room, degreasing all plugs and switches, cleaning the toilet and replacing a floorboard in the bedroom.
The resident told the landlord on 13 January 2023 that no work had been done and she was unable to move into the property. She said she was paying rent on 2 properties and could not afford to do this. The resident also noted that the contractor who collected the keys did not have a full list of the outstanding work. She asked the landlord to approve the items that were missed off the schedule to avoid any further delays.
The resident told the landlord on 18 March 2023 that her washing machine had been damaged whilst being moved by the landlord’s flooring contractor.
The resident moved into the property in April 2023. She made a complaint on 9 April 2023. She said the property was not habitable when she signed the tenancy agreement and she was pressured into moving in. She also noted it took the landlord several months to complete the work and she had to pay rent and utility bills for 2 properties. She asked for her rent to be refunded and to be compensated for the damages, financial losses and the stress she suffered.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 May 2023 and said:
1. It was unaware there was a leak in the property whilst it was empty and this resulted in damage to the flat
2. The resident raised no concerns about the condition of the property when she signed the tenancy agreement and she was not pressured to move into the flat
3. It inspected the property on 20 December 2022 and arranged for its contractor to carry out the identified works
4. It dismissed its contractor for failing to carry out the identified work and took over responsibility for completing the repairs
5. A number of repairs were completed in February 2023. This included replacing 5 kitchen unit doors, repairing cracks in the kitchen ceiling, tiling work around the cooker space and replacing a floorboard in the bedroom. These repairs were mainly cosmetic and the property was in a habitable condition
6. Additional repairs were completed between March 2023 and May 2023. This included sealing around a window, securing electrical sockets and replacing the shelf in the kitchen
7. The resident would need to make a claim on her home contents insurance for the damage caused to her washing machine
8. Whilst it maintained regular contact with the resident once it took over responsibility for completing the identified works, she was passed between teams and no one took overall ownership
9. It offered the resident £2,837.08 compensation for the failure to follow its processes and because the resident had to chase matters up. It offered £2,637.08 because the property was uninhabitable, £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £50 because it failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within publish timescales
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 23 May 2023. She said the property was not habitable when she signed the tenancy agreement and she was pressured into moving into the property. The resident also noted she faced financial hardship and additional cost whilst waiting to move in.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 14 July 2023 and said:
1. The property did not meet the landlord’s void standard and it had reimbursed the resident’s rent for the period between 9 December 2022 and 3 April 2023. This totalled £2,637.08 and was credited to the resident’s rent account on 11 June 2023
2. It had taken appropriate action to put things right for the resident, including carrying out additional work
3. Whilst the offer of £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience was made in accordance with its compensation policy, it would increase this offer by £350 to £500

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In considering the landlord’s response to the issues raised by the resident, it is noted that she has referred to a possible impact upon her mental health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let

In the absence of a full copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement, this Service has determined this aspect of the resident’s complaint in the context of section 11 of the Housing Act, 1985. This places a duty on the landlord to repair and maintain the structure of the building.
The landlord’s void standard sets out the minimum standard an empty property must meet before being let to a new resident. This includes ensuring that:
1. The kitchen is left in a clean and sound condition
2. Kitchen units are fully operational. Damaged worktops and units are replaced
3. Windows fully open and close. Window furniture is operational
4. Damaged or missing floorboards are replaced
5. Existing nonslip floor coverings are sound and in a clean condition
6. All sanitary ware is clean and free from stains
7. All surfaces, electrical accessories, windows cills are clean and left free from dirt, grime, grease or building work residues
Properties are inspected when they become empty, and a schedule of works identified to ensure they meet the landlord’s void standard. Post inspections are carried out by the landlord’s contractor once the identified works are completed. The landlord also carries out checks if it receives complaints from new residents.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer an apology and compensation when it gets things wrong. This includes situations where residents experience unnecessary inconvenience or out of pocket expenses. Compensation is not offered for loss of earnings. Where compensation is paid, this is offset against any rent arrears on the resident’s rent account.
Compensation awards between £250 and £700 can be made in cases where considerable failings are identified but where there has been no permanent impact on a resident.
The property was inspected on 2 February 2022 and a schedule of works identified to ensure it met the landlord’s void standard. This was consistent with the landlord’s void standard. There is, however, no evidence a post inspection was completed when the property became ready to let on 3 March 2022. This was a failure and meant the landlord did not confirm the property met its void standard.
It is unclear from the housing records when the resident viewed the property or whether she raised any concerns at this point about the condition of the flat. She signed the tenancy agreement on 8 December 2022 and told the landlord on the following day that the property was in a poor condition. She said there were cracks in the bathroom ceiling and plaster in the living room had fallen off the wall. She also noted the kitchen units were in a poor condition, the vinyl flooring in the bathroom and kitchen had lifted and a floorboard in the bedroom was broken.
The landlord requested the property was inspected on 12 December 2022. This was consistent with the landlord’s void standard and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. There is, however, no evidence the request was actioned. This was a failure and led to the resident having to chase the landlord up on 15 December 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 December 2022 and agreed to visit the property on 19 December 2022. Whilst this was consistent with the landlord’s void standard, it is unclear from the housing records whether the landlord attended on this date. The resident said the inspection did not take place as the surveyor forgot about the appointment. A further appointment was made for the following day.
An inspection was completed on 20 December 2022 and a number of repairs were identified and passed to the landlord’s contractor. This included replacing 5 kitchen unit cupboard doors, tiling around the cooker space, replacing a window latch in the living room, degreasing all plugs and switches, cleaning the toilet and replacing a floorboard in the bedroom.
Whilst this was reasonable in the circumstances, there is no evidence a timescale was agreed with the contractor for completing the works, or that the resident was told when the works would be done. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord and meant the resident was unclear when she could move into the flat.
The resident told the landlord on 13 January 2023 that no work had been completed, and she was still unable to move into the flat. She said she was paying rent on 2 properties and noted the list of works given to the contractor did not include all the identified repairs that had been previously agreed. She asked the landlord to approve the items that were missed off the schedule to avoid any further delays. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request or provided her with an update on when the works would be completed.
The resident told her local councillor and the landlord on 25 January 2023 that she was still waiting for the work to be done, and she had received no update. She also noted that she had incurred extra cost having to rearrange appointments for moving and fitting carpets. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a failure and meant she was unclear what steps were being taken by the landlord or whether it would refund her the cost she had incurred.
The resident told the landlord on 14 February 2023 that she had visited the property on the previous day after being advised by the contractor that all of the work had been completed. She noted this was not the case and asked the landlord to confirm what action could be taken. The landlord agreed to terminate its contract with the repair provider and carry out the outstanding work itself. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
The landlord confirmed on 26 February 2023 that all the works had been completed. It also agreed to fit new vinyl flooring in the kitchen and a new door in the bathroom. It noted that the additional work would not prevent the resident from moving in.
The resident raised a complaint on 9 April 2023. She said the property was not habitable when she signed the tenancy agreement and she was pressurised into moving in. She also noted it took the landlord several months to complete the work and she had to take unpaid leave for appointments that were missed. Moreover, the resident noted she had to pay rent and utility bills for 2 properties. She asked for her rent to be refunded and to be compensated for the damages, financial losses and the stress she suffered.
The landlord confirmed on 16 May 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that it did not put the resident under any pressure to move into the property and no concerns were raised by her about the condition of the flat when she signed the tenancy agreement. It said it took over responsibility for carrying out the repairs after being let down by its contractor. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. It also noted the work was mainly cosmetic and was completed at the end of February 2023.
The landlord offered the resident £2,637 compensation for the period the property was uninhabitable and £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It said it would offset the compensation against any arrears that were on the resident’s rent account. This was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord did not, however, address the resident’s request to be compensated for the cost she had incurred whilst waiting to move in. This was not consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed it would not provide compensation for the resident’s loss of earnings. This would have provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 23 May 2023. She told the landlord on 26 May 2023 that she was pressurised into moving in and told to contact the voids team regarding her concerns about the condition of the property. The resident also noted she was not able to move into the property until April 2023 because she had to wait for work to be completed in the kitchen. She asked the landlord to clear the rent arrears on her rent account and increase its offer of compensation to £1,000.
The landlord confirmed on 14 July 2023 in its final complaint response that the property did not meet its void standard and that whilst it was habitable from February 2023 onwards, further works were required to the kitchen. The landlord confirmed that the rent rebate covered the period from 9 December 2022 to 3 April 2023. This provided clarity and was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord also confirmed the funds were credited to the resident’s rent account on 11 June 2023.
The landlord increased its offer of compensation from £150 to £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This increased offer was fair in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident. In addition, the offer was consistent with our guidance on remedies where there has been an adverse impact on a resident.
In summary, the landlord failed to ensure the property met its void standard and there were delays in carrying out the work. The landlord did, however, take learning from the complaint and arranged for the outstanding work to be completed by its own staff. The landlord also cleared the rent arrears on the rent account and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her washing machine

It is not this Service’s role to determine liability for the damaged caused to the resident’s washing machine, as this would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay compensation if the problem that occurred was the result of its actions or those of its contractors. Residents are expected to make a claim under their own insurance policy for any damages that they cause to their possessions.
The resident told the landlord on 18 March 2023 that her washing machine had been damaged whilst being moved by the landlord’s flooring contractor. She said she was told 2 people would move the washing machine but only 1 attended and as a result it was scratched and dented. The resident said she wanted compensating for the damage caused. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear if she would be compensated for the damage caused.
Whilst the landlord told the resident on 16 May 2023 in its stage 1 complaint response that she was made aware at the time that she was responsible for moving the washing machine prior to the new flooring being laid, no evidence was provided to this Service confirming this to be the case. It also said the contractor agreed to move the washing machine and told the resident it would not be liable for any damages that occurred but again provided no evidence. This demonstrates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
The landlord advised the resident to make a claim against her home contents insurance policy. This was not consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with details of its liability insurers. Whilst there was no guarantee her claim would have been successful, it would have been appropriate to give the resident the option.
Whilst the landlord increased its overall offer of compensation on 14 July 2023 in its final complaint response, it did not specifically address the resident’s complaint about the damage to her washing machine. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this and provided details of its liability insurers.
In summary, the landlord initially failed to respond to the resident’s request and provided no evidence to this Service confirming the conversation with the resident regarding moving the washing machine. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with details of its liability insurers. The situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her washing machine.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Following a cyber-attack in June 2022, the landlord operated an interim complaints policy which was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s interim complaints policy comprised of 2 stages. Complaints were acknowledged within 10 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 20 working days. The landlord responded to escalations at stage 2 within 40 working days.
The timescales in the interim policy for acknowledging complaints and responding to them were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time. However, the Ombudsman had accepted that the cyber-attack had affected the landlord’s ability to meet the timescales within the Code and that its interim policy was reasonable at the time.
The landlord has since reverted to a complaints policy that complies with the response timescales within the Code.
The resident made a complaint on 9 April 2023. The complaint was not acknowledged by the landlord. This was not consistent with the landlord’s interim complaints policy and meant the resident was unclear when she could expect to receive a reply.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 April 2023, which was 5 working days later. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding. There is no evidence it was obliged to offer this. The landlord’s actions were fair in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. The landlord also took learning from the complaint. This was in accordance with the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 May 2023. The complaint was acknowledged on 26 May 2023 in accordance with the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 14 July 2023, which was 34 working days later. This was in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
In summary, the landlord’s actions were in the main consistent with its interim complaints policy. It responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in the interim complaints policy and took learning from the complaint. The offer of £50 compensation was fair in the circumstances. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when let.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her washing machine.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with details of its insurance provider so that she can make a claim, should she wish to.