Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202339615)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339615

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 September 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 length of time taken for the landlord to complete plastering works within the resident’s property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy and moved into the property on 19 March 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident has disclosed a number of vulnerabilities.
  2. On 25 October 2021, the resident reported that a “chunk” of the wall had come down in the living room. Further repairs were logged on 8 December 2021 for uneven plastering, a number of woodworks including skirting, and the kitchen and bathroom lights not working correctly. On 8 December 2021, the resident reported that her bathroom and kitchen lights were not working properly, and these were repaired on 16 December 2021.
  3. On 26 April 2022, the resident reported that her pendant light was not on properly, and 2 light switches were not working. The work was originally scheduled for 4 May 2022, however, was completed on 11 May 2022 when the pendant was replaced. Notes indicate that the switches were affected by filler which had been added by the resident.
  4. The landlord’s records show that a post works inspection was raised on 16 June 2022 following a complaint from the resident. On the same day works were raised for “minor patch plastering.” The inspection was originally booked for 17 June 2022 however at the resident’s request the appointment was moved to 24 June 2022. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the inspection, however on 30 August 2022 a job was raised to rub down raised filler from previous repairs and install timber to enable the resident to fit blinds. It is not clear which areas in the property this work order was for. The resident logged another request on 18 October 2022 for timber battens to be installed above 2 windows so that she could fit blinds.
  5. Internal emails from 4 November 2022 indicate that the resident made a complaint on 18 October 2022. The complaint was about the delays with replastering on 3 walls which was meant to be completed on 17 October 2022. The operative had advised the resident that he required additional materials and more time to finish the job. She was unhappy that the next scheduled date for the works was 30 November 2022 and requested compensation. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any contemporaneous notes to indicate what materials were required, or how much time the works were scheduled to take.
  6. The landlord’s repair log shows that a job was raised on 4 November 2022 for “plastering basic” and it was closed on 29 November 2022 as complete. There were no notes from site on the log so it is not clear to the Ombudsman what occurred at that visit. On 14 December 2022 internal emails provided by the landlord state that the resident refused the plastering works. There is no mention of the resident refusing access on the repair log. Records also state that repairs to the lights were scheduled for 16 December 2022, and battens had been fitted on 30 November 2022.
  7. The stage 1 complaint response was issued on 23 December 2022, and the landlord apologised for the delay in response. It stated that there had been a cyber incident which had affected operations. In its response the landlord confirmed that the resident was unhappy that repairs were outstanding, and she felt the landlord had failed to act. The landlord stated that its operative had advised that the resident refused access for the ceiling plastering and then was unable to make contact with her. It confirmed that the battens had been installed to enable her to fit blinds, and it offered £50 compensation for the delay in complaint handling.
  8. The resident responded on 12 January 2023 to request escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. In the response she stated:
    1. She had not refused works, the operative had informed her that the ceiling was not repairable and if work was completed it would look worse. She was also informed that she would then be responsible for cleaning the carpet.
    2. She was informed that she would need to sand the ceiling herself and the landlord would not do any painting or cleaning.
    3. She was irritated to hear that the repairs would not be done as she had repainted her house.
    4. She had complained about the issues with plastering when she moved into the property.
    5. She had been undertaking physiotherapy at home as her health had worsened and the situation was adding stress. She wanted the landlord to complete the works in full, clear her arrears of £165 and pay £100 compensation towards the painting which was still required. The cracks in her ceiling were worse and she was worried about her ceiling collapsing.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for escalation on 26 January 2023. It sent a separate email to the resident on 23 February 2023 to say that the stage 2 response would be issued by 9 March 2023, and apologised for the delay with the peer review. On 24 February 2023, the complaint was peer reviewed, and this review stated:
    1. An appointment had been booked for 14 March 2023 for all works to be completed.
    2. The new appointment was outside its service level agreement however due to demand this was the earliest appointment. It had compensated for this delay in the stage 1 complaint response.
    3. The purpose of the follow up visit was to rub down and prepare the surfaces ready for tenant decoration and not to decorate to a finished standard.
    4. The resident had disputed that she had refused access.
    5. The best way to resolve the matter would be to arrange for a supervisor to attend with the next operative and ensure works were completed.
    6. Additional compensation was not warranted.
    7. Job notes stated that the appointment in October 2022 was attended but operatives ran out of time and materials. At the follow up appointment in November 2022, the resident refused access.
    8. It reattended in December 2022 and had a further appointment booked in on 14 March 2023.
    9. The resident did not meet the criteria for additional compensation as the job notes stated that she had refused access. It awarded an additional £50 compensation for complaint handling failures.
  10. On 14 March 2023 job notes state that the plastering and filling works were completed and blind battens were installed. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repair requests.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Since this complaint was made, the resident has submitted a legal disrepair claim regarding a roof leak in the bedrooms and hallway which caused damp on the internal walls and damage to internal plastering. This leak took place in October 2023, after the complaints procedure was completed for the substantive issue. This investigation therefore looks at the landlord’s handling to the earlier plastering works and has not considered the matters relating to the disrepair claim.

Handling of plastering works

  1. According to the resident’s tenancy terms, the responsibility for plastering was the landlord’s. Any internal decoration or “minor defects” were the responsibility of the resident. The resident reported that in the course of initial decoration following her move into the property, mould was present under the current wall covering, and plaster was coming away. The resident was right to report this to the landlord, as it had the responsibility for the plaster works. It was positive that the landlord took the decision to install battens in the property following the resident’s request, to enable her to fit blinds. Under the terms of the tenancy it was not required to do so as blinds, curtains and other window coverings would be the resident’s responsibility given that they are furnishings which do not form part of the property itself.
  2. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a repairs log for the property. While this document does show some information about reports made by the resident, the quality of notes from site by the operatives was inconsistent. It has been difficult for the Ombudsman to accurately interpret what work was done on all visits and in which areas. Since the date of this complaint, the landlord has advised this Service that it has assessed its record keeping in line with the Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management,” which stresses the importance of good record keeping. For this reason, no orders or recommendations will be made in this report regarding record keeping.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord and resident have different views on what occurred on 29 November 2022 when an operative attended the property. The resident states that the operative told her he needed more time and materials, and the landlord states the resident refused to allow the works to be completed. The repair records provided to the Ombudsman did not contain clear notes for this visit, and in fact the notes are insufficient on several job entries.
  4. We have also not been provided with any information about what caused the subsequent delays in attendance, such as what materials were required or how much additional time was required to complete the work. For this reason, this Service is unable to reach a reasonable conclusion regarding what occurred on this date or whether the delays were reasonable. However, in our opinion the landlord’s proposal in the stage 2 complaint of sending an additional member of staff on the next visit to the property was reasonable.
  5. The first report of plaster requiring renewal was made on 25 October 2021, with further reports made in December 2021 and August 2022. All plastering works were completed to the resident’s satisfaction on 14 March 2023. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs should be completed as soon as possible and should be within 28 days. During 2021 some COVID-19 restrictions remained which may have extended some timescales, particularly for work not classed as an emergency, however, it was over 16 months between the first report and final repair.
  6. For the reasons above the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replastering. The landlord’s records relating to each attendance were not sufficiently detailed, and there is no clear record of the reasons for the delays. The dispute between the landlord and resident regarding the failed attendance may not have occurred, if the landlord’s records contained a clear account of what happened during the appointment. Additionally, the landlord has not offered any compensation for the delays with these works, despite the policy response time for non-urgent works being missed considerably.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 20 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. It directs residents to the Ombudsman should they be dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint. Between the resident’s complaint and the stage 1 response, there were 36 working days. This is almost double the response time given in the landlord’s policy, and 26 working days over the timescale set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. At stage 2, the response was issued 42 days after the resident’s request for escalation.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was introduced in 2022 and sets out best practice for landlord’s complaint handling procedures. Under the Code, landlord must provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. At the time of the complaint, following the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was not a statutory requirement for landlords. At the time of this report, it is a mandatory requirement that landlords follow the Code and the landlord has made this Service aware that its new policy adheres to this. We will therefore make no additional recommendations relating to complaint handling timescales in this report.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord offered compensation of £50 for complaint handling delays. When this was referred to in the stage 2 response it was stated as being compensation for delays in attending the property to complete works. The internal notes for the peer review also refer to the compensation as being awarded to account for delays in attendance and this was the basis for not compensating any further. In total, £100 was awarded as compensation throughout the complaints process. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this did not reflect the level of inconvenience for the resident, and did not account for the incorrect information regarding the compensation in the stage 2 response. An order will be made at the end of this report for compensation to be paid to the resident.
  4. In the peer review notes, the landlord indicates that it had seen notes from an operative that the resident refused to allow the plastering works to be completed. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to support this, and the repair log contains no notes from site, and no indication what works remained outstanding.
  5. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. While its complaint responses were appropriately formatted and contained an accurate interpretation of the peer review, incorrect information regarding compensation offered at stage 1 was considered when determining whether to award additional compensation. It is also unclear where the landlord got the information regarding the disputed attendance, and this had an impact on its overall decision not to uphold the complaint. The timescale given in the landlord’s complaint policy for a stage 1 response was missed considerably, and stage 2 was missed albeit by a number of days. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of compensation offered at stage 1 did not reflect the level of failure in its complaint handling at stage 1, and the delays experienced by the resident in completing the repairs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the plastering works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £550, consisting as follows:
      1. The sum of £400 in relation to its handling of the plastering works, and the delays the resident experienced.
      2. The sum of £150 in relation to its complaint handling. If the previous compensation offer of £100 has already been paid to the resident, this should be deducted from this amount.