Clarion Housing Association Limited (202345917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345917

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports regarding various repair issues at her property.
2. Complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 23 August 2023. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a three-bedroom house with a driveway and garden. The resident moved into the property as part of a permanent decant due to repair issues with her previous property (which were the subject of a previous investigation by this service in May 2024, reference number 202232717). The landlord is aware of vulnerabilities in the household, including the resident’s partner’s mobility disability and her child’s learning needs.
Upon moving into the property, the resident raised concerns about the use of her driveway. Her neighbour’s driveway intersected with hers, and her neighbour’s car was parked in such a way that it made access difficult. She requested that the landlord clarify where the boundary was. The landlord confirmed on 21 August 2023 that it had passed the query to its boundary team, who would keep her updated.
Also in August 2023, the resident raised concerns about the state of repair of the external doors to the property. She also noted that gravel had been added in the garden, which she advised was a safety issue given her partner’s mobility issues. She further reported that the bathroom extractor fan was not functioning correctly and raised concerns about damp in the property.
She made further repair reports in September 2023 relating to her cooker, a damp carpet, and the safety chain on the door. She also advised that she considered the path in the garden to be unsafe for her children given their vulnerabilities. The landlord provided an automated response noting the concerns had been raised with the relevant team.
The resident chased updates frequently throughout October and November 2023. The only responses she received were generic acknowledgements which stated that her concerns had been raised with the relevant team.
On 12 November 2023, the resident noted there had been a discussion about arranging an Occupational Therapist’s (OT) report to assess the property, but that there had been no further updates. She also requested an update about her chimney, which had recently been inspected.
The landlord replied on 13 November 2023. It noted that the resident had also raised concerns about her fence and gate but advised it had postponed these works until an OT assessment was completed. It advised it could progress these works now if she wished. It did not provide any further advice relating to the OT report. Regarding her other reports, it advised its repair team was in the process of approving works to her doors and roof. It also advised that an inspection of her shed and windows would take place on 22 November 2023.
The resident continued to chase updates about all her concerns, including the lack of an OT report, without any response. She also reported on 4 December 2023 that she was experiencing issues with her electrics tripping. Once again, she only received generic responses that the relevant team would contact her, but it is not evident this occurred.
On 15 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint. It provided its stage one response on 12 January 2024, which included the following:
1. It acknowledged there had been delays to its repair response and also to its stage one complaint response.
2. It noted a list of 15 repair issues that the resident had reported, including the extractor fan, doors, electrics, gravel in the garden, and the outstanding OT inspection.
3. Regarding the shed roof, which was leaking, it advised that works had been raised for December 2023.
4. Regarding the electrics tripping, it advised it considered this was due to a socket being overloaded.
5. Regarding the extractor fan, it advised that an overhaul had been booked for 8 February 2024. It advised that during this visit, it would also assess the property for any other outstanding issues and raise works accordingly.
6. Regarding the gravel in the garden, it advised this had been added as the existing paving slabs were considered a safety issue. It did not address whether it considered the gravel to also be a safety issue.
7. It acknowledged that the resident’s housing officer had recently changed but that it had not kept the resident informed. This had resulted in poor communication.
8. It advised it would source an OT and arrange an inspection of the entire property. It offered £150 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in arranging this.
9. It also acknowledged that it had unreasonably delayed in repairing her fence, for which it offered £200. In total, it offered £350 at stage one.
In January 2024, the resident chased the promised repairs. She noted she had spoken with the landlord’s contractor, who had advised they had no knowledge of the works. The landlord sought to arrange a time for the shed and fence works on 17 January 2024; however, the resident advised she was not available at the proposed time. It is not evident that the landlord arranged a new time, which led the resident to chase further updates throughout February 2024.
On 19 February 2024, the landlord confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to stage two and that it would provide its stage two response by 22 February 2024. It also confirmed works to replace her extractor fan on 27 February 2024 and to inspect the shed in the first week of March 2024.
On 8 March 2024, the landlord noted its stage two response had been delayed. It subsequently provided its stage two response on 12 March 2024, which included the following:
1. In addition to the repair issues reported, the landlord noted the resident’s concerns that the boundary issues with parking weren’t addressed at stage one and that the resident had concerns her family’s vulnerabilities hadn’t been considered.
2. It also noted that the OT report remained outstanding.
3. It acknowledged that it had failed to respond to some communications; however, it noted that the resident was sending up to 15 emails a day to different members of staff, which had been difficult to manage.
4. Regarding the boundary query, it provided a copy of the land registry plans which depicted where each property’s driveway lay. It acknowledged it had failed to provide its promised update in relation to this earlier and offered £50 in recognition of this failing.
5. It provided several pages of updates relating to each repair issue, including the outcomes of its most recent inspections and when further works had been booked for.
6. Regarding the extractor fan, it noted it had promised its surveyor would attend during this visit to inspect the property, which hadn’t happened. It offered £115 for the distress and inconvenience this had caused.
7. Regarding the gravel in the garden, it provided its position that this was suitable and in accordance with its voids standards. It noted the resident had the option to make changes to the garden should she wish.
8. Regarding the OT inspection, it advised that it was still “actively chasing an update regarding this point and will endeavour to contact you directly to advise you on the next steps.”
9. It disputed that it had not taken her family’s vulnerabilities into consideration when delivering its service and apologised that this had been her experience.
10. Finally, it reiterated its offer of compensation from stage one and offered £50 for the delay to its stage two response. In total, it offered £565.
It is evident that works subsequently occurred to repair the shed roof; however, in April 2024, the resident reported that the roof was still leaking. The resident also noted that, despite its recent claims that the extractor fan had been replaced, the landlord’s contractor had still not completed the works. She noted it had initially committed to do so in September 2023, and that she was considerably frustrated it remained outstanding. There were also still no updates regarding the OT inspection.
Throughout May 2024, the resident continued to chase updates on an almost daily basis about outstanding works. She also reported further concerns about possible damp in her kitchen and about possible structural issues due to a crack in an external wall.
On 31 May 2024, the landlord advised that as the shed roof had been replaced, it did not consider further works were necessary. The resident expressed her frustration at this response as she had provided photographic evidence that the leak was ongoing. The landlord subsequently acknowledged that her concerns had been logged as a formal complaint on 3 June 2024.
Following an inspection in June 2024, the landlord advised on 17 June 2024 that the damp marks in her kitchen were historic stains. It advised that it had taken moisture readings which did not indicate any damp. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this response as it had not addressed the cracks in the external wall, which she considered were letting in water.
On 28 June 2024, the resident noted that she had commissioned her own damp report. She advised that this report indicated that there was damp in the kitchen. It is not evident that she provided the landlord with a copy of the full report.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates throughout July 2024 and noted no action had been taken with the shed and that the landlord had failed to provide a position on her damp report. She also noted she was yet to receive a further formal complaint response.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord provided the resident with a new stage one response on 19 August 2024; however, this service has not received a copy of this response. Based on the context from surrounding communications, it is evident the landlord investigated the ongoing delays to various repairs and acknowledged there had been some unreasonable delays, for which it offered £283. It also arranged further inspections.
The resident escalated the complaint on the same day, and the landlord provided a stage two response on 17 September 2024, which included the following:
1. The response related to the ongoing repair issues, including damp and mould and the outstanding OT inspection. It noted the issues overlapped with those addressed in its previous complaint responses.
2. It reiterated that it considered it difficult to respond to the resident’s communication given the high volume.
3. Regarding damp and mould, it noted it had reinspected the brickwork in July 2024 and concluded that the issues visible were cosmetic in nature. It noted that it had not received a copy of the resident’s report and so was satisfied with the findings of its own surveyor that no further works were necessary.
4. Regarding the shed, it advised that its surveyor would contact her to discuss further inspections.
5. It also noted that works to the resident’s extractor fan and doors were still outstanding and that an appointment had been booked for 28 October 2024.
6. It concluded that it had made reasonable efforts to address the resident’s concerns since its stage one response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her and her family’s health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her or her family’s health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a vulnerable residents policy. The policy notes that it will take into account vulnerabilities in the provision of services.
The landlord operates an aids and adaptations policy. The policy notes that it will carry out adaptations when supported by an OT assessment.
The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy notes that it will aim to address non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The landlord operates a two–stage complaints policy. Its policy noted it would address a stage one complaint within 10 working days and a stage two response within 20 working days.

Repairs

Throughout the period of the complaint, there were at least 20 different repair issues. It is not necessary for the purposes of this investigation to set out the landlord’s actions in relation to each of these, as there were common failings identified in its overall approach. That said, there were several specific issues which warrant a more detailed analysis.
In her earliest communications with the landlord during this complaint period, the resident made enquiries regarding the boundaries of her property, as she was experiencing difficulties with her neighbour’s parking. In this case, the resident’s partner was impacted by mobility issues, which the landlord was aware of. As such, efficient access to the property would have been of particular concern. Where a resident makes such an enquiry, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide a response within a reasonable timeframe, which would depend upon the circumstances.
The landlord initially acknowledged the resident’s query on 21 August 2023 and advised that the query had been passed to the relevant team. Had the landlord followed this query up within a reasonable timeframe, this acknowledgement would have been appropriate. However, in the circumstances, it resulted in her raised expectations, only to subsequently add to her frustration when it became evident there would be no further updates. It has been a theme throughout the period of this complaint that the landlord quickly acknowledged communications, only to fail to follow them up. As a result, the resident quickly became mistrusting of any acknowledgements, and the landlord’s repeated failures to follow up on communication requests significantly eroded the landlord/tenant relationship.
The landlord failed to adequately address the boundary issue in its stage one response, which caused the resident to expend time and trouble chasing the issue at stage two. On this occasion, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its delay in providing relevant advice. It also appropriately provided information about the boundaries and offered £50 for its failing. However, given that this response came some eight months after the resident’s query, and it had missed opportunities to address the issue earlier, this offer was not proportionate to the impact caused to the resident.
In its formal responses, the landlord noted that the high volume of contact from the resident made it difficult to manage its service delivery. Based on the evidence provided to this service, there was a high volume of contact, including multiple communications a day, sent to multiple different staff members. In such circumstances, where a landlord has recognised the level of communication has impacted its service delivery, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take steps to control the situation. This may include contact restrictions or providing a single point of contact. It is not evident, however, that the landlord took any steps to manage the resident’s communications. Indeed, it continued to provide communication acknowledgements from its multiple departments, which continued to raise the resident’s expectations that she would receive responses.
Additionally, where there are as many repair reports as this complaint had, with a clear pattern of missed appointments, failed appointments, and missed communications over a considerable period, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider escalating its response to take ownership over the repairs. As with managing communication, this could have been achieved by a single point of contact taking ownership of the repairs and related arrangements. However, despite this service’s previous investigation report for complaint 202232717 identifying all the same issues, the landlord failed to change its approach.
One of the repairs that impacted the resident throughout the period of her complaint was her shed roof. It is evident that throughout the landlord’s response to this issue, there were instances of poor communication and missed appointments. Nevertheless, it is evident that the shed roof was ultimately replaced. While this was an appropriate potential solution to the issue, the resident subsequently reported that the issue continued. She also provided photographic evidence of the ongoing leak. Where a landlord receives such reports, it should conduct an appropriate investigation to satisfy itself that there is no repair responsibility. In this case, the landlord simply noted that the roof had been replaced and, therefore, no further works were required. It failed to consider the resident’s evidence of an ongoing leak. This caused her to expend time and trouble chasing this issue through to September 2024, at which point the landlord finally agreed to further inspections. It also identified that the leak could be coming through a raised section next to the shed, which it could have identified earlier had it carried out a reasonable inspection following the resident’s further reports.
This is just one example of many repair issues where a full and thorough investigation was not completed in line with the landlord’s policy. For example, the resident reported concerns with her doors in her original communication in August 2023. However, a resolution to this issue had still not been found as of its response in September 2024, over a year later. Similarly, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations of works to the resident’s extractor fan in August 2023. While some works were carried out, the resident repeatedly reported that the works had not been completed and there were several subsequent failed appointments. Once again, the landlord acknowledged that this had not been completed as of its response in September 2024. These and other issues caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience over the periods they remained incomplete without a reasonable explanation.
A further report made by the resident in August 2023 was that there were issues with damp in the property. It is not evident that the landlord addressed these, despite her repeating the concerns on multiple occasions and adding concerns about possible structural issues as a potential cause. It took until June 2024 for the landlord to complete an inspection of the property. At this time, the landlord did provide an appropriate level of detail about its inspection and its position that there were no damp issues. It failed, however, to address the concerns about structural issues at this time, which would have been frustrating for the resident. The resident subsequently advised that she had arranged her own damp inspection, which contradicted the landlord’s conclusions. In its stage two response from September 2024, the landlord advised that it had not been provided with the report and therefore relied upon its own inspection. However, it is not evident that it requested the report despite having been aware of it for two months. This again demonstrates a lack of urgency or intent to carry out a full and thorough investigation of the resident’s reports.
In addition to unreasonable delays in taking action, the resident has repeatedly reported incomplete works or rubbish left behind after works were completed. This points to further failings by the landlord to ensure works were satisfactorily followed up, which, given the history of the case, would have been appropriate in the circumstances. Its failure to do so has added to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
One of the most egregious failings in this case has been the landlord’s repeated failure to take action in relation to the required OT report. The landlord’s policy notes that for it to consider adaptations, it requires an OT report. Following the resident’s requests for adaptations in her garden, the landlord appropriately informed her of the need for such a report. It also appropriately provided its position that, in the absence of such a report making recommendations to the contrary, it considered the gravel in the garden to be appropriate.
In the Ombudsman’s experience, it is often the case that a landlord will direct a resident to their GP to obtain an OT report. However, in this case, the landlord did not provide any specific guidance, despite the resident’s repeated communications on the issue throughout late 2023. In its initial stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the impact of this delay and offered £150 compensation. It also committed to providing the resident with assistance in obtaining the report. This raised the resident’s expectations that it would take specific action; however, it did not provide any further updates or advice. It noted once again that the OT report had not been addressed in its stage two response from March 2024; however, once again, it failed to progress the matter, other than to advise it was “actively chasing an update.” It is disappointing to note that as of its stage two response from September 2024, the OT report still had not been finalised, despite over a year having passed. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, this amounts to a significant failing.
In summary, the Ombudsman recognises that there were multiple challenges for the landlord to overcome in addressing the resident’s complaints. These included the high level of the resident’s communication, the significant number of repairs, and the involvement of multiple departments. However, the landlord failed to take ownership of the repairs, resulting in consistently poor communication and a disorganised repairs response. It repeatedly failed to investigate her reports in line with its repairs policy and repeatedly failed to act on its promises for improved services. The failures identified in this response are reflective of those noted in this service’s previous investigation reference 202232717, namely that “there were unreasonable delays throughout the process,” the landlord’s “recordkeeping was inadequate,” and “the landlord did communicate effectively.”
Throughout its complaint responses, the landlord offered £1,138 in relation to the various delays it had identified and the resultant impact on the resident. While it was appropriate that it acknowledged some of its failings and it sought to provide redress, its offer was not reflective of the overall impact caused to the resident. Given the failings identified in this report, a finding of maladministration has been made. The Ombudsman notes that had the landlord not apologised and made some attempt to provide redress, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made.
This service’s remedies guidance notes that compensation from £600-£1,000 is appropriate for instances where there had been a significant physical/ emotional impact. Given the multiple delays across this complaint, an order for £1,000 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. A further order has been made for £1,000 compensation to reflect the landlord’s poor communication throughout the period of the complaint and the resident’s resultant time and effort chasing updates. This order replaces the landlord’s offer of £1,138.
In addition to compensation, given that it is evident that repair issues remain, the landlord is ordered to assign a single point of contact (SPOC) to take ownership over all outstanding repair issues. The SPOC is to ensure the following is addressed:
1. They are to request that the resident provide an itemised list of all outstanding repair issues.
2. They are to arrange a date for a surveyor to inspect the property within 6 weeks of the date of this report, or otherwise at the resident’s convenience. This inspection must pay particular attention to the itemised issues provided by the resident.
3. They are to commit to providing the resident with the landlord’s position on any identified repairs following this inspection.
4. They are to commit to any reasonable repairs identified and to oversee the repairs until their completion. They are further to commit to follow on inspections for all repairs.
5. They are to arrange a date for an OT to inspect the property within 6 weeks of the date of this report, or otherwise at the resident’s convenience. They are further to commit to all recommendations made by the OT report that fall under its aids and adaptations policy responsibilities.
A recommendation has also been made as follows:
1. Should the appointed SPOC become unavailable due to leaving the landlord’s employment, or for any other reason, the landlord must ensure that a comprehensive handover takes place and that the resident is kept informed throughout.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that a first-time enquiry will not be considered a complaint. However, an ongoing expression of dissatisfaction can be considered a complaint, even if the resident does not explicitly use the word ‘complaint’. This approach is in line with this service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident made repeated expressions of dissatisfaction. As the landlord noted, this was sometimes communicated numerous times a day and to multiple members of staff. However, the landlord did not open a formal complaint in response to these expressions of dissatisfaction, nor did it enquire with the resident whether she wanted a formal complaint logged. This was a missed opportunity to formally investigate her concerns at the earliest opportunity.
Once the landlord did log a formal complaint on 15 December 2023, it provided its stage one response on 12 January 2024. This was 18 working days after it had logged the complaint, which was outside of the timeframes in its policy. It appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its stage one response; however, it is not evident it considered or offered any redress.
Following her escalation request, the landlord committed to provide a stage two response by 22 February 2024. However, on 8 March 2024, it acknowledged it had missed this deadline and that its response would be delayed. The Code notes there will be instances where it can take additional time to investigate a complaint. However, in such instances, the landlord should provide an updated timeframe prior to the expiry of the existing timeframe. The landlord failed to do this in this instance, which would have caused the resident distress. In its stage two response, the landlord apologised for this delay and offered £50 compensation.
As noted above, following this stage two response, the resident continued to express concerns about outstanding repair issues, along with newer issues. Given the evolving nature of some of the repairs, it was appropriate that the landlord opened a new complaint. However, it communicated that it had acknowledged her complaints on 3 June 2024. It did not provide any further updates, which led the resident to have to expend time and trouble chasing its formal complaint response, which it did not provide until 19 August 2024. This was 55 working days after her complaint and significantly outside of its policy timeframes.
In summary, there were delays to the landlord’s original stage one response, delays to its stage two response, and significant delays to its second stage one response. While it acknowledged and apologised for some of these delays, and it offered £50 compensation, this offer was not fully reflective of the distress and inconvenience these delays caused to the resident. In the circumstances, a finding of service failure has been made, as has an order for £150 compensation, being £50 for each instance of delay. This order replaces the landlord’s original order of £50.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports regarding various repair issues at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £2,150, comprising:
1. £2,000 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the failings identified with the landlord’s repair response;
2. £150 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £1,188. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within six weeks of the date of this determination.
Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to assign a SPOC to take ownership over all outstanding repair issues. The SPOC is to ensure the following is addressed:
1. They are to request that the resident provide an itemised list of all outstanding repair issues.
2. They are to arrange a date for a surveyor to inspect the property within 6 weeks of the date of this report, or otherwise at the resident’s convenience. This inspection must pay particular attention to the itemised issues provided by the resident.
3. They are to commit to providing the resident with the landlord’s position on any identified repairs following this inspection.
4. They are to commit to any reasonable repairs identified and to oversee the repairs until their completion. They are further to commit to follow on inspections for all repairs.
5. They are to arrange a date for an OT to inspect the property within 6 weeks of the date of this report, or otherwise at the resident’s convenience. They are further to commit to all recommendations made by the OT report that fall under its aids and adaptations policy responsibilities.

Recommendations

Should the appointed SPOC become unavailable due to leaving the landlord’s employment, or for any other reason, the landlord must ensure that a comprehensive handover takes place and that the resident is kept informed throughout.