Clarion Housing Association Limited (202410369)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410369

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 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 handling of the:
1. adaptations to the resident’s current property;
2. repairs to the footpath and driveway at the resident’s current property;
3. resident’s request for her fence repair costs to be refunded;
4. adaptation and extension of the resident’s new property;
5. resident’s reports of window repairs and mould issues at her current property;
6. resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident’s assured tenancy from the landlord began in 2016. The property is a 4–bedroom house where she lives with her child. The resident and her child both have a range of health issues and disabilities. The landlord had been exploring adaptations to her current property or a move to a bungalow with NHS occupational therapists (OT) since 2018.
In May 2023, the landlord offered the resident a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident said that she would not accept the bungalow unless it was extended, as her child’s health issues meant that they needed 3 bedrooms. The OT told the landlord that an extra room was desirable but not essential. The landlord told the resident that it would explore the practicality of an extension but that this would take time. It provided her updates over the following 3 months.
From January to June 2023, the resident reported leak, condensation, and mould issues with her windows to the landlord, which she said had been a problem for a long time. The landlord attended repairs at her property through this period. On 19 September 2023, the resident made her complaint to the landlord. She said that it had not refunded her the £1,800 that she had spent on her fence. She highlighted ongoing issues with her windows, and that she still had outstanding repairs to her driveway and path. A few days later, she expressed her unhappiness with the bungalow that she had been offered and the landlord’s handling of the matter.
Over the following 3 months, the landlord provided the resident with updates regarding her proposed move. It inspected the resident’s windows and carried out a mould wash. It asked her to provide evidence of her fence costs. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. On 5 January 2024, it issued her its stage 1 complaint response. The key points were:
1. It summarised the actions it had taken regarding her windows, which it had assessed as performing as intended.
2. It highlighted that the resident had declined to move into the bungalow with the OT recommendations while it considered the practicality of an extension. It explained the complexity of its considerations, which it said could take several more months, but committed to update her monthly.
3. It said that the resident had not responded to its request for evidence of her fence costs, but committed to review the matter once she provided this.
4. It apologised for its delayed complaint response. It offered her £100 compensation for this.
The resident expressed her unhappiness to the landlord with its stage 1 response the same day that she received it. On 21 February 2024, we asked the landlord to provide us information for the resident’s previous adaptations and footpath and driveway repairs case, and the landlord arranged a further inspection of her windows. On 2 April 2024, the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response. It said that, as the Ombudsman was now investigating the matters related to her complaint, it would not be appropriate to comment further until that was complete. It confirmed that she had concluded its process.
During May and June 2024, the landlord complied with the Ombudsman’s adaptations and footpath and driveway repair-related orders of our previous determination of these issues. Over the remainder of the year, it updated the resident regarding its extension proposals for her new property. She signed her new property’s tenancy agreement, and current property’s license, in November 2024. In January 2025, it told the resident that it hoped her new property would be completed by late spring 2025.
The resident highlighted to us the distress caused to her by the continued delay of her new property adaptations and extension. She asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of that and the other matters raised in her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. Paragraph 42. of the Scheme outlines complaint matters which the Ombudsman may not consider.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the resident’s current property.
2. the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the footpath and driveway at the resident’s current property.
Paragraph 42.l. states that the Ombudsman may not consider issues which in our opinion “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
The resident had brought two previous complaints to us that included the landlord’s handling of adaptations to her current property. We determined her most recent complaint (202208953) on 30 April 2024. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to write to the resident to set out its position and proposals regarding the adaptations. The landlord complied with the order on 21 May 2024. It confirmed that it was not progressing the adaptations to her current property, as the resident had been offered another property that she wished to move to. This had been the case since before the resident’s September 2023 complaint, which is the focus of this investigation.
The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of the footpath and driveway repairs at her current property were also considered in our previous determination on 30 April 2024. The landlord had attended to undertake the repairs in May 2023, but the resident declined the works, as she disagreed with the materials that it intended to use. The Ombudsman determined that the landlord had appropriately explained to the resident that the issues did not present a trip hazard, had followed expert advice on how to deal with the repair, and had fulfilled its obligations by attempting to complete it. We found maladministration in its associated communications.
The Ombudsman’s previous determination ordered the landlord to meet with the resident to discuss her adaptations, which it complied with in June 2024. The resident agreed at that meeting that the landlord could proceed with her footpath and driveway repairs. The works were undertaken from August 2024.
As both issues have been previously assessed, they cannot be considered within this determination. Therefore, the Ombudsman rules these elements of the complaint outside of our jurisdiction, in line with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme.

Scope of investigation

The resident asked the landlord to refund her £1,800 that she said that she had spent renewing her fence (the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fence repairs was considered by the Ombudsman in her previous case 202208953). When the resident brought her complaint to us, she was advised that paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
We further advised her that “this Service cannot determine whether the landlord reimburses you for the fence repair costs, and such claims may be better suited via other avenues, such as independent legal action or a claim via their own or the landlord’s insurer”. We also advised this to the landlord. As such, this investigation will not determine whether the landlord should refund the resident’s fence costs but will assess the landlord’s handling of her request.

Fence repair costs

The resident’s complaint, made to the landlord on 19 September 2023, stated that it had not refunded her the £1,800 that she had spent on her own roadside fence. The landlord’s delayed handling of the resident’s complaint has been separately assessed below. Nonetheless, it was unreasonable that there was a significant delay before it evidenced its consideration of her refund request.
On 18 December 2023, the landlord asked the resident to provide a receipt of the cost that she was claiming “so that the team can consider reimbursing you of the charges”. The landlord’s request to the resident demonstrated an evidence based approach. It was also appropriate for it to apologise to her on various occasions since she had made her complaint for the delay in it responding.
Nevertheless, the landlord would likely have been aware, when it received the resident’s complaint, that it would be unable to consider her request without evidence of the £1,800 cost that she was claiming. This is because its compensation policy said it would consider relevant proof to support such claims when considering offering payments for these. Even if it were not able to respond to her complaint, it would have been appropriate for it to request this information in a timely manner, which it had the opportunity to do when it sent her its interim apologies.
The landlord took an unreasonable 64 working days to ask the resident for evidence of her costs from 19 September to 18 December 2023. It then issued her its stage 1 response 12 working days later, on 5 January 2024. This unreasonably limited the resident’s opportunity to provide it with any evidence, in particular, as this covered the Christmas period.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident noted that she had not provided any evidence of her claimed cost. It explained its understanding that she had chosen to replace the fence herself in 2017, as she had not been happy with the type of fence that it had offered. It was appropriate for it to commit to reconsidering her refund request if she believed its understanding was wrong and provided it with evidence of her costs.
The resident escalated her complaint the same day. She disputed the landlord’s understanding regarding her fence. The landlord’s later 2 April 2024 stage 2 response to the resident explained that it would not further comment on her complaint due to the Ombudsman’s separate investigation being underway. Its handling of her stage 2 complaint has again been separately assessed below.
Our previous determination considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fence repairs but did not consider her refund request. The landlord would have been aware of this from when we issued our determination on 30 April 2024, which was 20 working days after it had issued her its stage 2 response. The resident had not provided it any evidence of her costs so it was still unable to consider her refund request without this. Nonetheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond to her disagreement with its understanding, given that it had not yet done so, and had committed to it at stage 1.
The landlord confirmed to us that it had not further responded to the resident about the matter since her complaint concluded. This would have left the resident uncertain of its position and was likely to cause her time, trouble, and distress. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her fence repair costs to be refunded. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in this range where there was a service failure by the landlord resulting in delays in getting matters resolved that it did not appropriately acknowledge or put right.

Adaptation and extension of the resident’s new property

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy stated that it would only carry out major adaptations that are reasonable and practical for the property and which are supported by an OT assessment.
On 17 March 2023, the landlord evidenced its ongoing work with the OT regarding the resident’s situation and adaptations. Its meeting notes stated that the OT had expressed their concern “that a move to bungalow accommodation would be better”. It noted that it was unlikely to find a 3-bedroom bungalow due to limited stock but that she had previously refused the 2-bedroom bungalow that she had been offered. The notes said that the resident was listed on the property bidding platform as having a 2-bedroom need.
On 5 May 2023, the landlord asked the resident if she would be interested in a 2-bedroom bungalow that may become available in her preferred area and close to her family. The resident replied that “it will need to be extended”. On 16 May 2023, the landlord offered the 2-bedroom bungalow to the resident and explained that a new OT assessment would be needed for it. It said that the OT may consider an extension but that it could not be guaranteed. This was an appropriate effort to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord’s property offer to the resident said that it would be replacing the kitchen but that it would speak to the OT first to make sure that any changes met her needs. It advised of other elements for the resident to consider or that it would provide. This included external storage “to help make the transition to a smaller property a little bit easier”. It highlighted that this was beyond its standard offer. The resident expressed her unhappiness with its offer and that she could not consider moving until the bungalow was extended. Nonetheless, the landlord’s offer to the resident showed a customer focused approach.
The following day, the OT told the landlord that, if the bedrooms in the bungalow it had offered the resident were large enough, “an additional room is desirable but not essential”. The landlord evidenced its timely work with the OT regarding how best to proceed, which concluded with an agreement to jointly visit the bungalow. On 26 May 2023, following the visit, the OT provided a summary update to the resident and landlord. The same day, the landlord noted to the OT that it would take some time to adapt the bungalow. It stated that it would be in the resident’s interest for it to complete the works before she moved and so asked it for minor adaptation recommendations for her current property. This showed its ongoing consideration of her needs.
On 31 May 2023, the landlord updated the resident regarding the OT putting together recommendations for her bungalow, which was still in progress. The landlord has evidenced its updates to the resident throughout the period assessed, which were in the main timely, clear, and empathetic. During the first half of June 2023, it evidenced its continued work with the OT, who told it that they could not think of any minor adaptations to the resident’s current property.
On 26 June 2023, the landlord told the OT that it had recently confirmed to the resident that it would start investigating building an extension to the bungalow. It said that it had “wanted to be honest” with her “about the timeframe for this sort of work”, and that the extension would be classed as a third bedroom. It referred to the resident’s response, which had expressed her unhappiness with all of this, but that it viewed it as positive that she was also now willing to discuss it in person. The OT told it that they would not formally recommend an extension but that they were happy to provide advice about it.
The landlord did not provide us with evidence of how it had reached its decision to investigate extending the bungalow. Its decision was not in line with its policy, which stated that it would only complete major adaptations that were supported by an OT assessment. Nonetheless, its decision was in line with the resident’s wishes and showed its largely resolution and customer focused approach.
On 28 July 2023, the OT sent its referral to the landlord regarding the resident’s proposed bungalow. It identified the need for a level access shower, and specifications for the kitchen. Over the following 2 weeks, emails discussing these matters were exchanged, which were all copied to the landlord, resident, and OT. This was a reasonable way for the landlord to make sure that the resident was kept updated and had the opportunity to be heard.
On 14 August 2023, the landlord sent an email to the resident and OT that summarised its understanding of the OT recommendations and asked for their confirmation. It explained the additional considerations that were “more challenging”, and that the extension was still “pending further feasibility enquiries”. It concluded by suggesting to the resident that it would be helpful to “have another chat so that we are clear on what is needed”. This showed the landlord’s open and customer focused approach. The OT confirmed their final recommendations to the landlord and resident the following day. This included the widening of the rear door but their view was that it “cannot be adapted to enable ramped access”.
On 25 August 2023, the landlord sent the resident a summary of its discussion with her 3 days earlier. It confirmed its willingness to explore the practicality of an extension and ramp access, despite them not being OT recommendations, and provided a full update of other considerations. It emphasised that it would be “some months” before it could offer her certainty regarding the extension and ramp. It advised that, if she wished to move in as soon as possible, there was a risk that the extension could prove unpractical. It promised to keep updating her with progress. This again showed its clear communications and efforts to manage the resident’s expectations.
On 9 September 2023, the resident sent the landlord a series of questions and comments, which included suggestions of other ways for it to extend the bungalow. The landlord responded in a timely manner 4 calendar days later. It answered her questions and provided clear explanations for its actions and proposals. It again explained that she was free to choose between it completing only the OT recommended works, which would allow her to move in more quickly, or it continuing its lengthier investigation of an extension to provide her with certainty of this. The landlord clearly explained its actions and the resident’s options and therefore acted appropriately.
The resident’s complaint, made to the landlord on 19 September 2023, did not refer to her proposed move. The following day the landlord sent the resident a 6-page letter regarding its property offer to her. The letter explained the position to date, the OT recommendations, its proposals, and her options. The landlord acknowledged the amount of information that the letter contained. It was reasonable for it to set the letter out in a question and answer format, in an effort to make the information more accessible to the resident.
The landlord’s letter explained to the resident why it would be necessary for her to end her current tenancy, sign a new tenancy for the bungalow, and accept a license for her current property until the bungalow was ready for her to move into. It advised her to seek independent legal advice and to take her time considering the matter. It explained her options if she declined its proposals. It offered a “face to face meeting to address anything that isn’t clear”. It is acknowledged that there was a lot of information for the resident to consider but the landlord has shown its appropriate efforts to be open, clear, and offer her support.
On 24 September 2023, the resident expressed her unhappiness to the landlord with all aspects of its proposals and handling of the matter, which it later added to her existing complaint. The landlord’s response to her acknowledged her refusal of its proposals. It set out the reasons that it still considered the bungalow to be the best option and most appropriate to her needs. It was reasonable for it to agree to hold the bungalow “for a few more weeks” if she changed her mind. This would have given her time to consider all the information it had provided to her.
On 4 October 2023, the resident explained to the landlord the financial, works, and timeframe conditions under which she would accept the bungalow. On 19 October 2023, the landlord’s letter to the resident again repeated its position. It referred to its previous offers of mediation or advocacy support, and to meet with her in person. It acknowledged the resident’s refusal of all of this but appropriately encouraged her to consider it and made further offers of support. It provided the resident with clear explanations of why it could not agree to all the conditions that she had stated but repeated that its proposals were still open to her.
The landlord’s letter committed to providing the resident with a further update in one month, which it did on 23 November 2023. Its further letter again clearly explained its position, progress, and the resident’s options. It stated that it wanted to meet with the resident and OT at the bungalow to further discuss this. It appropriately offered to arrange this in whatever way was most convenient to the resident and made her further offers of support.
On 13 December 2023, the landlord sent the resident a “courtesy email” to update her on its bungalow progress. It gave examples of some of the challenges that it had faced in its consideration of the extension. As it had throughout, it made reasonable efforts to manage her expectations regarding the further time that this was likely to take. It repeated that, if she preferred, it could focus on following the OT recommendations first, which would allow her to move in sooner. It appropriately committed to continuing to update her monthly.
The landlord repeated all this again, including its commitment to update the resident monthly, in its stage 1 complaint response to her on 5 January 2024. It concluded that it had found no service failures in its handling of this element of her complaint. The resident expressed her unhappiness with the landlord’s stage 1 response the same day.
The landlord provided the resident its next monthly updates on 25 January and 23 February 2024, which were both appropriately comprehensive. Its February update stated that it was now “reasonably confident” that it could extend the bungalow, but that it estimated it would take a further 12 to 18 months to complete. It proposed to her that, if she was willing to sign the tenancy agreement and license that it had previously advised her to, it could complete the OT recommendations to the bungalow, then continue the extension after she had moved in. It was appropriate for it to again offer to “talk through this proposal” in person and signpost her to support services.
The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident on 2 April 2024, noted the resident’s wish for the bungalow extension to be completed as soon as possible but only referred to our previous investigation. Our determination of that investigation was issued 3 weeks later. It included an order to the landlord to meet with the resident to discuss her adaptations. The landlord arranged this with the resident during May 2024, when it also provided her further comprehensive information about the process.
On 6 June 2024, the landlord sent the resident a summary of their meeting the previous day. It noted that she was happy with the proposed works associated with the OT recommendations but not with its extension proposals. The landlord committed to reviewing her suggestions and providing a further update, which it did the following month.
Over the remainder of 2024, the resident expressed her ongoing concerns with the landlord’s proposals and handling of the matter. The landlord continued to respond to her in an empathetic manner and provided her comprehensive updates at least monthly, in line with its commitment to do so. On 11 November 2024, it confirmed its receipt of her signed paperwork associated with her acceptance of the bungalow. In December 2024, it confirmed to her that a specialist contractor had been appointed for the works, which it was aiming to complete by late spring 2025.
It is acknowledged that the overall process will have felt very protracted to the resident, who was dealing with challenging circumstances throughout. Nevertheless, the time taken was not only due to the landlord and it has evidenced its largely resolution focused and timely communications. The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the adaptation and extension of the resident’s new property.

Window repairs and mould issues

The landlord’s repairs policy stated that it operated a service for emergency and non-emergency repairs. It advised that non–emergency repairs should be completed as soon as possible within 28 calendar days.
On 11 January 2023, the landlord raised a non-emergency repair that stated that the resident’s window seals were leaking when it rained. It raised a further non-emergency repair 2 calendar days later, to “check condensation and mould around windows”. It attended the second of these repairs 12 calendar days after it was raised, on 25 January 2023. It cleaned and treated the affected area. It attended the window seal repair 23 calendar days after it was raised on 3 February 2023 but its record stated that it did not gain access to the resident’s property. Both repairs were therefore at least attended within the 28-calendar-day timeframe of its policy.
The landlord’s record stated that it reattended the resident’s no access window seal repair on 6 March 2023. Its complaint response to the resident some months later said that it had been “unable to replicate water entry and there were no signs of staining”. However, this was not reflected in the landlord’s records that we have seen, which provided no further information about the repair. As is further considered below, the lack of details in some of the landlord’s repair records would likely have contributed to its subsequent failings.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord raised a non-emergency repair to replace the hinges on the resident’s landing window. Its record stated that the “job end” was on 28 March 2023, which was again in line with the timeframe of its policy. However, the job status was shown as “posted”, rather than “completed”, and provided no other detail. The resident did later refer to the number of times that the landlord had replaced her window hinges. Nevertheless, it is unreasonable that the landlord has been unable to fully evidence the repair actions that it took. It is also notable that its later complaint response to the resident summarised its window related actions throughout 2023 but did not refer to this repair.
On 26 April 2023, the landlord raised a non-emergency repair following the resident’s report that her windows were drafty. Its record stated that the job was cancelled. The resident further reported condensation and mould around her windows on 13 June 2023. The landlord’s surveyor attended the same day and reported back that the only mould was “a small section at the eave line in the bathroom”. Its operative attended 3 calendar days later to complete a mould wash. On 19 June 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to ask if she was happy with the outcome of the visits, or if she felt further work was needed. We have not seen any evidence that the resident replied to it.
The landlord’s complaint response to the resident explained that her window report on 26 April 2023, had been referred to its surveyor in May 2023. It said that the repair that it had raised in April 2023 had been cancelled when she reported the issue again in June 2023 and its surveyor had attended. It is therefore unclear why the landlord concluded that there had been no service failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of window and mould issues. Its surveyor and operative attended 48 and 51 calendar days, respectively, in June 2023 after the resident’s April 2023 report. This was well beyond the 28 calendar days stated in its policy.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 19 September 2023. She described her window issues that she said had experienced for 3 years. The landlord took no further action until she again reported mould around her windows on 3 November 2023. As was the case in April 2023, the landlord’s failure to respond in a timely manner would likely have caused the resident time, trouble, and distress.
The landlord completed a mould wash at the resident’s property on 8 November 2023. The same day, and following its attendance, the resident told it that, after several years of temporary fixes, her windows were beyond repair and causing repeated mould. The landlord did respond to her a few days later, but only to apologise for the delays in its complaint handling. It was unreasonable that it took 2 months to respond to her window concerns, which it did in its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 January 2024. It said that, when it had attended in November 2023, it had found her windows to still be “performing as intended”. The landlord was entitled to rely on the qualified view of its staff, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. However, it has failed to evidence these findings, which were again not reflected in its repairs record. The resident responded to it the same day and emphasised the “clear gaps” that were around her windows. The landlord has again failed to show that it responded or acted until she reported the matter to it again 6 weeks later.
On 21 February 2024, the landlord raised a non-emergency repair following the resident’s report that rain was getting in her closed windows and making her property “freezing”. Its record stated that it completed a survey of her property 28 calendar days later on 20 March 2024, which was at the limit of its policy timeframe. However, it was unreasonable that it again provided no other information about its findings or outcome.
The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response on 2 April 2024, which was 2 weeks after its survey. As above, it declined to further respond to her window and mould concerns due to our separate investigation at that time. However, it raised a damp and mould survey of the resident’s property one week later. The record stated that a “second surveyor opinion” was needed, as the resident was unhappy with its previous surveyor’s feedback.
The landlord completed the survey 34 calendar days later, on 13 May 2024. It identified the need to further investigate gaps around her hallway window and why the areas around her bedroom windows were prone to regular mould. Its records stated that the resident’s kitchen window would be replaced on 17 June 2024. Its later records stated that further window and associated mould works took place in July and August 2024. The landlord’s unreasonable lack of survey records has meant that it is unclear why there appears to have been such differing outcomes from its March and May 2024 inspections of the resident’s windows.
The resident had been reporting window gaps and mould since January 2023 and had said that she had been reporting it for several years previously. The landlord did at times respond appropriately and within the timeframes of its policy. However, there were also several occasions where it failed to act or respond to the resident in a timely manner, or at all. It was understandable that making meaningful progress on her many reports would have felt a very lengthy process to the resident. This would likely have been frustrating and caused her time, trouble, and distress.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of window repairs and mould issues. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay the resident £500 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in this range where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident, which the landlord has failed to acknowledge or attempted to put right.

Complaint handling

The landlord had an interim complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint, due to a cyber-attack which affected its service provision. The policy stated that it operated a 2-stage process. It said that it would aim to respond to complaints within 20 and 40 working days, at stages 1 and 2, respectively. It further stated that it would acknowledge residents’ stage 2 escalation requests within 10 working days.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of the resident’s complaint said that landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint without clear and valid reasons for doing so. It stated that “reasons for declining to escalate a complaint must be clearly set out in a landlord’s complaints policy and must be the same as the reasons for not accepting a complaint”.
The landlord’s policy listed the issues that it would not accept as a complaint. This included “matters already being dealt with at determination stage by the Ombudsman Service”. The Code further stated that, where a landlord declines to escalate a complaint, “it must clearly communicate in writing its reasons for not escalating as well as the resident’s right to approach the Ombudsman about its decision”.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 19 September 2023, which the landlord acknowledged to her 3 working days later on 22 September 2023. Its acknowledgement stated that it would aim to respond within 20 working days, which was in line with its interim policy.
It was therefore unreasonable that it was not until 41 working days after her complaint on 15 November 2023 that the landlord contacted the resident about her complaint and apologised for its delayed handling. It is acknowledged that, in the period in between, it had provided her updates regarding her proposed move and adaptations. Nonetheless, its failure to offer her an update or response specifically about her complaint failed to show her that it was taking it seriously or following its interim policy or the Code.
The landlord’s apology to the resident included its promise to provide her with a further complaint update by 22 November 2023, which it again failed to do. It was not until 5 December 2023 that it offered her any form of explanation for its delays and further apologised.
It was a further month before the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response, on 5 January 2024. This was a wholly unreasonable 75 working days after she had made it and 55 working days longer that the timeframe of its interim policy. It was appropriate for it to again apologise for the delay and offer her compensation (further considered below).
The resident replied to the landlord and expressed her unhappiness with its stage 1 response on the same day that she received it. The landlord contacted her 2 working days later on 9 January 2024 and advised that it had passed her concerns to its other team. However, as it later realised, it failed to recognise her contact as a stage 2 escalation request.
As above, on 21 February 2024, the resident further reported her window issues to the landlord. Its internal emails the same day referred to her report and noted that it had failed to escalate her complaint the previous month. It also received correspondence from us, which advised of our intention to investigate the resident’s previous complaint.
The landlord’s internal emails over the following 2 weeks evidenced its discussions about the resident’s escalation request. On 11 March 2024, it sent her its formal acknowledgement of her request on 5 January 2024. This had taken an unreasonable 36 working days longer than the 10-working-day timeframe of its interim policy. Its internal emails over the rest of the month evidenced its discussions about her stage 2 complaint and the contact it had received from us. It noted that “all the issues raised are the same as issues that were responded to in an earlier compliant that has now gone to the Ombudsman”.
On 2 April 2024, the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response. This was an unreasonable 20 working days beyond the 40-working-day timeframe of its interim policy. Its stage 2 response appropriately explained its understanding of the resident’s complaint and apologised for its delay. It stated its view that the issues that she had raised were the same as those that we had advised it we were now investigating. It is acknowledged that there was significant overlap between the resident’s 2 complaints.
The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident concluded that it would not be appropriate for it to respond further until we had issued the determination of our current investigation. Its interim policy stated that it would not accept (escalate) complaints that were already being determined by the Ombudsman. As such, and notwithstanding that it had already escalated her complaint, its position was otherwise in line with its policy.
Having explained the reasons that it would not further respond, the landlord’s stage 2 response advised the resident that she had concluded its complaint process and of her right to refer it to us. This was in line with the Code. Nevertheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to also consider committing to the resident that, once it had received our determination, it would address any matters from her current complaint that we had not considered.
The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the delays in its stage 1 handling. This was not proportionate to the extent of that delay under our remedies guidance. This recommends awards of over £100 for such maladministration that adversely affected the resident, where the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Furthermore, it failed to offer the resident compensation for its significant delays at stage 2. The lengthy delays at both stages of its process would likely have caused time, trouble, and distress to the resident.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation, in addition to the £100 it awarded her at stage 1 that it is recommended to pay her if it has not already done so. The landlord is also ordered to issue a further apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. the landlord’s handling of adaptations to the resident’s current property.
2. the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the footpath and driveway at the resident’s current property.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her fence repair costs to be refunded.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the adaptation and extension of the resident’s new property.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of window repairs and mould issues at her current property;
2. associated complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks, the landlord:
1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
2. Pays the resident £850 total further compensation made up of:
  1. £100 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the fence cost refund request.
  2. £500 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the window and mould issues.
  3. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
3. This amount is in addition to the landlord’s own compensation award of £100.
4. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord must evidence its compliance with the orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident its previous offer of £100 compensation if it has not already done so.