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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202101785)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101785

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 July 2021


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 landlord’s:

 

  1. handling of repairs to the electrical sockets at the property;

 

  1. level of communication regarding repeat electrical safety testing, and;

 

  1. handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Background

 

  1. The resident and her partner occupy their house under an Assured Tenancy Agreement.

 

Summary of events

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show that on 10 November 2020 its CEO received a complaint from the resident about the length of time it was taking to repair five faulty electrical sockets in the downstairs of her property. She reported a number of contacts with the landlord to try to resolve matters when two appointments had been made but not kept, and explained how conflicting information had been given by the landlord’s staff members as to whether someone was going to attend on the date given or not. Its records show it logged a formal complaint on this basis on 11 November 2020 and confirmed this to the resident.

 

  1. On 24 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again complaining that a third appointment, scheduled for that day, had not been kept, and that the repair had now been outstanding for six weeks.

 

  1. The resident expanded on her complaint by completing a ‘trust pilot review’ on 26 November 2020 also referring to issues with recent electrical safety testing.

 

  1. On 1 December 2020, the repair to the sockets was completed. The landlord’s internal records show the resident had contact with the landlord’s complaints team on that day.

 

  1. On 11 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one complaint response. It understood the resident was unhappy that she reported five faulty wall sockets on the ground floor of her property in October 2020, but they remained outstanding at the time of her complaint.  She was also unhappy that her two previous contacts were not responded to.

 

  1. Further the landlord noted the resident was complaining about an appointment to carry out an electrical inspection with confusion over the certification. An inspection had now taken place and the certificate issued.

 

  1. The landlord confirmed the socket repair had been carried out by its contractors on 1 December 2020. It accepted that appointments for 27 October, 10 November and 24 November 2020 were cancelled and that the resident had not been notified at the relevant times. It admitted this represented a lack of communication and apologised for it. It stated it had provided feedback to its contractor and the same feedback had been provided regarding the electrical inspection appointment of 20 June 2020.

 

  1. The landlord offered compensation of £160 in recognition of the issues and delay the resident had experienced, which it broke down as £50 discretionary payment; £50 right to repair delay; £60 missed contractor appointments.

 

  1. The resident responded on 23 December 2020 explaining she remained unhappy with the outcome. Her reasons were as follows:

 

  1. The level of compensation did not reflect the fact she was left without power to the ground floor of the property for 7 weeks.

 

  1. She remained unhappy about the time taken to complete the repair, the missed appointments and the fact she had to chase the landlord, who did not return her calls.

 

  1. She rejected the landlord’s explanation of a lack of communication between itself and its contractor, stating it was the landlord’s own electrician who failed to turn up three times and not its contractor’s.

 

  1. The issue with the electrical testing related to a different contractor instructed by the landlord, who had contacted the resident in June 2020 to arrange electrical testing because the landlord had lost the certificate for the test carried out in September 2019.

 

  1. By way of resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to:

 

  1. Offer compensation equivalent to three weeks’ rent for its failure to repair the sockets within the 28-day routine repair timeframe.

 

  1. Provide an explanation as to why the three appointments were missed.

 

  1. Provide an explanation as to why an electrical test was required nine months after the last one when it should be done every five years.

 

  1. Confirm that systems had been put in place to avoid a repetition of the landlord’s service failings.

 

  1. On 10 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two complaint response, confirming it had carried out a review.  It stated its findings were as follows:

 

  1. The three missed appointments to repair the sockets were missed by its own electricians, rather than its contractor’s. This was because it had been experiencing a high level of sickness absence and its reduced workforce were dealing with emergencies. The repair was then passed to its contractors who attended on 1 December 2020.

 

  1. The level of compensation offered was in line with its usual practice and it stood by its calculation. It would not offer a rent reduction because this would only be considered where the property had been rendered uninhabitable and temporary accommodation was required. The landlord denied that had been the case and the compensation awarded was “to recognise the repair delays and the inconvenience this caused”.

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged that electrical testing was required at intervals of no more than five years. It explained that in March 2020 it had reorganised the way in which it managed electrical testing. As a result, it identified that for some properties its records did not confirm testing had been completed properly or reports were not held where they should have been. It decided to adopt a precautionary approach in these instances and work on the assumption testing was due/overdue – organising fresh tests. It apologised if this had caused the resident any inconvenience but pointed out its aim was to ensure her safety.

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s previous two contacts had not been passed to its correct complaints staff team. It apologised for this and stated it had provided feedback accordingly.

 

  1. The landlord went on to acknowledge that its previous compensation offer had not taken account of the lack of communication surrounding the electrical test and poor record keeping that made it necessary. Further, it admitted it had not taken account of delays in providing its initial stage one complaint response and dealing with the resident’s escalation request. It therefore wanted to offer additional compensation of £150, which it broke down as £50 poor communication on retesting; £50 poor record keeping; and £50 complaints response delays.

 

  1. Finally, in terms of avoiding any repetition of the issues the resident had experienced, the landlord reported that initial problems had been caused by the pandemic, but it had now been able to apply additional resources to dealing with the challenges raised by the situation; the electrical testing regime had been overhauled and the same problem was not anticipated to recur as a result.

 

  1. The landlord apologised overall and indicated this concluded its complaints procedure.

 

  1. The resident responded by letter dated 15 February 2021 indicating she remained dissatisfied. She stated that whilst an explanation had been given for why the three appointments had been missed, the landlord had failed to explain its lack of communication. The resident set out a summary of her contact with the landlord and the mixed messages she was given as to what was happening with the repair, the various appointments and whether an electrician was, or was not, actually on their way to the property. She named eight different members of the landlord’s staff who she had had telephone contact with during this time.

 

  1. The resident considered the landlord had been indifferent to the issues the delay had caused at a difficult time for her partner who had recently been discharged from hospital. She stated that having electrical wires on extension leads running down the stairs whilst the house was being visited by nurses, physiotherapists and carers, was not acceptable. She reported that a MacMillan advisor had contacted the landlord on her behalf in mid-October to get the repair brought forward given her partner’s medical condition – but this had not prompted any sense of urgency, with the landlord maintaining it was entitled to 28 days to complete the repair.

 

  1. The resident noted that her complaint had only been addressed after she had contacted the landlord’s CEO and that despite having a lengthy telephone conversation with the landlord’s complaints handler, the landlord still gave the wrong information in stating the three absent electricians belonged to its contractor and not its own staff. Finally, she stated she would refer the matter to this Service.

 

Agreements, policies and procedures

 

  1. The Repairs and Maintenance Policy operated by the landlord separates repairs into two categories, emergency and non-emergency with response times of 24 hours and 28 calendar days respectively.

 

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy sets out its procedure for dealing with complaints. It records that if a formal complaint is recorded its aim is to resolve it within ten working days or provide an alternative timescale for a response. If the customer remains unhappy, they can request a review/escalation to take place with a target response time of 20 working days.

 

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out its approach for calculating and paying compensation for failings in its service. It allows the landlord to offer a discretionary sum to recognise the impact a failure has had on the resident. Awards are divided into three categories: £50- £250; £250 – £700; and £700 +. The amount depends upon the severity of the failure, its impact and whether there will be any long-term consequences. For awards in the lowest category a footnote states “£50 per quarter per failure”.

 

  1. The policy sets out that missed appointments should be compensated at the rate of £15 each; repairs which have gone over time at £10 for the first day over the time limit plus £2 per day thereafter, subject to a maximum amount of £50.

 

Assessment

 

Electric socket repairs

 

  1. The evidence does not confirm the date the resident first reported the problem with the electric sockets, other than it was in October 2020.  The initial appointment for the repair was meant to be on 27 October 2020 so it is reasonable to conclude the initial report had come sooner than that. It was completed on 1 December 2020.

 

  1. The landlord categorised the repair as non-emergency with a response time of 28 calendar days. This assessment was reasonable given the resident was not left without any power at all. The landlord accepts the repair was not concluded in this time and has not challenged the resident’s assessment that it took seven weeks to attend to what was required overall.

 

  1. The landlord has accepted it failed to offer a reasonable standard of service in dealing with this repair due to the delay, broken appointments and confused communication. It was appropriate that the landlord made these admissions given the situation. 

 

Repeat electrical safety testing

 

  1. Upon overhauling its procedure for complying with its obligations to conduct periodic electrical testing, the landlord was unable to confirm, from its records, whether the resident’s check had taken place. It therefore arranged a further check. The resident reported that in fact a check had taken place just nine months previously and, owing to the landlord’s poor record keeping, she had had the inconvenience of having to accommodate a further visit for a repeat check to be carried out.

 

  1. The landlord accepted that its record keeping was to blame and that it had not properly communicated with the resident over the reason why the testing was taking place. It acknowledged its service failings which was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

The resident’s complaint

 

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on three occasions. The first, on 10 November 2020, was to complain about two missed appointments to conduct the socket repair; the second was on 24 November 2020 to complain about a third missed appointment; and on 26 November 2020 she expanded her complaint to include the electrical testing issue.

 

  1. The evidence shows the landlord confirmed it was logging a formal complaint on 11 November 2020 but it did not provide its stage one complaint response until 11 December 2020.  Its policy commits it to a target of responding in 10 working days. Even if the date was taken from the last contact when the complaint was expanded, the landlord still failed to respond on time. 

 

  1. Further, when the resident escalated the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, it failed to respond within a 20-day timescale as set out in its policy. The resident might reasonably have expected a response by 25 January 2021 (allowing for Christmas and New Year bank holidays) but did not hear from the landlord until 10 February 2021, some two weeks overdue.

 

  1. The landlord has accepted its complaint handling fell below the standard the resident was entitled to expect and this was an appropriate response.

 

Compensation

 

  1. The resident was left in a situation where, for seven weeks, she had to use extension leads from the upstairs of her house, trailing down her stairs, to enable downstairs appliances to be ‘plugged in’. Whilst the landlord was entitled to have 28 calendar days to effect the repair, it is noted that the resident’s partner had been discharged from hospital and was receiving regular visits from medical professionals – one of whom contacted the landlord to try to get the repair escalated. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord might reasonably have considered attaching more priority to the repair given the information it had been provided with.

 

  1. Four appointments were made to effect the repairs stretching from 27 October to 1 December 2020. On three occasions the resident was put to the time and trouble of chasing the landlord by telephone, and she was given conflicting advice as to whether somebody was going to attend that day or not. She was inconvenienced by having to wait at home to offer access, only for nobody to arrive. The landlord has reported staffing difficulties due to the pandemic. Whilst it is reasonable to expect this Service to take that into account to a degree, the situation overall could have been avoided had there been better communication on the landlord’s behalf.

 

  1. Indeed, the problem with the repeat electrical safety inspection was also caused by a lack of communication – as well as poor record keeping. The resident was put to the inconvenience of accommodating a further visit when she had already done so a few months previously. It is accepted that the landlord acted with the best of intentions – that of caution – but the situation could have been avoided had better records been kept and had the situation been explained to the resident.

 

  1. The resident therefore experienced an additional visit for the safety check in June 2020, and up to seven weeks of inconvenience and disruption due to the delayed repair and repeat appointment failures. However, the landlord would be entitled to rely upon its policy of effecting repairs within 28 calendar days, discounting some of this time. This then has to be balanced against the fact this Service has found the landlord might reasonably have been expected to offer a higher priority to the repair under the circumstances of this case.

 

  1. Finally, when the resident complained, there were delays in dealing with that complaint and therefore providing answers and a proposed solution – although those delays amounted to less than two months overall.

 

  1. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.

 

  1. In this case, the landlord has apologised for its failings, and has also offered compensation totalling £310. Looking at that figure as a global sum, the Ombudsman’s view is that it adequately reflects the distress and inconvenience the resident has suffered overall, as identified above.

 

  1. It has broken that amount down and it can be compared to the landlord’s Compensation Policy to see if it has been calculated in accordance with that policy. The impact on the resident in this case was limited in time although it varied in intensity, particularly as each repairs appointment was missed and she had to chase the situation. It was reasonable for the landlord to categorise the impact as falling in the lowest category with its stated calculation of £50 per quarter per failure. It applied this, awarding £50 each for the circumstances giving rise to the complaint; its poor record keeping; its communication failings over the electrical test; and its complaint handling, totalling £200.  It offered its maximum amount of £50 for the delayed repair and counted three missed visits for repairs and one repeated visit for electrical testing at £15 each – that is £60. This calculates to a total of £310. It therefore applied its policy appropriately.

 

  1. It is the Ombudsman’s view, therefore, that the landlord has already offered reasonable redress for the service failings identified in this report and which it has itself acknowledged.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of electrical repairs at the property. 

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of electrical safety testing at the property. 

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. 

 

Reasons

 

  1. The landlord has accepted that the service it offered fell below the standard the resident was reasonably entitled to receive in respect of repairs, safety testing and complaints handling. The landlord has appropriately applied its Compensation Policy to the individual elements of impact experienced by the resident. The figure for compensation, overall, also adequately reflects the impact on the resident.

 

Recommendations

 

  1. The landlord to re-offer the £310 compensation to the resident, if this has not already been paid, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the above findings are made on that basis.

 

  1. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.