Clarion Housing Association Limited (202124883)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124883

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 June 2023

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 resident’s concerns about her flooring in her property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has lived in a 2-bedroom flat as an assured resident of the landlord since August 2010.
On 25 March 2019, the landlord’s notes show that the resident reported that her neighbours were complaining that her squeaky floorboards were disturbing them. The landlord visited a few days later and noted that it had advised the resident that she would need to remove her laminate flooring so it could gain access to the floorboards.
The resident contacted the landlord in May 2019 and June 2019 chasing for an update from the landlord about her floorboards. She stated that she would sign the disclaimer form that said that the landlord would not re-lay the laminate flooring once it was lifted up.
On 31 October 2019, the landlord attended the resident’s home, the resident explained that it had not informed her of the appointment so she had not removed the laminate flooring.
On 7 November 2019, the landlord’s contractor reported that the flooring was in bad condition in the bedroom and hallway. They advised that they laid down floor protection so that the resident would not trip over.
On 3 January 2020, the landlord carried out another inspection and noted that the floorboards had dropped and needed to be removed to find the fault.
On 29 January 2020, the landlord issued the a work order for its contractors to look at the dip in the floorboards. Subsequently the landlord’s records state that the work could not be carried out due to COVID-19 government restrictions.
On 11 November 2020, the resident made a formal complaint, which the landlord noted as the following:
1. The resident had been chasing for an update on the floorboards for over a year and had no flooring in the hallway or second bedroom for that period. The landlord had not updated her or carried out any work.
2. Her children had tripped and hurt themselves.
On 8 December 2020, in the landlord’s internal communication, the landlord’s surveyor stated that:
1. He attended in early 2020 and advised that the flooring had dropped and appeared to be a latent defect. He acknowledged that the repair had not been actioned.
2. He had contacted the relevant after-care team for the original developers of the property to report the defect to them.
3. He had contacted the resident and updated her on the landlord’s position.
On 16 December 2020, in the landlord’s internal communication, its surveyor advised the following:
1. The developer’s aftercare team had yet to respond to him, however, in the meantime he would arrange for a structural engineer to carry out a joint visit.
2. The resident had explained that her neighbours were experiencing similar issues and were complaining about noise. Therefore he would arrange for the engineer to inspect other properties, and would create an action plan once the engineer had provided a report.
On 24 December 2020, the landlord confirmed that it had arranged an inspection with the structural engineer on 14 January 2021 with the resident.
In January 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it would need to re-arrange the joint visit with the structural engineer, as he needed a trades person to attend to drill in holes so he could look into the structure of the flooring. However, as its contractor could not attend on 14 January, the inspection was re-arranged for 22 February 2021.
On 24 February 2021, the landlord updated the resident and confirmed that it was waiting for the structural engineer’s report and would keep her updated.
On 11 March 2021, the landlord’s contractor issued its report which concluded that:
1. The timber first floor within the resident’s home had noticeably dropped in at least three areas in the property. The opening up works carried out within the hallway exposed several defects in the construction of the timber floor.
2. Whilst the floor was in poor condition, it did not appear to be at immediate risk of collapse. However, should the floor continue to drop and the joist hangers fail, the floor could partially collapse.
3. The uneven flooring within the property represented a hazard to the resident, in terms of a trip hazard, potential overturning of furniture (particularly within the kitchen) and, in the longer-term, potential collapse of the floor if the dropping continued.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response, which stated:
1. The resident would be temporarily decanted, while the works were carried out in her home. It confirmed that the landlord’s surveyor would remain in contact with the resident to provide updates.
2. It outlined that the resident had to contact it several times in 2019 and that there were missed appointments at later end of 2019 and explained that it had found the flooring to be in poor condition.
3. The landlord confirmed that there had been a service failure due to its failure to identify the defect and complete repairs to the floor joists in a reasonable time. It had also identified instances of miscommunication, lack of communication, unnecessary repeat visits, missed appointments, and an overall failure to follow up on required actions.
4. It offered the resident £500 for its failure to complete repairs within reasonable time and the inconvenience caused to the resident and £50 for its delay in issuing its stage one complaint response.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord stated in its internal communication that the resident’s neighbours’ flats were scheduled to be surveyed and works to the resident’s flat would start after that.
On 20 April 2021, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated and stated why she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response as follows:
1. She had to chase the landlord for it to investigate her concerns about her floorboards, when she complained it was passed to several people.
2. She found that the landlord’s surveyor stated that he had “forgotten” about the job and the apology was unprofessional as the issue had been ongoing for a while, and she had to chase for updates.
3. The surveyor said “hurtful things” to her when he called to advise that he had to rearrange the structural engineer appointment as he did not anticipate that a tradesperson was needed, which was again unprofessional.
4. The structural report identified that there are a number of defects with the timber joists throughout the property and that further works were needed to rectify the problem, however the landlord stated that it needed to carry out further inspections of the neighbouring properties, which would take a further 8 weeks, which added additional time to the two years that the resident had been chasing the landlord to resolve the issue.
5. The complaints team wanted to close the complaint as they felt that the complaint had been resolved which she disagreed with as the landlord had no plan of work yet. She explained that she wanted an action plan with timeframes, felt that the landlord could not be trusted and its offer of money and an apology was not a solution to her issue.
6. As she was a single mother of three children and studying at university, she was concerned that being decanted to a property that was not local would cause significant disruption to her family and studies.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint escalation request on 21 May 2021. It apologised to the resident for its delay in actioning her request.
The Ombudsman was not provided with any contact information between the resident and landlord between 21 April 2021 and 14 July 2021.
On 15 July 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response, as follows:
1. Its stage one response was appropriate. However, it acknowledged that after the issue of its response, due to the complexities of the issues affecting the floor of the resident’s home and other flats, it was still unable to provide any definite action or timescales.
2. It was evident that there had been a delay in fully investigating the problems with the floors, which it understood was a worry to the resident. Whilst some delay had been due to the Covid-19 pandemic and government restrictions, some of the routine actions had taken longer than it would normally expect.
3. The structural engineer report stated that the timber first floor in the resident’s home had dropped in at least three areas and, whilst it had been confirmed by the independent survey that there was no immediate risk, it needed to be monitored.
4. If the resident saw any deterioration in the floors, she would need to contact the landlord and it would arrange a further interim inspection.
5. Extensive remedial work would be required to improve the situation affecting the levels of the floors. However there was a need to inspect the other properties within the block to determine the extent of the problem.
6. It had instructed its contractor to provide some provisional costings for the works and would keep the resident updated. Due to the extent and complexity of the project, it was not possible to provide any definite timescales or action plan at present. It would take some months to develop an informed action plan, however it would keep the resident updated at each stage.
7. It awarded the resident £200 additional compensation to acknowledge inconvenience as a result of the delay in addressing her concern with the floor defect and £50 for its delay in issuing its stage two response. The total compensation, including the stage one offer, was £800.
In May 2022, the resident was concerned that she had not heard from the landlord and was worried about a possible decant. The landlord stated that the work sat with the planned investment team following a referral and it was seeking budget costs for the anticipated works.
The resident informed this service that she had been advised that the report for planned investment for the flooring was sent to the lead investment planner on 4 February 2022. She had concerns for her family’s safety and could no longer put her confidence and trust in her landlord. She also stated, in June 2023, that she had not received any updates about the flooring since May 2022.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide an update about its position regarding the flooring to this Service by 16 June 2023, however, at the time of issuing this report, it had not done so.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repair policy stated that referrals to its planned investment team should be made were a repair is not economical. A decision would be made as to whether it should be added to the Planned Investment programme. Prior to the referral process, all repairs needed to keep an item safe and serviceable should be completed.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her flooring

There is no dispute that the landlord failed to act on the resident’s concerns about her floorboards within a reasonable timeframe. The resident reported her concerns in March 2019 and had to chase the landlord in May and June 2019 for an update. In those months she confirmed that she would sign the disclaimer form about her laminate flooring, but it still took approximately four months later, in October 2019, for the landlord to progress the investigation.
Whilst COVID-19 government restrictions may have contributed to the delaysin 2020,the impact on the overall delays were minimal. The landlord acknowledged its failures in both of its complaint stage responses, noting that there were missed appointments, unnecessary repeated visits, delays in taking action on the resident’s reported concerns, and it offered reasonable compensation that went some way to put things right.
The landlord explained in its stage two response that, although the structural engineer noted in his report that there was no immediate risk, the flooring needed to be monitored. Nonetheless, it failed to demonstrate to the resident how it would monitor the safety of her floorboards. It is, therefore understandable that the resident may have had concerns about the future safety of her floorboards.
In its stage two response, the landlord stated that the resident should contact it if she saw deterioration of her floorboards. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, asking her to monitor the floorboards placed an undue burden on the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a professional person to inspect the flooring on a periodical basis, while it was organising the remedial works. This would have gone some way to demonstrate that it was taking the resident’s concerns about her floorboards seriously.
The landlord failed to acknowledged or address that the resident continued to have temporary flooring in areas of her home throughout this time period which she explained was a trip hazard. The structural engineer’s report also confirmed that there were trip hazards within the property. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had risk assessed those hazards and put in place appropriate measures.
It also failed to acknowledge that, although there may have not been an immediate risk of the flooring collapsing, the sound transfer was affecting the resident’s neighbours, who were complaining to her about the noise. It is understandable that this would have put the resident in a difficult position as it was through no fault of her own that the noise from the floorboards were disturbing her neighbours and she could not do anything about it. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this and make a concerted effort to ensure the works were completed in a timely manner to minimise any impact on the resident and also on her neighbours.
The Ombudsman requested supporting documents from the landlord for this investigation, which included the planned investment procedure and the original referral to the planned investment team, which the landlord failed to provide.
The Ombudsman also asked for the original contact logs and outcome of visits from the landlord, whilst it provided some contact logs around the initial repairs and recorded notes on the complaint and there were references to conversations with the resident in the landlord’s internal emails. It is evident that it had not recorded the outcome of those conversations in its housing case management system ,which it would have been appropriate to do so. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s inadequate records management contributed to the overall failures in handling the repairs to the resident’s floorboards adequately.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns with her floors. Although, the landlord offered the resident compensation and outlined the appropriate actions it would take in its stage two response. It is crucial that a landlord ensures that any actions set out in a complaint response are progressed in a reasonable timeframe to put things right, which the landlord failed to do.
The Ombudsman notes that the work to floorboards is still outstanding which is unacceptable. The landlord advised in May 2022 that the remedial works were sitting with the planned investment team and the resident stated in June 2023, that she had not heard from the landlord since that date. Whilst the works may sit within a different team, it is still the landlord’s responsibility to keep the resident updated which it outlined in its stage two response and failing to do so is inappropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her floors.

Reasons

It is clear that the landlord failed to act on the resident’s concerns about her floorboards within a reasonable timeframe, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord acknowledged its failures in both of its complaints responses and offered the resident compensation which went some way to put things right for the resident. However, it failed to acknowledge and address that both the resident and its contractor raised trip hazards within the property.
Although the structural engineer’s report stated that there was no immediate risk, the landlord stated rightly that the floors needed to be monitored. However, it failed to put necessary measures in place and placed an undue burden on the resident to look for any signs of deterioration to the floor which was inappropriate. It is of the Ombudsman’s opinion, that this, alongside the lack of communication and works that remain outstanding after its stage two response, caused additional undue distress and uncertainty for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,100 within four weeks of this determination, which comprises of:
1. £800 it already offered the resident, if not paid already.
2. £300 in recognition that it failed to demonstrate that it had investigated the trip hazards brought to its attention by the resident and the structural engineer, and it also failed to put adequate measures in place to monitor the resident’s floor, and complete the remedial work, which would have caused the resident distress.
Confirm with the resident its position with regards to the remedial works and provide an action plan of works, appoint a single point of contact and agree a contact schedule with the resident and provide this service with evidence, within four weeks of the issue of this report.
Inspect the resident’s flooring to ensure it has not deteriorated and set up a monitoring schedule. Provide evidence it has done so to this service within four weeks of the issue of this report.
Assess the relevant areas of flooring identified as a trip hazard by the resident and the structural engineer against its trip hazard risk assessment and report back to this service its findings and measures where relevant, within four weeks of this report.
Provide the Ombudsman with monthly progress updates until it has a final date when the remedial works will start. The monthly update shall start one calendar month from the issue of this report.
The Ombudsman requires the landlord to undertake a review of the outcomes of this investigation and produce an action plan for service improvement which should be shared with this Service within twelve weeks of the date of this determination, including any updated policies. This action plan should include:
1. a review of its record keeping procedures in relation to repairs, taking into account the comments in this investigation report. It should ensure that it has robust record keeping arrangements in place which allow it to provide clear audit trails of all actions taken.
2. a review of its referral process and planned investment policy and procedure, which must include resident contact and timescales to decision-making.
3. consideration of the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report.