Clarion Housing Association Limited (201910698)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910698

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 February 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 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:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of repairs at the property.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of the build-up of litter around the building and car park.
3. The landlord’s refusal to compensate the resident for the increase in her utility bills.
4. The associated formal complaints into these matters.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a ground-floor, three-bedroom flat in a communal building. The resident took on the tenancy of the property in mid-June 2019.
On 22 July 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. The resident stated that an appointment had been booked for that day to address her previous reports of damp and mould at the property, yet nobody turned up. The resident described her unhappiness as she had booked time off work.
The resident also highlighted outstanding repairs she had yet to be updated on to the toilet, the cooker and the drain. She also raised the issue of rubbish in the garden that required removal.
The landlord called the resident on 12 August 2019 to discuss the complaint. The landlord’s notes from the call state that it informed the resident that a new cooker had been ordered and that it would be in touch to arrange the installation of the cooker and the removal of the rubbish. The notes go on to state that the resident raised additional issues relating to a fence panel and a damaged drawer, and that the landlord had passed these on to the relevant department and closed the complaint.
On 14 August 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a new complaint regarding the toilet at the property. The resident informed the landlord that she had experienced issues with the toilet since she took on the tenancy. She noted that she had an emergency appointment booked for that day due to her concern of flooding from the toilet bowl over-filling. However, the plumber attended while she was traveling from work to the property and the appointment therefore did not go ahead.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 August 2019 to inform her that the rubbish had been removed from the garden. It wrote to her again on 21 August 2019 to confirm that it had attended the previous day to repair the toilet. It then asked the resident for further information relating to the shower temperature that was raised during the appointment.
The resident replied to the landlord on 5 September 2019. She informed it that the issue of the water temperature was related to the toilet bowl filling up and that both issues had been resolved. The resident then listed the still outstanding repairs, describing:
1. Leaks from the toilet and from the kitchen ceiling.
2. A faulty drawer and wardrobe.
3. Poorly painted tiles.
The resident also highlighted the ongoing issue of litter around the building and car park.
The landlord replied on 6 September 2019. It informed the resident that a work order had been raised for 13 September 2019 to attend the property, that it had raised a further work order relating to the roof leak, and that the appropriate team will be in touch to book an appointment.
In response to further correspondence from the resident, on 11 September 2019 the landlord apologised to her that its email sent of 6 September 2019 had not made clear that she could reschedule the appointment if it was not suitable. It explained the work to be undertaken was to the toilet leak, the repairs in two of the bedrooms and to the bathroom tiles.
On 13 September 2019 the resident told the landlord that the contractors had been unable to complete all the work. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email the following day and said it had passed the information to its repairs team. That day the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged that request on 16 September 2019.
On 1 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and said a contractor had repaired the wardrobe that day but the other repairs remained outstanding.
On 13 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and expressed her unhappiness that the complaint had yet to be resolved. She asked that it either escalate the complaint to the next stage or provide her with a final response to allow her to take her complaint to this Service.
On 22 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it had booked an appointment for 29 October 2019 to complete the outstanding repairs and that it had extended the operatives time at the property to ensure all the work would be completed on the day. The landlord ended the letter by stating that it believed that this response concluded the complaint.
On 29 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and said not all the work had been completed because the operative did not have the correct equipment. She requested that the landlord escalate the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 November 2019 again requesting an escalation of the complaint. On the following day a new complaint was opened, and the landlord and resident discussed the issues that the resident wanted investigated. This Service has not been provided with any notes of this telephone conversation.
On 25 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord unhappy that she had yet to receive a complaint response.
On 16 December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord again to state her unhappiness that both the repairs and the complaint remained unresolved.
On 14 January 2020 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on her behalf. They asked the landlord to respond to the issues she had raised and consider paying her compensation.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 5 March 2020. The landlord summarised the issues raised by the resident during their telephone conversation on 14 November 2019 and then informed her that:
1. It first received a report regarding the bathroom in September 2019. An inspection was arranged for 16 October 2019 and a work order was raised for 30 October 2019 to complete repairs to the bath and wash basin. The landlord’s records show the resident declined the work; however, the resident informed the landlord during its telephone conversation that the operative had informed her that he was unable to complete the repairs and someone more senior would have to do it.
2. A new appointment was arranged for 5 November 2019 to inspect the bathroom. During the appointment the resident stated that she had experienced problems with the shaver light and that she wanted the bath and basin to be replaced. Work was carried out on 27 November 2019 to repair the shaver light and reseal the bath. The resident then informed the landlord that the work had not been completed. A new appointment was arranged for 31 January 2020 where the repairs were resolved. A further inspection was arranged as the resident was not happy that the bath was not re-enameled as part of the repairs. The inspection confirmed that re-enameling was not required; however, the landlord booked further work for 17 March 2020 to de‑scale the bath.
3. The resident stated that she was informed that the bathroom would be renewed during the void period. The landlord spoke to the lead property manager who was present during the resident’s viewing of the property. The property manager disputed that resident was informed that a new bathroom would be fitted and that all void works were completed before the signing-up process.
4. The resident had informed it that she was spending an excess of £30 in heating costs per week due to windows letting cold air into the property. The landlord noted that this issue was first reported to it in December 2019 and that an inspection was arranged for 31 January 2020. The inspection recommended that the window gaskets were replaced. As new gaskets would have to be made to measure, the next available appointment to install them would be 17 March 2020.
5. In relation to the resident’s utility bills, the landlord noted that it would be unable to identify discrepancies between the bills from December 2018 and December 2019 as the resident had moved into the property in June 2019. It was therefore unable to offer any compensation.
6. The resident had highlighted concerns that overflowing communal bins had encouraged pests. The landlord informed the resident that it employs a pest control contractor who attended every three months. It informed the resident that it had brought forward the contractors next visit from 13 February 2020 to 20 January 2020. Upon inspection of the bait stations, if it was found to have been used then the contractors would therefore increase their visits from three-monthly to monthly.
7. The resident had complained about the second toilet in the property, which had been leaking since June 2019. The landlord arranged an appointment for 20 August 2019. Following on from this repair it did not receive another report from the resident until the 14 November 2019 telephone call. A further work order was raised on 30 January 2020; however, no leak was observed. The resident informed the operative that the leak was intermittent. The landlord informed the resident that that toilet would be inspected during the 17 March 2020 appointment and if a leak was observed, it would be repaired.
The landlord concluded its response by awarding the resident £196.59 compensation. This was broken down as:
1. £49.98 for the time taken to resolve the bathroom repairs.
2. £29.99 for the time taken to resolve the window repairs.
3. £41.65 for the time taken to resolve the toilet leak.
4. £74.97 for the number of visits required to resolve the above issues.
Following a telephone call from the resident, the landlord wrote to her on 19 February 2020 and confirmed what work would be undertaken on 17 March 2020. Following an enquiry from the resident during the appointment, the landlord wrote to her on 17 March 2020 to confirm the compensation awarded at stage one and informed her that if she disputed the stage one response she could write to it within 20 working days to request an escalation. It also informed the resident that due to the pandemic, non-essential repairs would take longer to complete.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 March 2020 and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two on the grounds that:
1. The window repair was first reported by her on 7 June 2019 and not in December 2019.
2. She was informed by the voids manager on 14 June 2019 that the bathroom would be replaced and that she had never made the request herself.
3. The compensation offer was inadequate considering the length of time it took for the landlord to complete the repairs, the number of missed appointments, the time and inconvenience caused, and the “extortionate fees for electricity”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 April 2020. It confirmed that it had escalated the complaint to stage two and that it aimed to provide a response within 20 working days.
The stage two complaint response was sent on 27 April 2020. The landlord informed the resident that:
1. On 7 June 2019 the property management officer had emailed the voids team and informed them that the following issues had been reported by the resident on moving in:
  1. The flushing mechanisms in the two toilets needed to be replaced.
  2. The water pressure in the kitchen tap required adjustment.
  3. The hot water tap in the bath required adjustment.
  4. The waste pipe in the WC was leaking.
  5. The bath needed to be resealed.
  6. Garden maintenance was required.
2. Work orders to repair the highlighted issues were raised on 17 June 2019 and an appointment was arranged for 8am-1pm on 18 June 2019. However, the appointment did not go ahead as operative could not gain access to the property. A new appointment was arranged for 24 June 2019. There were two further instances of no access recorded and the repairs were completed on 3 July 2019. The last two items raised by the resident were not resolved as they fell outside of the contract agreement for its response team.
3. In December 2019 the landlord received a report from the resident that the widows were “blown out in all rooms, please investigate and repair”. An inspection was arranged for 4 December 2019, where the operative noted that the window units did not meet the landlord’s 80% blown criteria and therefore no repairs were required. Following a further report of damage to the windows, a further inspection was arranged for 31 January 2020. This assessed that the compression gaskets were defective or worn and required replacement. An appointment was booked for 26 February 2020, but then changed to 17 March 2020 as the resident had requested all outstanding repairs to be resolved on the same day. It could find no evidence that issues with the windows were reported prior to December 2019.
4. Bathroom replacements were undertaken by its planned investment team at the end of the lifespan of the bathroom, which could be up to 30 years. The team would write to the resident when the property comes up for bathroom renewal. The landlord also noted that the condition of the bathroom was a factor when considering renewal, but the voids survey only recommended repairs.
5. It had reviewed its compensation offer made at stage one. In relation to missed appointments, it informed the resident that apart from one occasion, on 22 January 2020, appointments that did not go ahead were as a result of the operatives not being able to access the property. It further informed the resident that the compensation was calculated in line with its policy and that it could not consider compensating her for an increase in electricity costs without any corroborating evidence.
The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident she had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised her on the steps to take her complaint to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Responsive Repairs

The landlord has provided this Service with its repairs and maintenance policy. Section 5 of the policy states that it categorises repairs as emergency and non‑emergency, and that it aims to attend and repair emergency repairs within 24 hours and to repair non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days of it being reported. Emergency repairs are described as “one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident”.
The landlord has also provided its repair logs for the property for the period of the complaint. The resident has stated her dissatisfaction with the number of outstanding repairs after she moved in, the length of time it took the landlord to resolve these and the lack of information provided by the landlord during this process. As a result of her dissatisfaction, the resident raised three separate complaints.
In its stage one response sent on 5 March 2020, the landlord recognised the length of time it taken to resolve all the issues. It apologised to the resident and awarded a total of £196.59 compensation for the delays to complete repairs to the bathroom, windows and toilets and for the number of visits to the property it took to complete the repairs.
In the stage two response, the landlord explained in detail how it had responded to the resident’s reports, what work it had raised and the reasons why some of the appointments had failed to go ahead. It provided more detail, particularly in regard to the windows, why some jobs took so long to resolve. The stage two response also stood by the compensation offer made at stage one.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the resident’s complaint put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The compensation award is broadly line with the suggested levels described in the landlord’s compensation policy. Paragraph 5.6.1 of the policy states that when a repair goes over target it will award compensation of £10 for the first day and then £2 for each additional day to a maximum of £50. Paragraph 5.5.1 of the policy states that it will award a payment of £15 “in the event that a [landlord] member of staff or our repair contractor fails to keep an appointment, without giving 24 hours’ notice”.
Paragraph 4.2 of the landlord’s compensation policy describes the circumstances when it will consider a discretionary payment to a tenant which includes where inconvenience has been suffered or a degree of disruption to the household. Given the length of time taken to complete the repairs, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to award a discretionary payment that recognised the evident inconvenience, frustration and distress caused to the resident during the period from when the tenancy started until all the outstanding repairs had been completed.
The Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In this case this Service considers that the sum of £100 would be proportionate for the detriment caused to the resident. This amount is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of service failure and includes cases where there have been delays in carrying out repairs.

Litter and pest control

The resident had complained about the build-up of rubbish around the building and car park. She also highlighted her concerns that overflowing bins had caused a rodent infestation.
In response, the landlord arranged to have the rubbish cleared. In the stage one response the landlord informed the resident of the schedule of the pest control contractor at the time of the complaint, which was to attend every three months. The landlord then informed the resident that it had brought forward the next inspection and that if evidence of rodent activity was discovered it would change its contract to a monthly schedule going forward.
This was an appropriate response by the landlord. It took the resident’s concerns of a rodent infestation seriously. It informed her of its current arrangements with its pest control contractor and what additional steps it would take if evidence of rodents was discovered during the contractor’s next visit.

Compensation for an increase in utility bills

The resident had informed the landlord that due to the faulty windows in the property, her electric bill had increased by £30 per week. She requested compensation to reimburse her for these additional costs.
Section 4.1.1 of the landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider “a payment of recompense for loss of service or out of pocket expense at a quantifiable rate or amount incurred by a resident as a direct result of [the landlord’s] actions or failure to act”. However, section 5.2 of the policy states that while it would consider “additional costs that were incurred directly and solely by the resident because of a failure of service” it would require “relevant proof provided to support a compensation claim”.
At the time of the complaint, the resident was unable to provide the landlord with evidence of increased utility bills during the period of time the windows required repairs. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord, without being provided with any corroborating evidence, to not consider a compensation payment at that time. Given the time that has now elapsed, the resident may now have evidence to support her claim for higher heating bills over the period when the windows were in need of repair and a recommendation has been made, below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy describes its two-stage complaint process; however, it does not give any timescales as to when complaints will be acknowledged and when complaint responses will be sent.
Common practice for complaint timescales would be for the landlord to acknowledge a complaint request within three to five working days, to respond at the first stage of the complaint process within 10 to 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and to respond at the second stage of the complaint process within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The resident first raised a complaint on 22 July 2019; this complaint was closed following a telephone conversation on 12 August 2019. A second complaint was then raised on 14 August 2019. The resident requested numerous times for this complaint to either be escalated or to receive a final response. The landlord then sent a letter closing this complaint on 22 October 2019. This letter did not provide the resident with any information on how to escalate the complaint or whether this letter was its final response.
A third complaint was opened by the landlord on 14 November 2019 upon receipt of an email from the resident describing her unhappiness with how her previous complaints had been handled and the length of time it was taking for the repairs to be completed. A stage one response was sent to the resident on 5 March 2020 – following the intervention of the resident’s MP – and a stage two response was sent on 27 April 2020.
The stage one response did not address the length of time (almost three months) it had taken to send the response to the resident. Nor did the response address any of the delays in the previous complaints, despite this being raised by the resident in her email sent on 13 November 2019.

The failure to respond to the issues raised meant that the resident had to involve her MP in order to escalate her complaint. It also meant that the landlord failed to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity and therefore missed out on the opportunity to improve the tenant/landlord relationship.

In order to fully resolve the complaint, the landlord should have recognised the further delays and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling and awarded compensation in recognition of this service failure.
The service failures identified in the landlord’s complaint handling evidently caused inconvenience to the resident. In this case this Service considers that the sum of £100 would be proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of service failure and includes cases where there have been complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its response to the resident’s reports of the build-up of litter around the building and car park.
2. Its refusal to compensate the resident for the increase in her utility bills.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
1. How it handled the resident’s reports of repairs at the property.
2. The associated formal complaints into these matters.

Reasons

The landlord recognised the length of time it took to complete the outstanding repairs. It apologised to the resident and awarded compensation.
However, the level of compensation awarded to the resident did not sufficiently recognise the time it took for all the repairs to be resolved and the inconvenience this caused.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns of a pest infestation by bringing forward the date of the next inspection and stating that it would switch from three-monthly to monthly inspections if evidence of rodents was discovered.
It was reasonable for the landlord not to consider the resident’s request to reimburse her electric usage at that time as no corroborating evidence had been provided which showed that the costs had increased due to the windows requiring repairs.
The landlord did not follow its complaint policy, nor did it provide complaint responses to the resident in a timely manner.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £100 to recognise the inconvenience, frustration and distress caused to the resident by the delays in carrying out the repairs.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £100 in recognition of the inconvenience and frustration caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

The landlord should update this Service when these payments have been made.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord take the following action:
1. Pay the resident the compensation previously offered of £196.59, if it has not done so already.
2. Ask the resident if she now has evidence to show that her utility bills were higher than usual over the winter of 2019-2020; and consider if further compensation is payable on receipt of such evidence.