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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202000084)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000084

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to remove the resident’s light and fan fitting to resolve issues with the property’s electrical supply.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  3. The resident has complained to this Service that the landlord damaged her light and fan fitting, on removal. There is no evidence that the resident raised this to the landlord prior to the exhaustion of its complaints procedure. Because of that, in line with paragraph 39 (a), this issue will not form part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident complained to the landlord, on 7 January 2020, about issues she experienced with the electricity supply in her home. She said that she had no light in her cupboard because the bulb kept blowing out and, when the landlord’s electrician attended, they removed her light and fan fitting above her bed. The resident was unhappy that she was not updated on the situation or told when these would be replaced.
  2. In a call with the landlord, on 16 January 2020, the resident advised that:

a)     An operative attended to fit smoke alarms, which kept going off because they were too close to her cooker.

b)     The contractor said they would return to move them, but this did not happen.

c)     All the resident’s lights then went out and an out–of–hours electrician attended but was unable to fix it. Two electricians then attended and replaced the fittings above the resident’s bed with a single bulb, which the resident wanted put back up. The resident also advised that she was concerned about the electric system as the bulbs keep blowing. She wanted someone to check these were safe.

  1. In another call with the resident, on 20 January 2020, the landlord advised her that the old light and fan fitting above her bed had been removed as they were faulty and tripping the electrical system. The landlord confirmed that an appointment was booked for 11 February 2020 for an electrical test. Its electricians would also look at the smoke detectors and move these if they were in the incorrect place.
  2. The landlord sent the resident its response to her complaint on 20 January 2020, which reiterated the above.
  3. On 12 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She said that she believed that there was no issue with her fittings, which the landlord removed, and it was only after the landlord installed the smoke detectors that she experienced electrical issues. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and said she found it unfair that she would have to pay to replace the fan and light fitting above her bed.
  4. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 5 March 2020. It confirmed that the information in its previous response was correct. The landlord further clarified that the removal of the light and fan fitting was due to them being the cause of the electrical fault in the property. It explained that, if they were standard lights fitted by the landlord, the addition of the smoke alarms would not have led to problems. The landlord asked the resident to complete and return a form requesting permission too install a new light fitting with an inclusive fan. It noted that, if permission was granted, this would mean that the resident would bear any repair responsibility for the fitting afterwards.
  5. The landlord confirmed that it conducted an electrical test in the property on 11 February 2020 and found that the location off the smoke alarms was appropriate and therefore would not me moved.
  6. The landlord advised the resident that she had now exhausted its complaints procedure and could refer her complaint for consideration by this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. In line with the landlord’s fire safety management policy, it is an obligation of the landlord’s to “assess the risks posed by fire to the health and safety of its residents”, and to “eliminate those risks, so far as reasonably practicable, or to otherwise reduce those risks to a tolerable level” in line with legislation, proper controls and assurance framework.
  2. Because of that, it is the landlord’s obligation to put in place measures to eliminate the risk of fire in the property, and the installation of smoke detectors is a reasonable and common way of doing so.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord says that the landlord agrees to keep the systems for supplying electricity in working order. So, following the resident’s reports of electrical issues in the property, the landlord needed to inspect and resolve any subsequent repairs identified.
  4. The landlord has demonstrated that it adhered to its repair obligations because it identified the resident’s fan and light fitting to be reacting with the smoke alarm. It replaced the fitting to resolve the problem. The resident’s frustration with the removal of her fan and light fitting is understandable, but the landlord was acting in line with its operative’s professional opinions of the work that was needed. Because of that its actions were reasonable.
  5. In line with the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for internal fixtures and fittings. The resident would need the landlord’s permission before she installs her own electrical system, alters the structure of the property, or changes any fixtures and fittings. The evidence indicates that the resident installed the original light and fan fixture herself and so the landlord was not obliged to maintain and repair, or replace it. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the landlord to install a standard light fitting which would not cause issues when interacting with the smoke detector.
  6. The landlord considered the resident’s point of view – that the fan and light fitting was necessary in the summer – and provided options for her to make the necessary arrangements for a new fixture. This was in line with both the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s procedure for granting permission for improvements and alterations.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s decision to remove the resident’s light and fan fitting, and its subsequent response, was both reasonable and appropriate because it was in line with its obligations outlined in the tenancy agreement.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to remove the resident’s light and fan fitting to resolve issues with the property’s electrical supply.