Clarion Housing Association Limited (201904933)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201904933

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 August 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

The complaint concerns how the landlord handled repairs to fix water leaks in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy categorises its repair types as ‘Emergency’ (attend and make safe within 24 hours) and ‘Non-Emergency’ (attend within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported). Emergency repairs are defined as a repair that “presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord will first attempt to resolve the complaint informally. If that is not possible it will provide a formal stage one complaint response. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The policy states that the landlord aims to ‘put things right within reasonable timescales’. However, the policy does not describe specific timescales for responding to complaints. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website), landlords are expected to respond at the first stage of their internal complaint process within ten to 20 working days of receiving the complaint, and to respond at the second stage of the complaint process within 20 working days of the resident asking for the complaint to be escalated.
On 17 July 2019 the resident contacted this Service and described her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled matters relating to insurance and leaks at the property. She provided correspondence from 2017 to support her complaint.
This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord and a formal complaint was opened. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 15 October 2019. The landlord explained that there had been two separate issues in the building relating to leaks from a water supply pipe and a suspected leak from the waste pipe. The landlord conformed that the leak to the supply pipe was repaired on 14 October 2019 and asked the resident to contact it to arrange an appointment so follow-on work could be completed in her property.

Summary of events

On 11 September 2020 the resident called this Service and expressed her frustration as to how her complaint had been handled by the landlord. She said that a leak in her bathroom had now moved into the sitting room and the landlord had informed her that her property was the source of the leak. The resident said she felt bullied by the landlord as the source of leak was from another property.
This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord, who called the resident on 12 October 2020 to discuss the matter. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that:
1. The resident informed it that the leak that was repaired in October 2019 had reoccurred and caused damp and mould in her bedroom.
2. She was informed by the landlord that as a leaseholder, it was her responsibility to resolve, but as the source of the leak was from external pipework it was the responsibility of the landlord because the landlord is responsible for maintaining pipework in the building, outside the resident’s own property.
3. She had overheard a neighbour saying that the source of the leak was from their property.
4. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to repair the leak and the damage it had caused in her property.
5. The landlord informed the resident as it had been over six months since it had sent the previous complaint response, it would open a new complaint into the matter.
An internal landlord email sent on 15 October 2020 described issues with leaks experienced by four properties in the building, including the resident’s. The email described an issue in the resident’s property where the overflow from the water tank had been discharging into the building’s ductwork and that this build-up of water would not be apparent until signs of dampness were observed in properties on the ground floor of the building as the properties directly below the resident were currently empty. The email also stated that the landlord would contact the residents in all four properties to arrange inspections.
The landlord called the resident on 19 October 2020 to update her on it’s progress in locating the source of the leak.
An internal landlord email sent on 27 October 2020 described the difficultly it had experienced in arranging access to the properties involved in order to progress the matter. A further internal email sent on 30 October 2020 noted that in order to confirm the source of the leak it would need access to three properties including the resident’s. The email stated that the landlord’s operatives had left contact cards at all of the properties asking the residents to call to arrange inspection appointments.
The landlord’s contact notes state that it attempted to call the resident on 30 October 2020 and again on 2, 6 and 13 November 2020 but was unable to speak with her or leave a message.
The landlord called the resident on 16 November 2020 and informed her that it was experiencing difficulty in gaining access to the neighbouring properties and that it had sent a written warning to one of the residents, whose property was suspected as being the source of the leak. The landlord called again on 17 November 2020 and updated the resident. It stated that it had gained access to two of the properties and would need arrange access to the resident’s property.
The landlord called the resident on 1 December 2020. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident informed it that her utility provider had undertaken the necessary repairs to the water tank in her property, that she wanted to get further advice before she allowed the landlord access to the property and that she would not discuss the matter further until she had received a complaint response.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 3 December 2020. It stated that:
1. It was informed by the resident that her utility provider had attended the property on 14 September 2020 and replaced the filling valve on the water tank, which had stopped the overflow running into the ductwork.
2. It informed the resident that unless the overflow is arranged to discharge elsewhere, such as to the exterior of the building, that it would continue to discharge into the ductwork.
3. The landlord had experienced issues in gaining access to both the resident’s and to neighbouring properties. As a result, delays had occurred in undertaking repairs to resolve the leak. The landlord noted that refusing access for its operatives to allow it to undertake an investigation is a breach of the occupancy agreement.
4. During a telephone conversation on 1 December 2020, the resident informed the landlord that she intended to seek legal advice before allowing access to her property and that her utility provider had attended the previous week and confirmed there were no issues with the repairs it had originally carried out. The resident also mentioned that photographs were taken by the utility provider during their visit. The landlord requested a copy of the photographs in order to confirm that the necessary repairs had been carried out. However, as yet these had not been provided by the resident.
5. Without access to the property to confirm that the relevant repairs had been completed, the landlord was unable to provide a conclusion to the complaint or continue its investigations. The landlord would also not consider offering compensation for delays when the reasons for the delays were outside of its control.
6. It was considering taking legal action against the occupants of the properties who had refused access.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2020 and requested an escalation of the complaint. On 15 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and requested access to her property to investigate the leak.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 23 December 2020 requesting access. On 10 January 2021 the landlord wrote a third time to the resident to request access and informed her that if it received no contact within the next 14 days it would look to take legal action.
On 20 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her request to escalate the complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding and enquired what her desired outcome to the complaint was.
The landlord called the resident on 27 January 2021 to discuss the complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call state that:
1. As a resolution of the complaint, the resident wanted the leak and the damage to her property repaired.
2. She would allow the landlord access to the property for an inspection if the date was confirmed in writing.
3. She had lost trust in the landlord due to missed appointments and a lack of action in resolving the issue.
On 1 February 2021 the landlord arranged for inspections of the affected properties to be conducted on 11 February 2021. The landlord and resident agreed to inspect her property at 1pm.
At 1:04pm on 11 February 2021 the resident called the landlord to inform it the appointment had yet to go ahead. The landlord advised her that its operatives were currently at one of the other properties conducting water tests and would then go to her property once this had been completed.
At 1:53pm on 11 February 2021 the landlord called the resident as its operatives said they had not been able to gain access to the property. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident informed it that she would allow the operatives to inspect the leak in the lounge, but not the water tank. The notes go on to state that the resident then agreed to allow the operative to undertake a full inspection.
Following the conclusion of the inspection the resident called the landlord back. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident told them that the operatives informed her that the leak was her fault, that the operatives were unsure why they were attending, and the visit had left her confused. The resident also informed the landlord that she would not allow any further access to her property until the landlord had repaired the leak.
The landlord received the inspection report on 12 February 2021. The sections of the report that related to the resident’s property stated that:
1. The resident provided access and confirmed that her utility provider had replaced the water tank and ball valve. However, the ball valve was still discharging into the ductwork.
2. An operative spoke to the utility provider, who confirmed that their installation was an issue and that it would arrange work to redirect the overflow away from the ductwork.
3. The damage in the lounge was caused by a historical leak and that matter was already being dealt with through insurance.
4. Although there were delays due to issues with gaining access to the resident’s property, there was no record of the landlord failing to attend an appointment it had previously arranged.
On 18 February 2020 the landlord contacted the resident and informed her that it had extended its complaint response deadline to 25 February 2020. It then sent the stage two complaint response on 26 February 2021.
The landlord first apologised for the delays in escalating and responding to the complaint and awarded the resident £50 compensation in view of this. It then gave a timeline of events since October 2020 and summarised the outcome of the inspection and its discussions with the resident’s utility provider. It asked the resident to let it know when the necessary work had been completed.
The water damage to her lounge was a result of a historical leak from another property in the building, which was exacerbated by a delay in gaining access to the property. This leak was fully repaired on 14 December 2020 and the damage to the resident’s property was being handled by its insurance provider.
The landlord concluded its response by providing the resident with the contact details for its insurer and the loss adjustor handling the case.

Assessment and findings

The leasehold agreement describes the responsibilities of the resident and the landlord in relation to the upkeep of the property. This confirms that the resident is responsible for the upkeep of the internal fixtures and fittings, which would include the water tank; and that the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the fabric of the building, which would include the external pipework serving the property such as the water supply pipes and the waste pipes.
The leasehold agreement also says that the leaseholder must allow access to “permit the [landlord] with or without operatives and all other persons authorised by it at reasonable times and upon written notice …. to enter upon and view and examine the condition of the Demised Premises [the property] and take a schedule of all landlord’s fixtures and fittings therein and for other reasonable purposes”.
When a new complaint was raised in October 2020, the landlord identified two issues that needed to be resolved. One was a leak into the resident’s property from a property above, which was determined to be the landlord’s responsibility. The other was the water tank overflow from the resident’s property discharging water into the ductwork and causing damage to properties below. This was determined to be the resident’s responsibility.
However, in order to confirm the issues and raise work to repair the leak, the landlord required access to the affected properties. The landlord’s internal correspondence described the difficulty it had experienced in gaining access.
When an appointment fails due to no access, the landlord’s operative will leave a card at the property and the appointment will be rebooked. If the second appointment also fails due to no access, the appointment will be cancelled, and the matter escalated internally within the landlord’s organisation. Ultimately, the landlord can take legal action against residents if they repeatedly refuse access for it to carry out repairs and inspections.
The landlord informed the resident during a 16 November 2020 telephone call of the difficulty it had experienced in accessing the neighbour’s property, which was suspected as being the source of the leak into her property, and that it would be writing to the tenant to request access. The landlord also informed the resident that it would require access to her property as part of its investigations.
The landlord’s repair logs state that a work order was raised to ‘trace and repair leak’ on 19 November 2020. An appointment was booked for 20 November 2020 and is marked as “no access” due to no response to a knock on the door. A note on the repair logs state that the resident called the landlord and arranged a new appointment for the morning of 30 November 2020. This was also marked as no access and the work order was cancelled after this visit.
The landlord then wrote to the resident three times, on 15 and 23 December 2020 and on 18 January 2021, to request access to the property and said it would consider taking legal action if access was not given.
This was appropriate action for the landlord to take. As it is responsible for the upkeep for the fabric of the building, it was obliged to investigate the water build-up in the communal areas in the building and determine the source. Although it suspected that the source was the water tank in the resident’s property and her – or her utility provider’s – responsibility to resolve, it would have to inspect the tank to confirm that this was the issue, then arrange a further inspection or receive confirmation that the issue had been resolved by the resident or utility company.
The landlord’s letter sent on 18 January 2021 was reasonable in the circumstances as it had not at that point been given access to the property and the resident was in breach of the leasehold agreement as two written requests from the landlord to request access had not been responded to.
The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for refusing to allow access to the property and later to the water tank. However, the landlord was not responsible for the delays this caused.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure from the landlord in the delays to complete repairs. Work was raised in line with its repairs policy. The failed appointments and delays in arranging inspections were the result of the landlord not being given access to affected properties and therefore these delays were outside its control.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delays in progressing. the complaint at stage two of its internal complaints process. The landlord’s compensation policy recommends discretionary compensation payments of £50 to £250 in circumstances where it had failed to meet service standards, but the failure had no significant impact on the complainant.
The payment was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, which is available on our website. This recommends a payment of £50 to £250 for service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.
There was also a delay in the landlord providing the stage one complaint response. The landlord has indicated that it delayed responding to the complaint because it wanted to complete its investigations into the cause of the leak before responding and, as above there were delays in this investigation caused by difficulties in the landlord gaining access to the affected properties.
The landlord took the decision to send a stage one response when it was requested by the resident, although it could not to provide a full resolution to the complaint because it still needed to inspect all the affected properties. As this did not occur until 11 February 2021, this would have resulted in a four-month delay in it providing the stage one response to the resident.
The landlord has also said it would review its no access process and that this element would be a part of the review. This action by the landlord is line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord looked to put things right by undertaking a review of its no access process and the affect this may have on an open complaint. It looked to learn from outcomes by specifically highlighting the resident’s complaint as part of this review.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled the complaint. It offered redress in line with its compensation policy in recognition of the delay at stage two if its internal process, and it commissioned a review into its no access policy and how this affects its complaint process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled repairs to fix water leaks in the property.

Reasons

The landlord followed its repairs and maintenance policy in responding to the reports of leaks and water damage. The delays in resolving the issues were the result of the landlord not being given access to the affected properties, which was beyond its control.
The landlord recognised it had not provided the stage two response in line with its complaints policy and awarded compensation proportionate to the inconvenience this delay caused to the resident.