Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202116441)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116441

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 March 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak and the level of compensation offered.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident initially reported a loss of heating in his property on 3 May 2021. A contractor attended on the same day and identified that the boiler pressure was low. They refilled the boiler and noted that there were no visible leaks in the property. The resident again reported a loss of hot water and heating on 8 May 2021. A contractor attended on 10 May 2021 and again found that the boiler pressure was low. They rectified the issue and checked the property for leaks. The resident reported a loss of hot water and heating again on 3 June 2021. He also reported a leak. Contractors attended on the same day and isolated the water supply to the property. The leak could not be found within the water cylinder. A follow-up appointment took place the next day; a new cylinder was ordered and the cold water to the property was reinstated. A new cylinder was fitted on 14 June 2021 and the resident’s heating and hot water was left functioning.
  3. The resident raised a complaint in July 2021 as there had been water damage to his personal items as a result of the leak. He believed that the first engineer to attend had been negligent and felt that the leak could have been avoided. He wanted the landlord to provide compensation for his damaged personal items.
  4. In response, the landlord confirmed that it had provided the resident with its insurance information but it would not investigate insurance claims within its complaints process. It explained that the contractors did not accept liability for the leak. They had confirmed that the pressure being topped up would have no relation to the leak in the cylinder as they were on separate circuits. It initially offered the resident £40 compensation in recognition of the loss of hot water in the property for four days following the initial seven-day period and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It also apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered an additional £25 as a goodwill gesture.
  5. Following this, the resident raised a claim via the landlord’s insurer for the damage to his belongings and for a personal injury he had sustained whilst using a kettle when his hot water was not working. The insurer declined both claims and the resident was advised to claim via his own contents insurance for his damaged belongings. The resident escalated his complaint as he wanted the landlord and its contractors to accept liability for the leak and subsequent damage to his belongings. He also wanted the contractor to be investigated and an independent plumber to attend to determine the cause of the leak. He added that he wanted the compensation offered by the landlord to be increased to at least £350 to cover the excess fee he would incur by raising a claim through his own insurance company. In response, the landlord maintained its position and confirmed that its insurance company would not be accepting liability for the leak and subsequent damage caused. It offered an additional £50 for the delay in providing a stage two complaint response. It also confirmed that the contractors activities were reviewed and that it would not arrange for an independent inspection as the outcome would be the same.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord given that he had been without hot water and heating for two weeks. He added that the repair issues had impacted his health and wellbeing. He also raised new concerns about the landlord’s delay in providing information to his insurance company and the lack of correspondence regarding this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service does not consider complaints about damages and/or liability of damages. The Ombudsman Scheme under which we operate states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. As such, this report will not consider the insurance claim raised by the resident to the landlord’s insurers. The resident would be advised to speak to the insurer if he wishes to appeal the decision.
  2. In his communication to this Service, the resident also raised concern about the landlord’s delay in providing information to his own insurer. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.
  3. The resident has said he considers that the issues affecting his property have impacted his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the repair issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak and the level of compensation offered. 

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord would be responsible for repairs required to the heating and hot water system in the resident’s property. Its repairs policy states that emergency repairs, that present an immediate danger to the resident, should be made safe within 24 hours and follow-up appointments may then be required. Non-emergency repairs should be completed within a maximum of 28 calendar days. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where there is a loss of amenity or service, including loss of hot water or loss of heating during winter months, the landlord would compensate a resident. Compensation of £5 per day would be payable for loss of heating and hot water respectively after the first seven days of the initial report.
  2. In this case, the landlord arranged for each report of no hot water or heating to be attended within one working day which was reasonable. The repair records provided by the contractors stated that on both visits on 3 and 10 March respectively, the boiler pressure was found to be low. This was rectified and the property was checked for leaks at the time with none being found. The leak was reported on 3 June 2021 and the contractors attended within 24 hours to ‘make safe’ in line with the landlord’s repair obligations. The issue was resolved on 14 June 2021 where the cylinder was replaced; the resident was without use of hot water or heating for approximately 11 calendar days.
  3. It is noted that the resident has maintained his position in that he feels that the leak was a result of the boiler pressure being topped up and the landlord should accept liability for the damage caused to his personal items. It was reasonable in this case for the landlord to provide the resident with information on how he could raise a claim via its own insurer if he felt it was responsible for the damage. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of the landlord’s insurer and therefore we cannot comment further on the insurance process or the outcome of any insurance claim. The Ombudsman cannot determine liability where it is disputed. Only the insurers or the courts could determine this. The landlord would not be expected to pay the resident for the excess fee he was required to pay to his own contents insurers. This is because it would be the resident’s responsibility to ensure that his belongings were adequately insured in line with the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s insurers had not accepted liability for the damage to the resident’s possessions. If the resident’s own insurer felt it had evidence that the landlord was liable, it would then be able to pursue the landlord for any associated costs (including the excess payment).
  4. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who had established that there were no leaks at the time of the repair after the first seven days and that the boiler pressure being re-filled would not have had an impact on the cylinder as they ran on separate circuits. Whilst it took some time for the cylinder to be replaced, the evidence shows that the new part was ordered the day after the repair issue had been reported. Any delay following this date was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control as it needed to wait for the part to arrive before the work could go ahead. Ultimately this timeframe was not unreasonable and would not amount to a service failure by the landlord.  It was reasonable for it to advise that it would not carry out an independent investigation into the leak as the issue had been resolved and an independent investigator would not be able to ascertain the cause of the leak if the old cylinder was no longer in situ.
  5. In this case, the landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the inconvenience caused to the resident due to a loss of hot water and heating. It put things right offering £40 compensation in accordance with its compensation policy for loss of amenities. Given that the loss of heating occurred during the summer months, the landlord was not strictly obliged to compensate the resident according to its policy, although it was reasonable for it to do so. It also offered an additional £25 compensation; whilst it is not clear what this amount was specifically for, it was a reasonable to offer some redress in recognition of the overall inconvenience caused to the resident. Overall, the landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should provide a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should provide a response within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timescale. The policy confirms that liability or personal injury claims would not be considered within the landlord’s complaints process.
  2. In this case, the resident asked for a complaint to be raised on 13 July 2021. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 3 August 2021, which was five working days outside of its published timescales. The resident appears to have escalated his complaint around 10 August 2021 although the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of this correspondence. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 8 October 2021 which was significantly outside of its published timescales by approximately 23 working days.  
  3. It is noted that the landlord had also contacted the resident on 23 September 2021 to apologise for the delay in issuing its stage two complaint response. It explained that it was experiencing a higher volume of complaints and confirmed that it would provide its stage two complaint response by 21 October 2021. As such, the landlord attempted to manage the resident’s expectations which was reasonable. 
  4. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by attempting to keep the resident informed of the status of his complaint and offering £50 compensation. This amount is also in line with the ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which states that amount in this range are proportionate in instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a leak and the level of compensation offered, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the associated complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

 Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £115 as previously agreed if it has not already done so as the decision above was in part based on this offer.