Clarion Housing Association Limited (202102291)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102291

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of repairs required to the:
  1. Conservatory.
  2. Shed.
1. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that started in mid-2020 by way of a mutual exchange. The landlord’s website notes the importance of having insurance for the contents of the property; otherwise, furniture, carpets, electrical appliances and belongings are at risk from fire, theft, or damage.
While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to support who has repairing responsibility for the shed it has been assumed that the landlord does, given the actions that it took in response to the reports raised.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy says that an emergency repair is one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. An emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or a temporarily repair should be completed at this visit; further repairs may then subsequently be required.
The policy says that non-emergency repairs are appointed by the contact centre at the initial point of contact; residents are offered the next available appointment that suits the resident and will take place within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within ten working days and at twenty working days at stage two.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will award discretionary compensation to recognise a particular adverse effect and impact on a complainant. The policy says the landlord will pay compensation of £250 to £700 where it found considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. It also says that the landlord will pay out of pocket expenses for amounts incurred by a resident as a direct result of its actions or failure to act.
The compensation policy also says that the landlord will make a payment of £15 in the event that a member of its staff or repair contractor fails to keep an appointment without giving 24 hours’ notice where it was reasonably practicable to do so.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. During lockdown the landlord operated an essential repair service only inside properties.

Summary of events

On 3 August 2020 the landlord visited the previous tenant at the property before the mutual exchange took place. It noted that the lean to (the conservatory) was gifted to the tenant upon moving in and had been installed by the previous tenant. It further noted that “new tenant has agreed to take full responsibility for it”. (The document provided to the Ombudsman was not signed by the resident as the incoming tenant.)
The full repair log was not provided therefore this report has relied upon some information which was contained within the complaint responses. It is not disputed that the resident reported leaks in the conservatory and shed to the landlord on 29 August 2020 and its out of hours team attended and made safe; follow-on works were raised.
An operative attended on 2 September 2020 and further follow–on works were raised. Another operative attended on 9 September 2020. It is not clear what action was taken on those visits from the evidence provided.
On 26 October 2020 the resident reported that the roof of the conservatory was leaking.
On 2 November 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The landlord noted that it concerned a lack of help following damage to white goods stored in her shed which was leaking. She also complained about rats in the garden and rubbish that had been left there. The landlord noted that the resident was seeking compensation for the white goods and for having to arrange her own workmen.
On 10 November 2020 the resident reported that there was damp on the walls of the bathroom and kitchen and by the front door. The landlord subsequently provided a dehumidifier on 8 December 2020.
Meanwhile, the repairs log noted on 17 November 2020 that the felt on the shed roof should be replaced and that the crack to the shed roof should be repaired also.
On 1 December 2020 the landlord issued a stage one response to the resident under its formal complaints procedures. It gave the background to the events that led to the complaint. The main points relating to the complaint raised with the Ombudsman were:
1. The landlord had booked in a mould treatment to be applied to the property.
2. It could not repair the whole shed roof as part of it was the neighbour’s responsibility.
3. It acknowledged there had been a delay in repairing the shed roof and offered compensation of £133.32.
4. It could not waive the rent arrears due to the resident having to buy new white goods that had been damaged by the leak.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 15 January 2021 the resident told the landlord that she had had no washing machine for five months and had a job where it was imperative to have a spotless uniform. She said she could not live without access to a washing machine or a way to keep her food cold. She said that, even if she was to replace the washing machine, the shed was still leaking and therefore the same issue would arise. She said that her “complaint has been ongoing for months and nothing is being done”.
On 24 February 2021 the landlord sent a further stage one response to the resident noting several issues had not been addressed. The main points were:
1. It stressed that as the resident took the property by way of a mutual exchange, it was therefore “taken as seen”.
2. It apologised that some of the work undertaken by operatives “fell short on a number of occasions”. The issues that the resident had raised concerning its staff members had been passed to their managers.
3. Its communication with the resident had also fallen short which it acknowledged had caused her further stress and worry.
4. It apologised that there had been a number of missed appointments which had been due to several reasons – including appointments that were scheduled and not confirmed with the resident; the resident having to reschedule due to work; and the impact of the pandemic.
5. It apologised for the delay in responding to her complaints explaining that the pandemic had increased its level of work which had led to such delays.
6. Shed: the shed was shared with the neighbour who was a private owner and therefore it was unable to renew the felt for the whole shed roof as it required permission from the owner which had not been granted at the initial appointment. Permission was granted after a letter was hand-delivered on 31 January 2021 and the work was carried out on 31 January 2021.
7. At a recent visit it was confirmed that the shed had stopped leaking. The carpet in the shed was cleaned on 19 February 2021 as it was wet and dirty as a result of the leak.
8. Conservatory: a repair for the conservatory leak was raised on 26 October 2020 and attended to on 10 November 2020; a dehumidifier was left on site. The conservatory was not part of the structure of the building, was deemed to be in poor condition, at the end of its useful life and therefore required removal.
9. The landlord explained that, as the conservatory was not part of the original property, it was not responsible for its repairs. It added the resident had accepted the property “as seen” during the mutual exchange. It added it would no longer carry out temporary works on the conservatory as they were no longer effective.
10. The mutual exchange documents stated that the conservatory was gifted to the resident from the previous owner and it should have been made clear at that point that it was not part of the original structure. It would therefore not be the landlord’s responsibility to replace the conservatory. The landlord added that the next course of action would to be to remove the conservatory and it offered, as a gesture of goodwill, to have it removed and the area it had been built on to be made good.
11. Damage – all damage to personal belongings, including the white goods damaged due to the leak in the shed, was directed through to the landlord’s insurance team to investigate. The landlord’s insurance company’s loss adjusters investigated the matter and concluded that the landlord had not been legally negligent and therefore rejected the claim.
12. The landlord explained that, if the resident was not satisfied with this decision, then she could seek independent advice. It said that, as this issue was about legal liability, it could not consider this matter further through the complaints process.
13. Turning to the white goods, it had referred the resident to discuss with them the possibility of a grant to replace these items. It asked her to make contact. It also offered to re-arrange the kitchen so a space could be made for the washing machine but the resident had confirmed that it would be out in the shed now that this was no longer leaking.
14. The landlord offered compensation of £465 (this compensation relates to other issues raised and not brought to the Ombudsman).
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 9 March 2021 a local councillor, acting on the resident’s behalf, asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She asked the landlord:
1. To reimburse the resident the cost of an electrical contractor that she had paid for.
2. To offer further compensation for the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to her since she had moved into the property. The councillor explained that the resident had been holding down a stressful, full-time job as a key worker throughout the pandemic, whilst trying to deal with all of the problems and repairs at the property on her own. She added the resident had done her best to continue her day-to-day existence in difficult living conditions with no refrigerator or washing machine. The councillor added that all that had taken its toll “on her physical and mental health and wellbeing” and asked the landlord to recognise that.
3. To offer compensation for the resident’s personal possessions which had suffered water damage and many could not be salvaged.
4. To expedite the application for a grant to the resident to replace her white goods.
5. To consider how it allowed a tenant to move into a property which was in such a poor state of repair. The councillor said that, while this was a mutual exchange where the resident took over the property “as seen”, it was a serious concern that the pre-exchange visit might not have taken place and that no one at the landlord was aware of the poor condition of the property. She added the home visit prior to the exchange did not take place.
On 14 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at the final stage of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. It acknowledged the length of time it had taken to resolve the issues and noted it had not dealt with her concerns in a timely or effective manner.
2. All repairs had now been completed; it apologised for the time that it had taken to reach that point. It added that this was not acceptable and had not been the service that she should have received.
3. It would refund her the costs that she had incurred in using her own contractors for the repair to the conservatory and electrical work of £250 and £534; these would be paid to her direct as an out-of-pocket expense.
4. It enclosed a copy of the electrical test carried out at the property.
5. The compensation offered at stage one of £465 had been offset against her rent arrears.
6. The loss adjuster had found that the damage to the resident’s white goods was not a result of negligence by the landlord. It noted that she should have contents insurance to protects her against such accidents.
7. It said that it had offered to assist her with an application for help for financial assistance to buy new white goods and had advised the process would take about an hour. It had not heard from the resident but said it would contact her again and the application was still open.
8. It acknowledged there had been repairs and issues that had been missed at inspection when the property was void and said the repairs and neighbourhood teams had been working hard to resolve these issues.
9. It acknowledged that there had sometimes been lengthy delays in getting work arranged and attempting to work within the resident’s work schedule and this clearly had had an impact on the time taken to resolve matters and the level of stress she had experienced for the period she had lived in the property.
10. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and offered a further £250 to reflect that. It noted that £133.32 that was offered at stage one had not been processed and it said it would do so now.
11. It confirmed the total compensation offered was £1167.32 made up of £784 for out–of–pocket expenses: £250 for distress and inconvenience; and £133.32 for the delay in repairs being completed (offered in the stage one response).
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 7 July 2021 the resident’s solicitors made a disrepair claim. In respect to defects affecting, among other things, the conservatory.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she had lost her hair due to the stress and was unable to work properly. She said that she wanted the conservatory to be replaced as it was not fit for purpose, was still leaking and ruining even more of her belongings. She said she had been told that it was part of the property and it was causing problems throughout the property and water and mould were still present. She said she had suffered “insane levels of stress” her health was also suffering as a result of the landlord’s failings.
In April 2022 the landlord told the Ombudsman that the resident’s disrepair claim was at a pre-litigation stage. It said it had received the resident’s solicitor’s commission report at the end of January 2022. It added that the primary issue was who was responsible for the lean-to structure (the conservatory) and that was currently under investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to repairs required to the conservatory

The resident has made a disrepair claim that has not yet proceeded to court (and therefore remains within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction). The evidence suggests that the resident was made aware that she would be responsible for the conservatory which the landlord noted had been gifted to her by the previous tenant. However, the landlord was unable to provide clear evidence that it had made the resident aware of this responsibility before the mutual exchange was completed, for example, by way of the deed of exchange document.
Given the evidence suggests the landlord is not responsible for the conservatory, it went beyond its obligations in inspecting the conservatory and, once it became aware that it was beyond repair, by offering to have it removed and the area made good. The landlord also took appropriate steps to deal with the reported damp and mould in the property following the leak by applying a mould treatment and providing a dehumidifier. The landlord has apologised for the delay in providing the dehumidifier which was a proportionate response.
The landlord acted appropriately in refunding the resident the sum of £784 which was the cost of electrical contractors that she had used which was in line with its compensation policy (paragraph 7).
The landlord’s response to the leak in the conservatory was appropriate.

The landlord’s response to repairs required to the shed

The landlord’s handling of the report of the leaks to the shed was not appropriate. While the work to the shed roof could not be completed without the permission of the neighbour, the landlord has acknowledged its failings in its complaint responses setting out that:
1. There had been a delays in resolving this matters.
2. Some of the work of its operators had fallen short on a number of occasions.
3. There had been missed appointments due to the pandemic and trying to work within the resident’s work schedule.
4. Its communication with the resident had fallen short.
The landlord acted reasonably by referring the resident’s claim for damage to her white goods that had been stored in the shed to its insurer. The fact that the loss adjuster did not find the landlord liable is not a matter for the Ombudsman. Complaints about such matters are dealt with by the insurance company in the first instance and then can be brought to the Financial Services Ombudsman. It was also reasonable, given the landlord was held not to have been responsible for the leak that damaged the white goods, to offer the resident financial assistance to purchase new white goods.
In recognition of its delays and service failures, the landlord offered the resident compensation amounting to £383.32. This was made up of £250 for distress and inconvenience and £133.32 from the initial complaint response for the delay in repairing the shed (the landlord did not explain how that sum had been calculated).
In relation to the failures identified, 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. 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman cannot order compensation for any poor health that a resident claims they have experienced because he is not qualified to establish a causal link between the health effects that the resident says are linked to the landlord’s failures. The Ombudsman also cannot order damages; as that would be for a court to decide on.
It is evident that the acknowledged failings by the landlord have caused the resident great distress and inconvenience. Even without disputing who was responsible for the white goods being damaged, the resident would have been unable to replace the washing machine and fridge for some five months – which was the length of time the shed roof took to repair. The resident and the councillor have set out clearly the effect on her and it is recognised the difficulties she would have had in trying to keep a uniform clean without a washing machine especially during a pandemic when launderettes may well have been closed.
However, the Ombudsman considers the compensation offered was proportionate to the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate because there were lengthy delays at each stage. In its response of 24 February 2021, the landlord explained that had been due to the pandemic. The complaint process had taken over five months from the initial complaint at the start of November 2020 to the landlord’s final response of mid-April 2021. The landlord failed to progress the complaint in a timely manner and therefore resolve matters at the earliest opportunity. It also missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/resident relationship.
It is evident that this caused the resident frustration and inconvenience. While the landlord apologised, that does not sufficiently reflect the impact on the resident. Financial compensation is appropriate of £100 for the impact on the resident; this sum takes into account the unavoidable delays due to the pandemic.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to repairs required to the conservatory.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its response to the repairs required to the shed.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

As the evidence suggests that the landlord is not responsible for the conservatory, it acted outside its obligations in offering to remove it and make good the area. The landlord acted reasonably in reimbursing the resident the costs she had incurred in organising some repairs herself.
The landlord acknowledged its handling of the repair to the shed was not appropriate. It acted appropriately in referring the damaged goods to its insurer and offered redress that was proportionate to the impact on the resident.
There were extensive delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. While it offered an apology, this was not proportionate to the impact on the resident and compensation has been ordered, below.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the order:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £100 to reflect the impact on her by the complaint handling failings identified in this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Completes its investigation of who is responsible for the conservatory and confirm that in writing to the resident as soon as possible to minimise the ongoing distress and inconvenience to her.
1. Ensure that the compensation previously offered to the resident has been paid.