Clarion Housing Association Limited (202110906)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110906

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 October 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an inconsistent water supply to her property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant who moved to the property through a mutual exchange. The property is a flat on the top floor of a mid-rise block.
The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep in good repair and proper working order any installations for the supply of water and for water heating, including sinks, baths and water pipes.
The landlord has a repairs policy that shows that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days. It adds that major component replacements (such as bathrooms) will be delivered through its planned programmes but that, in the meantime, “all repairs needed to keep an item safe and serviceable should be completed”.
The landlord’s website has a repairs section that confirms it is responsible for maintenance of taps, water mains and pipes but that water issues in communal areas are the responsibility of the water supplier.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a formal two-stage process where it is required to respond within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively.
The landlord has a compensation policy that shows that it may offer compensation “where a resident has incurred out of pocket expenses or unnecessary inconvenience”. It has suggested compensation ranges, including awards of between £250 to £700 for circumstances where there has been a failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with its policies.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s repair records show that an emergency order was raised on 23 April 2019 as the resident reported a lack of drinking water to the property. The job was cancelled later that day as the landlord noted it had told the resident that the water supplier had conducted works.
The landlord raised a repair order on 15 August 2019 that included reference to the shower water being either too hot or cold. It noted that it visited the property on 22 August 2019 but there was no answer so it wrote to the resident on 23 August 2019, offering an appointment for 29 August 2019 but there was no access on that date either so it had left a calling card at the property.
The landlord raised a repair order on 2 December 2019 in response to a report that a bath tap had broken off, the kitchen hot water tap only worked intermittently and the shower was either too hot or cold. This order was subsequently cancelled on 5 January 2020 as the landlord noted that it had been unable to get in contact with the resident.
The landlord raised a repair order on 6 February 2020 due to the broken bath tap, lack of water from the shower, intermittent water in the kitchen and a banging noise from pipework. This order was closed as complete on 2 March 2020 with notes showing that “tap inserts” had been renewed.
The landlord raised repair orders on 11 March 2020 in response to a report that the bath mixer tap was leaking. An order was recorded as complete on the same day with notes showing that a stopcock and taps had been overhauled.
The landlord raised a repair order on 2 September 2020 with the job description showing that this was to address a tap spinning around in the bathroom and a faulty kitchen tap. The landlord recorded the job as complete on 2 October 2020, noting that it had renewed “tap revivers” and left them in working order but the resident had requested new bath taps.
The landlord logged a complaint from the resident on 15 October 2020. It noted that this was due to correspondence that the resident had sent to her MP in late September 2020 about:
1. a lack of hot water to her bath and shower which had occurred for a second time in recent months;
2. a lack of water supply in her kitchen (and sometimes a loss of hot water supply);
3. the landlord’s repairs attempts so far had left her with mismatched bath taps;
4. an alleged missed appointment on 18 September 2020.
The landlord raised a new repair order on 16 October 2020 as the resident reported the kitchen taps were not working and the bathroom hot tap was not turning the correct way.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 4 November 2020 and she reported that she had experienced a water supply issue since she moved into the property 10 years earlier. The landlord’s internal emails from the same day indicate that it had been unable to locate a repairs record to corroborate that the water pressure was a long-standing issue.
The landlord’s repair records show that it was due to address the kitchen and bathroom tap repair job on 9 November 2020 but the operative was unwell. It noted on the same date that the resident had advised she was regularly left without drinking water for hours at a time and the repair had been rescheduled to 3 December 2020.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 18 November 2020 and confirmed that its major works contractor had attended to inspect but that its repairs contractor missed the tap repair appointment the previous week (due to the operative being ill).
The landlord noted on 23 November 2020 that it had only renewed tap revivers (not the whole bath tap) on 2 October 2020 as it repaired items where possible. It added on 25 November 2020 that it had spoken to the resident and agreed an appointment for 3 December 2020 (for the water pressure and taps).
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 26 November 2020. It apologised for the delay in responding (and awarded £25 compensation for this) and included reference to various repairs matter, including broken window handles and a damaged hall cupboard door. On the water pressure issue, it concluded that:
1. the resident said the water pressure problem had been ongoing since she moved in 10 years ago and it suggested she keep a diary record of this;
2. it had arranged an appointment for 3 December 2020 to assess the bath taps and a sink;
3. kitchen and bathroom upgrades on the estate were ongoing and a sub-contractor had completed a condition survey on 12 November 2020.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that there was a suggestion on 3 December 2020 that the resident’s bath should be renewed.
The landlord raised a repair order on 7 December 2020 to inspect and remedy the water issue at the property as the water supplier had advised there was a plumbing issue and the boiler was not faulty. The landlord noted that it attended on 16 December 2020 but that a surveyor was required and a property improvement was needed.
The landlord raised a repair order on 15 December 2020 with a job description showing that the bath was rusty and not enough water was passing through the mixer tap. It subsequently noted that an operative had attended on 21 January 2021 but the job was rescheduled to 11 March 2021.
The landlord noted receipt of an email from the resident on 21 January 2021 when she advised she had no water supply the day before and only cold water on the day of writing. She confirmed that she had been unable to wash or wash up or use her washing machine. She added that she had spoken to the water supplier who had said this was the landlord’s issue and that the problem could last between 10 minutes and more than a day. The landlord subsequently noted that the issue was also potentially affecting another address in the resident’s block.
The landlord raised an emergency repair order on 21 January 2021 to address the loss of water but closed the job as complete on the same date with a note showing that there was cold water running in the bathroom but no hot water to the kitchen or bathroom.
The landlord raised a further repair order on 22 January 2021 for the loss of water but recorded that it obtained no access on 25 January 2021. It visited the property on 27 January 2021 instead, noting that the water supply was now back on but further investigations were needed as the resident had told it that this was happening every week.
The landlord raised a repair order on 24 February 2021 for a joint inspection with a heating contractor with a recommendation that all taps were renewed to rule these out as the problem. It noted that it visited on 25 February 2021 but the resident could not give access as she had not been informed of the appointment. It subsequently recorded on 8 March 2021 that it still needed to return to investigate the water pressure problem and the resident could provide access in the evening.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 10 March 2021 and she confirmed a lack of water supply to her bathroom and advised that she was sometimes without drinking water. She added that her bath and taps were rusty and a surveyor had attended the week before and said he would need to return with a plumber and heating operative.
The landlord noted on 11 March 2021 that the bathroom planned investment inspection had been “borderline” but it intended to renew the resident’s bathroom in the summer (and the kitchen had already been upgraded).
The landlord noted on 29 March 2021 that its contractor had intended to visit the property on 11 March 2021 but the resident had asked for this to be re-arranged to 14 April 2021. It added on a separate repair order that 20 litres of drinking water had been delivered to the property on 29 March 2021.
The landlord sent a final complaint response to the resident on 30 March 2021. It apologised and compensated the resident £25 for the complaint handling delay (plus £50 for some window repair delays) and, on the water pressure issue, concluded that:
1. it initially attended to overhaul the bathroom taps on 11 March 2020 but had received reports since then of taps spinning around and turning the wrong way but it had dealt with these within its published service level timescales;
2. it had scheduled to renew the bath and taps on 12 March 2021 but re-arranged this for 14 April 2021 as the resident requested;
3. it had since established that a bathroom renewal (through its planned investment team) would be done in the summer so only the taps would be dealt with in April 2021;
4. 12 repair orders had been raised for water pressure issues since 2017, including nine since February 2020, and there had been some failures such as not following up on recommendations for tap renewals and removing an airlock;
5. it had attempted to do a joint visit with its heating contractor during February-March 2021 and had re-arranged this for 14 April 2021 when it intended to “address any airlocks to try to improve the issue until the new bathroom is installed”.
6. it apologised and awarded £200 compensation for its failings.

Summary of Events after landlord complaint process

The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 March 2021, acknowledging its compensation award and advising that she would await its further contact from 14 April 2021 on an action plan for the water issue.
The landlord closed a repair order on 16 April 2021 that had been raised due to reports of a rusty bath and need to investigate the water pressure issue. No notes were added to confirm the outcome of the planned inspection two days earlier.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2021. She said that there was still no warm water from her taps and only a dribble from cold water taps and she had been unable to get through to it by telephone. She added that the 14 April 2021 appointment had not been helpful as one of the two required operatives had not attended and the problem had now been ongoing for more than a year.
The landlord replied to the resident on 29 April 2021, advising her that her complaint had exhausted its complaints process so she would need to contact this Service.
The resident approached this Service in August 2021, advising that her landlord had been unable to resolve the various water supply problems she had experienced since April 2020, including failing to install a pump that was recommended and not attending with a specialist plumber.
The landlord’s internal emails from September 2021 show that it reviewed the resident’s complaint in light of her request for a copy of the final complaint response and that its records showed a new bathroom had been installed in June 2021. It made a further note the following week that its surveyor had spoken to the resident and she had advised that there were still intermittent water pressure problems after the major works and the water supplier had confirmed it was the landlord’s responsibility to remedy.
The landlord approached a water services contractor in early October 2021 with a view to arranging a joint inspection of the resident’s property.
The landlord’s planned investment team noted in mid-October 2021 that its contractor had previously confirmed a water pressure problem and that this meant that a newly installed electric shower was not working consistently. It added that its planned investment manager did not have a record of flagging the issue with its responsive repairs team.
The landlord’s telephone call records show that it attempted to call the resident on 19 October 2021; it noted that it had intended to speak to her about the water pressure issue and had left a message for her to call it back. Separate notes show it had arranged to inspect the resident’s property on 22 October 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 October 2021 – it described this correspondence as a complaint addendum and concluded that:
1. it understood the kitchen and bathroom upgrades had not remedied the water pressure issue as the problem was on an incoming main supply;
2. it did not realise until the previous month that the water pressure was still a problem but its planned investment team had failed to pass on the issue;
3. it apologised, awarded £250 compensation for this failing and said it would be inspecting the following day.
The landlord’s internal emails from late October 2021 show that its contractor had advised that it was not obvious what the cause of the water issue was but that they had queried what testing had been done prior to installation of combi boilers at the block. It noted that a suggestion had been made for a system “flush out” but there was no guarantee that this would work and that a pressure test of the boilers was a potential option.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 November 2021, advising that a member of staff had visited on 22 October 2021 but no further communications had been offered and she was still experiencing the same issues. She added that a major works contractor had also informed the landlord about the water issue and reported that her supply was “often only cold water, and in the winter the cold water is freezing”.
The resident confirmed to this Service in November 2021 that her outstanding concerns were a lack of water coming from her bathroom and kitchen taps at various times of the day (even meaning her washing machine would not work) and a lack of hot water so that even when water was running, it was insufficient to be able to run a bath (and showers were either scalding hot or freezing cold).
The landlord’s internal emails from late November 2021 show that its surveyor agreed to a system “flush out” and suggested changing “the main stopcock to the rising main inside the flat as this could be faulty”. It obtained a quote from the contractor and arranged an appointment for early December 2021.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it completed a job on 3 December 2021 to “cut out internal sure stop as it was restricting flow”, flushed the system, “cut in” a new inside stop valve and tested the supply.
The resident advised this Service in December 2021 that operatives had come to flush through her pipework but told her that this would not assist with the water supply issue and the problem remained ongoing.
The landlord’s telephone call records show that it attempted to call the resident on 23 December 2021 but that the line did not connect.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 May 2022. It said that it had reviewed its actions after receiving enquiries from this Service and concluded that:
1. its contractor attended on 22 October 2021 and 3 December 2021 and “carried out the necessary work to resolve the restriction of water flow” after which the area manager attempted to contact her on 23 December 2021 (to check works had been successful) but got no response;
2. it wrote to her on 8 April 2022 and its contractor attended again on 14 April 2022 and “agreed to renew the incoming mains and create a new rising main in the kitchen”;
3. it had spoken to the resident accordingly on 26 April 2022, the work had been approved and it was awaiting an appointment date from its contractor;
4. once works were completed, it would speak to her once per week for a month to check the water issue was resolved;
5. it expressed disappointment that the new mains proposal had not been made when its contractor attended in October 2021, apologised and awarded £350 additional compensation.
The landlord advised this Service in July 2022 that all works to resolve the water pressure issue had been completed.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The resident has expressed concern to the landlord and this Service that the water supply problem at her property was ongoing for several years. The landlord has confirmed that there were reports as early as 2017 but this investigation is focused on events that occurred during the year prior to the resident making a complaint in October 2020.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports during early 2019 to early 2020 were to:
1. raise an emergency order in April 2019 but close it once it became apparent that the water supplier was involved;
2. attempt to visit the resident’s property twice and leave a calling card in response to a report in August 2019 that the shower was faulty;
3. attempt to contact the resident in January 2020 in response to her further reports about the shower temperature and faulty taps;
4. complete repairs to taps and a stopcock in March 2020.
The landlord therefore demonstrated that it raised an emergency order, in accordance with its repairs policy, when appropriate, made attempts to gain access to the property to address concerns about the condition of taps and the shower and, once it secured access, completed plumbing works. Given the resident’s reports were sporadic during this period, there was no indication that there was a significant water supply problem and it acted on each report within an appropriate timescale, the landlord’s approach during this period was reasonable.
The resident began to make consistent reports about losses of water supply from September 2020. Although it again raised multiple repair orders in response, the only material actions the landlord had taken by the time it issued a final complaint response (in March 2021) were to replace some tap heads (which the resident later said were mismatched) and conduct a couple of inspections (from which no diagnosis or action plan arose). Given the resident had made it clear during this period that she was regularly without any water supply at all (to the extent that the landlord had to deliver bottles of drinking water to her), it is unreasonable that the landlord failed to at least diagnose what the cause of this was. This delay would have left the resident uncertain as to how the landlord intended to resolve what she had described to be a long-standing matter of severe inconvenience.
Further, although the landlord completed a bathroom condition survey in November 2020, which confirmed an upgrade was necessary, the renewal works were not conducted until June 2021. It was reasonable for the major works to be passed to its planned investment team in accordance with its repairs policy. However, this policy also requires the landlord to ensure items are safe and serviceable pending their replacement and the resident had advised her bath was rusty and the shower temperature made it impossible to use. Given the difficulties the resident therefore had in using washing facilities, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not complete any interim repairs, beyond a change of taps, in advance of the full bathroom replacement.
When the landlord issued the final complaint response in March 2021, it acknowledged and apologised for its service failings and awarded £200 compensation. Although this demonstrated that the landlord had recognised shortcomings in its handling of the resident’s water supply reports, given it had delayed by six months in diagnosing and remedying the problem and the inevitable impact this had on the resident’s living conditions, this level of compensation was insufficient. Even if the water supply sometimes worked, this will have been a very distressing period for the resident and interruptions of water for drinking and washing represent a potential health and safety hazard so a more significant compensation award would have been proportionate.
Further, there is no evidence that the landlord took the opportunity of the complaint to consider how it could improve its handling of similar reports in future. Given the extent of the inconvenience caused to the resident and the landlord’s records indicate that the water pressure problem was impacting other flats on the estate, this represented a failure to learn lessons from the case and meant that it did not act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Since the end of the complaints process, the landlord has acknowledged additional service failings in a lack of co-ordination between its planned investment and responsive repairs services (from June 2021 onwards) and in continuing to delay in diagnosis of the cause of the water pressure problem (between October 2021 and April 2022). Given the landlord was aware by the end of the complaints process that the water supply problem was consistent and severely impacting the resident, its limited efforts to follow up with her, after attempts to resolve the issue through major works and repairs, demonstrate that it failed to take a pro-active approach. Although it has awarded additional compensation of £600 in recognition of this, these further delays indicate that lessons had not been learned and its follow-up responses to the resident still did not offer any assurance that it had implemented changes to prevent similar occurrences in future.
In summary, it is not disputed that the landlord delayed unreasonably in diagnosing the cause of a water supply problem at the resident’s property. Although it apologised and awarded £200 compensation through its complaints process, this level of compensation was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it had addressed potential learning points from the outcome of the case and repeated communications and diagnosis delays after the end of its complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of an inconsistent water supply to her property.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in investigating and resolving the resident’s reports of a water supply problem to her property, its compensation offer of £200 did not offer sufficient redress given the impact of its failings on her and it did not learn lessons in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1200, made up of:
1. £800 that it offered through its complaint responses between March 2021 and May 2022 (if it has not already done so);
2. an additional £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the service failures identified in its handling of her reports of an inconsistent water supply to her property.
In order to ensure that it has learned lessons from the outcome of this case, the landlord to create an action plan, within eight weeks of the date of this report, which will ensure that:
1. it diagnoses the cause of water pressure problems more promptly in future;
2. it communicates pro-actively with residents while they are experiencing water supply problems to advise how, and when, it is planning to fix the fault and ensure that residents have adequate drinking water and washing facilities in the meantime;
3. its planned investment team and contractors have procedures that allow for unresolved repairs to be passed back to its responsive repairs team for completion if these remain unresolved after their upgrades;
4. it pro-actively follows up with residents after it has attempted water pressure repairs to ensure that they have been successful.