Clarion Housing Association Limited (202001355)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001355

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 November 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 is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak at a neighbouring property and the subsequent repairs and associated damage.
2. Complaint handling.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak at the property which occurred in 2018.
4. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for further repairs at the property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak which occurred in 2018.
2. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for further repairs at the property.

The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak at the property which occurred in 2018

Paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme says, “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
Whilst the leak at the property occurred in 2018, the matter was not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint until 2020, more than 12 months later. As the matter was not raised as a complaint with the landlord within six months of the matters arising this aspect of the complaint is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme.

The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for further unrelated repairs at the property

Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme says, “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
The landlord issued the resident with its final response 25 November 2020. The resident did not make a formal complaint to the landlord about its response to his request for compensation until 19 January 2021. Therefore this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme. It is not clear from the evidence provided if this complaint issues has since exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, however the resident would need to bring a separate complaint to this Service.
The remaining two complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak at a neighbouring property and the subsequent repairs and associated damage, and about the landlord’s complaints handling are assessed below.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident is a leaseholder at the property and is subject to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy states that the residents must be kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident made a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should formally respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a peer review of the landlord’s decision and the landlord should provide a response within 20 working days.
The lease agreement outlines that it is the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain the cisterns, sewers, drains and pipes at the property. The repairs policy highlights that the landlord ‘aims to perform non-emergency repairs within 28 days of the issue being reported by the resident’.
The landlord compensation policy states that discretionary compensation can be offered to a resident for the time taken to resolve the complaint, for any inconvenience suffered or a degree of disruption to the household and for recognition of its failure to follow its processes.

Summary of events

On 17 December 2019, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to a leak that had come into her property from a broken soil stack in an upstairs neighbouring property.
On 4 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to the ongoing leak which had caused dirty water to enter through the ceiling in her kitchen. She advised that three plumbers had attended but had not given her a timeframe for the repairs to be complete and she had not been supplied with any resources to clean the water ingress.
On 20 January 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the delay in rectifying the problem. It advised that it had inspected a number of neighbouring properties and it was not able to find any issue. It advised that it had raised a communal job for 27 January 2020 to find the root cause of the problem.
On 3 March 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in relation to the leak from an upstairs neighbour.
On 30 April 2020, the landlord’s contractors attended the complex to renew the pipework and a connection to the stack, it advised that the drainage was tested and it determined the repair was complete.
On 7 May 2020, contractors attended the resident’s property due to reports of a sewage smell and discovered a secondary leak, the contractors capped the vent pipe to temporarily resolve the issue and all works were complete by 15 May 2020.
On 28 September 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and advised on the repairs that had been performed on 30 April 2020 and 7 May 2020. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the repairs and offered the resident £350 compensation for the intermittent leaks, which consisted of:
1. £50 for repairs at the property going over its formal timescales.
2. £100 for the time taken to resolve the issue.
3. £100 for the inconvenience suffered and the disruption to the household.
4. £100 for the repeat visits it took to resolve the repairs.
On 12 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for a review of its stage one response. On 15 October 2020, the landlord advised that its Customer Solutions Team would contact her directly.
On 19 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she had not heard anything about the review of its stage one response and asked for an increase in the amount of compensation offered.
On 10 November 2020, the landlord’s technical inspector attended the resident’s property and noted that there were no leaks however proposed the removal of the sink base in the upstairs neighbouring apartment to allow access and the fitting of a new waste pipe which was performed.
On 24 November 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final stage two peer review response and addressed the following:
1. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in providing its stage one and two responses and offered the resident £250 compensation. It advised that it had used the case as a learning exercise and would involve technical staff at an earlier stage in the repairs process in the future.
2. It acknowledged that the length of time that it had taken to undertake the required repairs was too long and caused the resident ‘anxiety and uncertainty. In recognition of the inconvenience and disruption of the intermittent leaks to the resident as a result of the 11 months taken to fully resolve the leak (December 2019- November 2020), it awarded the resident £700 compensation.
3. It offered the resident £250 for her repeatedly having to chase responses and for the unreasonable level of involvement she had to have in the process.
4. The total amount of compensation offered to the resident was £1200.
5. It advised that it was not able to offer compensation for the damage to the resident’s belongings and that the resident would need to make a claim against the landlord insurers.
On 19 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for compensation in relation to a number of repairs that needed to be performed at the property which included a faulty intercom, main door, electrical works, estate service charge and for environmental distress.

Assessment and findings

A leak at the property and subsequent repairs and associated damage.

The resident raised issues of a leak from an upstairs neighbouring property in December 2019 which had led to water entering the resident’s kitchen and causing damage to her property. The impact on the resident would have been extremely unpleasant and it would have caused the resident great distress and inconvenience. The landlord has an obligation under its repairs policy to make the appropriate repairs within 28 days of it being reported by the resident. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord initially responded within a reasonable time and had contractors attend the property however it was unable to identify the cause of leak which contributed to the delay.
The resident made further complaints about the leak on 4 January 2020 and the landlord failed to provide the resident with appropriate timescales for the repairs to be complete. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord did not complete the initial repair until 30 April 2020, four months after the leak was first reported. Further works were required to the upstairs property causing further delay with the works not being fully resolved until November 2020. This 10-month delay was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s repairs guidelines and works should have been performed sooner to mitigate any distress or loss to the resident
The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failure in its stage one and two complaint responses and offered the resident £950 compensation. The offer was broken down into an award of £700 compensation for the length of time that it took to undertake the repairs at the property and £250 for the resident having to chase responses from the landlord. The landlord demonstrated that it understood the impact the delay had on the resident and tried to put things right, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord has an obligation to put right any damage caused by its failure to comply with its repair’s obligations. The evidence suggests that the landlord is supporting the resident to claim against its insurance in order to be compensated for the damage to the resident’s belongings and other related costs. This is an appropriate avenue to take as long as the resident is compensated for the loss but if the resident’s claim is not successful the landlord could be liable for further damages.
Overall, the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to its failures to communicate with the resident and for the delay in completing the repairs and any distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

There were acknowledged failures by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint. The resident made her stage one complaint on 3 March 2020 and the landlord provided a stage one response on 28 September 2020. This represents a significant six-month delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage two panel response and it failed to appropriately alert the resident about the delay in line with its complaints policy.
The resident asked for a review of the decision on 12 October 2020 and the landlord progressed the complaint and provided its final stage two review on 24 November 2020. This represents a further three-week delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage two complaint response. However, the landlord appropriately offered the resident £250 for the delays experienced at stage one and two of the complaints process. This amount was sufficient to adequately compensate for the delays at both stages of the complaints process and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily with respect to its handling of:
1. Repairs due to leaks which affected the leasehold property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its 10-month delay in completing repairs at the property and its failure to communicate with the resident. The landlord appropriately offered the resident adequate compensation to remedy its failure.
The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with its internal policies. The landlord failed to complete stage one and two of the complaint’s procedure within the correct time frame and failed to adequately communicate with the resident about the delay. The landlord however offered an amount of compensation which this Service has assessed as having adequately redressed all the issues.
Recommendation
If it has not already been paid, the landlord should reoffer the resident the previously offered £1200 compensation.