Clarion Housing Association Limited (202114359)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114359

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 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 report of a leak in her bathroom and the related remedial works.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a shared ownership lease that commenced on 1 May 2019. The property is a third floor flat within a mid-rise block.
The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy that sets out that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s website confirms that:
1. it is responsible for defects or “snags” to new-build homes;
2. where a resident is decanted into temporary accommodation due to a major repair, they will be responsible for rent on their principal property but will be paid £15 per day for meal expenses if they go into a hotel or B&B.
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 defines compensation as a “payment of recompense for loss of service or out of pocket expense at a quantifiable rate or amount incurred by a resident” due to a failure on its part. It shows that it may award compensation for repairs not completed within its target timescale and for loss of room use. It adds that loss of room use and loss of amenity is dealt with differently where it needs to decant a resident.
The resident has stated that mould growth caused by the leak in her bathroom impacted her physical health and that her mental wellbeing was also seriously affected by the landlord’s handling of the repair. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction and would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation will have caused the resident.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s defect records show that:
1. it noted a possible leak on 3 September 2019 that had affected the grouting around the resident’s toilet and to which a site manager had attended (but the job was closed as the resident was unavailable);
2. it noted on 28 January 2020 that there was discolouration to grout between the bathroom floor tiles due to a leak on the toilet (with the job closed as complete on 21 February 2020);
3. it again recorded on 14 May 2020 that there was a leak to the bathroom toilet (it subsequently noted that it had received a report of a “hidden leak” in the bathroom on 21 May 2020 and that there was damage to grout);
4. a record was made on 24 June 2020 of a section of hallway flooring lifting due to the bathroom leak (and that this was to be inspected in August 2020).
The landlord noted that the resident chased it twice in late July 2020 for an update on the works to stop the leak in her bathroom.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord dated 4 August 2020 on the grounds that:
1. it had delayed in resolving a toilet leak that she initially reported as a snagging item in June 2019;
2. this was despite her contact with the landlord, a defects aftercare administrator and the contractor during July-August 2019;
3. an operative attended in September 2019 but did nothing, she had to chase the landlord from January 2020 and the leak damage had begun to spread to the hallway by February 2020;
4. an operative attended in July 2020 and hacked away a wall tile to reveal the leaking pipework but said a period of drying out was needed;
5. it was four weeks later and no return visit had been undertaken so she was concerned about the health impact of mould growth around the back of the toilet area;
6. she was concerned that others in her development had experienced similar problems and the landlord did not always have a record of the block when they contacted it.
The resident submitted a follow-on complaint on 9 August 2020, following a worsening leak from the toilet the evening before. She said she had spoken to the out of hours team on a few occasions but they had not been clear about when the contractor would attend so she had stayed up all night. An operative had apparently attended that morning and found an incision in the underside of a waste pipe which indicated that the leak had been ongoing for 15 months, potentially causing health problems to her.
The landlord’s defect records indicate that it stopped the bathroom leak on 12 August 2020 which it had identified as being caused by a cut in the soil stack. It noted that remedial works to flooring would be necessary in the bathroom and hallway.
The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 9 September 2020. It concluded that:
1. the aftercare team had liaised with the contractor about the bathroom leak in May 2019 and assumed the work was done until the resident raised the issue again in January 2020 when it similarly understood the matter had been attended to;
2. there was a delay from May 2020 due to Covid-19 restrictions but it apologised for the earlier delay and awarded £125 compensation;
3. the contractor had agreed to replace bathroom tiles and hallway flooring now the leak was resolved;
4. other comments were made about rent, boiler wiring and an electricity bill reimbursement.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17-18 September 2020, expressing continued dissatisfaction on the grounds that:
1. the compensation did not reflect the anxiety she had been caused;
2. it should not have assumed works had been completed once they were passed to the contractor;
3. she was still having to use the unsanitary bathroom and it was in no rush to complete the works so she had taken to phoning the contractor directly;
4. it had proposed to address damaged flooring but she also identified issues with the bath, tiles, sink and kitchen worktops;
5. she queried the landlord’s comments about the boiler wiring and continued to report potential inaccuracies with her rent and service charge statements.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 28 September 2020. The landlord sent an acknowledgement letter to the resident on 20 October 2020 that mentioned that an earlier email from her had not been received but that her concerns had now been passed on for investigation. It said it would respond in full in 10 working days.
The landlord’s internal emails from October 2020 show that it had decided to do a further response at stage one of its complaints process but that the leak was resolved, it had chased up works with the contractor and no further compensation would be paid. It noted that the remaining works to the bathroom were substantial and would take a week.
The landlord raised the resident’s bathroom leak reports with its contractor on 28 October 2020, noting this had been outstanding for 17 months.
The landlord’s defect records from November 2020 show that it had raised works to fit new wall and flooring tiles plus a new bath and hand basin. It noted that the resident had been required to move into temporary accommodation from 30 November 2020 to allow works to proceed.
The landlord’s complaint records show that works to install the new bathroom began on 30 November 2020 and were scheduled to be done by 4 December 2020, with the resident in hotel accommodation in the meantime.
The resident’s father contacted the landlord on 2 December 2020, advising that he understood that it had now decided to replace the kitchen too because of the pipework leak.
The landlord’s internal emails from 4 December 2020 show that it was aware at this point that the resident would possibly not be able to move back into the property prior to Christmas due to the size of the repair job. It noted that it had a conversation with the resident accordingly on that date.
The landlord wrote to the resident again on 9 December 2020. It said it had spoken to her the week before and was working with its aftercare team to obtain a repairs schedule.
The landlord noted telephone contact with the resident on 24 and 29 December 2020 to discuss the complaint, compensation and need for a repairs schedule.
The landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident on 7 January 2021 which concluded that:
1. works had been conducted from mid-December 2020 to remove kitchen units (including the washing machine), bathroom flooring and plasterboard to allow investigation, clearance of damaged areas, a hygiene clean and new timbers;
2. it also re-plastered, re-tiled and installed a new bath and new kitchen units;
3. it would be installing a new toilet, basin, shower screen, new hallway flooring and completing the kitchen install over the coming week before a handover on 15 January 2021;
4. these repairs had required the resident to be decanted;
5. it awarded £2100 compensation for the inconvenience of the decant, the delay and the time and trouble caused to her as well as £50 for the complaint handling delay.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 12 January 2021. She suggested that the compensation figure was arbitrary and not reflective of 20 months of inconvenience. She asked for the landlord to:
1. reimburse her for two months of household expenses (mortgage, rent and service charge and utility bills) which totalled £1938.96;
2. consider reimbursing her for rent given she believed that there were times when the property was unfit for human habitation given the waste water leak;
3. consider reimbursing her for additional food and petrol expenses she incurred while she was staying in hotel accommodation and for her father’s petrol costs as he needed to be at the property during works;
4. review the time and trouble she had gone to in scrutinising the landlord, writing correspondence, moving between accommodation and staying in unfamiliar places during Christmas and a Covid-19 lockdown;
5. consider the physical and mental health impacts of its delays.
The resident wrote to the landlord and the contractor on 15 January 2021. She said she had been happy to return to her property but was dissatisfied with how it had been left with regards to cleanliness, particularly in terms of dust throughout. She also raised specific concerns about the finish of works, including:
1. unfinished skirting boards and damage to the front and bathroom doors;
2. poor quality bathroom tiling, grouting and sealant work, a gap between a spotlight and ceiling, a faulty bathroom door lock and a step up into the bathroom (which was not there before);
3. she understood that the tiles and kitchen worktop were supposed to be like for like replacements but the choices had been changed without communications with her.
The landlord noted on 20 January 2021 that it had received photographs from the resident, confirming the points of concern about the condition of the property.
The landlord noted in February 2021 that it had escalated the resident’s complaint and that its contractor was in attendance to address the poor-quality workmanship. Emails were also exchanged with the contractor and resident during this period, showing that it had been reported that damage had been caused to doors and walls by the works to date and there were faults in most rooms.
The landlord’s defect records show that it was still awaiting a quote for the remaining bathroom and kitchen remedial works on 9 March 2021.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 17 March 2021 – it recorded that she was still in temporary accommodation and works were likely to take around four weeks, after which compensation would be reviewed. It noted further update calls on 25 March 2021 and 9 April 2021 with the decant agreed up to the latter date and a compensation review pending.
The landlord’s contractor also sent several emails to the resident during late March to early April 2021, regarding progress against the scope of works and confirming the moisture level had allowed for works to proceed.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it post-inspected the property with the resident on 9 April 2021 and found works substantially complete and to a good quality. It added that a small number of snags were accepted and temporary accommodation had been extended by a few days to allow for this. The resident provided photographs to show why she was dissatisfied with the quality of the cleaning in particular.
The landlord issued another complaint response to the resident on 23 April 2021 which concluded that:
1. repairs had been due to be completed on 15 January 2021 but it had needed to address the resident’s concerns, including full bathroom re-tiling and re-installation, a new bathroom door, new balcony decking, a new kitchen worktop and snagging re-decorations throughout the property;
2. the resident’s decant had therefore been extended until works were “substantially” completed on 9 April 2021 and keys were handed back;
3. some outstanding snags still needed to be finished off and a date for this was being worked on;
4. the resident would be reimbursed for a new bed as her original one had been damaged by mould as it was left in the property during works;
5. it apologised and awarded £4350 compensation, made up of £1200 for the long decant stay, £1400 for repair delays, £1700 for time and trouble, inconvenience and distress and £50 for complaint handling;
6. it had provided feedback to the development manager and regional director to “better our customer service in line with our policies and procedures”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 May 2021, asking for a compensation review on the grounds that:
1. it had not considered her household expenses that now totalled £5070.90 for the five months she was unable to live in the property;
2. she wanted a rent reimbursement of £2231.55 for the period May 2019 to November 2020;
3. she referred to the inconvenience she had reported in her correspondence of 15 January 2021 and the additional time and trouble since, including expecting to move back in during January (but not being able to), false promises, the impact on her working life as a teacher and poor communications;
4. there were still 30 snagging items to be addressed in the property.
The resident chased the landlord on a couple of occasions in early-mid May 2021 to obtain confirmation that her complaint escalation had been passed to the correct officer. She chased the complaint outcome on 2 June 2021 and 1 July 2021.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 5 July 2021. This concluded that:
1. it had paid the resident a £2016.89 reimbursement for the bed;
2. the previous £4350 compensation award had included amounts for ‘loss of facility’;
3. its compensation policy did not cover the monthly household expenses the resident had asked for it to pay;
4. it awarded an additional £50 compensation for the stage two complaint handling delay;
5. door works had been completed and the remaining snagging items were booked for the contractor on 25 June 2021.
The resident’s MP referred the case to this Service on 21 September 2021 given the number of problems the resident had experienced with her property.
The resident has recently advised this Service of a new leak issue since she returned to the property. She has explained that a washing machine was not fitted properly on her return last year and that this led to damage to the kitchen flooring. The landlord and resident have provided evidence that:
1. the landlord noted in October 2021 that the resident had referred a leak to its contractor in July 2021 and reported that her kitchen floor tiles had lifted as a result;
2. the resident advised the landlord in November 2021 that the leak was due to the washing machine outlet pipe not having been attached properly;
3. the resident confirmed to the landlord later in November 2021 that the leak had been fixed and a dehumidifier provided but she chased it during December 2021 to February 2022 for progress on inspecting and rectifying any damage, including to grouting and tiling;
4. the landlord acknowledged that the contractor was scheduled to complete this repair for a number of months but it had still not established in March 2022 the extent of kitchen works needed.
The resident confirmed to this Service as recently as 5 October 2022 that kitchen works were still ongoing (which had caused her to move out of the property temporarily) and previously advised that balcony and rendering rectifications were also causing inconvenience across the development.

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 landlord was obliged to complete repairs at the resident’s property in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy, including the leak from her toilet that was apparently recorded as a defect (as the block had only recently been occupied). The resident has advised that she reported the potential leak within a few weeks of taking on her lease in May 2019 and the landlord concurred in its initial complaint response that its aftercare team were involved at that time. A further landlord note in September 2019 confirmed that the bathroom grouting still had signs of damp.
The landlord’s response to this report was inadequate as it failed to resolve, or even diagnose the cause of, the leak for a lengthy period. It later told the resident that it had referred the reports to its contractor but its failure to follow up on these referrals was unreasonable and meant that the resident consistently needed to repeat her reports. It was not until August 2020 that the source of the leak was located and remedial works were proposed. Even allowing for the impact of Covid-19 restrictions, this was an excessive and inappropriate delay given the landlord’s repairs policy shows that even non-emergency repairs should be addressed within 28 calendar days.
Further, the follow-on remedial works that were identified during August-September 2020 were not completed until June 2021. In mitigation, the works ended up being more extensive than originally foreseen as the resident reported other problems with the condition of her bathroom and the leak damage was subsequently found to have affected the kitchen (as well as the bathroom and hallway). Nevertheless, it was inappropriate that it took another nine months for the landlord to complete these repairs and that the resident had to report problems with the quality of works in January 2021 and April 2021.
There were frequent occasions when the resident had to chase the landlord for it to make progress and this will inevitably have left her uncertain as to how seriously it had taken her concerns and affected her confidence in the property given it was a newly built block into which she had only recently moved. She also experienced a lengthy stay in temporary accommodation between November 2020 and April 2021 which meant she was away from her home over Christmas and at a time when the country entered a Covid-19 lockdown. This would again have caused inevitable distress and inconvenience to her, a situation that was lengthened by the initial poor quality works completed to the property.
However, through the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged that there were multiple failings on its part for which it offered several apologies and awarded a total of £4350 compensation. This was a significant amount of compensation and within a range that the Ombudsman would expect for a situation where a resident has experienced long-term emotional impact due to serious failures on the part of their landlord, including a long stay in temporary accommodation. Given the resident experienced two years of distress and inconvenience (and a longer than necessary stay in temporary accommodation) up to July 2021, the compensation of £4350 was proportionate.
Further, the landlord demonstrated that it was willing to use its discretion by reimbursing the resident for the costs of a damaged bed – to the value of £2016.89 – without engaging the insurance route. This showed that the landlord took reasonable steps to offer redress to the resident for the losses she incurred. It also reviewed the resident’s compensation award in light of her comments in January 2021 regarding losses and inconvenience that she believed it had not taken into account, leading to an increase in the award from £2100 to £4350. This demonstrated that, although the landlord did not provide an item-by-item breakdown of its calculations, it did consider the resident’s account of the full impact of the inconvenience caused to her and more than doubled an already significant compensation offer.
The resident has requested that the landlord include a rent reimbursement (for the period of the bathroom leak) and payment towards her mortgage and other bills (for the period she was in temporary accommodation) in its compensation award. However, this Service has seen no evidence that any rooms in the property were found to be uninhabitable except for the period when the resident was decanted, during which time she was still responsible for rent payments in line with the landlord’s decant process. Further, the resident’s mortgage and bill payments were not expenses incurred due to the landlord’s delay. There was therefore no obligation on the landlord to either reimburse the resident for rent or contribute to her household costs, particularly given its compensation policy shows that loss of amenity and room are dealt with differently where a resident is decanted.
Although the landlord’s compensation settlement was proportionate for the service failures identified, it has failed to demonstrate that it learned from the outcome of the case. The landlord mentioned in its April 2021 complaint response that it had passed feedback to senior members of staff but there is no evidence that it took the opportunity to review its handling of the case in detail or that process changes were considered. Given the extent of the inconvenience caused to the resident and the wider snagging problems that the landlord has apparently identified on this new development, 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.
In addition, the landlord and its contractors have repeated some of their earlier failings since the resident moved back into the property midway through 2021. The resident raised concerns about signs of damage to the kitchen grouting as she had done around two years earlier with the bathroom. Despite these reports and the failings the landlord had identified in its handling of property repairs over the previous two years, it contributed to similar delays in stopping the leak and determining what further remedial works were necessary as a result. The resident advised the landlord and this Service that the source of the leak was a washing machine connection that the landlord had not plumbed in correctly during the original remedial works.
The kitchen remedial works remain unresolved a year after the resident’s report that the floor was lifting and despite chasers that she submitted during late 2021 and early 2022. These failings mirrored, and compounded, those that had occurred with the toilet leak between 2019-2021 and indicate that the landlord has not improved the way it handles such reports. This will have been an inevitable source of frustration for the resident given she had only just moved back into the property, the kitchen had recently been re-fitted and the landlord’s final complaint response committed to the completion of any snagging works. The resident has advised that she has again needed to move out of the property to allow works to be completed. Orders have therefore been made for the landlord to put this right and pay the resident additional compensation in light of the further delay in it completing the remedial works that were needed following the original bathroom leak.
In summary, the landlord offered appropriate apologies and a proportionate compensation award for the failings it identified in its handling of the bathroom pipework repair and related remedial works during 2019-2021. However, it failed to put this right as a new leak occurred during its completion of the remedial works, which it has still not fully repaired, and it did not demonstrate that it addressed potential learning points.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak in her bathroom and the related remedial works.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably between mid-2019 and mid-2021 in resolving a leak in the resident’s bathroom and completing the related remedial works but it accepted these service failures, apologised and its compensation offer of £4350 was fair given the circumstances of the case. However, it has not demonstrated that it learned lessons from these failings and has again delayed unreasonably in fixing a kitchen leak that was caused while it was completing the remedial works related to the original bathroom leak.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. provide a repairs schedule for any outstanding kitchen remedial works, including the timescale for their completion;
3. confirm how it will post-inspect the outstanding works to ensure that they are of sufficient quality.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failures in its handling of her report of a leak in her bathroom and the related remedial works.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to consider whether the kitchen leak (and follow-on remedial works) has put that room out of use and advise the resident if it is therefore willing to offer a partial rent and service charge reimbursement for this.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to review its processes for repairs at new build properties and, in particular, consider whether:
1. its staff have sufficient records to be able to respond accurately to repair reports from residents who have recently moved into new developments;
2. the processes ensure that staff follow up with contractors to check that defects have been resolved promptly;
3. these allow for defects to be prioritised where they have caused a resident to have to move into temporary accommodation.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £4350 that it awarded through the complaints process.
The landlord to write to all residents within this development to confirm what remaining snagging items it has on record for each of their properties, how it intends to remedy them and a likely timescale for this.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.