Clarion Housing Association Limited (202200595)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200595

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 March 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be decanted.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for matching kitchen units.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remove the asbestos floor tiles.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to paint the walls and woodwork.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord told this Service that it does not have a full understanding of the resident’s needs. The resident told this Service he has emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD), anxiety and epilepsy.
The resident reported a leak on 24 November 2021. He said he did not know where it was coming from and he was unable to stop it. The landlord attended on the same day and attempted to turn off the stopcock. This caused a further leak. The plumber attempted to turn off the water supply from the external stopcock in the street, but this made no difference. The resident was provided with temporary accommodation in a hotel on the same day.
The landlord traced the original leak to the flat above on 25 November 2021 and carried out a temporary repair. It was unable to fix the leak in the resident’s property. This was because the water supply could not be isolated from the external stopcock in the street. The landlord inspected the property on 26 November 2021 and told the resident he may be able to return to his property on 3 December 2021.
The resident told the landlord the pipe in his flat was still leaking on 29 November 2021. The landlord contacted him the following day requesting access to the property. This was because the member of staff who had the spare key was off work due to Covid19. The spare key was provided on the same day. The external stopcock was replaced on 30 November 2021 by the water company. The resident’s stopcock was replaced on 8 December 2021.
The resident was moved to a different hotel on 3 December 2021. The landlord replaced 2 kitchen base units on 9 December 2021 and carried out further work on 18 December 2021. This included replacing 2 internal doors, 2 kitchen end panels and several floor tiles.
The resident made a complaint on 4 January 2022. He said the landlord was aware of the leak in the flat above and should have fixed it. Instead, it damaged his property by causing a further leak. He also said the landlord did not take account of his disabilities when seeking temporary accommodation and ignored his request to stay in the same hotel whilst the works were carried out. Given the hotels that were offered were not suitable, he returned home even though the property was flooded. The resident also complained about the new kitchen units that were fitted as they were a different colour to the existing ones. His claim to replace the flooring under the landlord’s insurance policy was successful.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 January 2022. It apologised to the resident and said:
1. The leak was caused after the operative tried to turn off the stopcock. The operative was unable to isolate the water supply from the external stopcock situated in the street. This needed to be replaced by the water company.
2. It was unable to provide kitchen units that matched the existing cupboards.
3. An alternative hotel had to be sourced given the resident was unable to leave his dogs in the room unattended. It tried to extend the stay at the new hotel but was unable to do so as it was fully booked. Alternative hotels were found but were deemed unsuitable by the resident.
4. It would award £150 compensation for the length of time it took to repair the leak.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on the same day. He said the offer of compensation was ‘‘dismal’’ and he did not accept the landlord’s response regarding the kitchen. He raised a new complaint about the flooring on 23 March 2022. He said the laminate flooring was damaged by the leak. The landlord refused to remove it even though it knew there was asbestos floor tiles underneath. He also said the floor tiles started to lift when he removed the laminate flooring. He reported this to the landlord, but it did not respond by the time his contractors arrived.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 26 April 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and acknowledged there had been a number of service failures. It also said:
1. The existing kitchen units had been discontinued and it had replaced the damaged cupboards with the closest colour match possible.
2. The kitchen was left ready for decorating and it had provided a paint pack. Responsibility for decorating was the resident’s responsibility.
3. The operative who had the spare key had to isolate due to Covid19. This led to delays in the work being carried out.
4. It would not have been unreasonable for the resident to have rearranged the appointment with the flooring company given his concerns about asbestos.
5. It could have done more to support the resident during the decant process.
6. There was a service failure with regard to the way it handled the resident’s complaint.
7. It would increase the offer of compensation by £650 (to a total of £800).
The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 7 July 2022. He said the landlord had not taken into account his disabilities. He wanted the landlord to sand down and paint the walls and woodwork. He also wanted matching kitchen units and more compensation. The landlord increased the offer of compensation by a further £150 (to a total of £950) on 16 November 2022. It said this was because it had not fully considered his needs when seeking temporary accommodation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak.

Given the absence of a full and signed copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement, this Service has determined this aspect of the resident’s complaint in the context of section 11 of the Housing Act, 1985. This places a duty on landlords to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in a property. This includes pipes. The landlord’s website confirms it is responsible for water mains and pipes.
The housing records confirm the resident reported a leak in his kitchen on 24 November 2021. The landlord attended on the same day. This was in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. This says it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Water leaks that cannot be left overnight are classified as emergency repairs.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to turn off the stopcock given it did not know where the water was coming from, this caused an uncontainable leak which damaged the resident’s property. It was reasonable for the landlord to try and turn off the external stopcock in the street, even though it was not responsible for it. The housing records confirm the landlord did not isolate the leak when it left the resident’s home and its out of hours operative did not report the damaged external stopcock to the water company. This was not appropriate. The landlord’s failure to isolate the water supply meant it did not meet its repair obligations and as such, was responsible for putting things right for the resident from that point.
It was appropriate for the landlord to trace the source of the leak on 25 November 2021 to the neighbouring property and carryout a temporary repair. It was also appropriate for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property following the leak.
This Service acknowledges the works required to the external stopcock were the responsibility of the water company and therefore outside of the control of the landlord. In such circumstances, however, this Service expects landlords to liaise closely with the service provider and keep residents updated. In this case, the landlord has provided no evidence confirming it did this. Whilst the external stopcock was replaced on 30 November 2021, the resident’s stopcock was not replaced or the leak contained until 8 December 2021. The landlord’s offer of £150 compensation for the delay in repairing the leak was not reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord caused a leak in the resident’s home and failed to isolate it in a timely manner. This led to the resident’s property being damaged and caused him inconvenience and distress. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident and its offer of compensation was not reasonable in the circumstances. Given these findings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents’ report of a leak.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be decanted.

The housing records confirm the landlord completed a decant questionnaire with the resident on 24 November 2021. This was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s decant policy. Details about the resident’s needs were included on the form and it was noted that he needed to stay in the same hotel given his mental health issues. It was also noted that the resident needed to source accommodation for his 2 dogs, although it later changed its position on this.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident temporary accommodation following the leak. This was in accordance with its decant policy. It is evident the landlord tried to take account of the resident’s specific requests when searching for a hotel. This included his location preferences and the need for the hotel to be pet friendly. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this. It did, not however, consider the length of time it would take to complete the works to the resident’s property when booking the hotel accommodation. This meant it had to find alternative accommodation for the resident after only a few days. This was not appropriate and caused the resident inconvenience and distress.
The housing records confirm alternative accommodation was found by the landlord, but the resident had to leave after only a short period of time. This was because he was unable to leave his dogs unattended in the hotel room. It was appropriate for the landlord to find other hotels, but these were refused by the resident and he returned to his property.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its final complaint response that it could have done more to support the resident. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer £300 compensation in recognition of the poor communication and disruption caused. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the costs of food given meals were included in the hotel booking.
In summary, the landlord undertook an assessment of the resident’s needs and took this into account when booking the first hotel. It did not, however, correctly assess the length of time it would take to undertake the work to his home and had to find alternative accommodation. This caused the resident inconvenience and distress. The landlord recognised this and offered compensation. The offer of compensation was in line with its compensation policy. In this case, this Service finds there has been reasonable redress by the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s request to be decanted.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for matching kitchen units.

Section 11 of the Housing Act, 1985 places a duty on landlords to keep properties in a good state of repair. This includes fixtures that were in the property, including kitchens, at the time it was let. Landlords are not obliged to install kitchen units that match the colour scheme, style or material type of existing units. Whilst there is no reference to kitchen units in the landlord’s repairs policy, its website confirms it is responsible for kitchen units and worktops. There is no reference on the landlord’s website confirming it will install ‘like for like’ kitchen units.
It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident it could not match up the new kitchen units in its stage 1 complaint response. This helped manage his expectations. It reconfirmed its position on 8 April 2022 and said it could not source the same colour. It was also reasonable for the landlord to offer to visit the resident and inspect the kitchen on 13 April 2022. Although the resident declined the offer, this demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for him. It was reasonable for the landlord to check whether its insurance policy covered the costs of replacing the kitchen on 19 April 2022.
It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm in its final complaint response that it would do no further work in the kitchen. This ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. It was also reasonable for it to confirm that it would not make a claim on its building insurance given the high costs and that even if it did, its insurers would not pay for the whole kitchen to be replaced.
In summary, the landlord had no obligation to replace the kitchen units with matching units. It set out its position to the resident and sought advice from its insurers. Given these findings, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for matching kitchen units.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remove the asbestos floor tiles.

Landlords have a legal duty to manage asbestos in communal areas of their properties in accordance with regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations, 2012. This requires landlords to identify any asbestos containing materials, to assess the risk, and to make a plan to manage that risk. Whilst the landlord does not have a duty to inform its residents of the location of asbestos in their homes, its asbestos management policy says it will do so. The landlord is not obliged to remove asbestos if it is in sound condition and can be left undisturbed. However, if it is damaged or deteriorates and there is the risk of asbestos dust, then the landlord is under a duty to repair or if necessary, remove the damaged asbestos.
The housing records confirm the resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2022. He said he had started to pull up the damaged laminate flooring and was concerned there was asbestos in the floor tiles that were underneath it. He asked for a specific member of staff to call him back and noted that his contractor was due to fit new flooring later that day. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have checked its records at this point to confirm whether there was asbestos in the floor tiles. If asbestos was identified, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have asked the resident to stop removing the flooring, vacate the area and wait until the member of staff contacted him.
It was appropriate for the specific member of staff to contact the resident later that day. It was also appropriate for the member of staff to offer to arrange for the floor to be assessed and the floor tiles removed. This was in accordance with the landlord’s asbestos management policy. This says it will arrange sampling and testing in circumstances where there has been an unintended disturbance. There is, however, no evidence the landlord arranged air sampling to be carried out to ensure the area was safe for reoccupation. Its asbestos management policy says it will do this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have checked the flooring after it had been fitted to ensure it was appropriately sealed to prevent the release of any potential asbestos fibres.
It was appropriate for the landlord to note in its final complaint response that the resident should have rearranged the appointment with the flooring company and stayed out of the affected area until it had the opportunity to attend, inspect and resolve the issue. It was reasonable for the landlord to note that the resident disturbed the floor tiles and did not give it sufficient time to investigate the matter.
In summary, the landlord did not undertake sufficient checks when the resident first reported his concerns. It did, however, later offer to check the floor and remove the floor tiles if required. The resident’s actions prevented it from doing this. There is no evidence it undertook air sampling or checked the floor once it was laid to ensure it was adequately sealed to prevent the release of any potential asbestos fibres. Given these findings, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to remove the floor tiles.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to paint the walls and woodwork.

Section 11 of the Housing Act, 1985 places a duty on landlords to keep in repair the structure of the property. This includes internal walls and ceilings. Landlords are also responsible for redecorating after repairs are carried out, if this is needed to put the property back to the same condition. The landlord’s website confirms it is responsible for walls, ceilings and plastering.
The housing records confirm a repair was ordered on 16 December 2021 to rake out and fill hairline cracks in the kitchen and hallway ceilings. The landlord also replaced some boxing around the pipework in the kitchen following the leak. This work was completed on 24 January 2022. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident it would redecorate the areas affected by the leak. This was a missed opportunity.
It was not appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident on 13 April 2022 that it left the surfaces ready for decoration, given it was responsible for the damage caused.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to visit and assess whether further decoration was required in its final complaint response. Whilst this offer was declined, it demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident.
In summary, the landlord had an obligation to decorate the resident’s property given the damage that occurred was a result of its actions and failure to carry out an effective emergency repair. The landlord’s failure to carry out the work caused the resident inconvenience and distress. Given these findings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to paint the walls and woodwork.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 4 January 2022 and to confirm what outcomes he was seeking. It did not, however, provide a response until 25 January 2022. This was not appropriate or in accordance with its complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It also says landlords should provide an explanation if they are unable to do this and provide a date when a response will be sent. There is no evidence the landlord did this.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response did not fully address the resident’s complaint. In particular, it did not answer his complaint about the out of hours contractor’s failure to contact the water company. Neither did it address his complaint that it did not take account of his request to stay in the same hotel because of his disabilities. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This says landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge there had been a service failure and to apologise for the poor customer experience. Whilst the landlord offered £150 compensation for the delay in repairing the leak, this was not reasonable in the circumstances.
Whilst the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 25 January 2022, this was not acknowledged by the landlord until 27 February 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to add the resident’s new complaint about the flooring to his original complaint. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 26 April 2022 and only after contact from this Service. This was not appropriate and caused the resident time and trouble having to pursue the matter.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in issuing its final complaint response. It was also appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge there had been a number of service failures. This included noting there were delays in repairing the leak. The landlord also accepted there was disruption and poor communication regarding the decant and complaint handling. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm it had put steps in place to ensure customers were kept updated throughout the complaint journey. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer £150 compensation to the resident for its poor complaint handling, £300 for the issues with the decant and an additional £150 for the delays in dealing with the leak. Given these findings, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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 accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to paint the walls and ceilings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to remove the asbestos floor tiles.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlords handling of the resident’s request for a decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for matching kitchen cupboards.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1350. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £400 for the inconvenience and distress caused in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
2. £950 compensation already offered to the resident, if not already paid.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to arrange for an independent asbestos specialist to inspect the flooring to ensure it is appropriately sealed to prevent the release of any potential asbestos fibres. The landlord must act on any recommendations that are made.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be shared with this Service.