The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202010520)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010520

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 May 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

 

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:-

 

  1. The resident’s request for a replacement bathroom and a new water tank following a leak in the property.

 

  1. The resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal front door and brickwork.

 

Background and summary of events

 

  1. The resident’s property is a 2nd floor flat. In early December 2019 she reported a water leak emanating from her property, which she considered was probably affecting the property below. The landlord made arrangements for the repair to be dealt with but access to the water tank was limited due to its location (in a cupboard) and this was creating difficulties in completing the repair. It was decided the landlord needed to send a surveyor to determine what the situation required. However, by the beginning of February 2020 this had not happened, and the resident chased the landlord for progress to be made.

 

  1. On 17 February 2020 the landlord logged a formal complaint from the resident about the situation with the repair. She also raised the issue of there being a lack of decorative maintenance to the front door to the building her property is situated in, stating it was suffering from rusting as a result.

 

  1. Further contact took place on 20 February 2020 when the resident noted it had been 15 years since any refurbishment had been completed on the external area, and the door, being metal, was rusting because, in her opinion, a base coat of paint had been applied previously, but no top coat over it.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show that on 28 February 2020 it visited the property to consider the problem with the leak and agreed with the resident that an operative could cut and open a section of plasterboard wall above a door to gain access to the tank to fix the leak. The landlord then emailed the resident that day and stated, “I will keep you updated as soon as I have done the improvement referral”. 

 

  1. On 10 March 2020 the landlord provided its first stage complaint response. It recorded the resident’s complaint as being about delays to fixing a leak to the water tank overflow, and to the paintwork to the communal front entrance door. It stated as follows:

 

a. On 4 December 2019 the resident had reported a leak and one of the landlord’s operatives had attended her property on 10 December. However, the resident had been unaware of this appointment and refused entry. The appointment was rescheduled for 12 December when its operative was unable to access the tank due to “structural restrictions”. It had been suggested that an access point be made through the wall and the visit ended at that point.

 

b. The landlord was then meant to carry out an inspection visit but this did not happen and once this came to light the repair was escalated on 20 February 2020 with an appointment taking place on 28 February. At that point it was agreed that a section of a wall would be cut open to access the tank and effect the repair, but the wall would then be reinstated rather than a permanent access hatch being created. This would take place on 18 March 2020. The landlord apologised for the delays in its service on this issue.

 

c. With regard to the paintwork to the communal front entrance door, the landlord commented that this had been treated as a service request, no report having been identified previously – rather than a complaint.

 

  1. Unfortunately, restrictions were then put in place due to the coronavirus pandemic and the March repairs appointment did not go ahead.

 

  1. On 10 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that its operative had been that day to complete the repair to the water tank but was unaware that they had to cut a hole in the wall – their instruction just stated “fix overflow” and as a result they were unable to do the job. The resident referred to having the bathroom replaced and stated that the water tank, likewise, could do with replacing. She commented that seven operatives had now been to the property as well as the landlord’s surveyor and still the job had not been completed.

 

  1. On 16 June 2020, the landlord responded to confirm a formal complaint had been raised as a result. The resident replied that she had already raised a complaint which, in her view, had not been seen through and as far as she was concerned, the matter was at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. On 19 June, the landlord spoke with the resident and explained that the complaint was still at stage one as a ‘failure to follow through’ rather than being dealt with as a peer review.

 

  1. On 26 June and 3 July 2020 the landlord updated the resident that its enquiries were continuing.  A visit to the property was arranged for 9 July 2020, but the resident was only told of the appointment the day before and could not accommodate the visit as she was working . This was rearranged for 16 July and again for the 27th. 

 

  1. On 27 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm the repair had finally been carried out and its operative had “squeezed into the space” where the water tank was situated, rather than accessing it through the wall. Other operatives had refused to do so, due to the fact they would be in close proximity to hot water pipes and considered it unsafe, and one had concluded it was physically impossible. The resident considered the access issue needed to be sorted out so that any future jobs were not left so long. Her conclusion was “its obvious a suitable water tank is needed”.

 

  1. The landlord’s internal records show that by this date it was intending to consider a new bathroom at the property for 2021/22 but that the decision would be subject to a validation survey and its finances nearer the time.

 

  1. On 30 July 2020, the landlord provided a further stage one complaint response which it recorded as being about delays in fixing a leak to the water tank; damaged brickwork to a neighbouring property (from the escaping water); replacement bathroom; and replacement water tank.  It stated that :

 

a. A further complaint had been opened because the works agreed in its previous resolution had not been completed. A further job had been raised but when the operative arrived at the property, they found that not enough time had been allocated for what was required and the appointment had to be rescheduled. In the meantime the resident had stated she was under the impression the landlord had agreed to install a new bathroom and that the water tank would be replaced.

 

b. With regard to the leak the landlord confirmed that the job scheduled for 18 March 2020 had had to be cancelled due to the pandemic restrictions. The landlord’s investigations suggested that the further job had not been raised properly hence it not being effective. However the work had been completed on 27 July 2020. The landlord agreed that there had been delay in respect of this repair.

 

c. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had pointed out that repairs to the brickwork of the property below, caused by water seepage, had not been actioned. Its view was that if repairs were needed to another property, that tenant needed to report it as a repair.

 

d. With regard to the replacement of the bathroom, the landlord stated there was no suggestion that this had been offered as a resolution to the resident’s original complaint. Indeed, the landlord denied that doing such work would have had any impact on the leak which had been reported. However, the staff member who had carried out the pre-work survey and discussed the situation with the resident, was absent at present and it could not confirm what was discussed. If they had suggested such action, then they would have made a referral for the work to be included in a planned investment programme. This had not been done, implying it had not been agreed. However, the landlord stated that the bathroom might be replaced in 2021/22 if it met the criteria at that time in any event.

 

e. The landlord confirmed its view that replacing the water tank would have no bearing on preventing the particular leak that had occurred, but, again, it could not confirm what was said with its staff member due to their absence.

 

  1. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and asked for her complaint to be escalated. She commented that the landlord’s response had been “dismissive”, not least on the resident in the flat below her who was having to deal with the consequences of the leak. She stated that no mention had been made of the landlord’s operatives who had refused to fix the leak “due to the tight space and unsafe hot water pipes” in the cupboard it was situated in. She stated that this represented the response from six out of seven operatives that were sent to fix the issue. She stated, “It’s obvious a suitable water tank is needed”, not least so the lack of access would not create a problem again should a future repair arise.

 

  1. On 31 July 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm receipt of her request to escalate her complaint to stage two. On 11 August 2020, the landlord wrote to confirm it was acting on her request, that a peer review would be carried out, and that it was likely to take 20 working days to complete.

 

  1. On 27 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident in response to her escalation request. It recorded its understanding of the reasons she remained dissatisfied as follows:

 

a. The landlord’s technical inspection officer had already conceded the bathroom needed replacing and the resident’s view was that this had been postponed for ten years now

 

b. The communal front door had rust over it and needed painting.

 

c. A brickwork deep clean had not been completed – where the water leak had stained it

 

d. The water tank needed replacing.

 

  1. The landlord’s response to these issues was as follows:

 

a. Bathroom replacement: The relevant officer had been absent, hence the delay in updating the resident. An email was sent to the resident on 28 February 2020 confirming the landlord would be in touch further once the officer had completed the improvement referral for the bathroom. The landlord accepted its communication had not been clear and had left the resident under the impression the replacement was imminent when in fact this was not the case. The improvement referral was being dealt with and the landlord was considering if the property would be added to its programme of planned investment for the year 2021/22. It confirmed it usually worked on the lifespan of a bathroom as being 30 years.

 

b. Communal Front Door: The landlord confirmed this was the original metal composite door and any required work would be addressed as part of its planned cyclical decorations due in 2021/22. The landlord denied that any repairs had been raised as part of the initial complaint and declined to consider “this new issue” as part of its review.

 

c. Stained Brickwork: The landlord stated that a scaffolding tower would be required to treat this issue and it was not cost effective, given the staining posed no damage to the building. It confirmed that the next time scaffolding was required for other repair work, the staining could be addressed then.

 

d. Water Tank: The landlord stated it was not possible to locate the tank anywhere other than where it was, in the cupboard in the hallway. It had considered replacing the system with a combi boiler (which does not require a tank) but the existing boiler was less than 15 years old and was in working order and there were no current plans to replace it. The landlord stated an assessment would be needed, in any event, to check whether there was sufficient water pressure to fit a combi boiler and it was prepared to carry that out when programmed works were due – but in terms of addressing future repairs its suggestion to make an access panel above the cupboard board had been declined by the resident.

 

e. The landlord concluded by stating it accepted there had been some delay, over and above that created by the pandemic lockdown, in resolving the leak. The last job raised had been incorrectly described resulting in an additional and unnecessary visit, and its communication regarding the bathroom renewal could have been clearer. It offered compensation of £100 which was divided between “repeat visits to resolve issue” and “poor communication”, £50 each. The landlord confirmed that this response concluded its complaints procedure. 

 

  1. On 30 December 2020, 29 January and 16 February 2021 the landlord’s operative attended and “overhauled” the front door.

 

  1. The Resident remained dissatisfied and referred the matter to this Service, stating that her preferred solution is for a new water tank to be installed because the old one was so large that operatives could not access it all for repairs and maintenance. She maintained that the landlord’s surveyor had visited, taken photographs, and promised a new bathroom, water tank and external wall clean. She considers the landlord should have attached more weight to the reports of its operatives about difficulties in gaining access to the hot water pipes and the top of the tank.

 

 

 

Agreements, policies and procedures

 

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy divides repairs into two categories, emergency and non-emergency with a response attendance time of 24 hours and 28 calendar days respectively. The policy states the landlord aims to complete communal repairs within 28 days too.

 

  1. With regard to bathroom replacement, this is referred to as a “major component replacement” which “should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes”.

 

  1. The landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out the landlord’s approach to making compensatory payments. It divides awards into three ranges, £50 – £250; £250 – £700; and £700 and above, depending on the extent of the issue, how much effort the resident had to put in to gain resolution; the amount of time it took; and the impact on the resident. A footnote to the categories states “£50 per quarter per failure”.

 

  1. This policy also provides for compensation specifically for repairs which have ‘gone over target time’ of £10 plus £2 per additional day, with a maximum award of £50.

 

Assessment

 

The leak and the replacement of the bathroom and water tank

 

  1. There is no dispute that the landlord was responsible for the repairs to the water tank to prevent it leaking. The fact a repair was necessary and there was more than one attendance by the landlord’s operative does not, in itself, represent a service failure on the landlord’s part. Properties require maintenance and repair irrespective of whether the occupant is a tenant or an owner and repairs cannot always be completed at first visit.

 

  1. However, there is evidence of delay on the landlord’s part in arranging the inspection visit to confirm what was required and of poor communication in its instructions to its operative resulting in at least one wasted appointment. The resident reasonably reported her frustration, especially given she would need to make herself available to provide access to the property. The landlord has accepted there was delay, over and above any limitations imposed by the pandemic, and has offered a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation. This was an appropriate response on its behalf.

 

  1. In terms of replacement of the bathroom/water tank, this Service’s decisions are evidence based. There is no evidence available in relation to what was discussed during the inspection visit that took place on 28 February 2020 in respect of replacement work. However, it can be possible to ‘read between the lines’ from written evidence as to what took place.

 

  1. On the day of the visit, the landlord emailed the resident. The subject heading to that email included the words “New Boiler Bathroom” – although the email was sent in response to an email from the resident providing her contact address and it was she who composed that heading. The landlord’s reply, as set out above, was very brief and simply stated “thank you for the email, I will keep you updated as soon as I have done the improvement referral”.

 

  1. It is reasonable to conclude, from this email, that the question of replacement of, at least the bathroom, was discussed as it presupposes the resident was aware a referral was being made. Despite this, it is not possible, from this email, to reasonably conclude that the replacement of either the bathroom, or the water tank was guaranteed, or, indeed, confirmed to be imminent.

 

  1. Furthermore, when the resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2020, she referred to the bathroom being replaced and commented that the boiler should, ideally, be replaced too – this comment detracts from the suggestion that water tank/boiler renewal was agreed to be included in the improvement referral to begin with.

 

  1. Since then, the landlord has confirmed it does intend to replace the bathroom as part of its planned works, subject to a survey and it having the funds to do so.

 

  1. The resident states the bathroom is 25 years old and was due for renewal at least 10 years ago; the landlord states the expected lifespan is 30 years. There is no evidence that the bathroom is not fit for its purpose, and there is no evidence it was at fault for the leak that occurred. Further, there is no evidence of a policy, on the landlord’s behalf, to replace bathrooms after 15 years, which is the resident’s stance. Nevertheless, the landlord is now looking at replacement. This will undoubtedly be an expensive exercise – the landlord is a social housing landlord and it can be inferred that its means are limited. In an ideal world, it would be able to update its properties more generously, but it must maintain habitable properties and seek to do so within its means.

 

  1. Without evidence to show the bathroom is not functional, was responsible for the leak, and that the landlord promised to replace it (and straightaway), this Service must conclude that the landlord acted reasonably in referring the issue for improvement as part of its planned programme. The landlord has recognised that its email of 28 February 2020 may well have given the resident another impression and it has acknowledged its communication could have been better and offered a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation as a result. This was an appropriate response by the landlord on this issue.

 

  1. With regard to the water tank, and the resident’s view that its location hampers its maintenance and repair. A number of visits were required to the resident’s property and she had to make herself available, including taking time off work. She understandably reported wishing to avoid a repetition of such events and considered replacing the system for something more compact and accessible an obvious solution.

 

  1. The water tank is less than 15 years old and in good working order, apart from the recent leak. There is no evidence to show the lack of access has been an ongoing problem which has met with this access issue on a recurring basis. Neither is there any evidence, at present, to suggest it will recur again in the foreseeable future. Indeed, were there to be a further problem, the layout of the property and the required approach for repairs is mapped out and that knowledge can be utilised.

 

  1. Once again, the lack of evidence of an urgent need to replace the equipment, coupled with no definite evidence of a promise to do so, raises the conclusion that the landlord has acted reasonably in refusing to confirm its replacement. The resident has concerns about the safety of operatives attending her premises to effect repairs. A recommendation could be made for the landlord to consider how this risk can be mitigated but it has already carried out an assessment and concluded that an access hatch would represent the best solution. The resident does not want to agree to this, but that does not mean the landlord has acted unreasonably in offering that resolution.

 

  1. It is noted that the landlord has offered to test the water pressure at the property when it carries out its planned works to see if a combi boiler is viable. Whilst the resident might see this as small consolation, it is a positive indication that the landlord is open to looking at making changes notwithstanding the clean bill of health now given to the existing water tank.

 

  1. In summary, the conclusion is that the landlord has acted reasonably in respect of the issue of replacement of the bathroom and water tank/boiler save for its two admitted service failures – namely delay in effecting the leak repair and in the quality of its communication over the improvement referral.

 

  1. In terms of redress, the landlord has offer compensation. The repair delay was within “a quarter” if the pandemic element is discounted (which is reasonable) and the landlord’s offer of £50 complies with its Compensation Policy regarding general service failures. Further, if that compensation was calculated on a daily basis, as a specific failure to effect a repair “on target” then £50 represents a maximum award anyway. The further sum of £50 was offered for the landlord’s poor communication in its email of 28 February 2020. The impact on the resident was shortlived as the true position became clear within a relatively short timeframe. The amount offered is reasonable. Accordingly the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its service failures.

 

Communal front door and brickwork

 

  1. With regard to the question of damage/staining to the brickwork from water seepage, the landlord has responded as follows. Firstly it has stated that any damage to a neighbouring property must be reported by that resident; and secondly, that the issue will be attended to in due course but scaffolding is required and so it must be joined into other works requiring such a structure to minimise costs. There is no evidence that the staining represents a risk to the building. The landlord’s response was, therefore, reasonable. The fact the resident shows concern for her neighbour is to her credit, but it is for that neighbour to report any issues with their property to the landlord direct.

 

  1. With regard to the communal front door, there is no evidence that that repair had been reported to the landlord prior to it being included in the resident’s complaint. The landlord acted reasonably in pointing this out. The evidence shows work has now been done to the door. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the standard of that work or the timescale it once a report had been made, these issues will need to form the basis of a fresh complaint and cannot be considered here.

 

Determination (decision)

 

The leak and the replacement of the bathroom and water tank

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a replacement bathroom and a new water tank following a leak in her property.

 

Communal front door and brickwork

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal front door and brickwork.

 

Reasons

 

There were delays on the landlord’s part in completing a repair following a water leak at the resident’s property. Further the landlord’s communication to the resident in respect of it replacing her bathroom and/or boiler/water tank was unclear and failed to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord acknowledged its service failings and offered an appropriate amount of compensation, in accordance with its policy. It has therefore offered reasonable redress. The landlord has acted reasonably in respect of two other issues, namely repair of the communal front door and on the question of repairs to staining on brickwork following water seepage. 

 

Recommendations

 

1. The landlord to re-offer the £100 compensation to the resident, if this has not already been paid, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the above findings are made on that basis.

 

The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.

 

The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the coronavirus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.