Clarion Housing Association Limited (202012788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012788

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 July 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water leaks from October 2020 onwards.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of historical water leaks.
   3. The impact the landlord’s handling of the reports had on the resident’s health.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.

Historical reports

3. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”.
4. Throughout her complaint the resident has referred to historical leaks, and the landlord’s handling of them. No evidence has been provided for this investigation of a formal complaint being raised with the landlord until November 2020. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. Because of that, and in line with paragraph 39(e), this investigation will centre on the events leading up to the resident’s complaint in November 2020.
5. Any mention of historical events throughout the report is for context.

Health impact

6. Under paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
7. The resident has explained how the landlord’s handling of the leak impacted her health. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

8. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The building contains two properties. The resident’s property has two bedrooms, and is below her neighbour. 
9. The landlord’s records show that on 5 October 2020 the resident reported a leak from the building roof into her home.
10. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord over the phone on 5 November 2020. The landlord’s call notes show she was dissatisfied with its lack of action. She explained that one bedroom was unusable due to the leak, that she wanted compensation (it is unclear specifically what for), and for the landlord to repair the damages.
11. A contractor attended on 20 November 2020 to repair damages to the kitchen ceiling.
12. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 20 November 2020. It is unclear whether the contractor attended before or after it issued its response. It explained that it had raised a work order on 5 October but as the leak was containable, it was not classed as an emergency. It said the bedroom was not uninhabitable. It offered her £50 compensation for exceeding its target repair timeframe as it attended that day. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
13. The resident called the landlord on 20 November 2020 to escalate her complaint. The landlord’s call notes show she reiterated that the bedroom was unusable, and that the leak had not been resolved.
14. The resident later told the landlord that a surveyor attended on 16 January 2021 and inspected the bedroom.
15. The landlord issued another stage one complaint response on 20 January 2021. It is unclear why it issued two. It said that on 20 November 2020 “the job…was completed”. It said it arranged a full building inspection for 14 December 2020, and then a roof inspection on 4 January 2021. It said it also arranged an appointment on 4 February 2021 for “works to [her] property”, and would attend before 12 February 2021 to fix the roof. It reiterated that the bedroom was usable. It offered her £50 compensation for its delayed complaint response. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
16. The resident escalated her complaint again on 20 January 2021. She disputed that contractors completed work in November 2020. She asked how the landlord knew the bedroom was useable if it had not inspected it until 16 January 2021. She disputed that contractors attended on 4 January 2021. She said that it had not kept her up to date with the repairs, and that she had constantly chased it.
17. On 27 January 2021 the resident reported a leak from her neighbour’s bathroom into her home. She explained in her correspondence with this Service that a contractor attended on 1 February and fixed it. She also explained that contractors repaired the roof leak during the week commencing 15 February 2021.
18. On 19 March 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It said that roof leaks were difficult to locate and remedy. It said that its contractor partially repaired the ceiling on 20 November 2020, and apologised for having previously said the work was completed. It said it was unable to find evidence of having inspected the bedroom before 20 November 2020. It explained that its contractors were understaffed on 4 January 2021, and it was why they had cancelled the appointment.  It explained that it carried out work to the kitchen ceiling on 20 November 2020 after reviewing the resident’s repair history and noting that work had been done to it previously (it is unclear when). It said the resident had advised it of an appointment scheduled for 12 February 2021, but it was unaware of it. It said it had no record or proof to support her claim that the bedroom was uninhabitable.
19. The landlord confirmed that all leaks had been located, and all repairs had been completed, but acknowledged that it had delayed doing so. It said the delays were partially due to its inability to access the neighbour’s property to gain access the roof. It said it would attend her property on 15 April 2021 to carry out plastering work to the kitchen, ceiling, bedroom, and hallway. It acknowledged that it could have handled her leaks better by having applied a case management approach. It said it had now implemented a “leaks from above tracker” to ensure such cases were dealt with quicker. It offered her £555 compensation which comprised of:
    1. £400 for time taken to resolve repairs
    2. £100 in recognition of her chasing the repairs
    3. £30 for two missed appointments (4 January, 12 February 2021)
    4. £25 for a delayed stage two complaint response.
20. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

21. The landlord’s repairs policy states that for non-emergency repairs, it will arrange an appointment within 28 days of it being reported. Its complaints policy states it will respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days, and a stage two complaint within twenty working days.
22. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will pay a maximum of £50 for failing to comply with its repair timeframes, and £15 for failing to keep an appointment without giving 24 hours’ notice. It also explains that it can offer compensation for loss of room. It says that “the definition of an unusable room will be considered on a case-by-case basis”. Common reasons for unusable rooms include severe damp, and unsafe or collapsed floor or ceiling.
23. The resident told the landlord on 5 November 2020 that the bedroom was unusable. In its stage one complaint responses, the landlord said the room was habitable as the leak was containable. It then acknowledged that it had not inspected the room prior to making these findings, apologised for it, but concluded that it had no evidence supporting her concern.
24. As explained in paragraph 22, the landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it uses its discretion to determine whether a room is unusable, and an example of one is a room with a collapsed ceiling. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to indicate that the bedroom was in such a state that the landlord would have considered it unusable in line with its policy. Therefore, its conclusion was reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.
25. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it acknowledged that it had delayed responding to the resident’s report on 5 October 2020, and offered her £50 compensation for it. In its stage two complaint response it increased its offer to £400.The landlord explained that leaks were difficult to locate and remedy. This was a reasonable explanation as leaks, particularly from roofs, are often quite complex, and it can be time consuming locating the source, sometimes requiring repeated visits. It also explained that it had faced further delays as it had been unable to access the roof. These were reasonable explanations, and demonstrated that although there was a delay resolving the roof leak, the landlord had continued to take steps to address it.
26. The landlord’s offer of £400 for repair delays was reasonable, as it exceeded what it usually deemed suitable in such circumstances. It also confirmed that it would reattend for plastering work, and had implemented a new process for tracking different types of leaks after having learnt how it could have handled her case better. It also compensated for two missed repair appointments, for its delayed complaint response, and for her time and trouble chasing the repairs. These offers were in line with its compensation policy, and appropriately remedied its failings.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

28. The landlord acknowledged that it could have handled the resident’s reports better, offered a reasonable amount of compensation, and demonstrated how it would manage similar cases differently in the future.