Clarion Housing Association Limited (202015582)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015582

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 December 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 the resident’s complaint about a leak in her home and her request for compensation for the damage it caused.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a ground floor flat in a building with other similar properties.
  2. The resident telephoned the landlord on 17 February 2020 about an uncontainable leak in her kitchen. Treated as an emergency an operative was authorised to attend and remedy the leak.
  3. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the resident made her first call 14.53hrs followed by a further two calls to ascertain what was happening.
  4. The landlord attended in the morning of 18 February 2021 and found that the kitchen sink was blocked due to fat and food. The landlord’s operative discovered a blockage approximately five to six feet further down the drain. The sink was tested and everything found to be working and draining as it should. However high-power water jets were recommended for the drains outside a neighbouring flat.
  5. A neighbour emailed the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 18 February 2020.  She headed the email “official complaint” and said that the resident needed urgent help. The neighbour said she had called the landlord at 6.23pm on 17 February 2020 on the resident’s behalf and was given a reference number. Someone had attended the resident’s property at approximately 10pm that evening, took photographs but did not return.
  6. On 19 February 2020 further work was carried out including using rods and high–power jets.  The resident’s sink was checked. The water on her floor was cleaned up. It was noted that the lino was damaged in the kitchen and needed to be replaced and the clean-up team advised to attend to disinfect the property.
  7. On 17 March 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord’s insurers to make a claim for damages to her property which she said had occurred following a flood caused by blocked drains. She sought compensation for a washing machine, dishwasher, plates and carpets.
  8. The landlord passed the resident’s claim to its insurers. The insurers wrote to the resident on 31 July 2020. They explained that

“You will appreciate that to successfully pursue a claim for damages, it is not only necessary to show that loss or damage has occurred but also that such loss or damage was due to negligence on the part of Clarion Housing Group or its employees The investigations reveal that the blockage was caused by other tenants in the block using their sinks incorrectly – the Contractors pulled out materials such as fat, grease and oil from the communal drainage In the circumstances, we cannot agree that Clarion Housing Group have been negligent here as they cannot be held responsible for the actions of the tenants, and once they were aware of the blockage they acted reasonably to resolve this Therefore, whilst we sympathise with your position, we have no offer of compensation to make in respect of your claim.”

  1. The resident approached this Service on 9 March 2021 and asked for assistance bringing a complaint to the landlord. This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to consider the matter referred by the resident. The landlord responded and explained that it had not previously received a formal complaint from the resident. In that conversation, the resident also said that the landlord had replaced the vinyl flooring in the kitchen and bathroom but no other room.
  2. The landlord issued its response to stage one on 26 April 2021. In its letter it explained about compensation and that under the terms of the resident’s tenancy it did not cover any personal belongings including white goods. Any damage caused to personal belongings or carpets would need to be claimed via the resident’s own contents insurance but because she had notified it that she did not have contents insurance she was provided with the details of the landlord’s insurance to make a claim.
  3. In an email dated 13 May 2021 from the landlord to the resident, the landlord referred to a telephone call that it had with the resident that same day regarding her complaint about compensation for damages to her personal belongings. It confirmed that the resident had asked to escalate her complaint and said it would respond within 20 days. It acknowledged the resident’s explanation that she had submitted a new insurance claim and was still waiting for a response from the insurers. It said it would chase the matter up. However, it explained that it would not investigate any complaint about an insurance claim.
  4. The resident telephoned this Service on 17 May 2021 and explained that the insurance company had declined her claim. We advised her that the Ombudsman does not deal with insurance claims and suggested that she might like to follow the advice given to her by the insurance company to go to the Citizens Advice who might be able to help.
  5. The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 18 June 2021. It set out, that it first became aware of the resident’s housing complaint, when it was by this Service on 24 March 2021. The landlord explained that “the time that has lapsed means that we should not be considering the matter under our formal complaints policy”. It also explained that “the reason for your complaint occurred in February 2020 but your initial formal complaint was received in March 2021, over a year after the incident.” It further explained that “generally, we would only consider a matter as a formal complaint where the cause of the complaint occurred in the last six months or there are issues ongoing related to the complaint”.
  6. The landlord said that it was aware that the resident had made two unsuccessful insurance claims for damages:
    1. In respect of the first claim made on 17 March 2020, the landlord’s insurers had written to the resident on 31 July 2020 declining the claim on the basis that its investigation revealed that the blockage had been caused by other tenants in the building using their sinks incorrectly and consequently the landlord had not been negligent because it could not be held responsible for the actions of other tenants. 
    2. The second claim was made on 23 April 2021 in respect of the same damage. The landlord had asked the insurers to write to the resident again restating their position.
    3. It regretted that it was unable to consider the resident’s complaint for compensation under its complaints policy.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it “may not offer compensation payments in certain circumstances.”  The list of circumstances provided as examples includes “Where the resident or service user could make a claim against their insurance policy (if fault lies with the Resident / Service user)” and “Where the fault was caused by a third party or is something Clarion has no control over.”
  2. In repair situations, a landlord would usually only be expected to consider compensating a tenant if the evidence indicated that its actions had contributed to or caused the problem, and therefore it had a measure of responsibility for any resulting damage. Nothing in the evidence provided in this case indicates that the upsurge experienced by the resident in February 2020 was the result of any action or inaction by the landlord, or that the cause was something the landlord had control over.
  3. While there is no suggestion that the repair issue and subsequent damage was due to any action by the resident, in the absence of evidence that the landlord was at fault, it was reasonable (and in line with its compensation policy) to consider that the resident’s request for compensation was an insurance issue, and direct the resident to its insurers to assess her claim.
  4. It is a general convention that a complaint should be made within a reasonable period of the issue being complained about arising. The Ombudsman has such a requirement, as do many landlords. Accordingly, the landlord’s explanation in its June 2021 final complaint response that it would not investigate the resident’s complaint about issues in February 2020 was not unreasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. It was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident’s claim for damages to its insurers given that there was no indication that the repair issue which caused the damage was the landlord’s fault. It was also reasonable for the landlord not to investigate the complaint, given the length of time that had elapsed.