Clarion Housing Association Limited (202016236)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016236

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 October 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

The complaint is regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a blocked drain.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping in relation to this case.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a Housing Association. She resides in a three-bedroom, first-floor maisonette and has done so since 2008.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy. The policy states that its responses at Stage One should be issued to complainants within 10 working days and its Peer Review (Stage Two) responses should be issued within 20 working days.
Section 4.21 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy notes that amounts of between £50 and £250 may be offered as a remedy in cases where there is ‘service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant’. It also states that awards of between £250 and £700 may be considered in situations where there is ‘considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant’.
One aspect of the complaint regards a disagreement over whether the landlord or a water utility company is responsible for the maintenance of drains within the resident’s block and the adjacent main road. For clarity, the utility company will be referred to within this report as the Water Company.

Summary of Events

On 4 May 2020, the landlord received a complaint from a local Councillor on the resident’s behalf. The local Councillor noted that he had previously submitted an enquiry on the resident’s behalf regarding the landlord’s response to her ‘report of blocked drains beneath her own home and others in (the resident’s block)’ but he advised the resident felt the landlord’s response to him had not provided ‘an accurate picture of what was said or done over the previous six weeks’. She therefore wanted the matter to be investigated as a formal complaint. Within the complaint, the resident:
1. Queried why the landlord initially sent a plumber to attend when she had ‘specifically reported the problem as being with…the drains beneath the whole block’.
2. Disputed the landlord’s assertion that she had advised its operative the problem related to drains on the main road.
3. Clarified that the Water Company had attended a neighbour’s property in April 2020 after he reported raw sewage coming up through a manhole in his back garden, and although they stated the blockage was not their responsibility, the Water Company had agreed to try and clear the blockage. In contrast, the resident did not believe the landlord’s contractors had carried out any inspection or made any attempt to clear any blockages.
4. Disputed that she advised an operative on 27 April 2020 the problem ‘had been resolved’ and said that she still believed the drains to be blocked.
5. Requested that the landlord contract a ‘specialist drainage engineer’ to inspect the drains beneath her block and clear any blockage and for the landlord to provide an assurance that, in the case of any further problems in the future, it would send a specialist engineer in the first instance.
The landlord provided its Stage One complaint response on 13 May 2020 and stated it understood the complaint to be about its decision to send a plumber in response to her report of blocked drains affecting her whole block and ‘problems with the drains on (the main road) and attendance at your neighbour’s property by (the Water Company)’. In its response, the landlord apologised for ‘the service delays you have experienced and the inconvenience caused’ but did not provide further details on which service delays it was referring to. Addressing the points it believed the complaint to be about, the landlord:
1. Advised it was its policy to send a plumber in the first instance to ‘assess the issues reported’ and that if they were unable to clear a blockage, an order would be raised for an Area Manager to approve ‘an approved drainage contractor to attend’.
2. Advised it had not carried out any inspections relating to the resident’s neighbour’s garden as it had not received any reports from the neighbour regarding the issue. It also stated that it believed the Water Company would ‘not clear any blockages…not in their pipeline’ and that therefore, if the blockage had not been in a pipeline maintained by the Water Company, they would not have cleared it.
3. Advised it had arranged for ‘a block survey of the drains to be carried out by close of business on the 14 May 2020’ and stated that it had notified the resident of this.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 November 2020 to advise that the issue with blocked drains had recurred and to request a copy of the block survey it advised her it would carry out in May 2020. Records show the landlord logged this contact as a new Stage One complaint and that it contacted the resident to acknowledge the complaint on 30 November 2020.
Landlord records show it advised the resident she would need to raise a new repair request if she wanted someone to re-attend and inspect the drainage issue as ‘there has not been any repairs/investigation since May (2020)’. Its records indicate that a repair job was closed as completed on 27 May 2020 and also contains a note ‘(Water Company)’s responsibility to get rid of the fat in drains’.
On 11 December 2020, the landlord provided its Stage One response to the resident’s new complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and stated that it understood her concerns to be about a ‘drainage survey’ and noted her request to be given ‘the outcome of a survey that was scheduled to take place on 14 May 2020’. The landlord’s response noted that:
1. It advised the resident in a phone call on 18 November 2020 that it had found that it was the Water Company’s responsibility to clear the drainage system at her block and it confirmed this with her again by email on 30 November 2020.
2. Its in-house contractor also confirmed that the Water Company was responsible in December 2020 and for that reason the landlord ‘no longer needed to carry out the block drainage CCTV survey’. It confirmed the survey had not gone ahead as she had been advised it would in its previous complaint response.
3. The resident would need to contact the Water Company ‘to investigate and clear the drains where required’ and it would not be upholding her complaint as it was not responsible for maintaining the drains at her block.
Although the exact date is not clear from the landlord’s records, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the request until 29 December 2020. It apologised for the delay and advised it would respond as soon as ‘a case handler becomes available’.
On 18 February 2021, the landlord provided its Peer Review (Stage Two) response. It stated that it understood the resident’s complaint to be about ‘blocked drains and the action taken to resolve this issue’. In its response, the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that there had been a delay in escalating her complaint and offered her £50 compensation for ‘any inconvenience caused’.
2. Noted that the resident had been advised in May 2020 that a survey of the drains at her block would be conducted ‘to determine whether there was any further work to be undertaken by (the landlord)’ but that the resident had subsequently raised a new complaint in November 2020 as the survey had not taken place.
3. Advised that, while it had originally agreed to carry out a full drainage survey, ‘during the process of organising this survey, the issue was reported to (the Water Company)’. It stated that the Water Company then ‘attended and cleared the blockage as it was found to be in the public section of the drainage system’ and this was not the landlord’s responsibility. It provided a diagram of the drainage in the resident’s street by way of explanation.
4. Reiterated its position that the Water Company would have only attended to clear a blockage in the drains if the drain in question was ‘within their remit’ and therefore ‘by agreeing to clear this blockage…they are effectively taking responsibility for that blockage, as such it was not the responsibility of (the landlord)’.
5. Advised that, once the Water Company had cleared the blockage, there was no longer any need for the landlord to conduct a survey although it apologised to the resident for not advising her of this and offered her a further £50 compensation for its poor communication.
6. Confirmed that, having considered that it had advised the resident a survey would take place in May 2020, it had organised a drain survey ‘of the services servicing (her block)’ during the week of 15 February 2021. It stated that this was to ‘satisfy all concerned that there are no issues with the (landlord) owned drainage system’ and that, if it identified any issue, it would undertake the repairs as necessary. It also stated that it was investigating the ‘possibility’ of arranging an annual clean of the drainage system at the resident’s block.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day and queried why the drain survey referred to in its complaint response, which she had been notified would take place on 16 February 2021, had not taken place. Records available to this investigation indicate the landlord did not respond until 3 March 2021, when it advised it was looking into the matter. The survey was eventually carried out on 15 March 2021 and records show the resident confirmed it had taken place.

Assessment and findings

Regarding the resident’s query as to why the landlord sent a plumber to investigate the issue in the first instance, the landlord advised that it was its policy to do so, and if the plumber could not resolve the issue, they would raise the appropriate works (subject to approval by an Area Manager). This was a reasonable explanation by the landlord, In general, this Service would consider it reasonable to send a plumber to carry out an initial assessment and to see if matters can be resolved, before arranging for a specialist drainage contractor to attend, as this will incur additional costs and take longer to arrange. However, as this Service has not seen any repair records regarding the plumber’s attendance, what findings were made or whether any follow-on works were recommended, it is again not possible to determine whether the landlord’s initial response was appropriate.
While the resident reported that the Water Company had attended her neighbour’s property after raw sewage came into his garden and queried why the landlord had not also done so, the landlord advised it had not attended as it had not received a report from the neighbour. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, and it is noted that the resident’s neighbour is not part of this complaint, this was a reasonable response.
As part of this investigation this Service wrote to the landlord and requested records regarding the resident’s initial reports of the blocked drains, copies of inspection reports carried out, records of any actions the landlord had taken to rectify the issue and any records regarding attendance(s) at the resident’s block by the Water Company. However, the information provided by the landlord is incomplete, which raises concerns over its record keeping. The records provided to this investigation do not include information regarding when the resident made her original report of a blocked drain. However, it is noted that the enquiry submitted on the resident’s behalf by her Local Councillor in May 2020 refers to events regarding the blocked drains that occurred in the six-week period prior to his email. In the absence of any further evidence, this Service will therefore consider the landlord’s response based on it receiving a report from the resident in early March 2020.
The landlord has also not provided any comprehensive repair records regarding the issue, nor has it provided an explanation regarding why these are not available for scrutiny by this investigation. This is not appropriate and means this Service is unable to fully determine whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report regarding blocked drains was reasonable or in line with its policies and procedures.
It is not disputed that, despite advising the resident in its original Stage One response that it would arrange for a ‘block survey of the drains’ to be completed by 14 May 2020, the survey did not take place and no further survey had been carried out by the landlord by the time the resident contacted it again in November 2020 to advise that the issue had recurred. In its later Stage One complaint response, sent in December 2020, the landlord advised it had not carried out the survey as it had ‘determined’ that it was not responsible for inspecting the pipework, which was instead the responsibility of the Water Company. It apologised for not advising the resident it would no longer carry out the survey as it had advised and, in its Peer Review response, offered her compensation of £50 for its poor communication.
There is insufficient evidence that the landlord appropriately carried out enquiries or sought to properly consult with the Water Company to establish where a blockage was occurring or what was causing it. In its Peer Review response, the landlord provided a diagram which outlined the portion of the drainage system it stated it was responsible for, and the portion in the main road which it believed the Water Company was responsible for. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take and it attempted to explain to the resident where its repair responsibilities lay. However, there is no evidence regarding enquiries carried out which led the landlord to ‘determine’ it was not responsible for carrying out the survey, or any further investigation of the issue, on the basis that the blockages was an issue for the Water Company to deal with. This was not appropriate. Having advised the resident in its initial complaint response of 13 May 2020 that it would carry out a ‘survey of the drains’ in her block by the end of following day, this Service has not seen any evidence of further investigations, or internal discussions, undertaken by the landlord in that 24-hour period which led to it changing its mind regarding its responsibilities. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that its response was reasonable.
It is also noted that within internal email correspondence, the landlord at one stage refers to ‘fatbergs’ in the pipework and that it was the responsibility of the Water Company to clear them. However, there is again no evidence regarding which part of the pipework the reported fatbergs were affecting, or where this information came from. This is not appropriate and means that the landlord has been unable to fully justify its decision to not investigate the matter further after May 2020, until the resident contacted it again in November 2020.
From the information that has been made available to this investigation, the landlord’s decision appears to be based on the fact that the Water Company attended the resident’s block in April 2020 and carried out work relating to blocked drains. From this, the landlord has subsequently advised the resident that the Water Company would only have carried out work if it was responsible for that section of the drainage system. However, there is no evidence of any actual investigation carried out by the landlord to establish who was responsible for investigating the reported blockages or conducting any surveys, or of any correspondence with the Water Company in which it sought to agree on which party would progress the matter. This is not appropriate. While the landlord is entitled to rely on the Water Company to maintain its own section of the drainage system, this Service would have expected to see evidence that it had either properly investigated the resident’s reports before establishing that it was not responsible for any further investigation or repair, or that it had initially liaised with the Water Company to properly establish who was responsible for responding to the issue. That it apparently decided it was not responsible for the issue and left the matter to the Water Company without being able to evidence that it advised either it, or the resident, was not a reasonable response and meant there was a significant, and avoidable, delay in either party carrying out any further investigations.
Of the information that has been provided by the landlord, there are concerns regarding its record keeping. Accurate and contemporaneous records are an essential aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. However, within correspondence seen by this investigation, while the resident refers to the landlord, or contractors acting on its behalf, attending in April 2020, these are not referred to by the landlord in any of the information provided. It is also noted that a contractor did email the landlord on 20 May 2020 to provide a ‘quotation for works requested’, including a CCTV survey and ‘jetting/milling’ which, according to further internal correspondence related to the resident’s second complaint, was ‘not approved’. It is not clear if this was not approved because the request was missed, or because the landlord no longer considered it was responsible for dealing with the issue. A later internal email exchange also notes that a repair order relating to a drain survey in May 2020 was marked as ‘completed’ in error. This is not appropriate and again means the landlord has been unable to outline the work it has undertaken, or alternatively explain why it has not undertaken work.
It is positive that, in its Peer Review response, the landlord advised it was considering arranging for an annual survey of the drains at the resident’s block to identify and resolve any issues going forward. If it decides to do so, this would be a proactive step for the landlord to take and would show it was taking responsibility for the issue and took the resident’s concerns seriously.
It was also positive that it agreed to carry out a survey of the resident’s block in February 2021. However, records show that, having advised the resident the survey would take place on 16 February 2021, no operative attended on that day. The resident had to further chase the landlord regarding the survey and records show that this was completed one month later. This Service has not seen any explanation given to the resident as to why the survey did not initially take place as advised. As the resident’s original complaint had centred around a survey that did not take place and the landlord accepted it had failed to communicate with her appropriately, it is concerning that the resident experienced a further delay to a promised survey and that there was further failure by the landlord to communicate with her regarding this, causing her to chase it for an update.
Additionally, while in our original information request as part of this investigation, this Service requested a copy of the survey report, the landlord has only provided an email from its contractor regarding its attendance on 15 March 2021. Although this outlines its inspection of surface drains, jetting and a CCTV survey, it is still not clear whether the landlord now accepts responsibility for investigating the issue further and, if so, what actions it will take following its contractors’ inspection. This is not appropriate.
However it is also positive that, within its Peer Review response, having identified that it should have communicated its decision not to proceed with the May 2020 survey to the resident, the landlord offered compensation to the resident. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the award of £50 does not adequately address the detriment and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord’s Compensation Policy gives an example of a £50 award per quarter for failing to respond to letters or phone calls. Given the fact that there were six months between the landlord advising the resident it would carry out a survey and then advising her that it had decided against it, an award of £100 would have been appropriate.
Its policy also states that awards of £250 to £700 are considered where there are examples of complainants ‘being repeatedly passed between…teams, with no one department taking overall responsibility, or a landlord not taking responsibility for sub-contracted services’ or of the landlord failing to address repairs over a considerable length of time. Based on the information available to this investigation, the landlord should also have considered that its response to the resident meant fell into this category. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an award at the lower end of this range would have better recognised the landlord’s handling of the matter and the detriment caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Having received a complaint from the resident via her local Councillor, the landlord responded promptly and in line with its procedures. While it apologised to the resident for ‘service delays’ she had experienced, it did not provide any further details regarding the service delays it had identified. This is not appropriate and did not give the resident clarity regarding how her report had been responded to. It is also noted that the landlord did not respond to the resident refuting information it had passed to the Councillor in response to a previous enquiry regarding her conversations with its operatives. While it is appreciated that it is often difficult for landlords to address complaints relating to conversations between residents and operatives which were recorded or witnessed by a third party, as part of a comprehensive complaint response, the landlord should have outlined how it had investigated the matter and provided a response accordingly.
As referred to above, it is not disputed that the survey the landlord promised to carry out in its original Stage One complaint response did not take place. As the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out, identifying actions that can put a matter right is essential for effective complaint handling. However, it is important however that any such actions identified are then progressed within an acceptable timescale. Furthermore, the resident who made the complaint should be kept updated of progress and any delays. In this case, the landlord did not carry out the action it had identified or update the resident when it became clear it would not be going ahead. Although the landlord awarded compensation for its poor communication regarding the survey, as noted above, as part of effective complaint handling, it should have ensured that actions outlined in part of its response were completed appropriately. It is concerning that the subsequent survey promised within its Peer Review response was also not carried out as advised, which may indicate a wider ongoing issue with the landlord not ensuring actions outlined as part of its complaint responses are completed appropriately.
It was positive that the landlord acknowledged the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint procedures and accordingly offered her £50 in compensation. However, there were other issues with the landlord’s complaint handling, including not fully addressing all her concerns in her original Stage One complaint, the lack of clarity regarding identified service failures referred to in Paragraph 29 and a slight delay in issuing its Peer Review response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have considered making a higher award so as to fully address each issue and attempt to ‘put things right’ with the resident, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Record keeping

As set out in paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 above, there were significant gaps and omissions in the landlord’s records of events relating to this complaint. It is vital that landlords keep clear and easily available repair records, which would enable it to create a comprehensive audit trail and for it to evidence the work it has carried out, or alternatively for it to evidence why it has not carried out work. The Ombudsman would expect landlords to maintain a clear record of a resident’s reports of disrepair and to have comprehensive records of appointments, inspection reports and completion dates. That it was not able to provide these during this investigation meant that this Service was not able to fully establish whether the landlord’s response had been appropriate or whether its decision making was reasonable. Considering the issues the landlord experienced within its complaint handling, more easily available and comprehensive records would also have helped it provide clearer and more robust responses to both the resident and her representative. Given the failings in record keeping identified in this case and the resulting impact on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a separate finding of service failure in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a blocked drain.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in regard to the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Reasons

The landlord has not been able to evidence that it appropriately investigated the resident’s reports of a blocked drain. It promised her it would carry out a survey of the drains in her block but then did not do so and did not advise her that it had changed its mind. Although it has provided a reasonable explanation regarding which section of the drainage system it maintains responsibility for, it has not made clear how it reached the decision that any identified issue fell outside of that section and there is a lack of clarity as to when this decision was made. It has not provided any evidence that it had any discussion with the Water Company to ensure that the resident’s reports were investigated appropriately and has not provided any evidence that it carried out any further enquiries other than assuming a previous, undocumented attendance by the Water Company to a neighbour’s property, meant that they had taken responsibility for any subsequent issues. Although there was evidence that the landlord attempted to ‘put things right’ by offering the resident compensation, its offer did not appropriately reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident.
There was a month’s delay in completing the survey it scheduled for February 2021 with no explanation provided. There are also concerns regarding the accuracy of the landlord’s records and it was not appropriate that the landlord failed to provide a comprehensive repairs log to this investigation.
The landlord’s initial Stage One response did not fully address all the concerns raised by the resident. While the landlord acknowledged a delay in escalating the resident’s second complaint and offered compensation for this, there was also a delay in issuing the Peer Review response. While the landlord also attempted to ‘put things right’ by offering the resident compensation regarding its complaint handling, it should have considered offering a higher amount to fully reflect the circumstances.
The landlord did not provide details regarding when it received the resident’s initial report, and it has not provided evidenced that it maintained a comprehensive record of how it responded to the repair report. It has not provided full evidence of any inspections it carried out, or of the enquiries it undertook when determining that it did not have responsibility to deal with the matter further.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this letter, pay the resident compensation totalling £400, consisting of:
1. An increased offer of £300 for its failure to appropriately investigate her reports of a blocked drain, and its poor communication on the matter.
2. An increased offer of £100 for its poor complaint handling and failure to keep adequate records relating to its actions in this case.
The landlord should write to the resident to:
1. Provide a copy of the survey it carried out in March 2021.
2. Outline what actions, if any, it will take based on the March 2021 survey.
3. Clarify whether it has decided to authorise the annual drain survey at her block that it referred to in its Peer Review response.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its complaint response processes to ensure that actions it undertakes to do are completed appropriately in a timely manner and complainants are kept updated as appropriate.
The landlord should review its record keeping arrangements taking into consideration the findings of this report. It should ensure that clear and accessible records are kept of repair requests and actions taken. It should also ensure that staff dealing with repair reports are aware of the need to keep comprehensive records and receive any further training regarding this as needed.