Clarion Housing Association Limited (202105772)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105772

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 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 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request for her laminate and vinyl flooring to be replaced.
2. The resident’s report of no heating and hot water following a leak in her property.
3. The reports of damp and mould in her property following the leak, and damage to her front door.
4. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the replacement of her personal belongings damaged at her property.
Under paragraph 39(i)of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate 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;”
The landlord has referred the resident’s claim for damage to her personal items to its insurer. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we cannot consider this matter any further. If the resident disputes the outcome of the insurance claim, she may be able to take legal action against the landlord if she considers it caused her personal items to become damaged.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms that for emergency repairs, the area should be made safe within 24 hours; further repairs may then subsequently be required. For non-emergency repairs, it would offer an appointment date within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s compensation policy details that the following compensation may be paid:
1. £5 per day after 7 days of the initial report of no hot water in the property. For reports of no heating in the property, compensation of £5 per day after the initial report may be paid if it did not offer temporary heating to the resident. If the resident was without both heating and hot water, compensation would be provided for each amenity.
2. Where repairs are not carried out within the agreed time limits, it would pay £10 for the first day it became overdue, plus £2 per day for each further day the repairs were outstanding, up to a maximum of £50.
3. £15 for a failure to keep to an appointment.
The landlord’s compensation policy also confirms that it would not normally compensate for personal belongings as this would be covered under the resident’s contents insurance.
Section 5.2 of the landlord’s compensation policy confirms that it will consider compensation for additional costs that were incurred directly by the resident because of a failure of service.
As per the landlord’s complaints policy, it should respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days, and within 20 working days for final stage complaints. If it needed longer, it would aim to keep the resident informed and provide timescales for its complaint response.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, living in a flat.

Summary of events

On 23 November 2020, the landlord’s records confirm a contractor had attended the resident’s property in response to her reports of no heating and hot water. The “temperature pressure relief valve on top of [the] cylinder [had] burst soaking everything inside”. The contractor did not have the parts required to complete the repair; therefore, they committed to returning to fit these parts once these had been obtained.
On 1 December 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident had not received an update despite having an appointment that day, and the parts had not been fitted. The contractor informed the landlord that the parts had been ordered; however, a supervisor needed to confirm the operative’s diagnosis of the parts required to complete the work.
On 7 December 2020, the resident submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord, which is summarised as follows:
1. She had called the landlord on 21 November 2020 to report concerns over her electrics following a leak; this was assessed to have been as a result of a heating issue. This resulted in her being without heating and hot water since this time, and her mother had bought a temporary heater for her as she had not been provided with one by the landlord.
2. Although a contractor had attended on 23 November 2020, no further progress had been made, and she had not received a call back from the contractor as she had requested.
3. Following the leak, there were also signs of an underfloor leak, as her doors were “swelling” and the flooring was getting darker and breaking up.
On 7 December 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that it spoke with the resident, who it said, had declined its offer of additional heating or a temporary move to another property while repairs were carried out. She informed the landlord that she was recuperating following surgery. It also referred the resident’s concerns to the contractor and requested an inspection to “ensure that there [was not] any damage, mould or swelling of wood following the leak”. The downstairs neighbour had also reported a leak coming into their property from above. It requested they confirm appointments in advance with the resident.
On 7 and 8 December 2020, the landlord’s records confirm it had communicated the urgency for the completion of the repair to the contactors following the leak. It highlighted that these works were outside of its target timescales and enquired as to whether the contractor could send another engineer to ensure that it could install the new parts once they were received.
On 11 December 2020, an appointment was arranged to fit the new pressure relief valve. However, this appointment did not go ahead as the required parts were not received.
On 15 December 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that a new pressure relief valve had been fitted, and that the repair had been completed.
On 3 February 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It understood that the resident did not wish to be decanted (temporarily moved), with the work being completed on 15 December 2020, with her heating and hot water being restored to the property. It apologised for having “taken so long to resolve”. It had identified failings in how it reported the resident’s concerns to the contractor, who also failed to complete the repair in line with its service level agreement, which it was addressing directly with the contractor. It also apologised for not providing temporary heaters after 23 November 2020.
2. In response to her concerns over the damage to the flooring and her front door, an appointment had been made for 16 February 2021 to assess these areas.
3. The landlord also confirmed that if there was damage to her personal possessions, she should make a claim against her home contents insurance. If she wanted to make a claim of negligence against the landlord, it provided her with the contact details for its insurance team to assist her further with this.
4. It offered the resident £460 compensation, which was made up of the following;
  1. £30 for two missed appointments.
  2. £90 each for no heating and hot water, meaning £180 in total.
  3. £100 for the resident’s inconvenience, with an additional £100 to recognise the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household.
  4. £50 for its delayed complaint response.
On 23 February 2021, the operative was unable to gain access to the resident’s property for an appointment; this was because the appointment had been rescheduled by the landlord without informing the resident of the new appointment.
On 16 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had inspected the damage following the leak. It found that the resident’s front door was sticking, the floorboards were “swollen” and there was a damp smell in the property. It determined that an “in-depth inspection” was required to establish how far the leak had travelled. It had removed the floor bar to the front door, which allowed it to open and close in the meantime.
On 23 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that following the leak, water had travelled under the resident’s laminate and vinyl flooring, causing the joists to raise. She felt that the landlord should replace her flooring as she felt it was responsible for the leak. It had also identified mould spots in the bedroom and staining in the hallway and bathroom which needed to be washed and treated.
On 19 April 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. In respect to the damage to the flooring following the leak, it confirmed that it could lift the flooring to dry the sub-floor below; however, it would not relay the flooring or renew the laminate. This is because the flooring would be covered by the resident’s contents insurance. The landlord again gave details of its insurer if the resident wished to make a liability claim for this damage.
2. In addition to the £460 compensation it had offered in its stage one complaint response of 3 February 2021, it offered an additional £109 compensation to the resident, for the following:
  1. £44 for its delayed repair following the leak.
  2. £15 for a further missed appointment on 23 February 2021
  3. £50 for its delayed complaint response.
  4. Therefore, the total compensation offered in settlement of her complaint was £569.
3. It recognised that the resident had requested £1,000 compensation, and to be given one month rent free. However, it had applied its compensation offer based on its compensation policy, and it did not provide free rent.
The matter was subsequently referred to this Service from a designated person, which is summarised as follows:
1. The resident remained dissatisfied following the landlord’s final stage complaint response. Her front door still did not close properly “and the smell of damp remains.”
2. She had been without heating and hot water “for 24 days in the middle of winter at a time when she was recovering from surgery” and had not been offered a fan heater. The landlord had not provided a satisfactory response, which gave the resident “no confidence that anything was actually done”.
3. She did not feel that it was her responsibility to claim on her contents insurance, and she believed that it was the landlord’s responsibility to claim against its own insurance to replace her flooring. She also did not feel that the landlord’s offer of £90 each for the loss heating and hot water was sufficient, as it should have been £5 per day for “24 days”.
4. Her desired outcomes were as follows:
  1. “Full compensation” for her ruined laminate flooring, or an admission of liability and acceptance that it should be replaced on a like-for-like basis.
  2. An explanation of why it took so long to source the parts, and what the landlord did to progress this for her.
  3. For the landlord to “stop telling people to claim for damages caused by its own failures on their personal contents insurance”.
  4. A review of compensation amounts it had offered to other residents to ensure that they are in accordance with its policies, and to have an explanation for any discrepancies.

Assessment and findings

The resident has previously raised concerns over the effect of the delayed completion of the repairs following the leak on her mental health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not dispute her comments regarding her health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or to award damages for these. This because we do not have the authority to do so in the way that a court, tribunal or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
The resident has also asked for a review of compensation amounts the landlord had offered to other residents to ensure that they are in accordance with its policies. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s reasons for requesting this, however it is outside of the scope of our current investigation, as it would be the responsibility of the individual residents to raise any concerns that they had with the landlord and refer the matter to this Service if they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to their concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of no heating and hot water, following a leak in her property.

Following the resident’s reports of a leak, the landlord was obliged to carry out suitable repairs. A contractor attended on 23 November 2020; however, they did not have the required parts to complete the job. The landlord communicated this to the resident and committed to returning to the property to complete the repair once the parts had been received. The repairs were not completed until 16 December 2020, which is 25 days after the initial report. This was unfair on the resident, who should not have waited so long for the completion of the repair to restore her heating and hot water in the middle of winter.
Furthermore, the resident failed to receive an update from the contractor following their visit on 23 November 2020, which resulted in the resident’s stage one complaint to the landlord on 7 December 2020. This added distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident, who should not have needed to raise a complaint in order for the repair to be completed.
The resident has asked for an explanation of why it took so long to source the required parts, and the actions the landlord had taken to try to complete the repair sooner. The landlord explained in its stage one complaint response of 3 February 2021 that it had found failings both by itself and by its contractor. This was a reasonable assessment, as it has failed to provide evidence that it had followed up on the repair with the contractor prior to the resident’s stage one complaint of 7 December 2020, and the contractor had failed to source all the required parts to complete the repair within its agreed timescales.
Additionally, the communication with the resident prior to 7 December 2020 was poor from both the contractor and landlord, though the landlord has evidenced it had kept the resident informed after she raised an initial complaint. It had also offered the resident a temporary decant; however, it respected that she felt more comfortable at home unless the repair delays continued. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer to decant the resident in view of the extensive repairs needed to her property but the resident was entitled to decline this offer. When the resident declined to be decanted, the landlord was expected to take reasonable steps to support her while the repairs were ongoing, including providing temporary heaters where appropriate.
The resident has asked for one month’s rent refund as compensation for the delayed repairs. As above, it is not disputed that there were significant delays which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and she should be compensated for this. However, the landlord would not be expected to offer a rent refund as the resident was able to use the property while it was awaiting repairs and the landlord had also offered to decant her.
The resident has requested that the landlord consider her increased heating bills, as she had to use a temporary heater purchased by her mother to provide warmth to her home in winter. The landlord should have responded to this aspect of her complaint, in line with its compensation policy.
Based on the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord should have acted sooner to follow up on the delay to the repairs. However, it has documented it had responded reasonably following the resident’s stage one complaint, including exploring the possibility of using a different contractor to complete the work. The landlord has committed to addressing this with the contractor, and it has been recommended below that the landlord consider reviewing its processes to improve its repairs service for its residents.
The landlord has offered the resident compensation as detailed above. Its offer of £90 for the loss of hot water in the property was in accordance with its compensation policy as it did not offer compensation for the first seven days of the initial report of a problem with the hot water. However, in respect to the loss of heating in the property, compensation should have been calculated based on the day of initial repair report as stated in its compensation policy. The landlord has not evidenced it had offered temporary heating to the resident and it has not offered compensation for not doing so, which represents a failing by the landlord. The landlord should now offer compensation for this of £5 per day for seven days (totalling £35) in line with its compensation policy. The landlord should also offer an additional £50 for the added inconvenience caused by its failure to calculate the compensation correctly in the first instance, meaning that the resident needed to pursue this matter further in order to get the correct amount of compensation.
The resident has also been offered a total of £200 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble as a result of this complaint. Additionally, it has offered £30 each for three missed appointments; on 1 and 11 December 2020 and 23 February 2021. It also offered the resident £44 for the delayed repair. These compensation offers are reasonable, and in accordance with its compensation policy.
The resident has questioned the landlord’s suggestion that she should claim under her own home contents insurance for the damage to her flooring and personal possessions caused by the leak. In line with the tenancy agreement, residents are advised to take out contents insurance to cover their personal items in case of damage by fire, flooding, theft etc. The landlord would not usually be responsible for the cost of replacing tenants’ personal items and it would only be responsible for doing so if the landlord or its contractor was directly at fault for causing the damage.
If, as in this case, a resident claims that the landlord was responsible for causing damage to their possessions, the landlord would be entitled to refer such a claim to its insurer. The landlord would not be obliged to pay such costs outside the insurance process. This is because it is common practice for landlords to have insurance to help them to manage liability claims and this gives residents an opportunity to have their claims assessed and responded to appropriately.

The landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould in her property following the leak, and damage to her front door

The landlord had initially requested an inspection following the resident’s reports of mould in her property and damage to her front door on 7 December 2020. This inspection did not take place until 16 March 2021; however, an in-depth inspection was required to understand how far the water had travelled underneath the floor. The landlord had also carried out remedial repairs to her front door. It is not fair that the resident had to wait over three months for this inspection, and this delay represents a failure by the landlord. It has also failed to evidence that it has offered dehumidifiers to assist in drying out the property following the reports of damp and mould. The landlord has addressed this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its final stage complaint response of 19 April 2021 and suggested drying the sub-floor below. The landlord’s overall offer of compensation for delays is reasonable, taking into account the delay in arranging an inspection.

Associated complaint handling.

Following the resident’s stage one complaint of 7 December 2020, the landlord responded on 3 February 2021, which was 40 working days after her complaint. This is significantly outside of its target timescale of 10 working days. Although it has evidenced that it had kept the resident informed, it did not provide suitable timescales for its response. This has been acknowledged by the landlord, which has offered £50 compensation for this delay.
This Service has been unable to determine when the resident had requested the escalation of her complaint. However, it is noted that in the landlord’s final stage complaint response, it offered an additional £50 for its delayed final stage complaint response.
Accordingly, the landlord has offered a total of £100 for delays in its complaints responses; this is a reasonable amount in view of these errors and is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests we may award compensation of between £50 and £250 where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. In this case, the delayed complaint responses would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident but would not have affected the outcome of the complaint as the landlord recognised this failure and offered appropriate compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of no heating and hot water following a leak in her property.
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 about its response to the reports of damp and mould in her property following the leak, and damage to her front door and its associated complaint handling satisfactorily.

Reasons

There had been significant delays in the completion of the repair to restore heating and hot water to the resident.
Although the landlord’s compensation offer was largely proportionate to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, it had not applied the correct award for the loss of heating. Therefore, the landlord should now pay additional compensation for this, in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord failed to respond to both of the resident’s formal complaints in line with its complaints policy but did acknowledge this and offer appropriate compensation for these delays through its internal complaints procedure.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to do the following within the next four weeks:
1. Pay the resident £35 compensation for the loss of heating with no temporary heater supplied to her and £50 compensation for the added inconvenience this caused. The total compensation to be paid is £85.
2. Write to the resident to confirm its response to her request for compensation for her increased electricity costs.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord does the following within the next four weeks:
1. Pays the compensation of £569 offered previously though its complaints procedure, unless this has already been paid.
2. If it has not done so already, contacts the resident to confirm the timescales for the completion of the work to address the mould in her property, and to carry out a further inspection of her front door.
3. Reviews its record keeping processes for repairs, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail which confirms when repairs were reported, when they were completed and the work which was done during each repair visit.
4. Reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its policies and procedures with regard to repairs, complaints and compensation, to seek to prevent a recurrence of its above failures in the resident’s case. This should include consideration of this Service’s guidance on remedies, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/.