Clarion Housing Association Limited (202112683)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112683

Clarion Housing Association

28 March 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof of the property.

Background

2. In January 2020 the resident’s support worker reported that the roof needed repairs. The resident later complained that a visit due in response was not attended in January 2020.
3. In June and July of 2020, a representative of the resident corresponded with the landlord about a leak from the roof of the building. The representative was informed that due to restrictions placed on its services by the Covid-19 pandemic and the national lockdown, the landlord and its contractors were only responding to emergency repairs.
4. The representative contacted the landlord again on 11 September 2020. They were informed that the landlord was still operating a restricted service, and that the repair had been passed on to its roofing contractor.
5. An appointment was arranged for 3 November 2020, but was subsequently cancelled as an inspection by a surveyor was first required. The resident called the landlord on 4 December 2020 to express his dissatisfaction with the length of time it was taking to repair the leak and the effect on his health caused by the issues. The landlord confirmed that the repair had been classed as urgent, but due to the backlog of repairs caused by the pandemic and lockdown, other repairs with a higher priority also remained outstanding.
6. An appointment was arranged for 11 December 2020 to undertake a repair to the roof and clear the gutter, which was thought to be the cause of the water leak.
7. On 1 February 2021, the resident raised a complaint. The resident described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. The length of time it was taking the landlord to resolve the matter.
   2. The effect on his health caused by the ongoing issue.
   3. The landlord had not properly taken into account his vulnerabilities when prioritising the case.
8. The landlord called the resident on 12 and 15 February 2021, then sent a stage one complaint response on 18 February 2021. The landlord informed the resident that following a visit to the property on 10 February 2021, that the cause of the water leak was confirmed as a skylight window and parts were ordered to complete repairs. The landlord went on to state that fan heaters were provided during the 10 February visit.
9. The landlord then recognised that the resident had received a poor service from it while awaiting the repairs to be completed. It apologised and offered £225 compensation, which it broke down as £100 for not meeting its response times, £25 for failure to meet service standards, and £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
10. An internal landlord email stated that repairs to the skylight were fully completed on 15 March 2021. However, the operative who undertook the work informed it that a second skylight window also required repairs and further work would have to be raised. An appointment was arranged for 22 April 2021 where the second skylight window was repaired.
11. On 27 April 2021 the resident called the landlord regarding the status of the complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that it was informed by the resident that he had not received the stage one response and that he disputed the level of compensation when informed.
12. Following further correspondence with the resident’s representative, the landlord wrote to the representative on 18 May 2021 to confirm that it had escalated the complaint to stage two and aimed to provide a response by 15 June 2021. The landlord also informed the representative how the resident could make a claim for damage to his personal possessions against its insurance provider if he believed that it was liable.
13. The resident made an insurance claim on 8 June 2021 and the stage two complaint response was sent by the landlord on 23 June 2021. The landlord stated that following a visit to the property on 21 June 2021 that it could confirm that the leak was no longer present.
14. The landlord then gave a timeline of events to complete repairs and accepted that despite issues relating to Covid-19 and changes to the resident’s representative causing communication issues, that the length of time it took to complete the work was not acceptable.
15. The landlord informed the resident that it had reviewed its compensation and increased its offer to £375, which it broke down as £25 for failure to meet service standards, £150 for not meeting its response times at both stages of the complaint process, and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
16. The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that he had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised him on the steps to take to bring his complaint to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.
17. In a letter sent to this Service on 31 August 2021, the resident described the outstanding issue of the complaint as the level of compensation he had been offered. The resident noted that the increase in his heating costs due to the damaged skylight windows was not considered by the landlord’s insurers when it responded to his claim and this this should have been taken into account by the landlord when making its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

18. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had not properly followed its repairs and complaint policies which had resulted in delays in completing repairs and offering a resolution to the resident. The landlord apologised, offered £375 compensation for its service failures and provided the necessary information to the resident for him to make a claim against its insurer.
19. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
20. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes. It put things right by apologising to the resident and ultimately ensuring the leak had been repaired. It looked to learn from its errors by improving in how it communicated with the resident and his representative.
21. The landlord’s compensation policy stated that it awards payments in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
    1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
    2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments
22. In this case, it took several months and several letters, and telephone calls by the resident and his representative until the matter was resolved. The landlord accepted that it had not properly followed its policies when attending to the leak, and this had caused significant delays, stress and inconvenience to the resident. Given the nature of the repair, and the inconvenience, the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable given the Ombudsman’s own Guidance.
23. The resident requested that the increase in his heating bills while repairs to the skylight remained outstanding should have been taken into account by the landlord when calculating its compensation offer. In order for the landlord to make a determination of whether this request was reasonable, it would need sight of the resident’s utility bills for the time period time the repairs were outstanding and utility bills from a similar time period in a year when the temporary repair was not in place in order to determine what changes in energy usage could be attributed to the damage to the windows.
24. While the increase in heating costs was part of the resident’s correspondence with the landlord’s insurer, no evidence has been provided which suggests that this information was provided during the complaint process. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not take this into account when calculating its compensation offer. Furthermore the landlord may have been aware that this was part of the insurance claim and therefore separate to the insurance claim.
25. The resident also highlighted his dissatisfaction that the medical issues caused by the leak were not considered by the landlord when calculating its compensation offer. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim.

Determination (decision)

26. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it responded to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof of the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendations

27. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident and request any evidence that shows an increase in heating costs while the repairs to the skylight remained outstanding. Upon receipt of the evidence, it should review whether the timeframe involved is relevant, and whether the evidence requires a further response under the complaint procedure.