Clarion Housing Association Limited (202126500)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126500

Clarion Housing Association Limited

1 December 2023

 

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 and subsequent handling of repairs to the ceiling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 3 bedroom property. The resident and 2 of her 4 children are disabled.
  2. The resident informed the landlord of a leak in the ceiling in June 2021. She said it was coming from the flat above and caused a damp mark on the ceiling in the hallway. On 31 December 2021 the resident reported the damp mark was growing. On 13 January 2022, the resident reported water was running across the ceiling in the hallway, towards the electrics.
  3. The ceiling collapsed on 18 January 2022, with the resident reporting that it had fallen on her causing her injuries. The landlord subsequently attended to make the ceiling and electrics safe.
  4. The resident complained on 3 February 2022. She said she felt the landlord had not taken her seriously, and if it had attended in December 2021 the ceiling would not have collapsed. The resident wanted the landlord to complete the repair and pay her compensation for the injuries caused.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 21 February 2022. It said the issue was raised on 31 December 2021, however apologised as it was not attended on the same day. It attended to inspect on 13 January, made the electrics safe on 19 January, and contained the ceiling on 28 January 2022. It confirmed it had scheduled for the repairs to take place 7 March 2022, and offered the resident £150 compensation for its failure to follow process, the resident having to chase the landlord for the repairs, and repeated visits to try and solve the problem. The landlord also signposted to its legal team regarding a personal injury claim.
  6. The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 7 March 2022. She remained unhappy that the repairs to the ceiling remained outstanding, and she felt she was owed more compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  7. The landlord provided an additional stage one response on 15 March 2022. It said the ceiling repair had been previously unsuccessful because it had not been able to find the source of the leak. The landlord stated the leak had since been resolved, and repairs had been rescheduled for 31 March 2022. It offered the resident an additional £200 compensation to apologise, bringing the total compensation to £350.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 April 2022. She remained unhappy the leak was still unresolved and the ceiling repairs remained outstanding. The landlord provided a stage two response on 4 August 2022. It said it had rectified the leak on 21 June 2022, and could therefore complete the ceiling repairs. The landlord offered the resident an additional £350 compensation, bringing the total to £700.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 3 March 2023. It is understood the ceiling repairs were completed between April and May 2023. To put things right, the resident would like additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that she was injured when the ceiling collapsed onto her and she has needed ongoing medical treatment as a result of her injuries. The resident has also explained the situation affected her mental health.
  2. This Service is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the landlord’s handling of the ceiling repairs. This question may be better for the courts to decide, and means that this Service is not able to say to any degree of certainty that the resident’s health was impacted in the way explained.

 

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that ‘any emergency repair should be attended with 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Further repairs may then subsequently be required’. Non-emergency repairs are then given a timescale of 28 days.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made’. The policy stipulates that the landlord will aim to provide a complaint response within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent handling of repairs to the ceiling

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. There is no evidence the landlord took any action in response to the resident’s reports of a leak in June 2021. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, and not in line with its repairs policy aims to attend non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
  4. On 31 December 2021, the resident reported the damp mark in the hallway ceiling was growing and asked the landlord to trace the leak. The landlord did attend on 13 January 2022, after the resident reported there was water running across the ceiling towards the electricity as an emergency. The landlord attended on the same day, which is in line with its policy for emergency repairs. It is unclear what action was taken following this visit, though the landlord noted it needed to gain access to a neighbouring property.
  5. On 18 January 2022, the ceiling collapsed, which suggests that the landlord had not taken action to resolve the leak following on from the 13 January 2022 attendance. The records show the landlord attended 3 days later to make the electrics safe. The landlord reasonably ought to have attended within 24 hours for an emergency repair, as per its repairs policy. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
  6. Following this, the landlord attended twice in March 2022 to repair the ceiling but it was unable to as the leak was still coming through the hallway. In April 2022, the landlord again attended twice but was unable to resolve the leak. Between the landlord attending the repair on 5 April 2022 and the next time it attended on 21 June 2022, the time elapsed was 77 days and the resident chased for an update 7 times. This was not acceptable and constitutes a significant and unreasonable delay, contributing towards the resident’s feelings of distress, inconvenience and belief the landlord was not taking action in regards to her complaint.
  7. The landlord stated it fixed the leak on 21 June 2022, which is approximately a year after it was first reported by the resident. It is acknowledged the landlord attended approximately 8 times to try and find the source of the leak, and encountered access issues with the property above. Nevertheless, it was unreasonable for the landlord to take a year to repair the leak, especially taking into account the vulnerabilities within the household. This was a significant failing on the part of the landlord.
  8. Furthermore, this service understands the ceiling repair was completed between April and May 2023, a further 10 months following the leak repair. The records show the resident chased the landlord for an update twice during this time. The reason for the delay is unclear and has not been explained. This is a further failing on the part of the landlord and again constitutes an unreasonable delay, with little consideration being awarded to the household vulnerabilities or the resident’s ongoing distress, inconvenience and enjoyment of her home.
  9. In conclusion, there were significant failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and handling of the repairs to the ceiling and a finding of maladministration is made. A finding of severe maladministration has not been made, as it is noted the landlord made several attempts to find the source of the leak, attend the repair and has already offered £700 compensation. However, the time taken to fix the leak and then repair the ceiling were unacceptable. Further, there is little evidence that the landlord has taken steps to ‘learn from outcomes’ in the case, and taken action to prevent a recurrence of such failings in the future. Additional compensation is ordered, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was a failing which adversely affected the resident, the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. An order is also made in relation to ‘learning from outcomes’.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The resident complained on 3 February 2022, and the landlord provided its initial response on 21 February 2022. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this on 7 March 2022 . In response, the landlord raised an additional stage one complaint and provided a response on 15 March 2022. The landlord said ‘as the (previous) stage one complaint had a failed resolution, its policy is to address this as new stage one before raising a stage two complaint. Please note this letter is…not a stage two response’.
  2. This was not appropriate, and is not stipulated in the landlord’s complaint policy, as assessed by the Ombudsman. It is therefore unclear why the landlord raised an additional stage one complaint, when it reasonably ought to have progressed the resident’s complaint to the next stage of its complaints procedure. This likely caused detriment to the resident by preventing her from bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman sooner. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.
  3. The landlord provided a stage two response on 4 August 2022. This was 104 working days after the resident requested to escalate her complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy aims of 20 working days. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged the delay in the complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation, though this is considered to be inadequate redress in the circumstances.
  4. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Orders are made below, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent handling of repairs to the ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the £700 compensation offered, if it has not already done so;
    2. Pay the resident an additional £800 compensation (made up of £650 for the for the distress, and time and trouble the resident experienced relating to the repair, and an additional £150 for the failings in complaint handling);
    3. Review its handling of the repair. This should be conducted by a senior member of staff. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
    4. Review its complaint handling practices, in line with its policy, to ensure complaints are progressed correctly through the internal complaints procedure. It should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should provide the resident with information on how to make a personal injury claim, if it has not already done so.