Clarion Housing Association Limited (202201266)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201266

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 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 handling of:
   1. A leak in the resident’s property and the compensation offered.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. There is a young child in the property. The resident resides in a flat, in a block of similar properties.
3. Between August 2021 and May 2022, the resident reported on at least 4 occasions that she was experiencing drainage issues. This included slow draining sinks and showers and also blocked toilets.
4. On 2 April 2022, the resident reported that her toilet was blocked. An out of hours operative attended the property and attempted to unblock the toilet. During this visit, the contractor cleared wipes from the toilet and identified that whilst the blockage was partially removed, jetting was required for the complete unblocking of the toilet.
5. In the evening of 2 April 2022, the resident reported that due to the blocked toilet not being fully unblocked earlier in the day, human faeces was leaking into her property. This leak was also coming from her kitchen and bathroom sinks. The resident advised that this was mainly affecting her kitchen.
6. Between 4 April 2022 and 13 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 4 occasions to request an update on the repairs being completed in the property and for an update on how to make a claim for the white goods damaged in her property. The resident also requested information on how to claim the decant payment, and expressed her dissatisfaction that any payment would not be made until she had moved back into her property.
7. The resident raised a complaint on 14 April 2022. She stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leak in her property and felt that it was not acting quickly enough to repair her damaged property. The resident also expressed her dissatisfaction with the operatives’ behaviour, stating that one operative left stating that “nothing could be done” and by the time another operative attended her property was “destroyed” including her white goods and electrical items. The resident stated her son’s health had been impacted by the leak, and she was worried about the long term impact on his health. In addition, the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s advice to claim on her home contents insurance as she was unable to obtain the insurance due to her front door being broken and the landlord not fixing this.
8. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 5 May 2022. It stated that it attended the resident’s property on 2 April 2022 and unblocked the toilet, but advised the resident that jetting would be required, but was unable to do so until 4 April 2022. As such, the landlord did not accept a failing in its handling of the initial reports. In relation to the work being completed in the resident’s property, it advised that a specialist contractor would carry out an environmental clean and determine whether a new kitchen was required. In addition, any flooring damaged would be replaced like for like. It offered the resident £200 compensation for the “issues involved in the complaint”.
9. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on the same day as she was unhappy with the compensation offered. In addition the resident was unhappy that her kitchen would not be fully replaced.
10. On 11 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update on the works and queried when further works in her property would begin. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 May 2022, and informed her that her complaint had been escalated and to await a response.
11. On 23 May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her escalation request. The resident informed the landlord that contractors attended her property on 2 April 2022 and a deep clean was not completed until 5 May 2022. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction at this as her personal possessions and white goods were further damaged as a result of the delay and wished for these to be replaced. The resident also disputed that the leak in the property was caused by wipes in the drains, as she stated she had been informed by a surveyor that a cracked pipe had been the cause of the leak. As a resolution, the resident requested that the compensation reflect the issues experienced.
12. Between 24 May 2022 and 16 June 2022, the resident made contact with the landlord on at least 9 occasions requesting for her complaint to be escalated, an update on her complaint and an update on the works being carried out to the property. The landlord informed the resident on 20 July 2022, that she was able to move back into her property on 22 July 2022.
13. The landlord provided the resident its stage 2 response on 24 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in its response and stated this was due to a cyber incident. The landlord stated that a drain survey identified the blockage was caused by a large number of wipes in the drains. It stated that a deep clean specialist was contacted on 11 April 2022 and 21 April 2022, but it received no response. This was reallocated to another contractor on 21 April 2022 who gained access on 5 May 2022 to begin the deep clean. It stated that this was a failure in its service, as the contractor was not chased sufficiently which caused a delay in completing the deep clean. The landlord apologised for this.
14. In relation to the kitchen replacement, the landlord advised that all works were completed by 15 June 2022. It acknowledged delays in this due to the resident not being satisfied with the flooring being laid at the time. It apologised for the inconvenience caused. The landlord also stated that it appreciated it could be challenging for the resident to wait for the decant payment to be made, but that this was in-line with its policy obligations. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the white goods being damaged in the property due to the leak. It advised that this was in the process of being investigated by its insurers and the resident should wait for this to be settled with the insurer. Overall, the landlord offered the resident £550 compensation. This was inclusive of:
    1. £200 previously offered at stage 1 of the complaints process.
    2. £100 for the delay in providing a stage 2 response.
    3. £250 discretionary payment for the service delays and lack of communication.
15. The resident referred her complaint to the Service on 7 September 2022. She stated that she felt that the landlord had not considered the distress caused to her as a result of the leak, and having to move out of her property. The resident also remains dissatisfied that the insurance compensation did not cover the cost of replacement white goods and that she continued paying rent and her utilities whilst decanted, which she would like to be compensated for.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

16. The resident completed an insurance claim for her personal possessions which had been damaged due to the leak. This claim was successful and a payment of £1,300 was made. The Service is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as we can only consider the actions of the landlord. Therefore, the outcome of this claim and the money paid as a result will not form part of this investigation.
17. The resident has also referenced how the landlord’s actions in relation to the leak has impacted her son’s health. However, the Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. 

Policies and procedures.

18. The landlord’s decant policy states that when residents stay with family and friends, an allowance of £30 per day for the first 4 weeks will be paid. For any period past this, £15 compensation per day will be paid.
19. An emergency repair can be classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. Any emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Further repairs may then subsequently be required.

Handling of a leak in the property.

20. In this case, it has been difficult to establish what works were completed in the resident’s property and when. This is partly due to the landlord’s lack of effective record keeping concerning the repairs. Therefore, the Service has used the available evidence regarding the works completed and the evidence submitted by the resident to reach a conclusion.
21. In correspondence provided, the landlord accepted that its contractors and surveyors had been out on “numerous occasions for drainage issues” in the 6 months prior to the leak occurring. The survey on 2 March 2022, identified that the blockages were being caused due to an excessive number of wipes being found in the drainage system. Due to the limited records provided, it is unclear what works were completed at this stage. As such, it is has been difficult to determine whether when the overflow occurred in April 2022, this was due to the landlord not acting upon the works recommended previously.
22. The resident reported on 2 April 2022 that her toilet was blocked and would not drain. The evidence shows that the landlord attended the resident’s property on the same day, which was in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy which states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours. The evidence further shows that the landlord unblocked the toilet but that the drains would require jetting.
23. The resident informed the landlord later that day that the leak had become worse and there was a continuous flow of sewage going through the property. It is reasonable to conclude that this required an urgent response but there is no evidence the landlord carried out any further repairs at this time., The landlord’s failure to consider jetting the drains as an option meant that the drains remained overflowing for a number of hours forcing the resident to leave her property in the early hours of the morning.
24. The landlord acknowledged that when it raised the deep clean following on from the flood, there was a delay in receiving a response from the contractor. It further acknowledged that it delayed chasing up the appointment with the contractor until 21 April 2022. The landlord failed to monitor the progress of the deep clean which was a significant failing and it took the landlord a month to complete the deep clean which is an excessive delay.
25. Once the deep clean had been completed, the landlord assessed that the kitchen required fully replacing. The landlord did not complete this inspection until 1 June 2022 despite the deep clean being completed on 5 May 2022. It is unclear why there was a delay in inspecting the property to determine whether the kitchen required a full replacement. This only served to delay the repairs further and cause inconvenience to the resident.
26. A further delay occurred when there was a disagreement between the landlord and the resident in relation to the replacement flooring. The landlord understood in late May 2022 that the resident was dissatisfied with the flooring which would be installed. The landlord should have communicated with the resident regarding the flooring prior to the appointments taking place. This would have avoided the delay caused when the resident disagreed with the flooring option chosen. The landlord’s failure to appropriately communicate meant that the flooring works were delayed by approximately 1 month, which was an unreasonable delay.
27. These delays ultimately caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience as she had to make repeated phone calls to the landlord requesting updates and for information to be provided. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to provide information in relation to the condition of the property and the timeframes included in completing all of the repairs to ensure the resident is kept up to date on the progress. The landlord’s failure to do so caused inconvenience to the resident and led to her having to make repeated contact.
28. The resident also raised concerns that at the point when the property was ready to be moved back into, she had not been able to purchase any new white goods due to her insurance claim not being processed. The resident felt that she was unable to move back into the property until she was able to purchase white goods. No evidence has been provided to show that upon receiving this communication the landlord acted to progress the insurance claim to ensure that the resident was able to move back into the property. In addition, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord considered if it was able to help the resident in alternative ways to ensure she was able to move back into the property with working appliances.
29. The landlord arranged for a new drainage inspection to take place following on from the leak, which was reasonable to ensure it could identify the source of the blockage.; However, a survey report was not provided to the Service despite this being requested, so it is unclear what issues with the drainage were identified and if they were fully resolved. As such, an order has been made to ensure that the cause of the blockage is resolved. This is important as the resident reported in February 2023 that there was slow drainage occurring in the property again. If the disposal of wipes is an ongoing issue, the landlord should address this with all residents in the block to ensure further issues do not reoccur.
30. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the leak was poor as there were extensive delays in completing the remedial works, but the impact on the resident was made worse by its lack of effective communication. The landlord’s poor communication significantly impacted the resident and caused additional distress and inconvenience to her, at an already distressing time.
31. When failings are identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
32. As per the landlord’s decant policy it paid the resident £2,310 for the 111 days she was out of her property. This consisted of £30 per day for the first 4 weeks and reducing to £15 per day for the remainder of the decant process. This compensation was in accordance with the landlord’s decant policy, and as such the landlord acted reasonably.
33. The landlord’s decant policy goes on to state that the compensation is reduced after four weeks as “usually the use of family or friends temporary accommodation will not normally be for longer than 4 weeks”. This policy is inherently unfair, as the resident was decanted from her property for more than 4 weeks due to the landlord not completing the works within an appropriate timeframe. The landlord should reconsider this compensation aspect, as the policy is unfair and does not ‘put things right’ for residents who are decanted for more than 4 weeks.
34. In addition, the landlord stated that its policy states that decant payments will not be made until residents are back in their property. However, this is not detailed in the landlord’s decant policy. As such, it remains unclear when the payment should be made. Residents often require the immediate payment of the compensation to fund their expenses whilst being decanted. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its decant policy and specifies when decant payments should be made to residents.
35. The resident raised concerns that whilst she was decanted she continued paying bills in the property and her rent payments. The evidence provided shows that this matter has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. Therefore, the landlord has not had the opportunity to provide a response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint to the Service. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider addressing this matter.
36. The landlord awarded the resident £450 compensation for the lack of communication, service delays and inconvenience caused to the resident. It is the Service’s opinion that this does not reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord’s poor communication which led to the resident having an unnecessary level of involvement in the repairs process and the delays in completing the repairs.
37. In consideration of this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £600 and over where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint handling.

38. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days. The resident raised her complaint on 14 April 2022 and a response was provided on 5 May 2022. This was an additional 4 working days outside of its policy obligations. This was a small delay and would not have caused a significant amount of distress to the resident.
39. At stage 2 of the complaints procedure, the landlord’s complaints policy states a response should be provided within 20 working days. It appears that the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on at least 3 separate occasions on 5 May 2022, 17 May 2022 and 23 May 2022. A stage two response was not provided until 24 August 2022. As the resident expressed her dissatisfaction at the stage one response on 5 May 2022, this is considered to be the resident’s escalation request and as such, the response provided was not provided until 79 working days later, which is 59 working days outside of the landlord’s policy obligation.
40. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that the response was delayed due to a cyber incident taking place. However, the evidence shows that the cyber incident took place on 16 June 2022. Therefore, any prior delays were not caused by the cyber incident. During this time period prior to the cyber incident, there was internal communication with a senior manager in regard to requiring the complaint being “signed off” which seemingly delayed the process. Therefore, some of the delay in providing a complaint response was due to the landlord’s poor service,.
41. Furthermore, the Service become involved at this stage of the complaints process due to the landlord not providing the resident a stage 2 response as per its policy obligations and the communication with the resident. This would have inevitably caused the resident inconvenience as she had to reach out to the Service to prompt a response.
42. The landlord’s complaint responses also lacked empathy and understanding of how distressed the resident was, and how distressing the situation had been for her and her young son. The landlord’s failure to empathise and understand the resident’s distress was a failing on its part.
43. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay at stage 2. However, this is insufficient to fully remedy the landlord’s poor complaint handling and service provided. In consideration of the above, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation as a remedy to the failings identified. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £100 and over where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failures identified. 
44. It is relevant here that the overall finding of this case has been identified as service failure, though a finding of maladministration might have been identified had the landlord not offered compensation, acknowledged some of its failings and provided the resident with an apology. The landlord should learn from the Service’s findings in relation to its complaint handling and ensure that it provides accurate information to residents.

Determination

45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak in the resident’s property and the compensation offered.
46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

47. Within the four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident:
       1. £700 compensation for its poor communication and handling of the leak in the resident’s property. This is inclusive of the £450 previously offered and can be deducted if already paid.
       2. £200 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This is inclusive of the £100 previously offered and can be deducted if already paid.
    2. Apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its poor communication.
    3. Investigate whether any further action needs to be taken to prevent future drain blockages, taking into account any recent reports about drainage issues and the findings of previous drain surveys. The landlord should report its findings to the resident and the Service.

Recommendations

48. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Reconsider its decant policy to assess whether it is fair and reasonable to reduce compensation for decanted residents after 4 weeks. This landlord should also consider during this review, whether to include timeframes for when decant payments should be made, and ensure that this is fair for residents in light of this report.
    2. Address the resident’s concerns in relation to the payment of bills for her property and rent payments during the period she was decanted.