Clarion Housing Association Limited (202203264)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203264

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 July 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:
   1. handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above, and;
   2. complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder, and the landlord is the freeholder of the property. The property is a ground-floor flat. The resident had tenants living in the property at the time of the complaint.
3. On 6 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and reported a leak from the above flat. The landlord tried to contact the neighbour but was unable to get a hold of them. On 8 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord again about the leak. The landlord advised the resident that her report had been logged as an emergency and that it would attend within 24 hours.
4. On 10 September 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended the neighbour’s property and found a blockage to the stack serving the bathroom. The blockage was cleared, and normal flow was restored, resolving the leak. The contractor recommended that the landlord carry out repairs to renew the kitchen sink pipework to the leaking stack.
5. The same day the resident raised a complaint with her landlord. In summary, she said that there had been an ongoing unrepaired leak in the kitchen of the neighbour’s property for four years and that her bathroom, hallway, and kitchen would require full redecoration. She questioned why an emergency repair was not raised when she first contacted the landlord on 4 September 2021. She was unhappy that the previous repairs to her neighbour’s property had not addressed the issue. She said that her bathroom light was full of water and asked the landlord to change the pipework professionally to prevent the leaks from happening again.
6. On both 15 September and 22 September 2021, the landlord tried to contact the resident’s neighbour to arrange an appointment to carry out the repairs to the kitchen pipework but was unable to get a hold of them.
7. The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint in September and October 2021. She added that her neighbour was obstructing the repair work which had resulted in water running down into her property for five days. During this period, the resident also asked the landlord for updates on what actions it had taken to resolve the repairs at her neighbour’s property.
8. On 16 December 2021 the landlord responded to her complaint at stage one of its complaints process. In summary, the response said:
   1. It had confirmed with its contractor that the waste pipe under the kitchen sink had snapped in half.
   2. Its contractor attended on 9 September 2021 and jet washed the drain to remove the blockages and on 18 November 2021 it renewed the kitchen sink pipework.
   3. An emergency job was raised with its contractor on 8 September 2021, however, there were difficulties gaining access to the neighbour’s property.
   4. There was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the neighbour had breached their tenancy and that they had since provided access for the repairs to be completed.
   5. It had identified service failure and offered £150 compensation for the significant delay in resolving the repairs due to access issues, and a lack of communication with her.
   6. It had fed back the events she had experienced to better its service.
   7. She could claim damaged items through the landlord’s insurance.
9. On 17 December 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said that she had not received a satisfactory explanation as to why the emergency repair took four months to complete or why it had failed to address that her neighbour had denied access. She was unhappy that the response did not address the nature of the leaks and that there had been no investigation into the route of the problem. As a resolution, she wanted an explanation as to why the landlord would not provide information relating to access issues with her neighbour and why she was not told about the completed repair. She asked for compensation of £1,000 for the work time she had lost, and the stress and inconvenience caused to her tenants.
10. On 22 March 2022 the landlord issued its stage two (final) response. In summary, the response said:
    1. The previous leaks were not attributed to the same issue as the most recent leak, and it had completed all repair works to the neighbour’s property.
    2. That more robust action could have been raised sooner against the neighbour upon no repeated access.
    3. It apologised for the issues the resident had in logging her concerns and confirmed that she could raise repair issues for properties other than her own.
    4. It could provide general information on what caused the leaks and when the repairs would be completed, and it should have informed her when the issues were resolved. It apologised for this oversight and any delays this may have caused.
11. The response provided a revised offer of £850 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £500 for delays in taking appropriate actions against the neighbour, the inconvenience caused, and its ‘failure to follow process’.
    2. £300 for its complaint handling, including delays in responding to the complaint and not keeping the resident updated.
    3. £50 for its delay in responding at stage two.
12. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that the neighbour had denied access for repairs for years, yet the landlord had failed to act. She said the landlord had not logged her calls about water leaks properly. She was unhappy with its delayed responses and that the landlord had not updated her on the action it had taken to repair the leak.
13. Further she said that after the landlord’s final response that there had been another leak on 19 April 2022 and again on 4 May 2022, and that she was unable to log them with the landlord as it would not accept a repair report from her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. The resident has explained that there were ongoing leaks from the property over a substantial period, dating back to 2016, and the landlord refers to these leaks in its final response. Whilst the historical issues give context to the complaint, this investigation has only considered the events from September 2021 until the end of the landlord’s complaint procedure. This is in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. 
15. The Ombudsman has made an assessment on the landlord’s logging of further reported leaks from the resident, which occurred after the date of the final response to the complaint, as this relates to learning outcomes identified in its final response.
16. The resident has explained that the landlord’s handling of the leaks also affected her tenants who she says had to live in hazardous conditions. Whilst the Ombudsman does not underestimate the impact the issues had on her tenants; this Service can only look at the adverse affect that the complaint had on the resident.

Handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above

17. 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 three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 
    2. put things right, and; 
    3. learn from outcomes. 
18. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse affect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse affect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
19. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident said that she first reported the leak from her neighbour’s property on 4 September 2021, however, this Service has seen no evidence to reconcile this. The landlord’s records showed that the resident first reported the leaks on 6 September 2021. The landlord’s repairs logs showed that it attended the neighbour’s property on 10 September 2021. This was contrary to the landlord’s repairs timescales that state emergency repairs would be attended to within 24 hours. The landlord failed to log the repair on the date of the resident’s report and attended the property three days outside of its timescales.
20. On 10 September 2021 the landlord’s contractor resolved the leak and recommended follow-on repair work to the kitchen sink pipework to prevent further leaks from occurring. The landlord’s repairs policy states that appointments for routine repairs will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. The landlord’s records indicated that it completed the repairs to the pipework on 18 November 2021. This was over one month outside of its timescales.
21. Moreover, the landlord failed to inform the resident within a reasonable timescale that the leak had been resolved and it did not keep her informed on the progress or completion of the follow-up repair. This led to the resident having to chase the landlord for updates. This Service would have expected the landlord to inform the resident that the leak had been resolved, and given the circumstances, keep her updated on what action it was taking to complete the follow-up repair. This was a failure on the part of the landlord that would have caused distress and anxiety to the resident. The landlord acknowledged these failings and offered compensation to the resident that the Ombudsman considers proportionately reflected the level of detriment caused, in this regard.
22. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she raised concerns about the landlord’s failure to take action against her neighbour. The landlord’s records indicated that there had been difficulty in accessing the neighbour’s property, however, the landlord has not provided any supporting evidence to the Ombudsman of actions it took to resolve this issue. It would, therefore, be reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s lack of action in this regard, contributed to delays in completing the follow-up repairs. However, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable. It provided a satisfactory explanation of the steps it would need to take to gain access to the property and it apologised for its failure to raise more robust action sooner. Further, it offered compensation to the resident to ‘put things right’.
23. The landlord’s final response acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the leaks had been going on for years. In doing so it provided a timeline of the reported leaks and a summary of its actions. The response provided a reasonable level of detail and highlighted that there was no singular cause for the leaks. This showed that the landlord had investigated the resident’s concerns fairly. 
24. However, there were failures from the landlord that have not been ‘put right’ for the resident. The landlord’s final response stated that the resident could raise repairs for properties other than her own and that it would feed this back to its staff. However, the landlord’s records showed that in April 2022 the resident tried to report another leak but was unable to raise it under her neighbour’s flat. Although the landlord said it would contact her neighbour directly to log the repair, the information provided to the resident was contrary to its final response letter and demonstrated that the landlord had failed to carry out learning from the complaint. This would have caused distress and confusion to the resident.
25. The landlord’s final response letter was also inaccurate. It said that the most recent report of a leak from the resident was on 10 September 2021, however, its records showed that the resident had reported the leak on 6 September 2021. Whilst this was not a serious failing it may indicate issues with the landlord’s record keeping. Further, the Ombudsman considers that this inaccuracy prevented the landlord from considering the level of detriment caused to the resident by its delayed response to the leak. Overall, this amounts to Service failure and orders are made below for remedy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

26. It took the landlord over three months to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage one and a further three months to respond at stage two. This was not in line with its complaints policy which states that it will aim to respond within 10 working days at stage one, and 20 working days at stage two. The subsequent delays led to the resident chasing the landlord for a response on multiple occasions. These were considerable delays that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
27. While the landlord’s approach was contrary to its usual procedure, it acknowledged this and offered compensation (£350) in recognition. This took into consideration the delayed responses and lack of communication from the landlord. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there is a failure that adversely affected the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer which was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment. The landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks from the property above.
29. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the landlord’s handling of the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

30. The landlord must, within the next four weeks, take the following action:

1. Pay the resident an additional £150 for the stress and confusion caused by the failures identified in this report (this is in addition to the £850 offered in its final response to the complaint, which should also be paid if it has not already done so).
2. Write to the resident and the Ombudsman with an action plan on what steps it will take to ensure that its staff are aware that the resident can raise repairs against her neighbour’s property.
3. Review its record keeping practices to ensure emergency repairs are logged on the date they are reported and provide a written update to the Ombudsman on the outcome of the review.

 Recommendations

31. It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to ensure they are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and identify any training needs.
32. It is recommended that the landlord consider a single point of contact for the resident should there be further leaks into her property, and review the history of the leaks and what action it might now need to take in light of any recurrence.