The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202208784)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208784

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 November 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to reports of a leak from the resident’s toilet.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
    3. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has been a resident since 2013. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom, first-floor flat. There are properties above and below the resident’s home. The upstairs resident is also a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 16 December 2021, the resident reported water damage to her bathroom ceiling, following a leak from the upstairs property. The landlord’s operative attended the upstairs property on 21 December 2021 and confirmed no leaks were found. The operative did identify a pipe on the wash basin which needed tightening, which was completed during the visit. An operative also attended the resident’s property on the same date and noted there was a small patch of bubbling paint on the ceiling, however, no wet patches were identified.
  3. In the early hours of the morning on 7 January 2022, the resident reported a leak coming from her toilet. The resident contacted the landlord’s out-of-hours service and said the waste pipe had broken off and wastewater was leaking out onto the floor. The landlord informed the resident that there were no out-of-hours operatives available and that it would therefore be attending to repair the leak between 9am and 11am the following morning.
  4. The resident chased the landlord as it did not attend at the time that was given. The repair was carried out by the landlord’s operative at 1:30pm on 8 January 2022 and a new waste pipe was fitted to the toilet.
  5. The resident raised a verbal complaint to the landlord on 7 January 2022 and a written complaint on 8 January 2022. In the resident’s complaint, she explained:
    1. She was unhappy that the operative did not attend the property to repair the toilet leak at the time given by the out-of-hours team. The resident said there was only 1 toilet in the property, so she and her family were unable to use the toilet until it was repaired.
    2. Her personal belongings had been damaged in trying to contain the leak and she had suffered an injury to her knee after falling on the wet floor.
    3. She had turned off the electricity in the property as the water was going towards electrical sockets. She was therefore left without electricity in the property until the toilet was repaired.
    4. She was unhappy as a similar issue with the toilet had happened before on 19 August 2021 and the issue was meant to have been rectified by the landlord.
  6. On 10 January 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the toilet was leaking again, her property smelt of wastewater and the ceiling of her bathroom was wet. The resident asked for an urgent inspection of the toilet and the bathroom ceiling. She said she wanted compensation for her injury and the inconvenience caused.
  7. On 2 February 2022, an operative attended the building to fit 2 rubber couplings to the vent pipes on the roof to resolve the leak. The landlord noted visible damage of watermarks and bubbling paint on the resident’s ceiling but did not note any wet patches.
  8. The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint on several occasions. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 February 2022 to apologise for the delay in responding to her complaint. The landlord advised it was still waiting for information from its out-of-hours contact centre. The landlord contacted the resident again on 9 February 2022 and advised it was looking at a ‘service failure’. The landlord also advised the resident to submit a personal injury claim to its insurers.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 17 February 2022, in which it:
    1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
    2. Accepted there was a failure to deploy a contractor during out of hours and it failed to make the property safe/repair within its service level agreement. The landlord explained the out-of-hours team tried to find a tradesperson throughout the night to attend the property and repair the toilet leak. The landlord said the delay in attending the property was due to a large volume of calls.
    3. Apologised for “delays” and “poor level of service” received and said it was reviewing its contract performance with its out-of-hours service. The landlord said an operative had tried to attend the property on 18 January 2022 but due to access issues, this was rebooked for 1 February 2022.
    4. Confirmed an operative attended the property on 11 February 2022 and the damage from the toilet leak was localised to the resident’s laminate flooring. It advised the resident to contact her contents insurer or make a claim through the landlord’s insurance.
    5. Said an operative had attended the resident’s property on 11 February 2022 and noted there was visible damage of watermarks and bubbling paint on the toilet ceiling, which was “due for repair on 25 February 2022”.
    6. Said that an earlier repair carried out on 20 August 2021 to the toilet cistern was due to a plastic tube becoming loose causing leaks. The landlord confirmed the works were completed, and there were no notes regarding follow-up works required.
    7. Offered £200 compensation to the resident (“£25 for the delay in response to the resident’s complaint, £10 for the delay to repair, £15 for the missed appointment and £150 for the inconvenience”). The landlord advised the resident to reply within 20 working days if she was unhappy with the response.
  10. On 22 February 2022, the resident said she was not happy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, or the compensation offered and wished to escalate her complaint. The resident said she did not have contents insurance and there were still issues in the property. She said she could hear water dripping in the toilet and water running down the internal wall. The resident also believed the issue with the toilet was due to ‘stacks’ in the building becoming blocked and said that there was moisture inside her property.
  11. The landlord provided a second stage 1 response on 7 March 2022. In its response, the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the resident and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
    2. Gave an overview of the attendance at the resident’s property and the work undertaken. The landlord confirmed no leaks were affecting the resident’s property, but overflow water was identified on 25 February 2022 from the property above. The landlord confirmed no live leaks were affecting the resident’s property and the overflow water from the property above was only running into the stack pipe. The landlord said a repair was due to take place at the upstairs property that same week.
    3. Advised a job had been raised for an operative to attend the resident’s property to address the mould in the resident’s bedroom, the front room window that did not close properly and the kitchen sink pipe that was hanging.
    4. Said there had been a lack of communication by not returning the resident’s call requests and not providing her with updates and information. The landlord identified a service failure and apologised for this.
    5. Asked the resident to reply within 20 working days if she was unhappy with the response.
    6. Offered the resident £100 compensation for “repeatedly having to chase responses, misdirection by giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about repairs, the impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble”.
  12. On 22 March 2022, the resident advised the leak from the property upstairs was persisting. The resident said the issue was “becoming tiresome and quite upsetting hearing the constant dripping” and she was unhappy with “the constant wet and condensation.” On 13 May 2022, the resident telephoned the landlord and said she was dissatisfied with the service provided. The resident said that operatives had attended the property but could not find the source of the leak. She said an operative suggested it may be coming from a pipe behind the wall tiles, but no action was carried out and the leak was still persistent. She said she had already made a stage 1 and stage 2 complaint.
  13. Further appointments went ahead at the upstairs property for repairs and works to the communal pipe which included evasive jetting to clear any blockages from the shared stack. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 1 June 2022 and identified a historic stain on the bathroom ceiling. The landlord also noted high humidity in the bathroom which it said could be coming from an “undiagnosed leak within the duct above the property.”
  14. On 7 June 2022, an inspection was undertaken to the upstairs property, whereby the landlord’s operative removed a section of tiled boxing to the shared soil stack and completed a repair to the waste connection adjoining the toilet and stack. The landlord said this was tested and “left without further leaks”.
  15. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 July 2022. In its response, the landlord:
    1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the resident and said this was due to a cyber-attack on its IT systems. It acknowledged that there had been a service failure due to its delays.
    2. Gave an overview of the work carried out to the upstairs property and the landlord’s attendance at the resident’s property. The landlord said there had been access issues for both properties, including cancellations from the resident for appointments at the property due to COVID-19 in her household.
    3. Confirmed repairs had taken place at the upstairs property on 7 June 2022 and there were no further leaks identified. It also confirmed the issue with the toilet leak had been resolved and this was responded to within its service level agreement. The landlord said there were further works required at the resident’s property including a mould wash in the bedroom and an inspection to the resident’s kitchen sink waste. This appointment was scheduled to take place on 14 June 2022.
    4. Advised the resident that she would need to contact its insurance team about her insurance claim. It also explained if the resident was unhappy with the response, she could escalate the matter to this service.
    5. Offered the resident an additional £215 compensation (“£50 for delay in stage 2 response, £15 for missing appointment on 7 January 2022, £150 discretionary compensation for multiple visits and inconvenience caused”). The landlord offered the resident a total of £515 compensation across its three complaint responses.
  16. The landlord has informed this service that the resident got back in touch on 23 September 2022 advising of a further small leak occurring. The landlord said it attended the property on 10 October 2022 and installed a new filling valve to repair the leak. The landlord said this was a separate issue from the previously completed works with the waste connection and caused a minimal leak. The landlord confirmed in January 2023 that it was arranging for a full skim of the resident’s ceiling as she had reported flaking. This service has been unable to confirm the details of this repair or whether the resident’s ceiling has been skimmed.
  17. In referring the matter to this service, the resident said she is unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord and wants all repairs completed to the property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident contacted this service in August 2022 to advise there had been a further leak coming from her toilet and said a new waste pipe was fitted by the landlord. From the evidence provided to this service, there is no record of this repair issue in the landlord’s repair logs or evidence of any correspondence between the resident and the landlord on the matter. It is unclear whether this issue was connected to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint.
  2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”

  1. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Policies and procedures

  1. In accordance with the ‘repairs and maintenance’ section on the landlord’s website, it is the landlord’s responsibility to respond to repairs relating to “water mains, pipes and waste pipes” and “external drains and septic tanks”.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy states any emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make it safe or a temporary repair should have been completed at this visit. Further repairs may then subsequently be required. It also states that non-emergency repair appointments will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. The landlord also offers “appointments for communal repairs in some areas”. Repairs to communal areas should be appointed dependent upon the nature of the work but must always be completed within 28 days.
  3. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It aims to provide a stage 1 response to complaints within “10 working days”. At the conclusion of the complaint process, a resident may request a review or an escalation of their case. The landlord states it aims to provide a stage 2 response to complaints within “20 working days”. If it is unable to resolve a complaint within these timeframes, it will keep the resident “informed”, explain the reasons why it is unable to resolve the resident’s complaint and provide a timescale of what is involved in resolving the complaint, along with how long the complaint will take.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states awards of £50 to £250 may be awarded “for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.” Awards of £250 to £700 may be awarded for cases where the landlord has found “considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. Where there has been a failure to keep to an appointment, without giving 24 hours’ notice, a payment of £15.00 will be paid.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak from the resident’s toilet

  1. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement, other than a copy of its standard terms and conditions. The resident’s tenancy agreement would confirm which party is responsible for what repair. In this case, responsibility for repairs was not disputed and the landlord assumed responsibility for repair of the toilet.
  2. From the evidence provided, the issue with the resident’s toilet in August 2021 was repaired within the landlord’s service level agreement. It is not clear if the repair undertaken in August 2021 was related to the leak to the resident’s toilet on 7 January 2022. The resident states it was a similar issue, but no evidence has been provided to confirm the cause of the leak on 7 January 2022. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to comment on whether the 2 leaks were connected, or if there was an issue with the repair undertaken in August 2021. There is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord after the repair in August 2021, or contacted it about any follow-on works. The landlord has confirmed the repair was undertaken and no follow-on works were required. It apologised to the resident if there was a miscommunication about any follow-on work. Based on the evidence provided, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a toilet leak in August 2021 was reasonable, as the repair was carried out in accordance with its repairs policy and no issues were raised by the resident or the landlord following the repair. However, the landlord should have appropriate repair systems in place to identify any patterns of disrepair which may suggest further investigation is required into the cause of the issue.
  3. Regarding the leak on 7 January 2022, the landlord’s operative attended the property within its 24-hour emergency response time. However, it did not attend at the time it said it would. This caused the resident to chase for repairs. This would have likely caused the resident concern and worry. The resident also informed the landlord that she had turned the electricity off in the property due to water running towards electrical sockets and that she and her family could not use the toilet. Those residing in the property were therefore left without the use of a toilet and no electricity for over 12 hours. This would have been a significant inconvenience to those residing in the property.
  4. While the resident has referred to issues with her toilet after the repair was undertaken, it appears from the resident’s complaint that the issue was water dripping into her toilet and down the bathroom walls, as well as moisture and condensation in the bathroom, rather than a leak coming from the toilet itself. This service has been unable to clarify this with the resident. From the evidence provided, there are no repair logs detailing further issues with the resident’s toilet itself or issues with the repair carried out on 7 January 2022.
  5. The landlord has offered the resident a total of £30 for the missed appointment on 7 January 2022 and £10 for the delay in repairing the toilet. While the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right, it failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  6. The landlord has referenced the toilet leak and the leak coming from the upstairs property in both of its complaint responses. It has also offered the resident a total of £400 across its complaints responses for the “inconvenience” caused. However, the landlord has not provided a clear breakdown of whether the offer of compensation is for the inconvenience caused by the toilet leak or the leak coming from the upstairs property. This is not appropriate, and the landlord should have made it clear what it was offering compensation for and in relation to what issue.
  7. The landlord has apologised to the resident for the “delays” and “poor level of service” received and said it was reviewing its contract performance with its out-of-hours service. The landlord’s acknowledgement of its failings is good practice.
  8. The landlord has advised the resident to contact its insurers to submit a claim for the associated damage caused by the toilet leak and the personal injury sustained. The Ombudsman understands that the claim has been accepted by the landlord’s insurers and further information has been requested from the resident to value the claim. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord.
  9. From the evidence provided, it appears there are no further issues with the resident’s toilet. However, this service has been unable to confirm this with the resident. The landlord should therefore contact the resident to confirm there are no outstanding issues and the toilet pipework is secure.
  10. The resident explained she suffered a knee injury from falling due to the leak from the toilet. Under sections 2 and 4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, a landlord is required to ensure that a property is not left on a condition which is likely to cause harm to a resident or damage to their goods.
  11. However, when there is injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial. In this case, whilst the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident was injured in the way she explained, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions about that injury based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. For these reasons, the Ombudsman is not able to say that the injury was caused by the leak or the condition of the property in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above

  1. This service has been unable to contact the resident to understand the extent of the damage caused to the property and the impact the leak has had. The Ombudsman has therefore focussed its investigation on the evidence provided.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property, as well as to installations such as boilers, pipes, and electrics. This includes pipes in any part of a building in which the landlord has an estate or interest (see s.11(1A)). In accordance with this obligation, the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and to put right any issues it identified which were its responsibility.
  3. The resident informed the landlord about a leak coming through her bathroom ceiling on 16 December 2021. The landlord was on notice of a potential issue with the pipework from the upstairs property on 16 December 2021.
  4. The landlord’s operative attended the upstairs property in December 2021 to tighten the wash hand basin. It was reasonable for the operative to attend and check the pipework on the wash hand basin and reasonable to assume this may have resolved the leak if there were no other leaks present. However, there is no evidence that there was any follow-up communication with the resident to monitor her bathroom ceiling and confirm the tightening of the wash hand basin had resolved the leak.
  5. When the resident reported her ceiling was wet again on 10 January 2022, the landlord’s operative attended the property on 18 January 2022, but the resident had to go out and therefore access to the property was not available. The operative checked the roof space anyway and noted a roof vent required repair.
  6. On 2 February 2022, an operative attended to repair the vents on the roof of the building. While it is reasonable for the landlord to consider checking the roof for leaks, the evidence provided to this service shows the landlord was unsure if the roof repair had stopped the leak. If the landlord was unsure if it had rectified the leak, it should have contacted the resident and asked her to monitor the ceiling for any signs of a new leak.
  7. The landlord failed to monitor the resident’s ceiling for signs the leak had not been resolved. The landlord has made notes that there had been signs of leaks on the resident’s bathroom ceiling, such as watermarks and bubbling paint noted on 11 February 2022. However, it repeatedly stated that the ceiling was not wet at the time of its inspections. The landlord should have noted that a leak had entered the resident’s property, regardless of whether the ceiling was wet at the time of inspection.
  8. Despite the suggestion that the cause of the leak was the pipework from the upstairs property, from the evidence provided, the pipework does not appear to have been checked again until several months later. The repair logs provided by the landlord dated 27 April 2022 state its contractors had “never checked” the upstairs pipework as they were boxed in.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 May 2022 and said she was told by an operative that the leak may be coming from a pipe behind the wall tiles, but no action was carried out and the leak was still persistent. The landlord has informed this service that it had advised the resident in its stage 2 response that it wanted to “avoid removing the tiles as a last resort due to the evasive disruption”. This service has seen no evidence that the explanation about potential evasive disruption was included in the stage 2 response. The landlord should have contacted the resident to discuss any potential repairs required and should have also communicated this with the upstairs property. This would have ensured the resident was kept informed of any repair works and would have reassured her that the landlord was taking her concerns seriously.
  10. There were delays in finding the root cause of the leak. There is no evidence provided to this service of any full report undertaken or expert report to identify the cause of the leak, other than details of an inspection undertaken at the resident’s property on 1 June 2022. On this date, high humidity levels and condensation were noted in the resident’s property. The landlord should have carried out a detailed inspection of the resident’s ceiling and noted the high humidity levels when it was made aware of the leak. Further, the resident raised issues about condensation in her bathroom in March 2022, but humidity and condensation levels were not checked until June 2022. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
  11. The scheduled visit to the upstairs property on 7 June 2022 demonstrated a further issue with the toilet connection which could have been resolved earlier by the landlord if more extensive inspections had been completed. While it is somewhat reasonable that there may be delays in finding the source of a leak due to access of pipework and the complexity of the issue, from the evidence provided it appears the landlord has only investigated issues after the resident reported the ongoing issues and suggested what the problem was. Specifically, the investigation of the stack pipe only took place after the resident had raised it, rather than the landlord conducting its own investigation to source the leak and put right any issues. The landlord has suggested that no further leaks are affecting the resident’s property, however, this service has been unable to confirm this with the resident. The landlord must contact the resident and confirm to this service that no further leaks are impacting the resident’s property.
  12. The landlord has since offered to complete a skim of the area and offered to complete the decorations in its stage 1 response.
  13. The landlord has referenced access issues to the 2 properties over the duration of the complaint. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided written confirmation of appointments, or that the resident was given reasonable notice of appointments.
  14. The landlord was unable to attend the property in late March/April due to COVID-19 at the resident’s property with the resident’s agreement. It is reasonable that the landlord could not attend the resident’s property if COVID-19 was present in the household, but it does not explain why investigations were not undertaken before March/April. From the evidence provided, the resident has cancelled some appointments but said she did so because she wanted the leak inspected and repaired, rather than any routine works carried out for other issues not relating to the complaint, which is what she believed some of the appointments were for. The landlord said it would have checked the leak in April when carrying out routine work, but it appears it did not clearly communicate this with the resident, so she was not aware of this. It is best practice to inform the resident of any appointments in advance, including what work will be undertaken during the appointment. Where an appointment is missed, the resident should be notified promptly of the missed appointment, either by contacting the resident or leaving a calling card.
  15. In its final response, the landlord has not specifically acknowledged its delays in identifying and resolving the leak coming from the upstairs property, nor has it apologised for the distress and inconvenience this issue has caused the resident in repeatedly having to contact the landlord about the leak.
  16. In carrying out the inspection and repair at the upstairs property, the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but failed to adequately address the detriment to the resident and the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by the Ombudsman’s investigation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response to the resident until 29 working days after her initial complaint. This was 19 days more than the response time stated in the landlord’s complaints policy, which states that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. 
  2. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 February 2022 and 16 February 2022 and apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. However, from the evidence provided, the landlord only provided updates after the resident chased for a response. The first update on 2 February 2022 was 18 working days after the resident raised her complaint. It was unreasonable for the resident to have to contact the landlord for an update on her complaint. The landlord did not provide the resident with a timescale of what was involved in resolving the complaint, along with how long the complaint would take. This would have likely caused the resident distress and concern as she waited for a resolution to the issues raised.
  3. The resident requested her complaint to be escalated on 22 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request in line with its stage 2 response procedure. However, 9 working days later, it provided a second stage 1 response, rather than a stage 2 response. The landlord suggested that the resident had raised additional issues within her escalation request. It is not clear why a second stage 1 response was issued when the resident was informed by the landlord that her escalation request would be dealt with in line with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint procedure. It was not appropriate for the landlord to issue a second stage 1 response and is a complaint-handling failure.
  4. On 22 March 2023, the resident responded to the landlord and advised there were further issues in the property, and these needed to be resolved. On 13 May 2022, the resident telephoned the landlord and said she was dissatisfied with the service provided and issues were still ongoing. She said she had already made a stage 1 and stage 2 complaint. This was not the first time the resident had reported issues with leaks in her bathroom and she expressed dissatisfaction with the repetitiveness of the issue. The resident made it clear in her telephone call on 13 May 2022, that she had already made a ‘stage 1 and stage 2 complaint’.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 July 2022. This was 94 working days after the resident requested her complaint to be escalated on 22 February 2022. This is 74 working days over the landlord’s stage 2 response timescale. The landlord said the reason for the delay was due to a “cyber-attack” on its systems. While the Ombudsman understands the impact a cyber-attack may have had on the landlord’s systems, there was an inappropriate and significant delay in the landlord’s stage 2 response. Additionally, this service understands the cyber-attack referred to by the landlord occurred in June 2022. This was some 3 months after the resident’s escalation request and therefore the reason for delay is not acceptable.
  6. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner. While it is noted the landlord has provided a reason for the delay, it should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process and would have made her feel frustrated and that she was not being taken seriously. It would have also prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
  7. Landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing the substantive issue and any inconvenience that has occurred in the meantime. This is part of providing a fair response. The landlord is expected to offer redress, which can include compensation when it agrees that it has failed to provide a required service. While the landlord has provided some compensation for the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint, this service has found the landlord’s offer of compensation not appropriate to the identified failings.

Other issues

  1. This service requested the landlord to provide all documentation, correspondence and repair logs relating to the resident’s complaint. The landlord has informed this service that “due to ongoing issues” following a cyber-attack, it was unable to “access its historic servitor repair database”. In reviewing the evidence provided, there are gaps in the correspondence provided by the landlord and incomplete repair logs covering the duration of the complaint timeframe. The landlord should ensure it has sufficient resources to recover internal records, such as repair records in the event of such an issue.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the cyber-attack happened some time ago, and it appears this is still impacting the landlord’s ability to provide key evidence. On this basis, we have made an appropriate recommendation for this.
  3. The landlord’s internal complaint procedure referenced several issues, including mould in the resident’s bedroom. However, it is not clear if the mould in the resident’s bedroom is related to the leak in the resident’s bathroom. It was not reasonable that the landlord did not investigate the mould, identify the cause, and offer to resolve the issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak from her toilet.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £825 compensation, consisting of:
      1. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the leak to the resident’s toilet and the inconvenience caused.
      2. £450 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in sourcing and repairing the leak coming from the upstairs property and the inconvenience caused.
      3. £225 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint and the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is in addition to the amount offered in the landlord’s complaint procedure. The total amount can be reduced by any of the £515 compensation already paid to the resident.

  1. Write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
  2. Contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for a full survey of the property to be carried out. The landlord should attempt to complete the inspection within 28 days of the date of this determination. The landlord should encourage its surveyor to provide their report within 10 working days of the date of the inspection. The landlord must then use all best endeavours to ensure the work is completed within a reasonable time, in any event 56 days of the date of the inspection, or by the dates set out in any report provided by the surveyor. The schedule of work and action plan are to be shared with the resident and this service.
  1. The landlord must, within 56 days of the date of this determination, provide evidence of compliance with the orders specified in paragraph 66(a)-(c). It must set out its proposed completion date for any outstanding works.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review and report to the Ombudsman on why there has been a loss of data resulting from the cyber-attack, and more specifically, why this information cannot be recovered. It would be helpful to know whether the landlord backed up the data, and if not why. Secondly, whether the landlord has put in place any mitigations to prevent such a loss in future.