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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202215839)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215839

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 response to the resident’s.
    1. Reports of leaks in her property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of a property. The landlord manages the property. The landlord leases the property from the freeholder. The resident has been represented by her son who has communicated with the landlord on her behalf about this complaint. For ease of reference, the resident and her son will both be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
  2. The landlord’s internal email show that it was initially aware of an issue with mould in the resident’s property on 24 February 2020. The landlord noted that the issue may have been with the communal stack pipe, which would be the responsibility of the owner of the building.
  3. The landlord and resident-maintained communication between 19 March 2020 and 24 March 2020 regarding a follow up appointment to review an issue with a leak in the property. The landlord confirmed that repair works to the stack pipe had been completed. It confirmed it was due to attend on 24 March 2020, but the resident cancelled the appointment as her household was self-isolating. The landlord advised it would contact the resident in 14 days to review the situation at that time.
  4. The landlord’s internal communication from 2 November 2020 noted that an operative attended the resident’s address on 5 November 2020 to further investigate a leak, with a follow up appointment for a plasterer to take place 2 weeks later. The landlord rescheduled this appointment due to lockdown that was in place due to COVID-19, with an operative attending on 25 May 2021 to carry out the plastering work. The operative noted that there was still a leak present in the affected area, so it was unable to carry out the plastering works.
  5. The landlord reattended the resident’s property on 18 June 2021 and confirmed that there was no leak on the resident’s waste pipe, but that a new bath panel needed to be installed and the bath needed to be resealed as this had caused a leak to the kitchen below.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 June 2021 as there was water on her kitchen floor which she believed was due to a further leak. This was raised as an emergency job, with an operative attending the same day. The operative noted that the stack pipe was damaged, with the water leaking damaging the ceiling above the kitchen and the bathroom floor. Due to the extensive work needed; the landlord advised the resident it would need to reattend. The resident called the landlord seeking an update on these works and was advised she would get a call back, which the landlord did not provide.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 12 July 2021. The resident advised that she had not had any further update from the landlord regarding the leak, following its attendance on 25 June 2021 despite following this up and the landlord promising her further update. 
  8. The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 August 2021 to raise another emergency repair due to a further leak in the property. The operative that attended advised the issue may have been on the communal stack pipe but did not have the tools to look into this. The resident emailed the landlord to request that her complaint was escalated. She advised that while
    the landlord’s operatives had attended to carry out repair works, the issue had not been resolved and feels the landlord had attempted to make out it had resolved the matter. She noted that the landlord attended and found damage to the stack pipe but had failed to investigate this. The resident followed this up on 7 August 2021 stating the operative who attended the previous day was unable to carry out any repair works as it was outside of their remit, which meant the resident had a continuous leak throughout the weekend. She stated that the landlord’s behaviour was disgusting and that there were vulnerable residents in the property and this issue was affecting them all mentally.
  9. The resident called the landlord on 9 August 2021 to raise a further emergency repair due to the ongoing leak in her property. It found that there was a small leak on the hot water supply but could not identify an issue with the communal stack. On 24 August 2021 the landlord confirmed that the leak was found to be on the main stack pipe, which he building owner was responsible for the repairing. The landlord confirmed this with the owner of the building on the same day. The landlord further noted there was a small leak on the hot feed. It noted that a repair was not possible at the time due to the position of the leak and the time of the day.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day advising that her complaint was being ignored and requested a full written response from the landlord.  She advised that she was unwell, and her daughter is disabled, the landlord had told her the issue would be resolved by 1pm that day, but it had failed to resolve the issue that day and failed to manage her expectations. The resident advised she did not want a further call from the landlord unless it was going to offer an apology for the shambles of a job that it had done.
  11. The landlord contacted the resident the same day and apologised for the delays in the works being completed but noted that it had repaired one leak, and another had appeared. The landlord advised it would reattend to fix the leak on the hot water supply and review the taps. It further advised that the owner of the building had been made aware of the leak on the communal stack and would be repairing this. The landlord confirmed that it had repaired the leak on the hot water supply on 2 September 2021 and the leak to the communal was resolved on 14 September 2021.
  12. The resident approached the Ombudsman as she is seeking additional compensation and a written apology from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The Ombudsman was sorry to learn of the mental health impact this matter has had on the resident. This service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health; however, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether this was directly affected by the landlord’s action or inaction. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue had been caused or made worse by negligence, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. Without that evidence, the Ombudsman is not able to draw any conclusion on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord had handled his reports. It is however our role to assess how the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident regarding how this was affecting her health and wellbeing, whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case.
  2. We will not assess whether the neighbour’s actions constituted ASB, but we have reviewed whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures, the law and industry best practice when responding to the resident’s ASB reports.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s leak, damp, and condensation management policy states that it will provide general advice and guidance on how to manage leaks. It will diagnose the cause of leaks and deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of the problem.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy in place at the time stated that communal repairs would be appointed dependent upon the nature of the work: Emergency (presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or would jeopardise the health, safety, or security of the resident, to be attended within 24 hours). Follow on repair work must be completed within 28 days.

The resident’s report of leaks in her property

  1. It is clear that there had been unreasonable delays in the landlord reattending to carry out routine plastering works following its attendance to the resident’s property to repair a leak on 5 November 2020. The landlord reattend the resident’s property to carry out these works in May 2021, 6 months after its initial appointment. While this Service acknowledges that some delays would have been caused by Covid-19 and lockdowns that were in place at the time, this would not account for a 6-month delay in the landlord reattending the resident’s property to carry out replastering works. This delay would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she was waiting for a long time for the plastering to be completed.
  2. While the landlord found when attending in May 2021 that there was still leak present, it is clear that it believed the leak itself had been resolved during the November 2020 visit as the resident had not reported that the leak was continuing. The landlord would have reasonably been unaware that the leak was still going on, although as noted above it should have attended sooner to complete the replastering.
  3. The landlord had failed to reasonably send the correct operative to the resident’s property when she reported an uncontrollable leak from her bathroom on 6 August 2021. While the landlord did correctly raise this as an emergency repair, by sending the wrong type of operative it meant that the resident had an uncontrollable leak in her property over a weekend. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have rescheduled the correct operative to attend the resident’s property to attempt to address this matter. In not doing this, it caused distress for the resident and her household. The landlord also failed to arrange any follow-on visit until the resident called to raise a further emergency repair on 9 August 2021. During this visit the landlord was unable to identify the cause of the leak following dye tests, but it found a small leak on the hot supply also. It was unable to repair this at this time, with the landlord’s operative attending on 24 August 2021 and 2 September 2021 to finally resolve the leak on the hot supply.  While this had been frustrating for the resident, the landlord had reasonably attended to attempt to identify the issue with the leak and had arranged follow on works for both 24 and 26 August 2021, which the resident had rescheduled for 2 September 2021. The issue with the leak was resolved within 18 working days, in line with the landlord’s routine repair policy.
  4. The evidence indicates that the resident had to regularly chase the landlord for updates regarding repairs. The landlord attended on 25 June 2021 and its operative identified there may be a concern with the communal stack, which may have been causing the leak, with the landlord advising this would require follow up works. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 June 2021, 30 June 2021 and again on 1 July 2021 for updates regarding these works and was told that the landlord would provide her with further updates, which it then failed to do. This was unreasonable from the landlord; this would have caused the resident further frustration and concern that the landlord was ignoring her issues.
  5. It is clear that the landlord had continued to attend the resident’s property on a number of occasions between June 2021 and August 2021 to carry out repair works, including resealing the bath and addressing a small leak on the hot supply. It noted that repair works to the bath had been unsuccessful which had caused the leak to return in August 2021.  The landlord had indicated to the resident with the exception of the bath leak, that each time a repair had been carried out, a new leak had been identified, so it was not the case that repeated repairs were carried out for the same leak. While there is evidence to support this, it is clear that the landlord had noted a concern with the communal stack on 25 June 2021. This was not investigated further and established until 24 August 2021, when the landlord was able to trace the leak back to the communal stack. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have further investigated this matter from the point that it had first raised a concern. This may have allowed the landlord to raise this to the building management agent at an earlier opportunity and address this matter sooner. However, it is clear that once it had confirmed this, it had raised this with the building management agent the same day and maintained communication with it until the matter was finally resolved on 14 September 2021. The landlord is not responsible for the upkeep of the communal areas of the building, including the communal stack. The freeholder is responsible for maintaining these areas as the owner of the building. The freeholder is represented by a managing agent, so it was reasonable for the landlord to contact the managing agent regarding a repair to the communal stack.
  6. Although there was a delay initially in the landlord identifying the cause of the leak, ultimately it acted appropriately by reporting the issue to the managing agent and the managing agent was responsible for fixing the leak rather than the landlord, so the landlord had limited control over the time taken to resolve this issue.
  7. The resident had raised concerns about the leak and the impact the leaks were having on her household with her own vulnerabilities and her daughter being disabled. The landlord had failed to reasonably address this issue within the body of its stage 2 complaint response. While it is positive the landlord had recognised its failings by offering compensation, it would have been reasonable to have acknowledged the resident’s vulnerabilities and ensured it was taking these into consideration throughout this process. There is no indication that the landlord had done this, which caused further concern and distress for the resident.
  8. The landlord had acknowledged its own failing regarding aspects of this matter, offering the resident a total of £200 compensation, £100 for failing to follow its own process regarding its attendance on 6 August 2021 to carry out an emergency repair, £50 for the inconvenience to the resident and £50 for the impact this had on the resident due to her vulnerabilities. While this Service acknowledged that the landlord had made this offer and accepted its failings, this offer does not go far enough to reflect the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. In line with the remedies guidance, the landlord should increase this offer of compensation by £100 to £300, to fully cover the impact this additional delay had on the resident and her household. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord had acknowledged its failings and made some attempts to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. At the time of this complaint, the landlord’s complaints process was a two-stage process. At the first stage of this process, when the landlord is unable to resolve a query, a formal complaint is recorded and will be investigated. The second stage is ‘peer review’ when a customer has requested that their complaint be reviewed, with the resident advising why this should be considered and their desired outcome. At the time of this complaint, the landlord’s complaint’s handling policy did not have timescales for complaint responses. The landlord updated this complaints process on 17 June 2022 to be brought in line with the Ombudsman’s published complaint handling code (the code). The complaint handling code was published in July 2020, and sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly.
  2. The code advises that landlord’s complaints procedure shall include the following maximum timescales for response:

(i)     Logging and acknowledgement of complaint – 5 working days.

(ii)   Stage one decision – 10 working days from the receipt of the complaint. If this is not possible, the landlord should provide an explanation and a date by when the resident should receive the stage one response. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.

(iii) Stage two response – 20 working days from request to escalate. If this is not possible, the landlord should provide an explanation and a date by when the resident should receive the stage one response. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 12 July 2021 due to the ongoing issue with a leak in her property which she advised had been ongoing for over a year. The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 August 2021, 7 August 2021, 24 August 2021, and 3 September 2021 advising that she wanted a written response to her initial complaint, but also that she wanted her complaint to be escalated to allow her to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 September 2021, apologising for failing to log her complaint within a reasonable timeframe but confirmed that the resident’s formal complaint was logged on 9 August 2021. The landlord issued its response on 29 September 2021, which stated it was its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord had failed to log the resident’s initial formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe and failed to provide her with a written stage 1 complaint response, in line with its complaints process and the Code. The landlord failed to respond to her requests for it to provide her with a written complaint response within a reasonable timeframe, which caused further delays to the resident.
  3. It took the landlord 20 working days to log the resident’s formal complaint, and 57 days to provide the resident with a formal response. This is outside timeframes set out in the Code. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for the delays and poor communication in its complaints process within its stage 2 response.
  4. For these reasons, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. The landlord should offer the resident £300 compensation due to these failings. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above states that offers of this amount may be appropriate when the landlord had failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right, but there may be no permanent impact from these failings. Ultimately, there was no permanent impact as the landlord did respond to the resident’s complaint and she was able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for independent investigation. However, there was a significant impact to the resident at the time from the landlord’s failures in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s formal complaint. 

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation broken down as:
    1. £300 for the delays in the identifying the cause of the leak and the impact the repeated leaks had on the resident and her household. The landlord’s earlier offer of £200 should be deducted if it has already paid.
    2. £300 for delays and failure to reasonably manage the resident’s formal complaint.
  2. The landlord should issue a written apology to the resident for the impact the ongoing issues of leaks within her property has had on her and her household.
  3. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders within 5 weeks of this report.