Clarion Housing Association Limited (202304898)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304898

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 February 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Report of a leak.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy for a 1 bed flat, which began on 11 June 2020.
The landlord is a housing association. It was aware that both the resident and her child had vulnerabilities.
The landlord owned both the resident’s flat and the neighbour’s flat above her.
On 2 November 2022 the resident told the landlord she had a leak.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord removed all the resident’s floor coverings due to the damage from the leak. It was unclear when the landlord became aware the leak was coming from the flat above the resident.
The resident moved into her mother’s house on 27 November 2022. The landlord moved her into a hotel on 29 November 2022.
The resident made a complaint on 23 December 2022. She said:
1. The water tank in the neighbour’s flat was supposed to be replaced on 30 November 2022. However, this was not done until 22 December 2022.
2. She had not been told when the repairs to her flat would be completed.
3. She would like to be moved to a hotel closer to her son’s nursery due to her health.
4. She wanted the landlord to pay her electricity bill while she could not live in her flat.
5. She wanted the landlord to move her into a permanent 2 bed property, as the situation was affecting her and her son’s health.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint and:
1. Apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
2. Agreed to reimburse the resident’s electricity bill, taxi fares, and moved her to a hotel closer to her son’s nursery.
3. Said it would complete the repair works started on 20 February 2023 within 1 to 2 weeks. There were delays because it could not get access to the neighbour’s flat to resolve the leak. It would monitor the repairs and keep the resident updated.
4. Said it would not offer the resident a new permanent property as the repairs would be completed within a reasonable time. If she wanted to move, she should register with the local authority or look for private rented properties.
5. Apologised for the inconvenience and disruption caused. It acknowledged she had been in a hotel for longer than expected, and it did not keep her updated.
6. Paid the resident £255.80 compensation. This was broken down as:
  1. £50 for the delay in issuing its complaint response.
  2. £55.80 for the electricity bill.
  3. £150 for the delays, lack of communication, household vulnerabilities and inconvenience caused.
The resident moved back into her flat on 8 March 2023.
On 26 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. It had given wrong dates and information in its stage 1 response.
2. It got a court injunction to get access to the neighbour’s flat on 14 December 2022. It fixed the neighbour’s leaking cylinder on 22 December 2022.
3. There was a delay in it starting the repairs to the resident’s flat because
  1. It needed to wait for her flat to dry out from the leak.
  2. They were closed during the Christmas period.
  3. It needed to find out what repairs were needed.
  4. It needed to instruct a contractor to complete the repairs.
4. It would not re-house her. If the resident wanted to move she should register with the local authority or look for a private rented property.
5. It apologised for the delays in starting the repairs. It had changed its processes around temporary accommodation and was piloting a new process when residents report leaks from neighbouring properties.
6. It would pay the resident £635.80 compensation. This was broken down as:
  1. £480 which was £20 per week towards the cost of taxis and laundry facilities.
  2. £55.80 for her electricity bill. It agreed it should have paid this directly to the resident at stage 1, rather than onto her rent account.
  3. £100 for giving the wrong information in its stage 1 response.
The resident has asked us to investigate her complaint because she felt the landlord had not learnt from her case.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

On 4 November 2024 the resident moved into alternative accommodation through a mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

We can consider whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action has caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident and her household. However, because we are not medical professionals, we are unable to establish whether the resident and her household’s health and wellbeing was impacted. This would be down to a court to decide.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak

We find maladministration for the handling of the resident’s report of a leak. The reasons for my findings are below.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days.
The resident reported a leak to the landlord on 2 November 2022. The landlord’s records show it logged this as an emergency repair, but it did not record if it attended an appointment or what the outcome was. It removed the resident’s floor coverings on 15 November 2022, but there was no evidence it discussed the leak and what action it was taking to resolve it with the resident. This led to the resident chasing for an update several times.
On 18 November 2022 the resident told the landlord water was dripping down her walls. The landlord said it would not raise an emergency repair until it knew someone was at the flat. This was not customer focused. The landlord had a legal obligation to investigate the leak and ensure there were no hazards. The resident told the landlord she was not at her flat due to the risk to her and her son’s health. It should have booked the appointment and asked it’s operative to contact her to allow her time to get to the flat and allow access.
The landlord’s records state it logged an emergency repair on 21 November 2022 as water was going into the resident’s light sockets. There was no evidence the landlord checked the electrics within 24 hours in line with its repairs policy. The resident contacted the landlord several times between 18 and 27 November 2022 raising concerns for her and her child’s safety. There was no evidence the landlord considered the risks. This was a significant failing.
The landlord’s records show it said it needed to consider temporary accommodation for the resident on 21 November 2022. The landlord placed the resident into a hotel on 29 November 2022. This was 28 days after the resident reported the leak,10 days after the landlord had removed all the floor coverings and 8 days after the resident reported the leak was getting into her electrics. The landlord was aware the resident had a young child and of the household’s vulnerabilities. The landlord’s decant policy states it will inform residents about their housing options and provide regular updates. There was no evidence the landlord spoke to the resident about whether she could reside with family or friends in the interim or discussed her housing options.
There was no evidence the landlord carried out a needs assessments or considered a support package in line with its decant policy. The resident told the landlord the situation was affecting her mental health. There was no evidence it signposted her to support services. The resident repeatedly chased updates on whether her hotel stay would be extended and asked to be moved to more suitable accommodation. The landlord agreed to provide financial support for food, and taxi and laundry costs. However, the resident had to ask for this and she chased payments from the landlord on multiple occasions.
The landlord resolved the leak on 22 December 2022. This was 51 days after the resident reported the leak. Although this was a significant delay and outside the landlord’s target timescales, we recognise this was because the landlord had to obtain a court injunction to get access to the neighbours flat.
The landlord started the repairs to the resident’s flat on 20 February 2023. They were completed on 28 February 2023. This was 2 months after the leak had been resolved, which was outside its target timescale of 28 calendar days. It was reasonable for the landlord to say that this delay was mostly unavoidable as it needed to wait for the resident’s property to dry from the leak. There was also a Christmas shutdown period and it had to wait for its contractor to be available to do the works.
The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repairs was poor. From December 2022 to January 2023, she chased updates. She sought help from a support organisation, which the landlord failed to respond to. The landlord’s records show one of the reasons for the delays and lack of communication was due to staff absences. A landlord is expected to manage its staff absences to ensure its residents are not directly impacted.
The resident asked the landlord to move her into alternative permanent accommodation on 8 December 2022. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations by telling her it would not consider moving her permanently as the repairs would not take longer than 6 months. This was in line with its decant policy. The resident asked to be moved again in her complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident it would not consider alternative permanent accommodation and discussed her options to move.
The landlord’s decant policy says it will contact residents within 4 weeks of their return to their property to check how they are settling in and follow up on any outstanding issues. There was no evidence the landlord did this. On 9 March 2023 the resident reported a cupboard door and door frame had been damaged by the leak and not replaced. There was no evidence the landlord investigated this or carried out repairs. The resident told us there was still outstanding issues from the leak when she moved out of the property in November 2024.
In summary, there was a delay in the landlord considering a decant and completing the repairs to the resident’s flat. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. There was no evidence the landlord assessed the risks, considered the household’s vulnerabilities or offered appropriate support. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failings in its complaint responses, showing it wanted to put things right. However, there was no evidence the landlord followed up with the resident when she moved back into her flat or that it resolved the outstanding issues she reported.
The landlord offered the resident £741.60 compensation. £591.60 of this was to reimburse the resident for costs she had incurred while in hotel accommodation. The £150 compensation the landlord offered for its service failures did not reflect the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and was not in line with its compensation policy. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £100 compensation.
In March 2023 the landlord implemented a leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy. This was a positive step for the landlord to improve its response to leaks.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

We find reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaints handling. The reasons for my findings are below.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint within 10 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
On 23 December 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 January 2023, which was within its 10 working day response time. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss the complaint before issuing its response. However, it failed to manage her expectations as it did not tell her when it would issue its response.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. This was 38 days after the resident made her complaint, which was outside its 20 working day target response time. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay on 8 and 17 February 2023, however, again it did not tell the resident when it would respond to her complaint. It said the delay was due to a cyber-security issue. The cyber-attack occurred 6 months before the resident made her complaint. This should therefore not affect its response times.
The landlord gave incorrect dates and information in it’s stage 1 response. Because the landlord did not carry out a full investigation of the issues, it failed to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. The landlord apologised for this in its stage 2 response and offered the resident £100 compensation.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 20 February 2023. The landlord only realised it had not progressed the complaint when we contacted it on 7 July 2023. This was a record keeping failure. The landlord contacted the resident the same day to discuss the complaint. It apologised and agreed to provide her with weekly updates. This was customer focused and showed it wanted to put things right by improving its relationship with her.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation in writing on 10 July 2023 and said it would respond by 27 July 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 July 2023. Although this was within the timescale it promised, this was 5 months after the resident asked to escalate her complaint. This was a significant delay. Its stage 2 response was empathetic and covered all the complaint issues.
In summary there were delays in the landlord issuing its stage 1 and 2 response. The landlord failed to fully investigate the complaint at stage 1. The resident had to get help from us to escalate her complaint to stage 2. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the failings identified in this report. It showed learning and that it wanted to put things right. It offered the resident in total £150 compensation for the failings in its complaints handling. This amount was in line with its compensation policy.

Determination

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak (paragraph 52 of the Scheme).
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint (paragraph 53.b of the Scheme).

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the resident’s report of a leak.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure that all staff are accurately recording resident’s reports of repairs, its communication with residents and contractors, and complaints. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.