Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202101603)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101603

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 February 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s roof repairs and its subsequent offer of compensation.
  2. The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident held an assured tenancy agreement on a 3-bedroom house owned by the housing association landlord. The resident has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, asthma, and Meniere’s disease.
  2. On 25 February 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about roof repairs that had been ongoing since 2016. The resident said that during heavy rain, she would get water leaking onto a wall in the bedroom and that despite numerous fixes by the landlord, this problem had been ongoing.
  3. The landlord responded on 8 March 2022 and said:
    1. It had carried out works to the roof in 2016. Further repairs were raised between 2018 and 2021, and it had carried out works in response.
    2. Following the resident’s report of a leaking roof on 18 May 2021, it carried out extensive work, which it completed on 29 June 2021. Upon further inspection, a decision was taken to replace the roof. However, the resident was informed at that time not to expect work to start before April 2022.
    3. The resident was kept updated and had several visits from the landlord, with the last update being January 2021 (should read January 2022).
    4. It appreciated that this was frustrating for the resident; however, it would always attempt to repair before carrying out a replacement.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 9 May 2022. She said:
    1. The landlord failed to provide a start date for the replacement roof. It said it would start after April 2022.
    2. It took an unreasonable amount of time to resolve these issues, which had been caused by the landlord’s failure to repair to standard in the first place.
    3. She would like an apology and compensation amount that reflected the years she had been chasing the landlord to repair the roof.
  5. The landlord sent its final response letter on 27 May 2022 and said:
    1. It could see that the resident had reported issues with the roof repair “for some time now.” It said it would always attempt to repair before replacing; however, on this occasion, initial attempts to repair had proven unsuccessful.
    2. It confirmed that the roof replacement works would start on 30 May 2022.
    3. The resident had explained that the leak was intermittent. It could see that its surveyor had advised the resident on 5 November 2021 to continue reporting if the “issue was problematic”, and it had received no further reports.
    4. Despite taking the right approach by attempting the repair first, the result meant that the issue had persisted, resulting in the resident having to contact the landlord again.
    5. This had been further exacerbated by labour shortages across the industry.
    6. It offered compensation of £600 for having to chase the landlord for its responses and for not finding a permanent solution earlier.
    7. According to its records, the resident had initially requested to raise a complaint on 5 July 2021. However, it had failed to recognise the complaint. The resident then contacted the landlord on 21 September, 4 November, and 5 November 2021. In each of these emails, “she had used the word ‘complaint,’ but the first complaint was not created until 25 February 2022”. It said this was a service failure as there were several opportunities to start a formal complaint process and to follow the complaint procedure, which had been missed, resulting in the resident having to “chase responses and necessitating unreasonable level of involvement.” It offered £150 in compensation for the distress caused by its complaint-handling failures, bringing the total compensation amount to £750.
  6. The resident said to this Service in February 2024 that she had issues with the roof since 2015, which had not been repaired properly, leaving her chasing the landlord to repair it. She said that even when the landlord came out and repaired it, the repairs were not done to good standards. She said work had been completed in August 2022. This issue had been a significant part of her decision to carry out a home swap in October 2022. To resolve the complaint, she would like the landlord to pay her compensation that reflects the years it had taken to repair the roof.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s roof repairs and its subsequent offer of compensation

  1. In this case, there is clear evidence that the resident reported the leaking roof to the landlord in 2015. She raised this again in 2016 and 2018/ early 2019. The resident raised a formal complaint in 2019, and, in response, the landlord repaired the roof in 2019 and offered the resident compensation. There is no evidence that the resident was dissatisfied and/or tried to escalate her complaint to this service at that time. No further reports regarding the leaking roof were raised until May 2021. This investigation, therefore, will focus on events from May 2021.
  2. The resident raised the repair on 18 May 2021. In response, the landlord repaired the roof valley around the front dormer window and replaced the valley boards. This was completed in June 2021. This was appropriate.
  3. The landlord inspected the works post-completion and noted a deterioration to the roofing timbers around the dormer window, which meant the repair was not ‘fully resolved.’ The landlord, therefore, decided to replace the roof, including replacement of rotten timbers, woodworm treatment, re-felt and re-roof, and re-dress the chimney stacks. It said it was awaiting quotes from contractors, and it informed the resident of the expected timescale. It asked that the resident let it know if the roof was ‘problematic’ in the interim period, and it kept the resident updated when it had news regarding the replacement roof. The landlord acted appropriately here. There is no evidence that the resident raised further repairs with the landlord since.
  4. According to the evidence available to this service, Environmental Health contacted the resident on 4 November 2022. It said: “Further to our discussion this afternoon, if you could inform me of when there is a leak into your bedroom and, if possible, provide a video that would be great.” At the same time, the landlord messaged the resident and said: “I’ve just been contacted by Environmental Health who say that you had reported that there was a new water leaking into the bedroom when it rains. I cannot see any new reports on our repairs system, so I just wanted to check this with you. Please could you advise whether this was the case or not? If so, please could you email over some photos to me if possible.” This service understands that, at the time, the resident experienced issues with the kitchen replacement, which was why the resident had approached Environmental Health. However, this service has not seen the initial contact between the resident and Environmental Health.
  5. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to send operatives to the resident’s property unannounced. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident for confirmation. There is no evidence that the residnet responded. However, in the following days, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident again. The landlord missed an opportunity here. The following contact from the resident was in February 2022, when she raised her request to file a formal complaint.
  6. Work on site began in June 2022 and was completed in August 2022, which meant there was a delay of 15 months from when the resident reported the leaking roof in May 2021 until it was repaired in August 2022. In its final response letter, the landlord apologised to the resident. It recognised that although it had told the resident from the outset about the expected timescale, the resident’s complaint had nevertheless ‘persisted,’ resulting in the resident having to “chase responses and necessitating unreasonable level of involvement.” This was an appropriate response that recognised the impact on the resident.
  7. The landlord offered the resident £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors, including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided.
  8. During the period of the delay, there were some mitigating factors to consider:
    1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that major components, such as the roof, would be delivered through planned programmes, not responsive repairs. The responsive repair service would repair to ensure the component was safe until a replacement could be scheduled as part of the planned major works. The initial repair was carried out within a reasonable time, and the roof replacement was referred to be scheduled for work in line with the landlord’s policy. The resident was informed of the expected timescale and not to expect the replacement works before April 2022. And the landlord kept the resident up to date.
    2. According to the evidence, the initial repair in June 2021 was adequate – no further reports were made concerning the leaking roof until Environmental Health contacted the landlord. No further reports were made since. However, the landlord should have inspected the resident’s property following its contact with Environmental Health.
    3. In her complaint, the resident explained that the leak had been intermittent and only occurred during heavy rainfall.
    4. There was a delay due to contractor availability issues across the industry in the aftermath of the pandemic. The landlord had forewarned the resident of the expected time scale.
    5. The time it has taken to replace the roof – according to the evidence available, operatives were on site working, subject to weather conditions, from June 2022 to August 2022. This would be out of the landlord’s hands.
  9. Overall, leaks in a home can sometimes be challenging to identify and fix. In this case, it has caused evident distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord recognised this in its final response letter and offered compensation of £600.
  10. In considering whether the £600 offered by the landlord in this case was reasonable, this investigation referred to this Service’s Remedies Guidance. This sets out that in situations where the landlord acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right, awards of up to £600 may be appropriate. This includes situations where there have been “considerable” failings by the landlord but no permanent impact on the resident. Awards of £700 or more are used for situations that have had a severe long-term impact on the complainant.
  11. The landlord offered £600 in compensation, equating to £40 a month for the period from May 2021, when the resident raised the roof repair, until August 2022, when the roof was replaced. In all the circumstances of the case, this was fair and proportionate and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved this aspect of the complaint sufficiently.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of a service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
  2. The landlord acknowledged in its final response letter that it had failed to recognise that the resident requested to raise formal complaints earlier “despite using the word complaint.” This happened repeatedly on 5 July, 21 September, 4 November, and 5 November 2021.
  3. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to recognise the complaints, the landlord offered £100 in compensation. As the resident raised her complaint on 5 July 2021, it took the landlord 247 working days to issue its first response letter, against a target of 10 working days. For this delay, the landlord offered £50 in compensation, bringing the total compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling to £150.
  4. The landlord’s failure to recognise the complaint aggravated the resident’s frustration and damaged the relationship between the landlord and the resident. The resident’s frustration was also compounded each time her complaint was ignored. It is concerning that the landlord had these complaints, which were duplicated onto its repair spreadsheets, yet the resident was left chasing it to respond between July 2021 and March 2022.
  5. The compensation amount awarded by the landlord does not go far enough to reflect the impact on the resident having had to chase the landlord from 5 July 2021 to 8 March 2022 for her complaints to be acknowledged and addressed. As the landlord recognised, this has resulted in the resident having to necessitate an unreasonable level of involvement.
  6. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 in compensation, in addition to the £150 offered in its final response letter.
  7. Finally, there is no indication that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case or detailed any actions it would take to prevent similar issues from recurring. A further order is made below to address this.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b), the landlord has offered redress to the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s roof repairs and its subsequent offer of compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident directly £300 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is in addition to the £150 it offered to the resident in its final response letter.
  2. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must investigate why it had failed to recognise the complaint. It must then write to the resident with the outcome of its investigation and apologise for its failure to recognise the complaint. in the letter, the landlord must also explain whether additional staff training against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is warranted. The rationale for this decision must also be explained in its letter. A copy of this letter must be sent to this service.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £600 it offered in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s roof repairs.