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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202212505)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212505

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 May 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for the damage to her possessions.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 2-bedroom new build house which the resident leases under a shared ownership agreement with the landlord. She signed the lease agreement in May 2021 and was the first resident to occupy the property. The defects liability period ended on 7 July 2021. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the housing records, although it is noted 1 family member is elderly and has asthma. The property has 2 toilets.
  2. The resident reported the upstairs toilet was leaking on 20 June 2022. The landlord arranged for the water supply to the toilet to be isolated on the same day. She asked the landlord for an update on 13 July 2022 and noted she wanted compensating for the damaged caused to her furniture by the leak. She also said she wanted an update on the other defects she had reported. Further requests for updates were made in July, August and September 2022. This included noting mould had appeared in the downstairs toilet following the leak and the paint used to remove it did not match the existing colour on the walls. She also said her carpet was damaged and the end of defects inspection had not been completed.
  3. The landlord confirmed on 9 September 2022 that its contractor was going to repair the toilet. It said the outstanding defects would be addressed at the defects inspection appointment and it would confirm when this was going to take place. It also said her request for compensation for the damaged possessions would be picked up separately. The resident provided a list of the outstanding defects on the same day and said she had not received a response to her request for compensation. She also noted that she had previously been given contradictory advice about making a claim for her carpet. The upstairs toilet was repaired on 12 September 2022.
  4. The resident asked the landlord on 26 September 2022 when the defects inspection was going to take place and noted she had still not received a response to her request for compensation. She also said there was a gap at the bottom of the patio door which caused a draft and she had to spend more money on heating. The landlord told the resident on 28 September 2022 how to make a request for compensation. She made a complaint on 4 October 2022.
  5. The landlord told the resident on 24 October 2022 that the defects liability period end date had been incorrectly recorded on its records. As a result, defects had been incorrectly reported to the developer or should have been rejected as they were outside the 2-year warranty period. It said the resident had not responded to the end of defects inspection letter sent out on 4 August 2021. It also said it would honour the defect work identified by the resident given the mistake that had been made and asked her to confirm the list of outstanding work. It noted any future defects would be the resident’s responsibility. The resident provided the landlord with a list of further defects on 31 October 2022 which she said had been outstanding since June 2021. 
  6. The landlord confirmed on 1 November 2022 that the resident would need to make a claim on her home contents insurance or directly to the developer if she believed it was negligent for the damage to her furniture. The resident’s carpet was replaced on 2 November 2022 and the list of identified defects were repaired on 11 November 2022. The scratches on the bedroom furniture and mark on the bathroom tile were resolved on 16 November 2022.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 December 2022. It said it was unable to carry out an inspection when the defect liability period came to an end. This was because it did not receive a response from the resident after sending her 2 letters. It also said it had recorded the wrong defect liability date on its records and the defects she reported should have been rejected as they were identified outside the 2-year warranty period. It said it would honour the defects she had identified given the mistake it had made. It also said it had arranged an appointment for 12 December 2022 to repaint the bathroom following the resident’s report of damp and agreed to replace the damaged toilet seat. The landlord offered the resident £435 compensation and told her to contact its customer care team if she believed the patio door was unstable following the repair.
  8. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 13 December 2022. She said she was left without an upstairs toilet for 4 months and the vulnerable family member suffered a fall whilst going up and down the stairs at night. She also said she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered given the poor workmanship and the heating costs she had to pay because of the poorly fitted patio door and hole in the front door.
  9. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 27 March 2023. It said it was satisfied the stage 1 complaint response was fair, accurate and in line with its policies and procedures. It also said the resident’s report of a hole in the front door and problems with the patio door were reported after the defects liability period date and it would not accept liability for these defects. The resident was advised to submit a personal injury claim if she felt the landlord was liable for the injury caused to a member of her household. The landlord increased its offer of compensation by £150 to £585 given the errors in accepting the reported defects outside the defect liability period.
  10. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 21 March 2023. She said she was unhappy with the length of time the landlord took to complete the repairs and noted that some repairs were still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is noted that the resident said a member of her family suffered an injury following a fall on the stairs. Whilst the incident is referenced in this report, it should be noted that this Service cannot determine liability for such matters or the impact this had on someone’s health. Any such claim would be for an insurer or a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects.

  1. The property development was completed in July 2020 and subject to a 12-month defects period during which time the developer was responsible for any defects with the building or workmanship. The housing records confirm the defects liability period ended on 7 July 2021. A 2-year warranty was also in place for certain repairs as set out in the building warranty, although it is not clear from the records what repairs this related to.  
  2. The housing records confirm the landlord sent the resident a purchase letter on 4 June 2021. This confirmed she was responsible for all repairs unless the property was still within the defect liability period. The letter did not state when the defects liability period ended or when the 2-year warranty period expired. The resident’s lease agreement says she is responsible for keeping the property in good and substantial repair.
  3. The housing records confirm the developer sent the resident a letter on 4 August 2021 and 20 August 2021 confirming the defect liability period had come to an end. The developer said it needed access to identify if there were any outstanding defects. This was in accordance with the landlord’s home users’ guide. The letters also noted that any defects identified after the defects period would be the responsibility of the resident. Given the resident did not respond to these letters, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude there were no defects in the property. 
  4. It is not disputed that the resident reported the upstairs toilet was leaking on 20 June 2022, although the landlord has not provided any records in relation to this. It said this was because of a cyber-attack. It has, however, told this Service that it arranged for a third-party contractor to visit on the same day given the developer refused to attend. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and was in accordance with its defect and triage policy. This says it will arrange for the developer to attend to toilet leaks within 28 days if there is a second toilet in the property. The water supply to the toilet was made safe and isolated on the same day. There is no evidence the toilet was left in working order.
  5. The housing records confirm the landlord contacted the resident on 23 June 2022 and told her it was chasing its contractor for an update about the toilet. There is no evidence it responded to the resident’s emails sent in July and August 2022 in which she asked for an update on the toilet repair and other outstanding defects. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s commitments. These say it will respond to enquiries within 5 working days.
  6. The landlord’s email of 9 September 2022 was confusing and contained incorrect information regarding the end of defects inspection, which it said still needed to be completed. It also failed to provide the resident with an update on when the upstairs toilet would be repaired. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it would arrange for all of the outstanding defects to be completed, although it did not provide any timescales. The upstairs toilet was repaired on 12 September 2022, nearly 3 months after it was first reported. This was outside the 28-day target set in the landlord’s defect and triage policy.
  7. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm on 24 October 2022 that the defects liability period ended on 7 July 2021 and to note that the resident did not raise any defects until a year later. It also said the 2-year warranty period had expired and the requests should have been rejected. Whilst the landlord had no obligation to undertake the work, it did agree to repair the defects and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm that any new defects identified by the resident would be her responsibility going forward. This was in accordance with the resident’s lease agreement and helped manage her expectations.
  8. The housing records confirm the resident reported there were still marks on the walls and the cracked door frame was left unpainted on 31 October 2022. The landlord agreed to repair these defects even though it had no obligation to undertake the work.  
  9. The list of outstanding defects was completed on 11 November 2022. Although the landlord has not provided any records to this Service confirming this, the resident did acknowledge to the landlord that the work had been completed. It replaced the chipped tile on 16 November 2022 and agreed to replace the damaged toilet seat after the resident reported it was damaged by the contractor. The landlord also agreed to repaint the downstairs toilet on 7 December 2022 following a report from the resident that the paint used to cover up the marks left by the leak did not match the existing colour.
  10. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge in its stage 1 complaint response on 9 December 2022 that it had incorrectly managed its response to the leak and other defects. It apologised for this and said it would offer £385 compensation for the service failure. This included £300 for the delays in repairing the toilet leak, £50 for the delays in resolving the other defects and £35 for the replacement of the toilet seat. This offer was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. This says that awards between £250 and £700 can be made where it is found there has been considerable failure but there has been no permanent impact on the resident. The toilet seat was replaced and the toilet walls painted on 12 December 2022.
  11. It was appropriate for the landlord to note in its final complaint response on 27 March 2023 that it should not have accepted repairs after the defect liability period ended and the warranty period had expired. It also confirmed that the resident was responsible for all repairs in her home after 7 July 2021 and this was made clear in the documentation shared with her when she bought the house. The landlord noted that the issues with the front door and patio door were reported after the defect liability period and it would not accept liability for these issues. This was appropriate. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation by £100 given it identified that it had not followed its defects policy.
  12. In summary, there were delays in completing repairs to the upstairs toilet and the landlord initially gave incorrect advice to the resident regarding the defect liability period. This led to confusion and raised the resident’s expectations. It did, however, acknowledge the mistakes it made, offered an apology and agreed to carry out the identified work. The landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects. As such, we will not be making a further order of compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for the damage to her possessions.

  1. It is not this Service’s role to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The housing records confirm the resident contacted the landlord several times in July and August 2022. She said her possessions were damaged by the toilet leak and she wanted compensating for this. She also provided the landlord with photographic evidence of the damage to her carpet and bedroom furniture, which she said was warped by the water. Whilst there is no evidence the landlord responded to these requests, emails sent by the resident at the time, confirm she was in discussions with the landlord and suggest she was given contradictory advice about whether she could make a claim against the developer or had to claim through her home contents insurance. There is no evidence the landlord clarified the position at this point.
  4. Whilst the landlord told the resident on 9 September 2022 that her claim for damages would be addressed separately from her request for repairs, it did not explain the process for making a claim or how it would be considered. This was despite the resident requesting this information and given she said she had previously been given different information by different people.
  5. Whilst the landlord told the resident on 28 September 2022 how to submit her claim for the damages, it did not respond to the subsequent emails she sent in October 2022. It confirmed on 1 November 2022 that she should make a claim through her home contents insurance. This was in accordance with the property purchase letter that was sent to the resident on 4 June 2021. This said she was responsible for insuring her home contents. The landlord also said the resident could make a claim directly against the developer if she believed it was negligent, although it later confirmed this advice was incorrect.
  6. The housing records confirm the resident’s carpet was replaced on 2 November 2022, although it is unclear on what basis this decision was made or who agreed to it. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the scratch on the bedroom furniture to be repaired after the resident reported it was damaged by the carpet fitters. This was done on 16 November 2022. It did not, however, replace the unit as requested by her.
  7. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise in its stage 1 complaint response on 9 December 2022 for giving the resident incorrect advice about making a claim against the developer for the damage caused by the leak. It also confirmed that she would need to make a claim on her home contents insurance for the damaged bedroom furniture. Further clarification was provided in the landlord’s final complaint response on 27 March 2023. This included noting that any claim for damages needed to be made within the defect liability period. It also said no claim was made at the time and as such, the resident needed to claim through her home contents insurance. This was appropriate in the circumstances and provided clarity to the resident.
  8. In summary, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times. It did not respond to numerous emails she sent and gave incorrect advice. It did, however apologise for this and provided clarity in its complaint responses. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for the damage to her possessions.

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

  1. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 5 October 2022 following contact from this Service. This was in accordance with its interim complaints policy that was put in place at the time following the cyber-attack.
  2. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident there would be a delay in responding to her complaint or agreed a new deadline date with her. This was not in accordance with its interim complaints policy. This said it would provide a reason if it could not respond and an action plan setting out what it intended to do, including providing a timeline of when it would be in a position to provide a response. Neither is there any evidence it sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says landlords should do this.
  3. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 9 December 2022. This was significantly outside the 20-working day target set in its interim complaints policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident an apology and £50 compensation for the delay in responding. This was in accordance with its compensation policy that says awards between £50 and £250 can be made where there has been a service failure which has had some impact on residents. Whilst the landlord identified a service failure, there is no evidence it applied the learning from the complaint. This Service’s dispute resolution principles encourage landlords to not just resolve the immediate complaint, but to learn from outcomes in order to improve its wider service delivery.
  4. The housing records confirm the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 13 December 2022. The complaint was not acknowledged until 6 January 2023. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s interim complaints policy. This said complaints would be acknowledged within 10 working days.
  5. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 27 March 2023. Whilst it increased its offer of compensation by £50 for the delay, it did not offer an apology which its compensation policy says it will do.
  6. In summary, the landlord did not follow its interim complaints policy and there were delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. It also failed to apply the learning it identified from the complaint. The offer of compensation was not sufficient to put things right for the resident. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for the damage to her possessions.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her request for compensation for the damaged possessions.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her complaint.
  3. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its approach to request for compensation for damages to ensure residents are correctly advised.
  4. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm if all the defects it agreed to repair have been completed and if not, agree timescales for carrying out the necessary work.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord pays the resident the £585 compensation it previously offered her, if it has not already done so.