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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202216603)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216603

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 April 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.

Complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: 
    1. The resident’s reports of a leak affecting her property.
    2. The communal maintenance repairs.
    3. The resident’s request to be reimbursed for loss of rental income.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background 

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. At the time of the complaint, she sublet her flat, within the block. Her upstairs neighbour was also a leaseholder. For the purposes of this report, the neighbour will be referred to as ‘flat 1’.
  2. In January 2021, the resident reported that the windows to the property were rotting, and the entrance door was “loose” inside its frame. A contractor attended on 8 February 2021 and follow-on-works were requested. The front door lock was fixed and made secure on 12 April 2021.
  3. On 21 June 2021, the resident reported a leak coming through her ceiling which she reported was from the roof above ‘flat 1’. The repair was logged as an emergency and was attended on 25 June 2021. The contractor recorded no access. 
  4. On 8 July 2021, the landlord requested that its roofing contractor took photographs of the damage the leak had caused as ‘flat 1’ stated the roof was leaking “badly” and damaged his ceiling, and the resident’s. The roofing contractor was asked to trace and repair the leak.
  5. A follow-up email was sent by the resident on 3 August 2021. The landlord responded and said that the repair had been raised with its roofing contractor who would contact the resident. Contractors attended on a number of occasions between October 2021 and January 2022 but recorded no access.
  6. The repair records confirm that the roof was repaired on 6 January 2022.
  7. The resident raised a complaint on 8 March 2022 and said that she had reported the leak on 7 June 2021 and again on 21 June 2021 after the landlord had not responded. In August and September 2021, she was told by the landlord that a contractor would arrange an inspection. She had taken time off on 28 October 2021 after she was advised contractors would need to access the roof, but no-one had turned up. She said she had been advised by ‘flat 1’ that contractors would attend on 5 January 2022, but the landlord had not confirmed if the job was completed. She requested compensation for loss of rental income, earnings and for the inconvenience she was caused. In her complaint she also said that the communal door was a health and safety hazard, and the windows were rotten.
  8. The landlord issued a stage one response on 22 March 2022 and did not find any service failings. It confirmed investigations failed to trace a leak from the roof, and identified the leak was coming from the plumbing in ‘flat 1’. It apologised if the resident had not previously been advised of this. It said that it would inspect the windows and door on 22 March 2022 and complete repairs as required, although it was not aware of any previous reports relating to those repairs.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and wrote to the landlord in April 2022. She said it had failed to address the number of times she had contacted the landlord for the same problem, it did not address the failed appointments or confirm when the door repairs would be completed. She said that ‘flat 1’ disputed the landlord’s response regarding the leak.
  10. The landlord issued a final response on 14 September 2022. It explained that the 21 June 2021 report had been attended, and it had found a small tear in the flat roof and identified an issue on the main roof but suggested that the resident and ‘flat 1’ were not affected by it.
  11. It said that following further reports of a leak, the roof was checked but no further leaks were found. The leak had been traced to the bathroom plumbing in ‘flat 1’ and so their responsibility, as a good will gesture it repaired it on 13 November. As ‘flat 1’ was a leaseholder it could not compensate for any losses the resident had incurred, nor was it, or its insurer responsible for any damages. It completed a replacement of the glazing to the communal door on 7 June 2022. It was required to complete a section 20 consultation in relation to the windows. It offered £530 compensation, made up of:
    1. £400 for poor communication.
    2. £30 for two missed appointments.
    3. £100 for the complaint response being issued outside of its published standard.
  12. In escalating her complaint to the Service, the resident reiterated the points detailed in her escalation request to the landlord on 26 April 2022 and added that the landlord had “shifted the blame” to her neighbour ‘flat 1’ instead of accepting liability for the leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has detailed her request to be compensated for £7000 for the loss of income during the time the leak was unresolved. While the resident believes that the landlord is liable for her loss of rental income, claims concerning liability are most appropriately considered by the courts, where liability can be established.
  2. The Ombudsman has noted that the issue underpinning the complaint is a disagreement between the landlord and resident about the cause of the leak, and who is responsible for putting it right. The Ombudsman cannot determine the cause of the leak but can consider whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances and in line with its obligations.

Assessment

  1. Under the terms of the lease the landlord was responsible for repairs to the communal parts of the building, including its services and installations. The resident in this case would be responsible for any repairs that were within her flat. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed. Non-emergency repairs are appointed within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. Communal repairs should be appointed upon the nature of the work (emergency or non-emergency) but must always be completed within 28 days.
  2. When an external leak affects a resident’s property, the landlord is expected to identify the source of the leak and prevent the leak from persisting. If the source of the leak is from a neighbouring leasehold property, it would be expected to contact the neighbour to facilitate a repair.
  3. The Service does not dispute the residents report that she contacted the landlord on 7 June 2021 in relation to a leak from the roof. However, the records indicate that the landlord initially logged a repair on 21 June 2021. The repair was logged as an emergency to which the landlord was expected to attend and make safe or complete a temporary repair within 24 hours. The landlord attended on 25 June 2021 which was a departure from its prescribed timeframes. While not a significant delay, the landlord did not explain the departure from its policy timeframe. 
  4. The repair logs indicate that the repair was attended by the roofing contractor on 25 June 2021, but it could not gain access to the resident’s property or ‘flat 1’s’. There is no evidence that this was followed up by the landlord over the next few weeks to ensure it investigated the leak and completed any repairs to mitigate the damage that was caused.
  5. As such, ‘flat 1’ contacted the landlord again on 8 July 2021 stating that the roof was badly damaged and was leaking through both his and the resident’s ceiling. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate what, if any steps the landlord took to remedy the leak between June and October/November 2021, spanning a total of five months. Overall, there is a lack of evidence that the landlord managed the leak in line with its obligations. It is understandable that this would have caused frustration for the resident.
  6. The resident expended further time in contacting the landlord in August 2021 when she requested that someone attended as a “matter of urgency.” The landlord’s roofing contractors attended two months later, on 19 October 2021 but the job was recorded as no access, as were a number of subsequent attendances. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm that the appointments had been pre-arranged, and therefore the Service cannot conclude that the resident was aware of the contractor’s attendance, to ensure access was provided. This would have been an appropriate step to take, as it was aware that the resident did not live at the property and would need to provide access. Had it been more proactive during this time, it may have mitigated some of the delays incurred.
  7. There were several unexplained delays between the contractor’s attempts to access the property. The landlord’s follow-up with its contractors appears to be prompted by the resident or ‘flat 1’s’ contact which caused delays, and which was likely to have exacerbated the distress caused to the resident in trying to facilitate and progress the repair.
  8. The landlord confirmed in its stage two response that it had identified a tear in the roof but had suggested that the damage to the resident’s property was caused by a plumbing leak from ‘flat 1’. It confirmed that it completed a repair to ‘flat 1’s’ property in November 2021 as a goodwill gesture (although there are no repairs records that support this). The Service is unclear why the landlord undertook the repair and references its statement in its final response that “under the terms of the lease, responsibility for internal bathroom plumbing is with individual leaseholders, in this case, the leaseholder of ‘flat 1’.” However, it shows the landlord taking steps outside of its obligations to try and resolve the matter.
  9. The resident has disputed the landlord’s assertion that the leak was caused by the plumbing in ‘flat 1’ citing concerns that the landlord was “shifting the blame” instead of accepting liability for the leak. The Service cannot determine the cause of the leak as previously stated, however, the Service understands why the resident may have questioned the landlord’s conclusion considering the vagueness of its communications, and that it failed to inform her of the cause of the leak until the matter was raised as a complaint. It did not sufficiently reassure the resident at the earliest opportunity that the leak had been repaired. Had it done so, it could have alleviated some of the distress that was caused.
  10. The resident provided information from ‘flat 1’ with her escalation request in which ‘flat 1’ confirmed that being a builder, he had “checked all the damage and found the faulty flat roof to be the cause of the leak” which was reported to the landlord on many occasions. This information would appear to support the resident’s view that the damage was caused because of a fault in the roof during periods of rain. The evidence does not show that the landlord thoroughly investigated this point which is likely to have eroded the resident’s trust that the landlord would put things right. 
  11. The landlord’s final response cited that “ordinarily water damage and loss of income from a leak would be covered by the relevant insurance policy.”  Given that there was a dispute in relation to the cause of the leak, it would have been a reasonable and fair response in the circumstances for the landlord to have considered referring the matter to its insurers, as part of a liability claim.
  12. The records confirm that a repair to the roof was completed on 6 January 2022, seven months after the resident initially reported a leak which she believed emanated from the roof, and not from ‘flat 1’s’ property. As the matter is still in dispute, an order will be made for the landlord to provide the resident with information on how to submit a liability claim to its insurers, to ensure that the matter is drawn to a satisfactory conclusion.
  13. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter that amount to a finding of maladministration. The landlord did appropriately acknowledge some failings, apologised, and offered £400 as a discretionary payment to acknowledge the poor communication that the resident had received, as well as the time she had expended in pursuing the landlord for updates. This shows the landlord taking action to try and ‘put things right’.
  14. However, the landlord failed to identify gaps in its service, identify learning from the complaint, explain the unreasonable delays in remedying the leak, or provide the resident with an opportunity to submit a liability claim which is something the Service would expect to see as an appropriate response in this situation, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  15. The offer of compensation was in line with its compensation policy which suggests awards of £250-£700 where it has found considerable failure but there may be not permanent impact on the resident. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have awarded an amount at the higher end of the range to proportionately recognise the impact of its failings on the resident. Therefore, an order has been made on this below.

Communal repairs

  1. The evidence shows that the resident reported the communal repairs to the landlord in January 2021 and a repair to the communal door was completed on 12 April 2021. The landlord advised that the glazing to the front door was replaced in June 2022, and the repair record does support his, however, the resident has disputed that the work was carried out. Therefore, the landlord should carry out an inspection and ensure that the repair has been completed, and to a satisfactory standard.
  2. The resident expressed her concern that the front door was “loose” and highlighted a health and safety risk. It is unclear why the landlord delayed in attending and did not explain why it failed to complete the repair within its prescribed timescales of 28 days. While the delay in repair may not have caused significant detriment to the resident, the landlord should have considered the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of the door and responded in a timely manner.  
  3. Incorrectly, the landlord confirmed in its stage one response that it had no record of communal repairs, prior to the resident’s complaint. The evidence shows that repairs were recorded 14 months before the resident submitted a complaint. This could indicate that the landlord did not interrogate its records in detail before providing the response, which is likely to have compounded the frustration felt by the resident. Furthermore, as the landlord did not identify failings in its handling of the communal repairs, it was unable to attempt to put things right, or learn lessons from the complaint, which was a failing. Overall, there were complaint handling failures which meant that the resident did not receive a full response to her concerns, and so a finding of service failure is made below. However, no orders are made considering the action that the landlord took to improve its complaint handling in response to the Ombudsman’s Special Report in October 2022.
  4. While it was reasonable to advise the resident in September 2022 that it would need to complete a section 20 consultation in relation to the windows, it should have advised the resident at an earlier opportunity given that she had raised issues concerning “rotten windows” in early 2021. Had it explained the process to repair and/or replace the windows when the resident raised the issues, it could have reduced the time expended by the resident in pursuing the matter and used the complaints process as an effective tool to remedy this aspect of the complaint. That it did not was a further failing.
  5. The Service has found a service failure in its handling of the communal repairs and in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance, awards between £50-£250 are awarded when there has been a failure to meeting service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. Given the failings identified, the Ombudsman has awarded compensation on the higher end of the scale. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the communal repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total compensation amount of £830 made up of:
      1. The £130 already offered by the landlord for the missed appointments and the delayed complaint response.
      2. £600 for the failings in communication, distress, and inconvenience, as well as time and delay caused to the resident because of the landlord’s handling of the leak.
      3. £100 for the failings identified in its response to the communal repairs.
      4. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £530 (which can be deducted from the £830 if already paid). The sum must be paid in full to the resident and not offset.
    3. Complete an inspection to confirm that the glazing has been replaced to the communal door and advise the resident of the outcome of the inspection. If further repairs are required, the landlord should advise the resident of a completion date for the repair.
    4. Advise the resident of how to make a liability claim through the landlord’s insurers.