Clarion Housing Association Limited (202223090)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223090

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 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:

a.             The resident’s report of a leak including:

1. The associated damage to his electrics.
2. The associated damage to his flooring.
3. The associated damp and mould.
4. The associated asbestos removal and ceiling replacement.

b.             The boiler repairs.

c.             The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident occupies a property under a tenancy agreement that commenced on 22 February 2010. The landlord describes the property as a one-bedroom ground-floor bungalow.
3. The resident explained to this service that he experienced a leak that had been ongoing since 2020 and had reported this to his landlord on several occasions.
4. It is important to point out here that the repairs records state that the landlord replaced 6 slates on the roof on 25 February 2021.
5. On 22 April 2022, the resident reported that water was running down his bedroom wall and had caused his ceiling to bow and crack. This affected his electrics and caused damp and mould in the property.
6. Between February 2021 and May 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports by:

a.             Commissioning an asbestos survey for the property and arranging the removal of the bedroom ceiling.

b.             Re-instating the ceiling.

c.             Instructing a contractor to assess and replace further roofing tiles.

d.             Instructing a contractor to assess and replace the affected electrics.

7. The landlord found from a roof inspection that the cause of the leak was due to a collection of rainwater which had accumulated over several years. The resident explained that the contractor told him more ventilation was required to remedy this.
8. The resident raised a formal complaint with his landlord on 26 August 2022 because:

a.             There was a guttering repair that remained outstanding.

b.             He was advised by a surveyor that the ceiling could collapse.

c.             The risk with the ceiling could not be resolved until the source of the leak had been identified and dealt with.

d.             The leak caused damage to his flooring.

9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 September 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding and explained this was due to a cyber-attack. It said that it had attended to the leak in the bedroom by clearing the box guttering on 27 June 2022. It told the resident he would need to report further repairs if they were required at his property. It also said that he would need to claim through its insurer for any damage to his property.
10. On 11 September 2022, the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the landlord delayed resolving the leak, there were no records of his reports of the leak, and ‘nobody had taken him seriously’. He also explained that there were other holes in bedroom ceiling caused by a leak in February 2021 which were still yet to be repaired or renewed. In addition, there were outstanding works to the property and the landlord had not communicated with him about these.
11. In its final response on 10 November 2022, the landlord provided a chronology of appointments. It also explained that the resident would need to raise a claim with its insurance provider for any damage to his flooring. It also said that any outstanding works unrelated to the leak would need to be raised separately so they could be addressed. It offered £250 in compensation for its failure to address all the resident’s issues at stage 1, the inconvenience whilst the leak remained unresolved, and the delay in issuing its stage 2 response.
12. The resident told this service that his bedroom ceiling was leaking again in April 2023 and that he had requested that the landlord re-inspect the property to identify the cause. He believes that the former works had not remedied the leak and that it had returned. 

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

13. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure (…).”
14. The resident reported issues with his boiler and damp and mould in the property. These issues did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint therefore it did not exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure. They will not be considered as part of this investigation. The resident needs to raise this as part of a separate complaint to the landlord and if required, seek further assistance from this service.
15. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
16. Although it is noted that the resident said he had experienced an issue with a leak from 2020 onwards, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from February 2022 onwards. This is because this is what was considered as part of the landlord’s complaint responses. Any issues occurring before this time, ought to have been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint much sooner.

The landlord’s responsibilities

17. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out the landlord’s obligations regarding the repair and maintenance of rented properties. It states that a landlord must keep in repair “the structure and exterior of the dwelling house.” It must also “keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of electricity.”
18. Section 9A of the Act places an obligation on the landlord to keep the property in a habitable condition at the start of the tenancy and throughout. Section 10 of the Act sets out that a property may not be fit for human habitation where there is a category 1 hazard. The presence of asbestos may be a category 1 hazard.
19. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that:

a.             Emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporary repairs should be completed at this visit. Further visits may then be needed to complete a lasting repair.

b.             Non-emergency repairs will be offered at the next available appointment that suits the resident, within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.

20. The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy states that:

a.             Cases related to leaks, condensation, damp, and mould will be tracked and managed and residents informed of property inspections, diagnosis of issues and timetabling of works.

b.             It will inform the resident of the findings of its investigations following inspections.

c.             It will diagnose the cause of leaks, condensation, damp, and mould to deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of the problem, not just the symptoms.

21. The landlord’s asbestos management policy states that it will undertake a management survey when refurbishment or repair work is limited to a very specific area that is encompassed by a targeted destructive element with the remainder of the property subject to a management survey.

The leaks and the damage to the electrics

22. The resident reported the leak to his bedroom ceiling on 22 April 2022. He also said that he did not want the repairs done at that time due to his availability but hoped they could be resolved before the heavy rain began later in the year. However, on 25 April 2022 he called again and asked for the repairs to be completed. The landlord raised a repair was raised for the roof.
23. The repair logs do not explain what action the landlord took following the report. The landlord has set out a list of appointments in its stage 1 response. However, it produced no evidence to the Ombudsman to substantiate its position. The landlord stated the action was as follows:

a.             A roofing contractor inspected the property on 13 May 2022 and reported works were required to repair the roof tiles and clear the box guttering.

b.             On 27 June 2022, repairs were made to the roof tiles and the box guttering was cleared. The resident said he was not aware of this appointment. However, the landlord stated it gained access via another property, so the resident was not aware of this.

24. The repair logs do not corroborate these events. However, the resident accepts the survey on 13 May 2022 occurred.
25. The Ombudsman notes that the records are insufficient to determine if the appointment on 27 June 2022 occurred, and if so, what happened at the appointment. It is also noted that the repair logs refer to works raised in 2021, so it is unclear if only selected repair logs were impacted by the cyber-attack experienced by the landlord. Either way, the landlord ought to have made this clear to the Ombudsman.
26. In any event the evidence shows that the leak was reported again by the resident in on 24 August 2022. The evidence shows that the report was categorised as an emergency. Again, the repair logs do not explain what action the landlord took as a result. The landlord explained in its final response that it “attended to this report within the timeframes of its service level agreement.”
27. The resident referred to an appointment on 30 August 2022 after he contacted the emergency repairs team. He explained that the roofing contractors had attended and replaced some tiles, however the contractor had said he would submit a recommendation to fully inspect the roof. The repair logs only refer to an electrician isolating the sockets and removing part of the ceiling to do so.
28. There is no evidence that a recommendation was submitted by the roofing contractor or that the roof had a further inspection until the resident reported leaking water again on 8 March 2023. This resulted in the lighting circuit being isolated.
29. The resident explained to this service that further roof tiles were replaced on 29 March 2023, but the electrician had attended at the same time and identified water in most of the wiring in the property and that it was not safe to reinstate the circuit. The resident said the lighting was intended to be re-instated at an appointment on 9 June 2023. However, the water that remained meant that this could not occur. This event is supported by the repair logs where it states that lighting was re-instated across the whole property, but an appointment date is not specified.
30. Another inspection was raised on 21 April 2023 for the roofing contractor to inspect the roof again. The landlord’s communications with the resident show that most of the roof slates were replaced on 2 May 2023. The contractor also explained that the roof felt had been the cause of the water ingress, and this along with the tile replacement, should resolve the leaks. The contractor asserted that the leaks themselves were a result of condensation build-up dripping into the loft space.
31. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to be aware that subsequent leaks were being reported periodically. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have diagnosed the cause of the leaks at an earlier stage and delivered an effective solution to it.
32. Therefore, the landlord significantly delayed in providing the resident with both its findings about what the cause of the leak was and in ensuring the cause was then remedied in a reasonable time. This adversely impacted the electrical damage present at the property, which continued to present itself as a problem because of the unresolved leak. This was maladministration because the resident had to live in a property with a re-occurring leak, as well as intermittent electricity for a period.

The landlord’s record-keeping

33. The repair logs were inconsistent with the landlord’s internal and external communications or, in some cases, missing. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ abilities to identify and respond to problems when they arise. 
34. As these records have not been provided to this service, we have been unable to provide an opinion on whether the landlord acted reasonably upon the advice of its specialist contractor for the roof repair. The Ombudsman considers this to be a record-keeping failure which prevented it from sharing the relevant information with this service which is maladministration.
35. The evidence shows that the resident had reported the same leak to various contractors that had attended his property between April 2022 and May 2023. It also shows that the leak had been periodically recurring during this time. He explained that he had woken up at times with the leak dripping on him and his mattress. This was inappropriate and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Damage to the flooring

36. In the resident’s formal complaint on 26 August 2022, he explained that the leak had damaged his flooring. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that its compensation policy did not cover damage to flooring and gave him the details of how to claim its insurance provider.
37. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted reasonably in this element of the complaint. The landlord is entitled to use insurance cover to protect its financial resources. The records do not indicate if the resident has made such a claim, but it is recommended that he does.

Asbestos removal and ceiling replacement

38. As the leak had been presumed to be resolved on 30 August 2022, the damaged bedroom ceiling was due to be replaced. The evidence shows:

a.             The landlord had identified asbestos in the ceiling in a reported dated 31 January 2022 as part of an unrelated refurbishment survey.

b.             An appointment was made to repair the ceiling on 7 October 2022, but this was cancelled due to asbestos being identified. It is unclear if the landlord was reminded at this appointment at the presence of asbestos or whether prior to the appointment it had reacquainted itself with the asbestos report in January 2022.

c.             Several prospective appointments were discussed between 21 October 2022 and 5 January 2023 for the asbestos contractor to remove the ceiling.

39. The landlord tried to accommodate the resident’s request by organising the appointments from an asbestos specialist and its repairs team to follow on from one another. The evidence shows:

a.             The initial appointment to remove the asbestos was delayed due to difficulties in ensuring the contractor could park near enough to the resident’s home to be able to safely dispose of the asbestos material.

b.             Two subsequent appointments were frustrated because the resident’s road was closed, and the communal parking was full.

40. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord tried to accommodate the resident’s request as far as was practicable. The road closure was out of the landlord’s control, and it is evident that in the scheduling of the contractor and the repairs team, both organisations had moved other appointments to enable the resident’s appointment to be carried out as soon as possible. This has been considered as a mitigating factor.
41. The landlord was aware the ceiling required replacing as early as 30 August 2022. However, it did not schedule an appointment until 7 October 2022. This was 38 calendar days later. This was a service failure because the landlord did not schedule an appointment inside its repair policy timeframes. It is concerning that the landlord delayed for this amount of time when the ceiling was damaged and contained asbestos.
42. In addition to this the landlord was aware of the presence of asbestos in the resident’s property as early as 31 January 2022. However, this information was not considered at the time the appointment was made to repair the ceiling. This was maladministration because it resulted in further delay because a specialist contractor was required to undertake the repair safely.
43. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have considered the presence of asbestos at the time it arranged the appointment for the ceiling. However, this did not happen. Although it is noted the landlord tried to schedule the subsequent appointment to suit the resident, the need for a specialist contractor should have been identified in the first instance.
44. The removal of the ceiling occurred on 5 January 2023. This was a significant delay from the time the ceiling required removing and re-instating. This was outside of the landlord’s policy timescales and caused additional delays and distress for the resident. This amounts to maladministration.
45. It is noted that on 23 June 2023, the landlord offered the resident £200 following a review of the actions taken following the closure of the complaint process. This was for the delays, inconvenience, repeat visits and poor communication in completing the ceiling repairs. The Ombudsman considers this to be insufficient to recognise the detriment to the resident who had waited 4 months for the works to be undertaken.

Complaint handling

46. The Complaint Handling Code sets out the landlord’s responsibilities in relation to its handling of formal complaints. It states that:

a.             Stage 1 responses should be responded to within 10 working days.

b.             Stage 2 responses should be responded to within 20 working days of a request for escalation.

47. The landlord’s interim complaints policy, which was in force at the time because of a cyber-attack on the landlord, stated:

a.             Complaints logged before 17 June 2022, would be responded to by the customer solutions team to try to progress through to resolution.

b.             At the conclusion of the complaint process a resident was entitled to request a review. The landlord aimed to resolve these within 40 working days.

48. The complaint responses were answered as follows:

a.             Stage 1 – issued within 5 working days of the complaint.

b.             Stage 2 – issued within 42 working days from the escalation request.

49. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises the complaints procedure had to be adapted because of the cyber-attack, there is no evidence the resident had been told his complaint responses would be delayed. This was a service failure because the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have explained to the resident that his complaint responses were subject to a different timescale.
50. However, it is noted that the landlord recognised its delay in its final response by offering the resident £50. This was reasonable in all the circumstances to address the detriment to the resident.

Determination

51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the way the landlord handled:

a.             The resident’s reports of a leak.

b.             Associated damage to the electrics.

c.             Associated asbestos removal and ceiling replacement.

52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the way the landlord handled the damage to the resident’s flooring.
53. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord offered reasonable redress to resolve the complaint handling issues.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

54. The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:

a.             Write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.

b.             Pay the resident £1,000 to recognise:

1. the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing ceiling replacement. This also recognises the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it acted reasonably by creating and maintaining adequate records.
2. the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s delays in the handling of the roof, asbestos, and electrics.
3. the time and trouble of the resident pursuing the repairs over an extended period.

c.              This is in addition to the compensation awarded to the resident during the complaint procedure and the landlord must not offset any payment already made to the resident for this complaint against this compensation award.

d.             The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

55. The Ombudsman identified that the failures in this case were recurring. The landlord’s incomplete records hampered its ability to respond to the resident and service requests reasonably and in a timely manner.
56. The Ombudsman conducted a paragraph 49 investigation into the landlord that found common failures in the analysis of what had gone wrong and lack of effective action plans or evidence of learning. We also asked it to review its record-keeping and communications.
57. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews the failures identified above in this case and those specific to:

a.             Its record-keeping.

b.             Identification and recording of follow-on works/repairs.

58. The landlord should complete a lesson-learned review, which sets out:

a.             What its policies and procedures say and whether these need to be updated.

b.             Whether there needs to be further internal guidance on follow up repairs and record keeping.

c.             What actions it will take in the short, medium, and long term to try to prevent similar failures in other like cases.