Clarion Housing Association Limited (202229653)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229653

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
2. Handling of a blockage to the resident’s toilet.
3. Handling of damage caused to a door handle at the property by a repairs operative.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 2–bedroom flat over 2-floors in a block. The lease started in November 2016. The freehold is owned by the landlord. The landlord has no recorded health vulnerabilities for the resident
The resident’s son raised the complaint on her behalf. For the purpose of this report he will be referred to as ‘the representative.’ The representative describes a household member as a disabled pensioner, and says another resident was pregnant at the time of the complaint.
The representative raised a complaint with the landlord in March 2022. This included his objection to being sent a tenancy breach letter. The landlord had sent the letter following its unsuccessful attempts to access the property. It required access to trace a leak which was causing extensive damage to other properties in the block.
The landlord provided its stage 1 and 2 responses in April 2022 and 22 November 2022, respectively. The landlord advised having eventually agreed an appointment date with the representative, it had attended on 27 October 2022, and traced a leak to the vertical soil stack connection to the branch pipe that served the resident’s toilet. The landlord said the leak had caused damage to other properties while it had tried to arrange access with the representative.
The landlord’s complaint responses advised it initially made safe the repair and completed all works on 16 November 2022. The landlord’s letter reiterated that as the leaseholder, all of the work undertaken by the landlord would have been the resident’s responsibility. However, the landlord offered £15 to recognise a missed appointment on 20 October 2022 and £100 for the delay providing its stage 2 complaint response.
On 21 November 2022 the representative raised another stage 1 complaint with the landlord. He said the complaint was about “extremely poor” service received from the landlord during the leak. To resolve the complaint the representative wanted compensation for:
1. The loss of 1 days annual leave.
2. Transportation costs having to attend the property for repairs.
3. 4 nights hotel accommodation at £95 per night, due to the lack of “sanitary toilet services, for “vulnerable members” of the household.
4. Leaks from a blocked and overflowing toilet.
5. The leak repair not being fixed within an acceptable timeframe.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 December 2022. It advised the complaint had already exhausted its internal complaints process (ICP) and reattached its previous stage 1 and 2 responses. It informed the representative of the resident’s rights to contact the Housing Ombudsman and provided the appropriate contact details.
The representative asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 7 December 2022. He did not consider the landlord had addressed his requests for compensation.
On 27 January 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 final response. The landlord advised it was satisfied with its stage 1 response and reiterated the resident had exhausted its ICP. The landlord repeated the delays it had experienced securing access to the resident’s property to prevent further damage to other properties. It informed the representative that its stage 2 response on 22 November 2022 had provided clear guidance on the representatives “next steps” if he remained dissatisfied. The landlord said it would provide him with another final response to summarise his complaint. It offered an additional £15, having identified its attendance exceeded its 4 hour emergency repair response timescale.
The representative brought the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2023. He said the landlord had shown a lack of accountability and the compensation offered was not adequate. The complaint became one we could consider on 20 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes within the representatives correspondence to the landlord and to us, he said the leak and the actions of the landlord had affected the health of members of the household and his own personal finances.
While we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The representative may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on the resident’s health and finances.
We also note the representative makes reference to other properties within the block being affected by leaks. Any reference of other properties within this report, will be to provide context only. We will not expand further on individual properties, as there is no group complaint to consider.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman identifies a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Handling of a leak in the resident’s property

The landlord’s records indicate it was working with a number of resident’s at the block following reports of intermittent leaks. The landlord says these reports started in late 2021. Having failed to trace the leak in tenanted properties, it attempted to gain access to the resident’s address.
Schedule 6 (3b) of the resident’s lease states the landlord has the right to enter the property when it needs access to execute repairs, renewals, and alterations. Having failed to secure co-operation from the resident, it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to issue a tenancy breach letter to encourage a response. This was sent in or around February to March 2022 and demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to minimise further damage to other properties in the block.
The tenancy breach letter did not immediately secure access to the resident’s property. The representative responded and raised a complaint about the letter. While it was appropriate for the landlord to accept and respond to the representatives complaint in line with its ICP, it remained unable to secure access to the property. It is unclear why neither the resident nor representative agreed to allow the landlord access.
Prior to the representatives first complaint on 30 March 2022, there is evidence the landlord’s out of hours plumber attempted to gain access to the resident’s property. The landlord had received reports of a leak late at night from a neighbour. The representative did not allow the landlord to enter the property and said a private plumber had completed an inspection. He assured the landlord there were no leaks in the property. The landlord recorded never receiving evidence of a leak detection report from the representative. The representative did not provide evidence of an inspection to us.
It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to continue its efforts to engage the resident and representative. Further records in April 2022 recorded the representatives stance that “the property did not have a leak and they did not want attendance at their property.” There is evidence within the landlord’s records that its contractor believed there to be potential leaks in two soil stacks, and advised the landlord access to the resident’s property was required. This demonstrated the landlord’s continued efforts to trace the intermittent leaks.
Schedule 7 (5) of the resident’s lease states the resident’s repair responsibilities. This includes the services installed for the purposes of supplying water, or for the purposes of draining away water and soil from the property. This includes any repair and decoration to interior plaster work.
Schedule 9 (1.2) states the landlord’s covenants to be observed by the landlord at the tenants expense. This includes services that are solely installed or solely used for the purposes of any particular flat, and the owner is responsible under the provisions in the lease corresponding to paragraph (5) of Schedule 7. It was therefore appropriate and in line with the expectations of the lease for the landlord to arrange a leak detection inspection. Dates were finally secured with the representative in June 2022.
Leaks can be difficult to locate and rectify and will often involve diagnostic or investigatory work to identify the source. It will not always be possible for landlords to repair leaks or determine who is responsible for them immediately. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to require further access following its preliminary inspections in June 2022. However, the landlord states it encountered further difficulties co-ordinating access with the resident, the representative, and then a second address. This continued until October 2022 when the landlord’s contractor considered again that the leak was coming from the resident’s property.
It is unclear to us whether the landlord took further tenancy enforcement action between June to October 2022. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to identify the cause of the leak so it could determine the required repair work and who was responsible for it.
There is evidence the landlord emailed the representative on 14 October 2022. It explained its efforts to call him and of its attempts to attend the property. It informed him off reports of water damage from neighbours. Access was agreed and an appointment arranged for 20 October 2022 while working at other properties in the block. It was therefore appropriate and in line with its compensation policy for the landlord to offer the resident £15 when this appointment was rescheduled as work in other properties over ran.
There is evidence in the landlord’s repair records that state “due to the urgent nature of this repair and in the interest of speeding up the repairs process, we will accept a labour charge to attend.” This demonstrated the landlord taking ownership of any repair costs that may ordinarily have been the responsibility of the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to minimise further damage to the neighbours properties from the resident’s leak.
We note a councillor contacted the landlord In November 2022. They reported concerns about the water damaged properties and sought an update from the landlord. It is clear from this communication that several properties required considerable work. However, the correspondence confirmed that the resident’s property had been repaired, apart from a patch of mould which needed treating. There is evidence that the landlord dealt with this and supplied a dehumidifier to aid the drying process. This was reasonable.
While we note the representative expressed concern about the additional running costs of the dehumidifiers, the landlord had provided them to assist with the effects of a leak identified in the resident’s property. Any repair or additional costs would have been the resident’s responsibility. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for refusing to allow access to the property. However, the landlord was not responsible for the delays this caused.
It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has recognised its missed appointment and offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Handling of a blockage to the resident’s toilet

The representative said following leak repair work by the landlord, the toilet at the property became blocked. He provided a chronology of events from 28 October 2022. In which, he states the toilet drained slowly on 28 October 2022 and started to overflow at 6am on 29 October 2022. The representative’s chronology continues and states he contacted the landlord at 7am on 30 October 2022. Given the description of the emergency, it is unclear why the evidence indicates the representative delayed reporting the issue to the landlord. It is reasonable that the landlord was only able to respond to a repair once notified.
The representative’s correspondence states the household was left without a “sanitary toilet service.” He said he was required to pay for alternative accommodation for vulnerable members of the household, which he expected the landlord to reimburse. While such a situation would understandably cause distress, no evidence has been presented that demonstrates the property was without a toilet. Nor is there any evidence of communication between the representative or landlord to evidence this was the case.
The representative states the landlord failed to respond to the emergency in line with its responsive repair timescales. The landlord acknowledged, while it had attended as an emergency, it had arrived outside of its 4 hour response time. It addressed this in its stage 2 response on 27 January 2022. The landlord offered £15 compensation for this identified service failure. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy of £15 for a missed appointment. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right.
The landlord disputes the representatives assessment of the repair and states there was never a need for any household member to move out. Therefore, it would not reimburse any accommodation or transportation costs. Having assessed the correspondence between both parties, there is no evidence the representative communicated any emergency need to the landlord prior to his complaint. While we do not dispute the representatives claims, it is not possible for us to determine any failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s repair records show that its plumbers attended the property and identified a blockage. It was therefore reasonable for it to report the need for a drain inspection and clear. It is not disputed by the representative that works were undertaken between 30 October 2022 to 2 November 2022. This included a CCTV drain survey, pressure jet work to clear any blockages, and works to remove debris from the soil stack pipe. These were reasonable steps in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to identify and remedy the cause. There is no evidence that indicates the toilet did not work while this work was completed.
We note the representative considered the fault to be the landlord’s failure during earlier leak repairs. This is disputed by the landlord. There is evidence within the landlord’s internal communication records that states it had identified a towel in the waste pipe. Due to the location, it considered this had come from either the resident’s property or another property served by the same pipe.
While this situation would have understandably caused upset, the landlord has demonstrated taking action to address the blockage. Furthermore, it recognised that its initial response was later than its 4–hour emergency response timescale and awarded compensation in line with its compensation policy. It is therefore our opinion that the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.
However, we note the landlord did not provide evidence to us that demonstrated it was aware of any vulnerabilities within the household. Given there is evidence the representative commented on this being the case in November 2022, it is unclear why the landlord did not evidence discussing this and updating its records. This is a record keeping failure. Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively.
It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. While in this instance no detriment has been identified to the resident, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to document it has approached the resident to update any vulnerabilities and or support needs.

Handling of damage caused to a door handle at the property by a repairs operative

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states timescales in which it will respond to repair needs. These are:
1. Within 24 hours to make safe an emergency repair.
2. Within 28 calendar days for a non-emergency repair.
On or around 28 October 2022 a repair operative fell down the resident’s stairs. Evidence indicates the operatives fall was broken when they reached out to the front entrance door (FED) handle. The representative’s correspondence states that the damage had “compromised the safety and security” of the resident’s. While any accidental damage to a property would understandably be upsetting, there is no evidence the door handle did not work. Had any temporary repair been unsuccessful, the landlord was obliged to respond within 24 hours as an emergency. There is no evidence of an emergency repair being reported to the landlord by either the resident or representative.
On 15 November 2022 the representative informed the landlord he was dissatisfied with the FED handle repair completed that day. While the handle had been replaced, he said he was unhappy that the spindle locking mechanism was different.
While we recognise the representative had a preference in the manner in which the locking mechanism worked, this does not demonstrate a failure by the landlord. The landlord has demonstrated replacing a handle that had been damaged by its operative and doing so within its non-emergency responsive repair timescales. It was appropriate for it to fulfil its repair obligations and did so in line with its policy.
Furthermore, we note the landlord acknowledged the representatives preference for a split spindle locking mechanism and arranged for this to be installed. The landlord completed the replacement on 13 January 2023. While this took longer than 28 working days, there was no detriment to the resident. The landlord had already completed a repair in line with its policy and left the resident with a working handle and locking mechanism. The landlord has an obligation to complete repairs as well as appropriately manage its budgets and resources. The landlord’s willingness to order and install the representatives preferred handle was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord working to put things right.
Based on the evidence presented, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy as a result of a cyber security attack. Under that policy, the landlord was required to issue a stage 1 response within 20 working days, and a stage 2 response within 40 working days of an escalation request.
The representative raised a stage 1 complaint on 21 November 2021. Given the interim complaints policy, it was reasonable for him to expect a response by 19 December 2022. It was therefore appropriate the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 7 December 2022. Furthermore, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that his complaint had previously exhausted its ICP and informed him of the Housing Ombudsman Service.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 8 December 2022. Given the interim policy, it was reasonable for the representative to expect a response by 7 February 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 27 January 2023. This was appropriate and within the interim complaint response timescales.
There is evidence that the representative had reraised his dissatisfaction, having already exhausted the landlord’s ICP in the same month, November 2022. The landlord’s initial stage 2 response on 22 November 2022 acknowledged its late response and offered £100 compensation. It also informed the representative of the resident’s rights to raise her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. It correctly provided our contact information. This was appropriate and demonstrated a member landlord acting in line with the expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
It is unclear why the representative chose to raise a new stage 1 complaint, which repeated dissatisfaction with earlier events. However, the landlord informed the representative by way of a stage 1 response on 7 December 2022 that his complaint had already exhausted its ICP. This demonstrated the landlord attempting to correctly direct the representative to our support if he remained dissatisfied.
Although the landlord had informed the representative to approach us, he continued to express dissatisfaction with the landlord. The landlord investigated the complaint and all previous responses. It provided the representative with another stage 2 response on 27 January 2023. Given that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s ICP, it was reasonable in the circumstances for it to do so. Having provided the representative with details of us in November and December 2022, the landlord’s actions demonstrated its efforts to summarise its position and to repeat the options available to him.
The landlord has demonstrated following its interim complaint handling procedures and the expectations of the Code. Furthermore, it has demonstrated taking steps to correctly direct the representative to us within its complaint responses. It offered £100 compensation in its first stage 2 response, to recognise that it was sent late. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us where redress is required to put things right. Therefore, it is our opinion the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of a blockage to the resident’s toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damage caused to a door handle at the property by a repairs operative.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the total sum of £130 compensation offered during its stage 2 responses on 22 November 2022 and 27 January 2023.
The landlord is encouraged to provide refresher training around its process for escalating cases where no access to a property has been secured.
The landlord is encouraged to contact the resident to ensure its records regarding any vulnerabilities and support needs are recorded. The landlord may wish to document its communication in the event the resident does not consent to share this information.