Clarion Housing Association Limited (202334682)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334682

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks, damp and mould.
2. Damage to his belongings and financial losses incurred.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a first floor flat in a converted house. He purchased the property in 2018 and lives there with his wife and 2 children, aged 17 and 13.
The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord in April 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended on 13 and 18 April 2023 and said that repairs were required to the roof and gutters and that scaffolding would be erected to complete the work. The work was not carried out and the resident chased the landlord for an update on multiple occasions between May and July 2023.
On 11 July 2023, the resident’s MP submitted a complaint to the landlord on his behalf. It said the resident was unhappy that no works had taken place and he wanted the landlord to confirm what repairs would be carried out and when.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 20 September 2023 it explained that it was no longer working with the contractor who had inspected the roof in April 2023. It would need to reinspect the roof and confirmed an appointment for 2 October 2023. It recognised that it had failed to follow its processes in completing the repairs and that the resident had had to repeatedly chase for updates. It offered £1,100 compensation (£1,000 for the failures around the repairs and £100 for the delayed complaint response).
On 26 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered as he felt it did not cover the financial losses he had incurred from the leaks and the time he had spent contacting the landlord for updates. He said the issue had impacted his health as he suffers with asthma and his family’s health had also been impacted.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 24 October 2023 and confirmed that an inspection had taken place and that the repairs were booked for 31 October 2023. It acknowledged the poor communication with the resident and apologised for the time it had taken for the repairs to progress. It asked for evidence of the costs incurred by the resident so it could consider reimbursement. The landlord offered an additional £450 for his distress and inconvenience.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to this Service in January 2024. He said the work had still not been completed and the landlord’s responses had failed to fully acknowledge the impact the situation had on the household. He wanted an increased offer of compensation and for the landlord to be held accountable for the issue.

Events after completion of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

The repair works did not go ahead as scheduled on 31 October 2023. The resident continued to chase the landlord for an update and reported further leaks in December 2023. He also advised the landlord that he had not received the compensation payment from the stage 1 or 2 complaint responses.
The landlord’s contractor inspected on 10 January 2024 and confirmed that repairs were needed to the roof, gutters, fascias and soffits. The contractor completed repairs to the roof, gutters and fascias on 1 and 2 February 2024. The landlord said the soffits were only showing signs of wear and tear and were not in need of repair.
The landlord opened a further complaint based on the resident’s dissatisfaction with the further delays in completing the repair work and the delay in receiving the compensation from his previous complaint. The landlord issued its response to this on 28 March 2024 and acknowledged its failure to deliver what it had said in its previous complaint response. It offered an additional £475 compensation (£225 for the delayed repairs, £150 for the delays in issuing the compensation offered in its original stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, and £100 for the delay in issuing this complaint response).

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Both the resident and landlord make reference to leaks dating back 4 years. However, the Ombudsman may only investigate issues that were brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, usually within 12 months of the issues arising (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme). Therefore, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s handling of leaks occurring within 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made (being the resident’s report of April 2023). The presence of historic and recurring leaks is referenced only in so far as it relates to the landlord’s handling of the current complaint.
The resident submits that the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted on the health and well being of him and his family. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the family’s ill-health. He may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that their health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the family experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp and mould

The lease states that the landlord will maintain the roof, roof timbers and all external parts of the building including gutters in a reasonable condition of repair. Its leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy states it will undertake remedial work to rectify any problems caused by leaks. The landlord accepted its repairing responsibilities and acted appropriately in inspecting the property. However it failed to adhere to its published timeframes for completing the repair. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to make the repair safe and non-emergency repairs will be completed within 28 days.
In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it was no longer working with the contractor who had attended the property in April 2023. It said it had ended the contractual relationship in August 2023 and had limited access to the records of repair attendances from before this date. It had no record of previous inspections or diagnosis of the roof issue. As a result, it had to start the repairs process again and organised a roof inspection for October 2023.
The Ombudsman issued a spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) in May 2023. One of the recommendations relates to information sharing with third parties, such as repairs contractors, and says landlords should make adherence to their minimum standard for KIM part of the service level agreement with third parties. It is unreasonable that the landlord had not retained records of repairs that occurred prior to August 2023. This had an unfair impact on the resident who had waited 6 months for a repair only to have the process start again.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it apologised and compensated for the length of time the repairs had taken but it failed to demonstrate accountability for its failure to maintain appropriate records. This is a service failure and an order is made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation in that regard. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for failure to meet a service standard resulting in some impact on the resident, paid at £50 per 3 month period.
The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy notes the steps it may take when resolving severe or recurring issues of this nature which include:
1. Diagnosing the cause of the leak and delivering effective solutions to treat the root cause of the problem.
2. Informing the resident of the findings and confirming what work will be done and the estimated timescales to complete the work.
3. Undertaking a risk assessment which may result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstances.
4. Offering temporary solutions such as: providing and funding dehumidifiers, installing ventilation systems, applying mould resistant coverings.
5. Considering a temporary decant based on the work required and/or the risk to the resident.
6. Engaging a Resident Liaison Officer to support the household for the duration of the issue.
In both the complaint responses, the landlord identified that it had failed to follow its own policy, specifically noting that it had failed to:
1. Complete the roof works in a timely manner.
2. Communicate effectively with the resident resulting in him having to repeatedly chase it.
3. Consider the household’s vulnerability.
4. Attend booked appointments.
Whilst the landlord acted fairly in acknowledging and apologising for these failures, it did not identify that it had also failed to do the following:
1. Confirm the diagnosis to the resident and commit to a timescale to resolve the issues. Instead, it told the resident different things following each inspection and continued to rearrange appointments, thus prolonging the eventual repair.
2. Manage the resident’s expectations about the roof being replaced after he raised this on multiple occasions. Instead the landlord failed to address this at all within the complaint responses.
3. Offer reassurance that the issue had been resolved. Instead the evidence shows the landlord’s contractor only verbally confirmed with the resident that no further leaks had occurred and no physical inspection was completed.
When there are such failings by a landlord the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (in this case, an apology and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In its stage 1 response the landlord offered £1,000 in recognition of its failures and a further £450 at stage 2. The landlord’s compensation policy equates offers over £700 to failures that had a severe and long-term impact on the complainant. In line with its policy, the landlord’s offer was proportionate to the impact incurred by the resident as a result of the failures it had identified and is likely above the range that would have been awarded by this Service.
The evidence shows that the resident was told by the landlord or the contractor (acting on the landlord’s behalf) on at least 3 occasions that the roof may require replacement. The resident also asked the landlord for confirmation of this on at least 3 occasions. The landlord’s internal emails in November 2023 show some confusion around what works were agreed. It was not until 31 January 2024, after the landlord had attended the property multiple times, that it confirmed to the resident that it would not be replacing the roof, but repairing it and monitoring the situation.
In failing to address this at an earlier stage, or within its complaint responses, the landlord unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations as to what work may be carried out and this amounts to service failure. An order for an additional £50 compensation is made in recognition of the impact of this failure on the resident.
The resident continued to report concerns about the roof leak from November 2023 to January 2024, after the landlord sent its stage 2 response. The evidence shows the landlord completed the roof works on 2 February 2024. In the landlord’s second stage 1 response of 28 March 2024 it acknowledged the further failures in completing the roof repairs and offered an additional £225 compensation. It is not for this investigation to assess the landlord’s handling of this new complaint because this investigation is limited to complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, namely the complaint made on 11 July 2023. However it is reasonable that it offered additional compensation in recognition of its failure to fulfil its promises from the stage 2 complaint in October 2023.
In his escalation request of 26 September 2023 the resident told the landlord that he suffered from asthma which had been made worse by the damp conditions in the property. The landlord’s leaks, damp, condensation and mould policy says its purpose is to support the safety and wellbeing of residents in their homes. The relevant process map says it will capture any resident vulnerabilities at first contact. It is evident the landlord did not adhere to this as, in its stage 2 response, it acknowledged that it was not previously aware of the resident’s health concerns. It said this would now be taken into account. The landlord included its failure to do so within its compensation offer for overall distress and inconvenience.
However, after being made aware that the resident suffered from asthma, it is unclear what steps the landlord took to demonstrate it was taking his health into account. It took the landlord a further 4 months to complete the repairs and there is no evidence of it taking any interim measures to improve the conditions in the property, even temporarily. It acted inappropriately in failing to follow its own process and failed to demonstrate any improvements after being informed of the resident’s potential vulnerability. An order for an additional £100 compensation is therefore made in recognition of the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerability.
The resident has informed this Service that he has ongoing concerns about the longevity of the repairs completed. His concerns include:
1. There are patches requiring repair and he is unsure if they are damp or just stained.
2. Due to the design of the gutters, when it rains heavily the water pours between the gutters and the property. This splashes onto the brickwork which he is concerned will eventually lead to damp.
3. The roof felt was damaged by the long-running roof leak and he is worried this has created a fire hazard.
It is understandable that the resident is concerned about the leak returning, particularly given that the landlord failed to fully inspect the completed works and simply relied on the resident’s verbal confirmation that the work had been successful. It is unreasonable that the landlord failed to fully inspect the roof and confirm the outcome of this inspection to the resident, given the history of leaks at the property.
In conclusion, although the landlord identified and compensated for multiple failures within its complaint process, it failed to demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s health concerns seriously. It missed the opportunity to show it had learnt from its mistakes and continued repeating the same failures. It was unreasonable that the landlord had no record of repairs prior to August 2023 and the landlord failed to appropriately remedy this. This investigation has found maladministration and orders have been made below.
In his communication with this Service the resident has raised a concern that the water damage to the roof felt had created a fire hazard. He was also concerned that there was no lightning protection on the chimney and his neighbours roof had been struck by lightning in the past. This did not form part of the complaint investigated by the landlord and has not, therefore, been assessed as part of this investigation. However it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident regarding his concerns to move this matter forwarded. The resident is able to raise a complaint to the landlord if he remains dissatisfied with its handling of the matter.

Damage to belongings and financial loss incurred

In the initial complaint of 11 July 2023, there was no mention of damage to the resident’s belongings or any financial losses incurred. The evidence shows that the landlord called the resident on 9 August 2023 to discuss the complaint and it would be reasonable to conclude that the resident had the opportunity to raise the issue during this phone call. The contents of this call are referred to within the landlord’s complaint responses and there is no mention of a claim for reimbursement or damaged items. For this reason, it was understandable that the landlord did not address this issue within its stage 1 response of 20 September 2023.
The resident raised the concern about reimbursement for losses incurred in his escalation request of 26 September 2023. He said the compensation offered at stage 1 would not cover the amount he had spent on:
1. Increased phone bills from calling the landlord.
2. Increased electricity usage from using dehumidifiers.
3. Loss of earnings from days taken off work unpaid to allow access to contractors.
4. Building products purchased to complete work himself.
5. Prescription costs for asthma inhalers as a result of the damp and mould.
It is not for this investigation to establish whether the landlord should have reimbursed the resident for these costs, rather to determine whether it acted reasonably in its handling of the request.
In the stage 2 response of 24 October 2023 the landlord only considered the resident’s claim for additional electricity usage caused by the use of dehumidifiers. It failed to fully address his requests listed in the escalation request and this amounts to service failure.
The landlord has a guide explaining how leaseholders can make a property damage claim. This states that residents, in certain circumstances, can claim directly to the landlord’s insurers for damage to their property. It also makes it clear that residents are expected to claim for damaged belongings through their own contents insurance policy. There is no evidence of the landlord sharing this information with the resident, so it failed to appropriately advise him about his options to make a claim and this is amounts to service failure.
In conclusion, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to offer any advice or information on its policies and processes when the resident first raised the query in May 2023. It then missed a further opportunity to provide this within its stage 2 response and this was unreasonable. This investigation has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
An order is made for the landlord to consider the resident’s full claim and confirm the options available to him. An order for additional compensation is also made for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s request. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, an offer of £75 is proportionate in this case, for failures that have had a minor impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy with timescales that were not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord told this Service that this was because it had suffered a cyber attack. It said stage 1 complaints would be responded to within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints would be responded to within 40 working days. It is noted that this has since been resolved and therefore no further failures or orders have been made in relation to these timescales.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and specifically notes that the resident does not need to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such. The resident very clearly expressed his dissatisfaction with the standard of service he was receiving in his communication with the landlord in May and June 2023. However, it was not until the landlord received the complaint request from the MP on 11 July 2023 that it took action and logged a formal complaint. The landlord acted inappropriately in failing to log the resident’s earlier contact as a complaint. It failed to acknowledge or offer redress for this failure in its complaint responses and so an order for £50 compensation has been made in recognition of the impact this delay had on the resident.
The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delayed stage 1 response on 20 September 2023, a further £100 for the delayed response to its new stage 1 complaint on 28 March 2024, and £150 for the delay in paying the compensation offered in the previous complaint responses. It apologised for all the delays and acted appropriately in identifying these failures against its policy. The compensation offered was proportionate in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. As outlined above, the landlord failed to fulfil its promises made in its complaint responses. The responses were notably lacking in any reassurance of how the failures identified within its repairs service would be resolved and how similar failures might be prevented in future.
In referring the matter to this Service, the resident wanted the landlord to demonstrate accountability for its failures. An order is therefore made for the landlord to complete a case review identifying areas for improvement, or areas that have been improved since the date of the complaint, and to share the outcome of this case review with the resident.
It is positive that the landlord considered the resident’s ongoing concerns as a new stage 1 complaint in March 2024 and it is noted that the landlord acted reasonably in signposting the resident to this Service in November 2023. However, the need for it to do so further demonstrated that the landlord had failed to reach a full and final conclusion to the issue through its earlier complaints process and this is a service failure. In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, an order for £100 compensation is made in recognition of the landlord’s failure to learn from its previous errors.
In conclusion, the landlord failed to log the resident’s contact in May and June 2023 as a complaint and whilst it recognised the delays in its responses, it failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from the complaint. This investigation has found maladministration in this matter and an order for an additional £150 compensation is made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  2. Associated formal complaint
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to his personal belongings and financial loss incurred as a result.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Inspect the property fully for any ongoing leaks and/or internal damage to establish what works are needed. Within 2 weeks of this, the landlord must confirm in writing to the resident, and to this Service:
  1. What remedial works, if any, will be carried out and the target date for these to be completed.
  2. The methodology for completing these works, taking the resident’s health and wellbeing concerns into account.
  3. If no works are required, it must confirm this in writing.
2. Contact the resident regarding his claim for damage to his belongings and financial losses incurred. Upon receipt of any relevant evidence or documentation it requests from the resident, the landlord must provide a written response to him confirming whether or not it is willing to cover all or part of his claim or if it has referred the claim to its insurers.
3. In addition to the £1,550 already offered at stage 1 and stage 2, and in addition to the £475 offered in the new stage 1 complaint in March 2024, pay the resident £475 comprising:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the leaks, damp and mould.
  2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the damage to the resident’s belongings and the financial loss incurred.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident regarding his concerns around the fire safety of the roof and the lightning protection on the chimney.