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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202113079)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113079

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A leak and damage to the resident’s property.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat.
  2. The landlord’s records show that there were leaks into the resident’s flat in January 2019 and August 2021. The landlord responded to a complaint about the later leak in August 2021, however the resident did not escalate this complaint to stage 2, and she did not contact this Service to ask for our involvement at that time.
  3. The landlord initially said the resident would need to claim on her home insurance, however it subsequently gave her the details for its buildings insurance for her to contact about a claim. It let her know on 20 August 2021 that it had booked a roof repair in for 1 September.
  4. The resident reported a new leak into her property on 1 October 2022, and the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 20 October. It has not been able to provide a copy of her original complaint due to a cyber-attack. In its response, the landlord said that as the resident is a leaseholder, the internal repairs were her responsibility. It provided details for her to inquire about making a claim on its insurance.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 8 November 2022, saying she was unhappy that there had been leaks for years which had not been fixed, despite the landlord promising to do so. We contacted the landlord on 9 November, asking it to send a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  6. The landlord raised a job on 17 November 2022 for the roof leak to be investigated and a quote obtained for repairs. It acknowledged in an internal email that it should have done more to investigate the leak as it was a communal issue.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 December 2022 to say it was still investigating the complaint and would contact her again when it was in a position to respond. It sent its stage 2 response on 25 January 2023, in which it again said that she was responsible for internal repairs, but that it could have been more flexible in its response. It agreed to complete a mould treatment, and said it would then arrange a further visit to look at the internal damage once the roof was repaired.
  8. The landlord said a roofer would be attending on 28 January 2023 and it would contact her on 1 February to agree the follow up inspection. It had liaised with its insurer, who said a claim had been agreed. It offered £150 compensation in recognition of its service failure, and an additional £100 for the delayed complaint response.
  9. On 28 February 2023 the resident contacted this Service again and confirmed she wanted us to investigate the complaint as she remained unhappy that the leak had not been fixed.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 July 2023 and said that further investigation had found a problem with the roof which was repaired on 24 June. It offered further compensation of £350 to recognise the inconvenience caused to her, and an additional £100 for the delay to this response.
  11. On 27 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident again saying it had misadvised her that the leak was her responsibility, which led to delays in it getting repaired. It said it had spoken to her on 21 September and agreed a further £1,000 compensation, which it said she had accepted. This brought the total compensation relating to this leak to £1,500, and a further £200 for delays in its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident told this Service that she has been reporting leaks into her property for a number of years, and the landlord’s repairs log shows a report of a leak on 15 January 2019. However, no evidence has been provided of what happened at that time, or of any further issues until August 2021.
  2. Following a stage 1 response from the landlord on 23 November 2021 there is no evidence of any further leak at that time, and the resident did not ask the landlord to escalate this complaint, so it is reasonable to conclude that this leak was resolved at that time.
  3. According to paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. As the resident’s complaint about a leak in August 2021 was not escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, this complaint is outside the jurisdiction of this Service. So, this investigation has only looked into events involving the most recent leak from 1 October 2022 onwards.

Leak and damage to the property

  1. The leaseholder agreement shows that the landlord is obliged to maintain, repair, redecorate and renew common parts, which would include the building’s roof. The landlord’s repairs policy shows that communal repairs should be completed within 28 days of the issue being reported.
  2. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 20 October 2022, in which it said it was experiencing issues following a cyber-attack. It has not been able to provide a copy of the resident’s complaint due to this incident, however the stage 1 response said the leak was reported by the resident on 1 October.
  3. At this time the landlord told the resident that as a leaseholder the internal damage was her responsibility. It only offered to help her if the neighbouring property where she believed the leak was coming from was occupied by one of its tenants. It did not say that it was going to take any steps to find source of the leak at this time. Given its obligation to maintain and repair communal parts, and the fact that the resident had reported a leak coming into her property from outside of it, this was not an appropriate response as it should have taken steps to locate the source of the leak.
  4. At this time the landlord did provide her with details to make an insurance claim, however as the leak itself had not been fixed, this was not appropriate as she could not arrange internal repairs whilst the leak was ongoing.
  5. The landlord’s records show that the resident submitted an insurance claim on 6 November 2022 for damaged flooring and its insurer accepted the claim. On 17 November the landlord raised an order for a contractor to investigate the roof and provide a quote for repairs.
  6. Internal emails of 21 December show the landlord acknowledged there were active leaks to the roof and that access needed to be gained to carry out repairs. It also said that the roof had last been inspected in July 2022, when it was found that parts of the roof required remedial work, and there was corrosion that required further investigation. This shows that the landlord was aware of problems with the roof that it did not take steps to fix, and the damage to the resident’s flat was therefore a foreseeable problem.
  7. These emails said that diverters had been fitted for now, but that engineers had now broken up for Christmas and would reattend in the new year to understand where the leak was coming from. On 16 January 2023 a contractor reported to the landlord that repairs were needed directly above the resident’s bedroom, but that these could not be done until the weather changed. It said that this may not be the only required repair but was the most obvious place to start.
  8. In its stage 2 response of 25 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged that it had not acted quickly enough to assess the cause of the damage, but that the resident was still responsible for internal repairs. It agreed to carry out an interim mould wash and then return to inspect the internal damage once the roof was fixed. It also confirmed a claim had been agreed with its insurer. It said that a roofer would be attending on 28 January to complete repairs and it would follow up with her on 1 February once this was completed. It offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of its service failure.
  9. The resident contacted this Service on 28 February 2023 as she said the roof had still not been fixed. She said the landlord’s insurer had agreed to cover wall repairs and replacement flooring, but would not cover her sofa bed which had been ruined by the leak and subsequent mould. She told us that her own insurer would not cover the sofa bed either as it said it was the landlord’s fault.
  10. The resident contacted this Service again on 30 March 2023 to say that contractors had attended on 11 March but that her wall was still wet. In its letter to the resident of 26 July the landlord said that a contractor had attended again on 9 May and found a split in a membrane with a tree growing out of it, which had caused the membrane to leak. It offered £350 additional compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
  11. It is clear that the landlord did not do enough to follow up on whether the repairs were successful in March 2023, even though the contractor said that it could not be certain of the cause of the leak, and despite promising to follow up with her after repairs in its stage 2 response. There has been no evidence provided that the landlord followed this up until the resident contacted it to say the leak was ongoing. The landlord should have acted proactively in arranging for an inspection following each repair, to ensure the leak had been resolved.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident again on 27 September 2023, following a telephone call with her on 21 September. It said that she was misadvised that it was her responsibility to fix the leak, and that as it was a structural issue it was the landlord’s responsibility. It also said that when it did take responsibility it took far too long to carry out repairs and acknowledged that this led to her sofa bed being ruined and her having to temporarily move out of the property. It offered her a further £1,000 to settle the complaint, bringing the total compensation for this leak to £1,500.
  13. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak and damage to the property. Whilst it has since acknowledged its failings and offered the resident further compensation, it did not get to the root cause of the issue and carry out lasting repairs before concluding its internal complaints process. The Ombudsman will always encourage a member landlord to take resolution action on a case, irrespective of the stage at which a complaint may be at. However, it is essential that landlord’s look to fully resolve cases while a case remains active within its complaints process. In this instance, a considerable proportion of the landlord’s remedy was offered following the completion of the landlord’s complaints process. While this represented commendable action on the landlord’s part, the Ombudsman is conscious of the delay in it reaching this conclusion. As such, maladministration has been determined, albeit with no further compensation ordered. This adverse finding enables the Ombudsman to acknowledge the landlord’s failures in its handling of this complaint and to identify further learning for it to take forward.
  14. The resident has not made contact with this Service since receiving the final offer of compensation on 27 September 2023, so we have been unable to confirm that her loss in respect of the sofa bed has been covered. However, based on the information available, the landlord’s total offer of £1,500 compensation was proportionate to the distress, inconvenience and loss caused. But, £1,350 of this compensation was not offered until more than 6 months after the landlord had concluded its internal complaints process, meaning that it failed to put things right when it should have. It did not acknowledge its failings or make a reasonable offer of redress until this Service became involved, which is not appropriate.
  15. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the £1,500 compensation offered to the resident during and after its internal complaints process, if it has not already done so. An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out a case review to identify where things went wrong with both its understanding of what its obligations were under the leaseholder agreement, and its failure to carry out lasting repairs in line with its repairs policy.

The resident’s complaint

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus, took too long, and the landlord failed to get to the root of the issue during its internal complaints process.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time the complaint was raised says that stage 1 complaints will be logged and acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. At stage 2 it says that it will respond within 40 working days. These timeframes are longer than this Service would usually expect to see, however it is noted that the landlord has since updated its policy and its timescales are now in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  3. The landlord has not provided any records leading up to its stage 1 response to the complaint on 20 October 2022. In its response it said it was unable to provide a copy of the original complaint due to a cyber-attack. However, it says that the leak was reported on 1 October so it is reasonable to conclude that the stage 1 response was sent within 20 working days of the complaint being raised, and therefore in line with the landlord’s policy.
  4. After the resident contacted this Service and the landlord on 6 November 2022 to say she was not happy with the stage 1 response, we asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 9 November. It did not send its stage 2 response until 25 January 2023, 52 working days later, outside its policy timescale of 40 working days. Whilst it did provide an update to the resident on 14 December 2022, this did not provide a timescale for a resolution. However, it offered the resident £100 compensation for the delayed response.
  5. The landlord sent an additional complaint response on 26 July 2023, in which it said it had found a problem with the roof. It offered an additional £100 compensation for the delay in sending this response to her. This brought the total compensation offered for its complaint handling to £200. However, it was not until 27 September that it acknowledged that its initial response to her reports had led to delays in repairs to the roof being carried out. So, it took over a year for it to get to the root cause of the problem and take responsibility for this.
  6. The Ombudsman is of the view that whilst there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints, the compensation offered by the landlord to recognise these failings was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused, and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, and was therefore reasonable. As such, the Ombudsman considers there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  7. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to carry out a case review to ensure that it learns from its failure in this case to get to the root cause of the issue before issuing its stage 2 response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of a leak and damage to the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,500 in relation to its handling of the leak, as offered during and after its internal complaints process, if it has not already done so, and to provide evidence of compliance with this within 28 days of this report.
  2. The landlord to carry out a case review to identify where things went wrong with both its understanding of what its obligations were under the leaseholder agreement, and its failure to carry out lasting repairs in line with its repairs policy. The landlord must provide a copy of this review to this Service within 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 in relation to its handling of her complaint, as offered during and after its internal complaints process, if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord to carry out a case review to ensure that it learns from its failure in this case to get to the root cause of the issue before issuing its stage 2 response.