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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202117493)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117493

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 February 2022


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of roof repairs to address water leaks; and
    2. The damage the leaks caused to the resident’s belongings.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord the freeholder. The landlord owns the block of flats which the resident’s property is situated in.
  2. On 31 December 2020 the landlord raised a routine repair to inspect the roof of the building for a leak going into the resident’s property. The landlord reraised the repair on 19 January 2021 and attended on 23 February 2021. According to the landlord’s records, the operative who attended recommended the erection of a scaffold to repair possible broken roof tiles and holes in the brickwork. However, the landlord could not complete the works at this time due to coronavirus restrictions meaning that non-emergency repairs were put on hold. It left the resident a voicemail to inform her of this.
  3. According to the landlord’s records, the resident contacted it in April 2021 to pursue the ongoing roofing repairs. The landlord attended in May 2021 and identified two possible sources of leaks.
  4. The resident called on 6 July 2021 to complain about the lack of communication and delay to the roof repair at the property. She said that on 12 May 2021 she called the landlord and it informed her that it would erect scaffolding; however, on the day the operative that attended was not aware of any scaffolding and said he was there to inspect the roof. The resident complained that this attendance was unnecessary, and she had since called the landlord several times to get an update, but it did not contact or update her. She confirmed that the roof leaked into her property every time it rained and, due to the length of delay, the damage to her property continued.
  5. On 13 July 2021 the landlord raised a repair for the roof leak affecting the resident’s property. 
  6. In a call with the landlord on 16 July 2021, the resident advised that an operative told her they would like to attend on 19 July 2021 to carry out the works and its contractor said a scaffold was not required.
  7. According to the landlord’s notes, an operative attended on 19 July 2021 to repair the roof. The operative completed patch repairs to a small tear in the roofing and replaced some existing roof tiles using a ladder “which was the preference to speed up the repair and not delay due to scaffolding organisation.”
  8. On 20 July 2021 the resident asked the landlord to keep the complaint open a little longer to check the repair when it rained. The landlord spoke with the resident on 27 and 28 July 2021, and the landlords notes say the leak was resolved and the resident accepted its offer of compensation.
  9. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 28 July 2021, it apologised for the delay in its response and confirmed it identified a service failure in the delay to resolve the repair and repeated contact by the resident to chase the work. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and offered the resident £275 compensation (consisting of: £25 for delay to resolve complaint, £50 for delay to resolve repair, £100 for repeated contact by resident, £100 for inconvenience to the resident). Finally, it advised that if the resident wanted to make an insurance claim in relation to her personal property and possessions, standard practice would be for her to go through her home contents insurance provider; however, it provided its liability insurer’s details if the resident wished to pursue a claim against the landlord for negligence.
  10. On 29 July 2021 the resident reported that, following a lot of rain on 28 July 2021, water leaked through the roof, so the repair did not resolve the issue. In subsequent call with the resident on 30 July 2021, the landlord confirmed a repair had been raised and a neighbour was also affected.
  11. Between 11 and 18 August 2021 the resident pursued an update on the repair. The resident reported that there was still water leaking from the roof when it rained. The resident reported damage to her property, including a rainwater in the attic and damaged to her electric cupboard, which she wanted the landlord to repair. She also expressed the distress and inconvenience caused by the matter. The landlord confirmed it had scheduled the repair for a roofer to attend and rectify the issue on 20 August 2021.
  12. The landlord’s contractor attended on 20 August 2021 and reported that they identified a secondary issue to the skylight that would require scaffolding. On the same day the landlord raised works for scaffolding to be erected.
  13. On 20 August 2021 the resident escalated her complaint because of the delay in the repair of the leak, which she reported worsened her living conditions, and that the person who attended said scaffolding was required to access the roof, which she was also told in February 2021. 
  14. The landlord erected scaffolding on 17 September 2021 and, on 20 September 2021, completed a repair to address the leak. The operative who attended noted “further repair completed to skylight off a scaffold, sealed window shut as [resident] confirmed they never open it and where it wasn’t sealed properly driving rain was getting underneath.”
  15. Between 27 September 2021 and 4 October 2021, the landlord unsuccessfully attempted to call the resident back on two occasions. It noted that she wanted the window that has been sealed shut to be opened, the scaffolding looked into, and she said roof repairs had not been carried out.
  16. The landlord emailed the resident to ask for further details on her desired outcome. The resident replied that she wanted the landlord to stop the leak and send a roofer to check the tiles, noting that the scaffolding was still present. She said that on 20 September 2021 she did not see anybody going on the roof. Additionally, the resident also said she wanted the landlord to repair her electrical cupboard, which was impacted by the leak impacted and which posed a health and safety risk.
  17. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 27 October 2021. It acknowledged that its contractor told the resident in February 2021 that scaffolding was required; but, when it attended in July 2021, it was identified that the repairs could be completed using a ladder, which was the preference to prevent delays. The landlord confirmed that following the resident’s report of a further leak in August 2021, it identified a secondary issue to the skylight that would require scaffolding and completed it in September 2021.
  18. The landlord acknowledged that there was a significant period between it attending in February 2021 and then re-raising and completing the repair in July 2021, then re-raising the repair again in August 2021 and completing it in September 2021. It said that, although they were all roof repairs, these incidents were separate issues that needed to be reported and repair. The landlord confirmed it would continue to monitor the repair until it removed the scaffolding. It found that its previous complaint response and compensation offer of £275 for delays and the inconvenience caused to the resident was fair and appropriate. The landlord offered a further £50 compensation due to the delay in its final response.
  19. Following the exhaustion of the complaint, on 27 October 2021, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repair. In particular, she was unhappy with the delay in the landlord attending between December 2020 and February 2021, and that the contractor sealed the skylight shut. She also advised that the leak was still ongoing, and so she could not complete any repair to the electrics.
  20. On 28 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and said the landlord told her that an appointment was booked for 9 November 2021 and would require scaffolding, but the scaffolding was removed that day.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

  1. In line with the terms of the lease, the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and the building and will take good any defects affecting the structure. The lease confirms that the landlord is not responsible for the glass of the windows of the flat. Residents pay a service charge towards the cleaning and maintenance of communal areas.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy categorises repairs as emergency or non-emergency. It classes an emergency repair as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or the public, or an issue which would jeopardise the health, safety, or security of the resident. The policy says the landlord should attend any emergency repair within 24 hours and carry out any temporary works to ‘make safe’. Further repairs may then subsequently be required. The landlord arranges non-emergency repairs at the initial point of contact and refers to these appointments as being booked ‘at resident’s convenience’. It will offer the next available appointment that suits the resident within 28 calendar days of them reporting the repair issue.
  3. In line with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, it offers appointments for communal repairs in some areas. Timescales for communal areas are dependent upon the nature of the work (emergency or non-emergency as outlined above) but must always be completed within 28 days.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy details ranges of compensation of between £50 to £250, £250 to £700 and £700 and above. The policy says that compensation will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on various factors including whether the landlord was responsible for causing the problem, and the length of time it took to put things right.
  5. The compensation policy also confirms that, where requested, it will pay the resident £15 if it or its contractor fails to keep an appointment, without giving 24 hours’ notice where it is reasonably practicable to do so. This payment only applies to appointments relating to individual properties and not to repairs in communal areas. Additionally, the landlord’s compensation policy says that, where requested, it will pay compensation payments to residents if repairs are not carried out within the agreed time limits. It will pay a standard payment of £10 for the first day over the time limit, plus £2 per day for each further day the repair(s) remain outstanding subject to a maximum of £50. Again, this applies to individual dwellings and not to repairs in communal areas

The complaint about the landlord’s handling of roof repairs to address water leaks.

  1. There were clear delays in the landlord initially inspecting the roof in February 2021, following the resident’s report of a leak in late December 2020. The landlord was also unable to complete the repairs that were recommended at the time, and it has explained that this was a result of coronavirus restrictions. During the national lockdown in place at the time and in line with government guidance to avoid non-essential contact with others, many landlords put all non-emergency repairs on hold. Whilst the repairs needed to the resident’s property were clearly necessary, they would not be regarded as emergency repairs and therefore it was reasonable for the repairs to be put on hold until coronavirus restrictions eased. Whilst the delays were inconvenient for the resident, they were unavoidable and it was reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated regarding the delays.
  2. From April 2021, when the resident pursued the roofing repairs, the landlord took until 19 July 2021 to carry out repairs, which was clearly outside of its published timescale of 28 days. It is acknowledged that it can take time to find the cause of a leak and sometimes the landlord may have to attempt different repairs before the issue is fully resolved. Also, there can be multiple leaks with different causes which each need to be investigated separately, as appears to have happened in this case.
  3. However, the landlord has accepted that it did not keep the resident updated to explain the reasons any delays during this time. As redress, the landlord offered the resident £275 compensation. This amount is in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of between £250 and £700 in cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs. This offer was therefore reasonable at stage one of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  4. However, the resident reported that she was experiencing a leak again on 29 July 2021. The landlord’s contractor identified the issue on 20 August 2021, within its timescales for a routine repair, and erected scaffolding and completed a repair to the resident’s skylight within a further 28 working days. While the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified contractors concerning what works should be carried out, the resident has since reported that this repair did not resolve the issue, and she wanted to be able to open the window rather than having it sealed shut.
  5. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. As part of the complaint policy the resident shall be given a fair opportunity to set out their position and comment on any adverse findings before a final decision is made. When a resident seeks to escalate a complaint, the landlord should consider why the resident remains dissatisfied.
  6. The landlord’s stage two response failed to address the resident’s concerns, in line with the code, regarding the leak not being resolved and her window being sealed, despite the resident raising these issues as part of her complaint. As the landlord has not addressed this aspect of the complaint, the resident was obliged to progress the complaint to the Ombudsman in order for the matter to be resolved. Compensation is therefore due for the time and trouble that the resident has went to in pursuing her complaint with this Service. As above, the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests awards of between £250 and £700 where there has been repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address all relevant aspects of complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving complaint. In view of this, the landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to fully address her complaint.
  7. The landlord should also address the resident’s concerns raised in October 2021 that the leak was ongoing following the repairs completed in September 2021, unless the resident confirms that the leak has now been resolved.

The complaint about the damage the leaks caused to the resident’s belongings.

  1. In response to the residents complaint about damage to her electrical cupboard, the landlord explained that usually the resident would usually be expected to make a claim under her own contents insurance policy for these costs. However, the landlord provided it’s insurer’s details if the resident wished to pursue a negligence claim against the landlord.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to claim under her own contents insurance policy for damage to her personal possessions. In line with the lease, residents are responsible for the cost of repairing or replacing their personal possessions following damage caused by a leak. It is recommended that residents take out contents insurance to cover such costs. The landlord would not be responsible for such damage unless there was evidence to show that the damage occurred as a result of negligence by the landlord or its contractors. Landlords are entitled to have liability insurance to cover the cost of negligence claims and the landlord would not be expected to consider a negligence claim outside the insurance process. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident’s concerns about damage to her possessions to its insurer. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of an insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurer.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the complaint about its handling of roof repairs to address water leaks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the damage the leaks caused to the resident’s belongings.

Reasons

38. While the landlord has provided reasonable redress for the delays and poor communication in its handling of the repairs up until September 2021, its stage two complaint response failed to address the concerns that the resident raised, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, regarding the leak not being resolved and her window being sealed. The landlord should respond to these concerns now as well as offering compensation as detailed below for any distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in fully responding to the complaint.

39. The landlord has provided the resident with the appropriate information to refer her claim for the damage to her belongings to its insurer, in line with its compensation policy and industry good practice.

Orders

40. The landlord is ordered to:

  1. Pay the resident £250 for the time and trouble that she went to in pursuing her concerns with the landlord and this Service, within four weeks of the date of this decision. This is in addition to the £325 offered by the landlord through its complaints policy, which it should also pay if it has not done so already.
  2. Within four weeks of this decision, the landlord should carry out an inspection of the resident’s property to identify the cause of any ongoing leaks. The landlord should then schedule any repairs identified as necessary following the inspection in line with the timescales listed in its repairs policy, unless the resident confirms that the leak has been resolved in the meantime.