Clarion Housing Association Limited (202202278)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202278

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 April 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of, and communication about, the leak in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.
3. The resident’s request to be reimbursed for loss of rental income.

Background

The resident, at the time of the complaint, was a shared-owner of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the property. The resident, at the time, was subletting her property to a “tenant.”
The resident arranged for the landlord’s contractor to complete a maintenance check of the Heating Interface Unit (HIU) on 10 December 2021. On 5 January 2022, the resident telephoned the landlord and its contractor after being advised by her tenant that there was mould on the carpet and spreading to the walls in the cupboard which housed the HIU.
On 7 January 2022, following an inspection of the HIU, the contractor confirmed two blockages in the valves which needed replacing.
A contractor attended on 23 January 2022, but was unable to complete the repair as he was not the correct technician for the job.
The resident submitted a complaint via the landlord’s portal on 25 January 2022 and followed this up with an email on 27 January 2022 as she felt the response received did not address the urgency of the situation. She confirmed that:
1. An annual maintenance check on her HIU was completed on 10 December 2021. She assumed there were no problems as no-one had reported an issue.
2. Her tenant had informed her of damp and mould in the HIU cupboard, which she had reported to the landlord and its contractor on 5 January 2022.
3. The contractor confirmed that during the inspection on 10 December it had identified a part that needed replacing.
4. She was unhappy that no one had taken ownership of the problem and that she had to “repeat everything multiple times.”
5. As the leak was ongoing, it had saturated her floor, damaged the woodwork in the hall, and caused the property to smell. She noted her concerns about the structural impact on her property and the property below.
On 28 January 2022 the contractor attended and fixed one of the leaks but identified a “bigger issue” with the HIU. The tenant was advised to turn off the hot water until it had the parts to fix the problem. The resident called the contractor who confirmed that it had changed the multifunctional valve, but the expansionary vessel and tundish still needed replacing.
In an email to the resident on 3 February 2022, the landlord confirmed that the resident was responsible for internal repairs and while it understood that she did not cause the damage that the leak had caused, she would be required to repair it, or alternatively, she could claim on her content’s insurance.
A repair to the tundish was completed on 11 February 2022. Between February and March 2022, the resident submitted a claim through the landlord’s insurance. During this time, the resident’s tenant had requested a move into temporary accommodation after she described the property as uninhabitable as the walls were “awash with water.”
The tenant moved into temporary accommodation and the property was cleared ready for works to be completed on 9 March 2022. On 25 March 2022 the landlord’s contractors confirmed that the HIU had multiple faults and was beyond economical repair.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 8 July 2022 and apologised for the delay which it attributed to a cyber security incident. It confirmed its contractor had attended on 18 May 2022, there were no leaks present, and the property was dry. It planned to install a new HIU once the redecoration in the property had been completed but was waiting on instruction from the resident to install the HIU. The resident was advised to refer a claim for loss of income to the insurance team. It apologised that there was misdirection in referring the resident between departments and that she had made several calls without gaining a resolution. Due to a failure in its process, a complaint was not logged. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It awarded compensation of:
1. £400 for the failings identified in its handling and response to the leak.
2. £150 for its failure to log a complaint and the failings identified because of this.
3. £30 for missed appointments.
4. £50 for sending a response outside of its published timeframe.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response and requested an escalation of her complaint on 26 September 2022 after receiving a copy of the stage one response from the Service. She disputed receiving a stage one response from the landlord in July 2022. She confirmed that the response did not reflect the seriousness of the failures it had acknowledged, or the amount of time spent dealing with the failures, or the impact on her mental health.
In its final response on 6 December 2022 the landlord confirmed that the resident’s insurance claim covered payments for the tenant’s alternative accommodation and for that reason there was an expectation for rent to be paid on the resident’s property. It confirmed that its complaints process did not cover legal or insurance matters and suggested that the resident liaised directly with its insurance company to gain answers to her enquiries. It had been in regular contact with the resident and works had commenced on 16 November 2022. Its contractor confirmed a lead time of three weeks for the HIU; however, it would remain in contact with the resident until the works were completed satisfactorily. It apologised for the lack of responses during October and November 2022 when the resident made contact. It awarded an additional £400 in recognition of the delays and inconvenience this had caused. The total amount offered was £1,030.00.
The resident asked the Service on 19 December 2022 to investigate her complaint and cited the reasons for her dissatisfaction as detailed in her email to the landlord on 26 September 2022.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process.

The evidence confirms that the new HIU was installed on 11 January 2023 with remedial works completed in March 2023.
The resident completed on the sale of the property in February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The resident’s request to be reimbursed for loss of rental income.

The insurance claim covered the cost of temporary accommodation while the tenant was not living at the property while the repairs were undertaken. However, the resident requested that the landlord reimbursed her for loss of rental income once the property was repaired and the insurance payments came to an end. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Service cannot consider this complaint. This is because the Scheme says that the Service will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.”
The resident believes that the landlord should be liable for her loss of rental income during the period between the property being repaired, and its sale. The resident’s lease agreement does not include an obligation on the landlord to ensure that she is able to make an income on the property. The Service is also not able to consider the use of property for income generating purposes. The Service cannot award financial redress for loss of income in the way that a court or insurance company would. While this will be disappointing for the resident, the resident should seek independent legal advice should she wish to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported the impact the issues have had on her mental health. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident has been affected by the circumstances of the complaint. However, this would be more appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. The Ombudsman can however, look at whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances and in line with its obligations.

Assessment

The resident’s lease agreement confirms that the resident will give notice to the landlord as soon as possible of any (a) defect or want of repair in the consumer interface unit or (b) problem with the supply to or use of heating and hot water in the premises.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that repairs fall into two main categories, emergency, and non-emergency. Emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe, or a temporary repair should be completed at this visit. Non-emergency repairs are appointed within 28 calendar days of being reported.
In this case, the landlord was responsible for the arrangement of the repairs to the HIU, under the obligations set out within the lease agreement. Therefore, the landlord was expected to investigate the cause of the leak, and complete any follow-on works, as necessary.
It is not disputed that there has been a significant and ongoing leak into the resident’s property from the HIU that has caused considerable damage to her property. The evidence shows that the repair was identified during the maintenance check which recorded a “leaky broken tundish and wet floor” in December 2021. The landlord has not explained why the replacement part was not ordered, or why the resident was not informed of the problem. The landlord has not investigated why the repair was left unresolved or evidenced that it followed this up with its contractors to review its processes, to prevent similar oversights in the future.
Despite several requests from the resident for a copy of the December 2021 report in early 2022, the landlord significantly delayed in providing a copy by seven months. It is unclear why the landlord did not share the report sooner. While it confirmed that a copy was sent at the same time as its stage one response, the resident has disputed receiving it.
The repair records indicate that jobs were closed in error, incorrect technicians attended, and temporary repairs were not completed despite two visits by its contractors in January 2022. This caused further delays and is indicative of communication failings between the landlord and its contractors, which impacted upon its ability to rectify the repair at the earliest opportunity.
Even though the landlord’s contractor noted that the unit was “leaking badly” on 23 January 2022, “no repair or containment” was completed at that time. Subsequently, further leaks were reported coming from the resident’s property on 8 February 2022. A part on the HIU was eventually replaced on 11 February 2022, 42 working days after the maintenance check identified the problem. This was a departure from the landlord’s repair timeframes which had a significant adverse effect on the resident.
The repair completed on 11 February 2022 did not contain the leak. Two further leaks were identified on 1 March 2022, one from inside the HIU and one from the pipework supplying the HIU. While it is often necessary to complete repeated visits in cases of a complex nature, that the leak was contained to the HIU, should have allowed a comprehensive inspection which identified all faults at an earlier stage and therefore raises concerns about the diligence of the previous inspections.
The repeat appointments, failure to identify repairs, incomplete, missed, and delayed repairs evidence failings in the oversight and management of the repair. Had the landlord and its contractor taken a more robust approach from the outset, it could have alleviated the damage caused to the property, as well as mitigated the adverse effect that was caused to the resident as a result.
Due to the extensive damage caused to the property which was uncovered once the flooring was taken up in March 2022, the resident was required to move her tenant and empty the property to allow for repairs and remedial works to commence. Understandably this will have caused her significant distress and inconvenience.
There were inconsistencies on the landlord’s part in the information provided to the resident relating to an insurance claim. The evidence shows that on at least two occasions she was advised that she was responsible for repairing the damage caused by the leak and that she could not claim on the landlord’s buildings insurance. This was incorrect, and through this omission the landlord effectively deprived the resident of consideration of her claim at the earliest opportunity.
The Service has noted the proactive efforts made on the resident’s behalf to obtain information in relation to the landlord’s insurance policy, which was not evidently forthcoming from the landlord. The Ombudsman’s view is that in circumstances such as these where there is clear fault on the part of the landlord, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have facilitated a claim on the resident’s behalf, or as a minimum, provide her with the details to submit a claim at the earliest opportunity. The landlord should review its approach to insurance claims, to ensure it does not hinder, but rather assist in these cases.
Throughout the resident’s complaint, she expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord had failed to address the detrimental impact on her mental health, which she reported was caused by the landlord’s handling of the leak. The landlord had opportunities to acknowledge the resident’s distress, but its responses fell short in conveying a level of empathy to her situation. As such, it likely aggravated the distress being experienced during this time.
The resident spent an unreasonable amount of time pursuing the landlord, spanning a total of 15 months. As acknowledged, the landlord was not always as responsive as it should have been to the resident’s contact. Although it offered an apology and £430 compensation for its failings in its handling of the leak, this fell short of providing redress to “put things right.”
It is reasonable to expect a landlord to manage ongoing repairs following the completion of its complaints process. Not only does this provide some level of assurance to the resident, as well as a timeline in which to expect repairs to be completed, but also presents the landlord with an opportunity to review the complaint after the completion of repairs and consider whether additional compensation should be awarded if avoidable delays occur.
There are unexplained delays between May 2022 and the November 2022 when the landlord confirmed that works had commenced. It is reasonable to conclude that some of these delays could be attributed to the landlord liaising with third parties (insurance company/loss adjustor) which can cause unavoidable delays. While the Service has not identified this as a failing owing to the lack of conclusive evidence, the landlord should consider reviewing how it progresses cases of this type, to minimise disruption, and ensure it has adequate oversight of outsourced resources. Particular attention should also be given to the frequency of its correspondence with residents to ensure that it acts as an appropriate intermediary.
The landlord acted reasonably in recognising failings and awarding compensation to the resident. This shows it taking action to try and ‘put things right’ in light of the failings identified. However, given the impact of the failings in this case, the amount awarded for the handling of the leak (£430) was insufficient. Neither is there evidence of the landlord taking steps to learn from the failings in this case. This Service has considered the level of redress offered alongside the adverse effect on the resident. Where there has been a significant failing in service which has detrimentally impacted the resident, as in this case, a finding of maladministration will be made.
Therefore, considering the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a further award of compensation is ordered, proportionate to the avoidable inconvenience and distress that was caused by the landlord’s handling of the leak.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s interim complaints policy, in place at the time of the complaint confirms that it operates a 2 stage complaints procedure and will respond to stage one complaints within 20 working days and stage two complaints within 40 working days.
As detailed in the landlord’s complaints policy, compensation payments between £250 and £700 are awarded for failures such as:
1. ‘Misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about a complainant’s rights.’
2. ‘Complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.’
3. ‘Complainant being repeatedly passed between staff and / or teams, with no one officer or department taking overall responsibility, or a landlord not taking responsibility for subcontracted services.’
4. ‘Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy.’
Each of the examples detailed above apply in this case.
The landlord’s stage one response was issued 115 working days outside of its prescribed timescale of 20 working days. It is evident that the resident has disputed receiving a stage one response and although she requested answers from the landlord on where the letter had been sent, it failed to address this point in its later responses.
After receiving a copy of the stage one response from the Service, the resident escalated her complaint on 26 September 2022. The landlord issued a stage two response 11 days outside of its 40 working day timeframe.
While it is noted that the landlord attributed the delays in response to a cyber incident, there is little evidence to indicate that the resident was provided with updates, or notified that delays were likely to occur. In total, the complaints process spanned 220 working days and failed to fully address the issues raised by the resident. The delayed handling of the complaint impacted the landlord’s ability to draw the matter to a reasonable conclusion and compounded an already stressful situation.
Again, the landlord acted appropriately in recognising the failings in its complaint handling and offering compensation. The compensation offered of £600 (£200 at stage one and £400 at stage two) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance and went some way to ‘put things right’ for the resident. Therefore, further compensation will not be ordered.
However, as noted above there is no indication that the landlord took any learning from the complaint or implemented actions to prevent a recurrence of the failings it had identified in the future. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure is intended to support and assist its wider service delivery, but this has not happened in this case. Therefore, a finding of service failure is made.
In October 2022 the Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord. This included details of complaint handling failures that are reflected in this case, such as inadequate analysis of what had gone wrong and a lack of an effective action plan or evidence of learning from the complaint. The report recommended the landlord produced an action plan to improve the timeliness, quality and consistency of its complaint responses, which the landlord subsequently did. As such, no orders are made regarding the complaint handling failings in this case as the actions that the landlord has already taken should have addressed these.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of, and the communication about, the leak in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling and level of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the residents request to be reimbursed for her loss of rental income was ruled outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay compensation of £2130 comprised of:
1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the leak (in addition to £430 offered at stage two).
2. £100 for the additional time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident due to its handling of the insurance claim.
3. £1030 as previously offered at stage two.
4. The amount should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears or service charges that may be owed.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Conduct a senior review into how it managed, reviewed, and organised the ongoing repair issue in this case with its contractors/third parties, to identify the reasons for the failings, and what actions have/will be taken to prevent a recurrence in the future. It should ascertain how to create a better channel of communication between the parties, to provide a better service to residents. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review, detailing its findings and any actions that have been or will be taken as a result.
2. If it has not done so in the last 12 months, conduct staff training on how to handle claims for compensation and when to refer to the landlord’s own insurer. This should be undertaken in line with the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on complaints involving insurance issues’ available on our website.