Clarion Housing Association Limited (202204869)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204869

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 January 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 a burst pipe and subsequent damage.

Background

2. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy for a fixed term of six years that started on 28 May 2021.
3. On 20 May 2022 the resident experienced a water escape from a burst water pipe that caused damage.
4. The resident complained to his landlord on 7 June 2022 that all his flooring and skirting boards had been damaged. He suggested to his landlord that the leak had affected the sub-flooring and mentioned the presence of mould and damp. The resident told his landlord that he had incurred £4,000 of damage.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 2 September 2022 and said:
   1. it apologised for the delay in its response caused by IT issues following a cyber-security incident
   2. the resident notified it of the leak on 20 May 2022 and it dealt with this to isolate and repair the pipe on that day
   3. it inspected the resident’s property on 11 July 2022 and confirmed with the resident that the resident would need new flooring
   4. it could not proceed with a scheduled inspection of the resident’s property on 29 July 2022 because the resident had not responded to its appointment
   5. it agreed on another inspection for 30 August 2022 which revealed that there was staining to the resident’s flooring that the resident was responsible for
   6. the resident could either claim for the damaged flooring on his insurance or contact the landlord’s insurance team
   7. the landlord also agreed to overhaul the resident’s toilets on 15 September 2022 and remove the boxing in the bathroom to check for damp and mould. It had agreed to re–glue and re–seal the bathroom flooring
   8. the landlord offered £250 to the resident for service failures and delays in responding to the resident’s complaint.
6. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 7 October 2022 following the resident’s escalation request and said:
   1. it apologised for the delay in its response due to the cyber-security incident that affected its systems
   2. there were no service failures, and it conducted all repairs within its service level agreement
   3. it had dealt with the major water leak within 24 hours of the resident reporting it and it removed as much water as possible
   4. it inspected the resident’s property on 11 July 2022 and confirmed the resident would need new carpeting and vinyl flooring in the bathroom needed re-fitting
   5. it had to cancel a follow–up inspection on 29 July 2022 as the resident had not confirmed the appointment with its contractors
   6. it arranged another inspection on 30 August 2022, and it agreed to follow up works on 15 September 2022 to overhaul the toilets
   7. it made an appointment for 20 September 2022 to re–fit and re–seal the vinyl floor in the bathroom and check for mould in the boxing
   8. it agreed to mould wash and apply stain block as required and to make good the skirting in the bathroom and renew the plinth to the sink
   9. it sympathised with the resident for the inconvenience and difficulty caused by the water escape. It conducted emergency work on the same day and was unable to proceed with follow-up work because the resident had not responded
   10. the resident would need to claim on their own insurance or contact the landlord’s insurance team for damaged contents
   11. it would honour the compensation offered at stage 1 and would offer an additional £50 for the delay in responding at stage 2.
7. The resident expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s response asserting that he experienced extensive damage at his property and asked us to investigate.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the burst pipe and damage

8. The landlord was responsible, on receiving notice of the disrepair, for keeping in repair and proper working order the water pipes at the resident’s property. This was under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It was also responsible for repairing the consequential water damage.
9. The landlord received notice of the burst water pipe on 20 May 2022 and responded within 24 hours to stop the leak and perform a repair. This was appropriate and reasonable as the response was in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
10. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 June 2022 that he had experienced extensive damage to his property. The landlord raised a job on 14 June 2022 to inspect the resident’s property to assess the situation on 11 July 2022. The Ombudsman considers that this was a reasonable response to assess the damage.
11. The landlord’s evidence is that it attempted to arrange a follow-up inspection for 29 July 2022 with the resident but could not make contact as he was away. The landlord claimed that it left a card for the resident. It has not been possible to verify this and there is no evidence that the landlord arranged another inspection until 30 August 2022.
12. Whilst this is a gap of a month there was no emergency or policy the landlord had that specified the intervals between inspections. The resident chased the landlord on 15 August 2022. The landlord responded on 17 August 2022 to arrange an inspection. Given this, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions were reasonable. At the inspection on 30 August 2022, the landlord told the resident that it would not repair the staining caused to his flooring by the water escape.
13. The landlord agreed at this appointment to overhaul the resident’s two toilets as they had a slight weep, and it booked this for 15 September 2022. It also agreed to re–fit down the vinyl floor in the bathroom and check for mould within the boxed-off areas. This included making good any damage to the boxing and skirting boards and treating any mould it found and renewing the plinth to the sink. It booked this for 20 September 2022.
14. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions were reasonable. This is because it inspected the resident’s property within a reasonable timescale, having dealt with the initial emergency within 24 hours of notification. It identified the repairs that needed doing and which it was responsible for, and it arranged for these.
15. There was no breach of its repairing obligations as it responded within a reasonable period of the resident notifying it of the burst pipe. It also conducted follow-up works on the resident’s property within 28 calendar days of its inspection which was in line with its repairs policy.
16. There is no evidence of any ongoing damp and mould at the resident’s property and the resident informs us there are no outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord’s approach to the repairs.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation

17. The landlord was required to take a fair and reasonable approach to the resident’s claim for compensation for the damage. In assessing the landlord’s response, the Ombudsman must have regard to its dispute resolution principles. The landlord must treat residents fairly and follow a fair process.
18. The landlord told the resident on 11 July and 30 August 2022 that it was not responsible for his flooring. In doing so the landlord communicated that it did not accept that it was at fault or caused the leak, and so by extension, it would not be responsible for damage to his furniture.
19. We note that the resident’s tenancy agreement did not create an obligation for the landlord to replace the resident’s damaged floor or furniture. There was also no evidence that the landlord’s actions or omissions caused the water to escape from the burst pipe either.
20. Under these circumstances the Ombudsman considers that it was fair and appropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to claim on his insurance. This is because contents insurance is suitable in situations like this where damage is caused which is not the fault of anyone.
21. The landlord informed the resident that he could contact its insurance team to make a claim if he considered the landlord responsible for the damage. This again was a fair and appropriate response to the resident’s assertion that he was unwilling to claim on his own insurance. This is because this course of action would allow an insurer to assess the resident’s claim to see if the landlord was negligent or otherwise responsible.
22. Whilst the landlord did not accept liability in its stage 2 response it was willing to offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It took nearly three months for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. This delay was excessively long and amounted to a service failure. It took 24 working days for the landlord to respond at stage 2 which was a short delay that caused no detriment.
23. The landlord apologised for the delay in the complaint handling and acted fairly by acknowledging this and offering discretionary compensation to the resident. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted fairly and sought to put things right.
24. The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the range we would expect for the delays and to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident. The Ombudsman therefore considers the redress was reasonable in all the circumstances to acknowledge the service failure.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a burst water pipe and subsequent damage satisfactorily.

Recommendations

26. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident directly the £300 it offered if it has not already done so, within 28 days of the date of this determination.