Clarion Housing Association Limited (202209035)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209035

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 December 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. A leak to her home.
2. Lift repairs.
The Housing Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The property is a 3 bedroom flat on the third floor. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in the property with her 3 children.
The landlord named in this report is a leaseholder in the building and is not responsible for communal and structural repairs. There is a freeholder which is responsible for the communal and structural parts of the building, including the lifts. The freeholder has a managing agent which oversees communal and structural repairs on its behalf.
On or around 17 October 2023, the landlord received a report of damage to the lift keypad. The landlord passed this report to the managing agent responsible for communal repairs.
On 20 October 2023, the resident reported a leak coming through the ceiling in her children’s bedroom. She said the ceiling was bowing and the plastering was damaged. The landlord attended on the same day to complete temporary repairs and to make the ceiling and electrics safe.
On the same day, the resident also raised a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. Her complaint, in summary, said:
1. The lift did not stop on the third floor as the button had been damaged.
2. There had been a leak from the flat above into her son’s bedroom.
3. She wanted compensation for her damaged belongings due to the leak.
From October to November 2023, the landlord regularly chased the managing agent for updates when the lift repair was going to be completed.
On 23 November 2023, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. In its response, the landlord apologised, and said:
1. It completed emergency repairs to the bedroom on the same day it was reported but recognised there had been delays to completing the follow-up work to fully resolve the issue.
2. It provided the resident with details how to submit a liability claim against its insurer for damaged personal items.
3. It said the damage to the lift was due to vandalism, but the freeholder’s managing agent was in the process of completing the repairs.
4. It apologised for the delays and offered £165 in compensation. This was comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delays in responding to her complaint.
  2. £15 for a missed appointment for the leak on 9 November 2023.
  3. £100 for inconvenience, time, and trouble and consideration of the age of the children in the household.
On 29 November 2023, the managing agent wrote to the landlord and said the repair to the lift keypad would be completed on 1 December 2023. The managing agent said its contractor had difficulty acquiring parts and the appointment was rearranged to 4 December 2023.
On 2 January 2024, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure and reported a new leak from the ceiling in the same bedroom. She said the leak damaged a new mattress she bought following the earlier leak. The resident said she was told that an operative would attend between 11am and 2pm but failed to do so. The resident said the situation was impacting her mental health and referred to historical issues she had experienced in her property and in the block.
On 4 January 2024, the managing agent wrote to the landlord and said that it had identified a new fault to the lift and more parts were required. The landlord kept in touch with the managing agent and the repairs were completed by 9 February 2024.
On 23 February 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord and said that water was still coming through the ceiling to her son’s bedroom. She said she was told that she would have to wait for roof repairs to be complete. The landlord raised this with the managing agent.
On 15 March 2024, the managing agent told the landlord it had completed the repairs to the roof of the block.
On 21 March 2024, the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. In the complaint response, the landlord explained that it was not responsible for communal areas because it was not the freeholder. The landlord, however, provided an explanation and summarised:
1. There had been various lift outages, which sometimes required parts. The landlord explained what had happened at each outage and said that it regularly chased the managing agent for updates.
2. It recognised there were some delays after the second leak as it failed to tell the managing agent about the leak and provided new appointments for the remedial works. It again provided the resident with information how she could submit a liability claim against the landlord for any damaged items.
3. It also offered an additional £500 in compensation, comprised of:
  1. £250 for failing to notify the managing agent about the new leak
  2. £200 for the inconvenience due to the lift outages
  3. £50 for the delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord. The resident is seeking an increase in compensation in view of her damaged floor coverings and personal belongings. The resident is also seeking increased compensation due to the time, trouble and stress she has experienced as a result of the issues affecting her property.
When we spoke to the resident, she said the leak started again in September 2024. This resulted in the landlord offering to temporarily move (decant) her to a hotel. The resident said she declined this offer and said she has been living with her mum since then. The resident has said the landlord and the managing agent are currently in the process of completing new repairs to the communal areas and structure of the building.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation will assess the events which gave rise to the resident’s complaint on 20 October 2023. It will also consider the landlord’s responses up to and including its final complaint response on 21 March 2024.
In her complaint to this service, the resident said the leak started again in September 2024. This was after the landlord issued its final complaint response. The resident has said this is because the leak was not properly repaired. The resident has told this service that she and her children moved in with her mum at the end of September 2024 and are still there today. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the return of the leak would be frustrating. However, the issues reported after the landlord’s final response will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that we may only look at matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Whilst we note the resident’s comments, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish at this stage what caused the new leak as the landlord needs to investigate this. However, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to issue a new complaint response if she wants to complain about this issue in line with its formal complaints procedures. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to this, she may be able to bring a new case to this service at that stage.
In her complaint to this service, the resident has asked to be compensated for the damage caused to her personal belongings following the leak. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would be more appropriately dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is noted that the landlord provided the resident with details on how she could raise a claim through the landlord’s own liability insurer should she wish to do so. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide this information as the landlord is not obliged to pay for liability claims outside of the insurance process.
During the period of the complaint, the resident told the landlord the situation was impacting her mental health. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s testimony and we recognise this has been a particularly challenging time for her. However, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and any specific health condition. If the resident wants to take this aspect of her complaint further, she could consider making a liability claim through the landlord’s liability insurance procedure. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it. We will, however, consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her health alongside any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced caused by the landlord’s errors.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy separates repairs into different response times depending on the nature of the repair being reported. These are:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours
2. Non-emergency repairs within 28 days
The policy says emergency repairs are those which present a danger to the resident or the property. The repairs policy also states that the landlord will complete communal repairs if it has responsibility for doing so.

The landlord’s handling of the leak

When the resident first reported the leak to the landlord, its initial response was appropriate. It logged the relevant emergency repairs and attended within the timescales in its repairs policy. The landlord identified the leak was coming from a pipe to the flat above and repaired it. This was a fair course of action to take.
The evidence shows that the landlord scheduled an appointment to complete the follow-up repairs to the resident’s ceiling and the pipe on 10 November 2023. However, the landlord’s contractor was unable to gain access due to reported parking difficulties around the block. The resident raised concerns about this with the landlord on the same day. In response, the landlord offered to complete the works the following day on 11 November 2023 and reinstate the light on the 13 November 2023. It was reasonable of the landlord to recognise the resident’s concerns about this and prioritise the appointment for completion. Whilst it was undoubtedly inconvenient for the resident, the missed appointment due to parking availability was beyond the landlord’s control.
In January 2024, the resident told the landlord about a further leak from the ceiling. The landlord’s repairs logs shows that it attended to the leak and identified that it was coming from the roof. However, the landlord failed to realise the repair was actually the responsibility of the freeholder. This meant there was an unnecessary delay in the repair being completed. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to consider additional training for staff to ensure that blocks with separate freeholders and/or managing agents are identified at the first point of contact to enable repairs to be logged and followed up on promptly.
The resident also frequently told the landlord about the stress of the situation and the impact it was having her on mental health. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord explored this further and considered whether repairs may have needed prioritising or if the resident needed any further support, such as signposting to external agencies. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider this which was unreasonable and demonstrated poor customer service.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it recognised it had unnecessarily delayed to notify the managing agent of the roof leak. It offered a further £250 compensation (alongside the compensation offered at stage 1) for this specific failure. It also arranged a new appointment to make good any outstanding damaged areas and offered to dispose of the resident’s damaged floor coverings. Although it was not under any obligation to do so, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer to dispose of the resident’s damaged floor covering.
The Ombudsman’s role is to now consider whether the redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings to notify the managing agent of the roof repair 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 was line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Whilst it is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right for the resident, the £350 offered in the landlord’s complaint responses was not fully reflective of the impact on the resident and her children from the landlord’s errors. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation in view of the distress, inconvenience, and impact on the resident from its errors. This amount also takes into consideration the landlord’s failure to explore the impact the situation may have been having on the resident’s health when she raised this with it. This sum also takes into account the ages of her children which meant the leaks and the landlord’s handling of it would have had a more severe effect on them compared to others in the same position. The amount ordered is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, where a finding of maladministration has been made but there may be no permanent impact from the landlord’s errors.

The landlord’s handling of the lift repairs

When the resident told the landlord about problems with the lift, it promptly passed these on to the freeholder’s managing agent to action the repairs. The landlord acted reasonably in ensuring the repairs were being passed on to the managing agent promptly once it became aware of them.
Throughout the various reports of lift outages made by the resident, the landlord ensured that it was holding the managing agent to account to complete the repairs. It ensured that concerns by residents were passed on and it kept in regular contact with the managing agent for updates. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take.
Two of the lift repairs were thought to have been caused by vandalism. The landlord recognised this, once it became aware, and made enquiries to identify the potential perpetrator and hold them to account. This was an appropriate course of action in reducing the likelihood that this would happen again.
When the resident told the landlord she had injured herself when navigating the stairs, the landlord responded reasonably by visiting her to understand the impact of the injury. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord provided the resident with details of its public liability insurance. This was a reasonable step to take, as set out above in this report.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord’s handling of the lift outages was appropriate and reasonable. In the absence of a service failure, the landlord had no obligation to award compensation to the resident. However, it offered £200 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the fact that the resident and her children had been inconvenienced due to the various outages. It was positive that the landlord recognised the impact on the resident. The landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure in place at the time of the complaint, says it will acknowledge a complaint within 10 working days, and issue a response within 20 working days of it being logged. It also says that a resident can then request a peer review (stage 2) which would be acknowledged within 10 working days. The landlord says it aims to resolve peer reviews within 40 working days but would tell the resident if that deadline could not be met.
When the resident raised her complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure there was a delay of 4 working days in the landlord issuing its response. The landlord recognised this delay when it issued the stage 1 complaint response and offered £50 compensation for the delay. It was appropriate and fair of the landlord to recognise the delay at stage 1 and offer compensation. The compensation amount was reasonable taking into account the length of the delay.
When the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 2 January 2024, there was a more significant delay by the landlord in issuing its response. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 17 working days late. The landlord again recognised this delay and offered an additional £50.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may pay compensation of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.. Therefore, the compensation offer already made by the landlord to resolve this part of the complaint was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. The Housing Ombudsman makes a determination of reasonable redress with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of the lift repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the element about its complaints handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 5 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused due to errors in its handling of the leaks between October 2023 and March 2024.
2. The landlord should also pay the resident the compensation offered at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints procedure, unless this has already been paid.
  1. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contacts the resident about the more recent leak and provides her with an opportunity to raise a complaint about this or progress any current complaints.
2. Updates the resident on the progress of any outstanding repairs.
3. Arranges training for staff to help identify blocks where there a managing agents and freeholders, to ensure that staff are able to escalate repairs appropriately and other residents do not experience similar delays.