Clarion Housing Association Limited (202216394)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216394

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 March 2025

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 response to the resident’s:
1. Report of a leak.
2. Request:
  1. That it buy back his property.
  2. For information relating to his property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord which is a housing association. The lease commenced on 26 March 2009. The landlord’s records do not show the resident has any vulnerabilities. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the second floor.
On 21 March 2021 the resident reported that his roof was leaking into his living room. Works to repair the roof started in September and were completed by October 2021.
On 30 September 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint, as follows:
1. The leak through to the living room ceiling occurred in January following a thaw of heavy snowfall. The landlord inspected but there were no further updates. The leak did not get worse but a small patch of water damage remained.
2. Scaffolding was erected in July without notice. The contractor advised that repairs would be completed in August however, this did not happen. When the resident chased he was told the roofer had broken his hand and would attend in September.
3. Work started week beginning 20 September but only lasted for 2 days. The works were not completed but the scaffolding remained.
4. When the resident chased on 27 September the contractor said they had run out of roof tiles and were waiting for more. That morning there was “substantial” rain fall and a further small leak appeared in the living room.
5. By 28 September the damage had “severely worsened”. On 29 September the contractor assured the resident that the property would be watertight by the end of the day.
6. The contractor agreed to send an electrician to check the safety of electrical sockets due to water damage. This was booked in for 30 September.
7. He was dissatisfied with:
  1. The time taken to complete the repair and the risk caused by water damage to the electrical sockets.
  2. The general inconvenience caused, particularly having to liaise with the contractor himself with no support from the landlord.
  3. The internal damage caused to the property that had recently been redecorated.
During August 2022 the resident tried to sell his property. However, due to a cyber attack on 17 June 2022 the landlord was unable to provide the parties with information that had been requested as part of the sale. This resulted in the potential buyer pulling out. The resident subsequently asked the landlord to consider buying back the property.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, the main points being:
1. The resident’s request that it buy back the property did not fall within its policy. This was because it only applied to shared owners who paid rent on the remaining unsold equity in their home who were in “severe financial difficulty” had exhausted all other options and required the landlord to buyback the property as a “last resort.” It was aimed at preventing repossession and loss of a home.
2. No work had been carried out at the property since October 2021. There was no record of outstanding works therefore there was no failure of service.
3. On 12 December the resident had advised that all repairs and damage were resolved. He confirmed that his complaint was about the time taken which caused issues with the sale of property. It could not see there had been any issues in the past 6 months. There were no failures of service and the complaint was not upheld.
On 22 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that it had “slightly misunderstood” about the roof repairs. He reiterated that the complaint was about the delay in completing the works as set out in his complaint of 2021. He advised he was also unhappy with both its inability to provide information to his buyer and its response to his request to buy back the flat.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2023, as follows:
1. Its position regarding the buyback request was the same and it reiterated the information provided at stage 1.
2. Due to a cyber attack it was unable to retrieve the records of the roof repair. However, an email from its contractor dated 7 October 2022 confirmed minor damage was caused by not making an area “completely weatherproof” while awaiting materials to complete works.
3. The resident had advised he resolved this by applying stain block and painting the water stain. It had no reason to doubt the resident’s account therefore it offered £500 compensation.
4. Its resales team requested the presale pack on 29 June 2022 which was after the cyber attack. It requested information from internal teams on 15 July once interim ways of working were in place. The pack was issued to the resales team on 3 August. It would not offer compensation because the delays were outside of its control.
5. On 24 February 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss options for the sale of the property. The resident had recently advised he was seeking a further valuation and it was assisting his surveyor with their enquiries.
6. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in issuing the complaint response.
On 15 June 2023 the resident contacted us because he did not consider that the offer of compensation was proportionate to the complaint. The complaint became one we could investigate on 14 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s home ownership guide confirms that it aims to carry out routine repairs within 28 days.
Its Shared Ownership Buyback Policy and Procedure applies to shared owners who:
1. Pay rent on the remaining unsold equity in their home.
2. Are in severe financial difficulty, have exhausted all other options and require the landlord to buy back a share of their property as a last resort.
It is aimed at preventing repossession and the loss of the home.
Its Interim Complaints Policy dated 17 June 2022 stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
Its Compensation Policy states it will consider a discretionary payment of between £50 to £250 for failure to meet service standards for actions and responses where the failure had no significant impact.

Scope of the investigation.

It is beyond our expertise to assess the effectiveness of the landlord’s digital security measures. However, we can assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.

On 21 March 2021 the resident made an online repair request. He said the roof was leaking through to the living room. It was inspected a month ago but he’d not heard anything since. He said he was in the process of trying to sell his property and needed the issue to be resolved.
The landlord replied on 22 March 2021 to say it would chase and respond “as soon as possible.” However, there is no evidence it did so which was inappropriate causing distress to the resident. Furthermore, it caused him inconvenience when he emailed again on 30 September 2021.
In his email he said that although he received no further communication from the landlord scaffolding was erected in July 2021. When he spoke to the contractor he was told the repairs would be completed in August 2021.
Works did not progress causing distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to chase the contractor for an updates. There is no evidence that the landlord provided any updates during this period which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 14 March 2023 acknowledged that its cyber attack meant it could not retrieve its repair records relating to the roof repair. It is concerning that 9 months after the cyber attack the landlord was still unable to retrieve the relevant information. The landlord should ensure it has sufficient resources to recover internal records, such as repair records in the event of a complaint.
Between March and July 2021 there was no communication and no evidence of works taking place on the roof. When the scaffolding was erected in July it took a further 2 months for works to be completed. During that time the damage worsened including issues associated with the contractor’s workmanship. It took 6 months for the landlord to resolve the substantive issue which impacted on the resident’s ability to sell the property. Furthermore, the resident had to liaise with the contractor himself which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The £500 compensation offered by the landlord at stage 2 is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. Therefore, it is proportionate to the failings identified in this report.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord identified learning from the complaint to ensure it would not repeat its failings. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of compensation does not prevent an adverse finding.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it buy back his property.

It is unclear exactly when the resident asked the landlord to buyback the property. However, the landlord’s complaint responses of 20 December 2022 and 14 March 2023 were appropriately in line with its Shared Ownership Buyback Policy and Procedure.
There is no evidence that the resident disputed the landlord’s assertion that he did not meet the criteria set out in its policy and procedure. Therefore, this investigation concludes there was no failure of service.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information relating to his property.

On 17 June 2022 the landlord suffered an illegal cyber attack which affected its records and systems.
On 30 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the sale of his property was at risk because of the delay in its response to his buyer’s enquiries. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which was inappropriate.
It caused the resident distress and inconvenience because he emailed the landlord again on 28 September 2022 to chase. He was concerned his buyer was going to pull out due to the delay.
On 7 October 2022 the landlord replied to say that due to the cyber attack it did not have all the information that had been requested. It had provided all the information it had to his solicitor and had set out the situation regarding the availability of information at that time.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 14 March 2023 confirmed that the request for the presale pack was made on 29 June 2022, after the cyber attack, and was provided on 3 August 2022.
It is unclear why database backups were not able to be accessed. The absence of records caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
However, this investigation considers that the time taken by the landlord to provide the information it did have was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and failed to put things right.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 30 September 2021. On 12 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had raised a stage 1 complaint and would respond within 20 working days.
It is unclear what prompted the landlord to contact the resident at that time. However, it failed to provide a complaint response and did not provide any updates about when he could expect it. This was inappropriate because it failed to manage the resident’s expectations which caused uncertainty.
It also caused inconvenience to the resident who contacted us on 28 October 2022 to request assistance to resolve his complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 5 December to request that it provide a response by 19 December 2022.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 December 2022. This was over 12 months from the date the complaint was made and 7 months from the date it was acknowledged which far exceeded its response times.
The landlord’s response apologised for the delay. However, it did not go far enough to acknowledge that the significant length of the delay compounded the distress caused to the resident. Furthermore, it failed to consider how it might put things right by offering compensation in line with its Compensation Policy which was inappropriate.
The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code requires landlords to respond to all points of the complaint. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response showed that it had misunderstood the resident’s complaint. It also demonstrated that it failed to carry out a thorough complaint investigation which was inappropriate.
This is because it failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of the roof repairs prior to October 2021. It also failed to investigate and respond to the issues relating to the cyber attack and provision of information.
The lack of detail caused the resident further time and trouble. On 22 January 2023 he emailed the landlord to express his concerns about the stage 1 response. It emailed the resident the following day to confirm that his complaint had been escalated and that it would respond within 20 working days. It is unclear why it did so because its interim complaints policy set out that it would respond within 40 working days.
The landlord failed to provide a response causing distress and inconvenience to the resident who emailed the landlord on 16 February and 6 March 2023 to chase. He expressed his frustration with the delay.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 March 2023. This was 36 working days after the complaint was made which exceeded the 20 working day target which was communicated to the resident. However, it was within the target set out in its Interim Complaints Policy. The landlord’s miscommunication caused avoidable frustration to the resident. The lack of clarity is further compounded by the landlord’s apology for the delay and offer of £50 compensation.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately put right its earlier errors regarding its failure to respond to all the points of the complaint.
In response to a previous determination, case reference 202233437, on 11 April 2024 the landlord advised us that it had carried out training sessions with its customer solutions team on complaint handling. This included a focus on the new Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code and its new Complaints Policy. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make a further order in this case.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that the landlord buy back his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information relating to his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the report.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation comprised of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by response to the resident’s request for information relating to his property.
  2. £200 for the distress and time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £50 it offered if this has already been paid.
3. The landlord should reoffer the £500 compensation for its failures in responding to the roof leak if this has not already been paid.
Evidence of the above orders should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks the landlord should carry out a review of the case to identify what went wrong with the roof repairs and what it will do differently in the future. It should provide a copy of the review to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.