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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202220337)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220337

Clarion Housing Association Limited

1 November 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 the resident’s reports of a repair to the shower.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a flat, and the landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for him.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 September 2022 to report an issue with his shower. He said that when the hot tap was turned on, the pressure dropped “completely”. The landlord attended on 29 September 2022. It is unclear what action it took at the visit.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord to report the issue again on 20 October 2022. He said the issue was not resolved and the landlord’s operatives had said a pump needed fitting. The landlord marked the job as complete on 9 November 2022. Again, it is unclear what action the landlord took at the time. The resident made a complaint on 14 November 2022. He said the issue was ongoing for “over a year”, and was told by operatives that a pump was needed.
  4. Following an intervention from this Service, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 28 February 2023. It said it had attended in September and November 2022 and identified the solution would be to install a “booster pump”. It said this would be classed as an “improvement” and needed to be addressed by its surveying team. It said the surveying team would test the water pressure on 7 March 2023. This was to ensure it met the “national guidance” for minimum pressure. If it did not then it would consider installing a pump. It did not uphold the shower aspect of the complaint, apologised for the delay in sending the complaint response, and offered £50 in compensation for complaint handling.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, and asked his complaint to go to stage 2 on 6 March 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 25 April 2023. It said the resident’s mixer tap with hose attachment was not designed to be used as a “proper shower”. It said its surveyor had “confirmed” the resident would need permission to install a pump, and shower. It advised the resident he could seek an occupation therapist (OT) referral through his GP if he needed a shower for medical reasons.

Events after the complaint

  1. The resident contacted this Service on 19 June 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the landlord had offered “no resolution” for the water pressure issue.
  2. The landlord contacted this Service in February 2024 and said it had decided to install an electric shower in the resident’s property. It believed this would “solve” the issue with low water pressure. The evidence indicates the landlord sought to install a new electric shower in May 2024, but the resident did not agree as trunking for electrics would be left visible. The landlord agreed an alternative solution with the resident in September 2024, and was due to install the new shower on 21 October 2024.

 Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. When the resident made his stage 2 complaint, on 6 March 2023, he said the shower had caused him an injury. He said his skin was “burnt” by the “extremely hot” water, and this was caused by the low pressure. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  2. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  3. Both the landlord’s complaint responses responded to the shower issue, and another repair. The landlord offered compensation for the other repair. When the resident asked this Service to investigate his complaint he expressed that he was only unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the shower issue. We have therefore focused our investigation on the landlord’s handling of the shower repair. Given the landlord did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint, we have determined its offer of compensation (£300) was not offered for its handling of the shower issue.
  4. As part of his complaint, the resident stated that the shower issue was ongoing since 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
  5. Therefore, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from September 2022. This is when the resident raised the issue again in the months preceding his complaint. This approach is taken in line with that set out in our Scheme.

Repair to the shower

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that non emergency repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord accepts responsibility for repairs to showers it had supplied.
  3. The evidence shows that when the resident reported the water pressure issue in the shower in September, and October 2022, the landlord attended within the timeframes mandated by its responsive repairs policy. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence that the landlord accepted its repair responsibility for the shower. There is no recorded outcome of the visits at the time, which is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping.
  4. We note the comments in the landlord’s stage 1 response, that it advised the resident at the time a pump would be classed as an “improvement”. However, we have seen no evidence to corroborate that this information was communicated to the resident at the repairs visits. The resident was evidently of the impression he was told it would install a pump. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that its communication about the issue lacked clarity and the resident was left unsure on its official position. This caused him an inconvenience.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of February 2023, went some way to putting the above failing right. It formally explained its position about the shower, and the resident’s request for pump. That it failed to acknowledge or apologise for its poor communication about the issue up to that point was inappropriate.
  6. It is unclear, due to the lack of recorded outcomes of the visits in late 2022, what investigations the landlord had done up to that point to satisfy itself the water pressure was adequate. Therefore, that it set out that it would conduct further investigations to establish whether the water pressure met the minimum standards was appropriate, and went some way to putting this right. This is evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously, and sought to thoroughly investigate.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of April 2023, was unclear on the outcome of the water pressure testing. It is noted that it outlined its position that the resident would need to seek permission and pay for the installation of the pump. However, that it did not provide the findings of its testing in its complaint response in support of its position was unreasonable. Its response lacked clarity, and its lack of appropriate explanation inconvenienced the resident.
  8. From the evidence provided, it is unclear what pressure testing the landlord did, or if the outcome was communicated to the resident at the time. The landlord told this Service, on 8 October 2024, that it had come to the conclusion in September 2022 that “no further testing was required”. It is therefore unclear why the landlord advised it would do further testing in February 2023, if it was already satisfied the pressure was not sufficient. The evidence shows the landlord’s communication about the issue lacked clarity, which can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to the delay in offering the solution of installing a new shower.
  9. Based on the evidence available, it is unclear why the landlord changed its position and decided to install a new shower. The landlord appears to have accepted the water pressure was insufficient, and its comments provided for this investigation suggest it came to this position in September 2022. The landlord sought to install the new shower in May 2024, which was well over a year after it had identified the water pressure was inadequate. We have determined the later delay (May to October 2024) was outside of the landlord’s control. The resident was evidently distressed due to the issues with the shower, and the delay on the part of the landlord of identifying a solution increased the distress he experienced.
  10. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 is appropriate to put things right for the resident. The guidance states that a finding of maladministration is appropriate when there is a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right. Considering the failings identified above, and the distress and inconvenience caused by the issue, we have determined that £350 in compensation would put things right for the resident.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints procedure and will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 73 working days after the resident first made his complaint. This was a long delay, and a failing in its complaint handling that caused an inconvenience. The response was sent well outside of the timeframes in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of complaint handling practices.
  3. The landlord appropriately apologised, and showed learning about how it would improve its service. It set out that it had asked the managers of the relevant teams to complete training with their staff to ensure complaint were appropriately raised. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation was made for the delay alone. Its response and gave no acknowledgement of the time and trouble the resident was cost by needing to seek assistance from this Service. This was inappropriate and a shortcoming in its response.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 36 working days after the resident first asked his complaint to go to stage 2. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. This was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling that caused the resident an inconvenience.
  5. That the landlord did not acknowledge, or apologise, for the delay in its response was a further failing in its complaint handling. This is evidence the landlord failed to learn from the outcomes of its delayed stage 1 response, and made similar failings at stage 2. By not showing learning, and offering redress, for the delay the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right, and build trust with the resident.
  6. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined the landlord’s offer of £50 in compensation did not fully put things right. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional £50 to what it offered for is complaint handling. This amount was calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to the shower.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £450 in compensation. The landlord’s £50 offer of compensation should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £350 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the shower repair.
      2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.