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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202226767)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226767

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, she resides in a 2 bed, 1st floor flat.
  2. On 13 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak from the property above. She asked the landlord to make contact with her neighbour as she was uncomfortable doing so due to a previous altercation.
  3. On 16 December 2022, the resident reported that she contacted the landlord again as the leak was still unresolved, it was intermittent and only occurred when the neighbour above was home. At this stage she had spoken to her neighbour whom she felt was being uncooperative and avoiding allowing access.
  4. On 17 December 2022, the leak re-occurred, and an emergency repair was raised. The landlord attended on the same day but was unable to gain access to the property above, therefore the leak continued. Access was granted on 19 December 2022, and it was determined that the leak was beneath the floor, therefore a follow on job was required. The landlord’s records show that at this time the resident’s ceiling was dry to the touch.
  5. The resident logged a complaint on 20 December 2022, stating that the leak had been ongoing for 7 days. She had made several telephone calls to the landlord and was particularly concerned that the leak was above her electric meter and fuse box. She said that she had been inconvenienced by having to wait in all weekend yet the leak had not been resolved. Furthermore, no one had attended to check the safety of the electrics.
  6. On 21 December 2022, a new WC was installed in the property above, and the leak was resolved.
  7. Within its stage 1 response on 9 January 2023, the landlord acknowledged that communication issues between its out of hours team and responsive repairs department contributed to delays. Furthermore, it confirmed that it would investigate the access issues as a potential breach of tenancy. In resolution of the complaint, it offered £150 compensation for time and trouble, inconvenience and also in recognition of its failure to follow due process.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint, she also wanted to know why the landlord did not exercise its right to force entry and why her concerns regarding the electrics were not addressed. The landlord responded on 31 January 2023, it said that forced entry was not necessary in the circumstance. Furthermore, it said that while it appreciated the resident’s concerns regarding the electrics, it was confident that it did not put the household at risk. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £200.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her compliant and therefore approached this Service. She felt that the landlord failed to act with any urgency and did not give the appropriate consideration to the safety of her household.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repair policy classifies an emergency repair as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. It states that it will attend within 24 hours to make safe or complete a temporary repair. Further repairs may then be required.
  2. The resident reports that she first contacted the landlord on 13 December 2022 to report the leak. From the evidence provided by the landlord there is no record of this telephone conversation, however, the landlord does not dispute that it occurred. In the absence of any records, we are unable to determine what action, if any, the landlord took to contact the neighbour above. While the leak was intermittent it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have documented the report and recorded its attempts to contact the neighbour.
  3. The resident made several more telephone calls to the landlord between 16-17 December 2022, again there is no record of these conversations, demonstrating a record keeping failure.
  4. The first logged contact was later in the day on 17 December 2022, during this call the resident reported that the leak was above her electric meter and fuse box. At this stage the repair was appropriately logged as an emergency and the landlord attended out of hours on the same day. During this visit the landlord was unable to gain access into the property above to resolve the leak. The evidence shows that the outcome of this appointment was not communicated to the repairs team until 2 days later, therefore, no follow on jobs were raised. The landlord’s failure to act with the appropriate urgency resulted in further delays causing inconvenience and distress to the resident.
  5. A follow on visit was not made until the neighbour above contacted the landlord on 19 December 2022. The landlord attended on the same day but was unable to locate the leak. The evidence shows that during this visit the landlord checked the resident’s ceiling and reported that it was ‘dry to the touch’ and that no water had come through for 1.5 days. While the landlord acted with the appropriate urgency at this stage and repaired the leak on 21 December 2022, it is reasonable to conclude that its failure to act earlier resulted in avoidable delays.
  6. While we have not seen sight of the neighbour’s occupancy agreement it would be reasonable to assume that there is a clause relating to access in emergency situations. While it is understood that landlords only tend to use forced entry for leaks of an uncontainable nature, the landlord has failed to provide any evidence to show that it made reasonable attempts to contact the neighbour and gain access. We would expect to see records of attempted telephone calls and urgent contact cards being hand delivered.
  7. As a result of the leak the resident raised concerns regarding the safety of her electrics. She was told that an electrician would attend on 20 December 2022, however this did not happen. Within its final response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns but said that it was satisfied that had water got into the electrics then they would have tripped. It was unreasonable of the landlord to tell the resident that an electrician would attend but fail to follow through with this. An electrical inspection would have been good practice following a leak within close proximity to the meter and fuse box, furthermore it would have re-assured the resident that her property was safe.
  8. Within its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that communication failures between its out of hours team and responsive repairs resulted in delays causing distress and inconvenience. In recognition of this it offered the resident £200 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy for a failure to meet service standards and therefore reasonable redress.
  9. In summary, due to poor record keeping and communication the landlord failed to carry out an effective repair with the required urgency. The avoidable delays resulted in distress for the resident, furthermore, she spent time and trouble chasing the landlord and waiting for operatives to attend. While the landlord’s offer of financial compensation was reasonable in the circumstance, a further recommendation has been made to improve its record keeping and communication.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the property above.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. The landlord should pay the £200 compensation it had already offered to the resident, if it has not already done so.
    2. The landlord should assess its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.