Clarion Housing Association Limited (202228003)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228003

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 September 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:
1. The decant process, including the offer of alternative permanent accommodation and its offer of compensation.
2. The resident’s associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident was the assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom maisonette in a block owned by the landlord. She lived with her husband and 3 adult children.
On 7 December 2020, the water mains pipe leaked on the top floor of the block. The landlord repaired the pipe and there were no further issues until 2022. On 22 April 2022, the top floor water mains pipe burst. Due to the severity of the leak and damage caused, it decanted the resident into a hotel, then one of its temporary service apartments. She moved into a new permanent home owned by the local authority on 21 August 2022.
The resident complained to the landlord on 20 September 2022. She said that it assured her that it repaired the pipe in December 2020, but it had burst again on 22 April 2022. She stated that this meant it had breached the quiet enjoyment covenant of her tenancy agreement. The water had damaged her personal items and internal decorations. She stated that its offer of a decoration allowance, flooring and decoration materials did not cover the extent of what she had to buy to make her new property like her former one.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 11 October 2022. It apologised for the delay in doing so, explaining it was experiencing issues with its systems following a cyber-security incident. It confirmed receipt of her insurance claim. It signposted her directly to its external insurer for any further questions. It explained that the cyber-security incident had affected its ability to provide information to its insurers, but that it was working to do as much as it could. It briefly outlined the decant process that had taken place in this case. It offered £50 compensation for its delayed response and listed the provisions it had supplied her following her move to the new permanent property.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 14 October 2022. She disputed some of the points that it made in its stage 1 response. She wished to make a formal complaint about its services, communication, and support. She said that the service apartment it provided did not adequately meet the needs of her household. She felt that it had pressured and threatened her into accepting the property and had then not provided adequate recompense for the required repairs and decoration. She said that it had breached its contract with her over her right to quiet enjoyment of her home.
The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint escalation between October 2022 and its stage 2 response of 9 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing a response. It provided a timeline of its initial response to the leak. It explained the legal definition of the right to quiet enjoyment and that it was not applicable in this case. It agreed that there was a degree of pressure for her to decide whether to accept the local authority property alongside explaining the decant procedure. It answered all points raised in her complaint escalation and offered £200 compensation for its delayed complaint handling.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and offer of compensation and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident submitted an insurance claim for her damaged personal possessions from the burst water pipe. The landlord’s insurance company settled this with her at a value of £3,000. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as under paragraph 41.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord as a member of the Scheme, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over its insurers.
The landlord would not be expected to pay the cost or replace the damaged items under its complaints process and its advice for the resident to refer the matter to its insurers was therefore correct in the circumstances. If the resident has any concerns relating to the insurers handling of matters, she may wish to approach the Financial Ombudsman Service for advice.
Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the effect these delays have had on her and her family’s mental and physical health. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the delays and the resident’s health concerns. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to her family’s mental and physical health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s decant policy explains its approach to decanting residents. It states that while it will involve and consult with tenants, it remains its decision about whether a tenant can remain in a property based on a hazard or the property becoming uninhabitable.
The decant policy details the landlord’s procedure for temporary decants. It considers these when it expects a resident to move back to their original property. The policy states that it will consider the tenant’s needs when making an offer of temporary alternative accommodation. However, as it has limited available housing, it will not always be possible for it to offer a property of a similar size or type in the same area as their current home.
The landlord will only consider a permanent decant when there is no intention for a tenant to return to the property after moving out. The policy does outline its approach to finding suitable permanent accommodation. It will have regard to the tenant’s stated preferences in terms of location, but it considers a 1-hour commute each way as a reasonable distance. If a tenant has adult children permanently living with them and it is unable to find a large enough property, it may offer separate alternative accommodation to the adult child or children.
Also, in the decant policy, the landlord outlines its approach to compensation for decants. It states that it will consider meeting all reasonable costs that a tenant incurs as a direct consequence of needing to move home. If it requires a tenant to move permanently, they are entitled to claim a statutory home loss payment and disturbance payment. Where there is no statutory entitlement to disturbance payments, it may provide financial assistance to a tenant at its own discretion.
The landlord’s compensation policy defines compensation as a payment of recompense for loss of service or out of pocket expense at a quantifiable rate or amount incurred by a resident as a direct result of its actions or failure to act. It provides guidance on the amount it can award from a minimum of £50.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. It must log and acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt, then respond within 20 working days of logging the complaint. It must log and acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 10 working days, then respond within 40 working days. If, at this stage, it is unable to provide a response within this time, it will contact a resident and provide a new timescale for response.

The decant process.

The landlord offered an immediate temporary decant to the resident on 22 April 2022, the same day that the pipe burst. She initially refused this offer due to ongoing concerns about her husband’s health and because it had told her that it was looking at sourcing an apartment. She then accepted the decant on 23 April 2022 and moved to a hotel. On 25 April 2022, it found an apartment for her. She moved into this on the same day with a decant end date of 23 May 2022. Its initial response was prompt and its work to source an apartment for her showed that it had considered her circumstances, in line with its policy.
On 27 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord on behalf of all affected tenants. She stated that the emergency accommodation had been satisfactory for all, despite initial teething problems. All tenants agreed that rehousing would be cheaper than temporary apartments and she said that she required a ground-level property, preferably with an extra bedroom or like-for-like due to ongoing familial health concerns. On 5 May 2022, it advised her that it was searching for properties for her. Its response demonstrated an empathetic approach to her ongoing concerns and housing requirements.
The resident chased the landlord for an update about a new property on 6 June 2022. It replied on the same day, and again on 7 June 2022, that it was continuing to chase the local authority for updates. It remained in contact with her and on 20 June 2022, it told her that the local authority would confirm that week when her new property would be available. It provided the local authority with supporting information for her application and chased for a further update on 27 June 2022 to relieve her concerns. The evidence provided to this Service shows that it continued to provide the local authority with information for her application and advocate for her needs.
The local authority offered a property to the resident on 5 July 2022. They also offered a separate property to her oldest son. She told the landlord that she was keen to accept the property, but that the décor required a full overhaul. She asked it what it would offer in compensation for this. She noted that its regeneration programme allowed for home loss and disturbance payments, along with new white goods, so she was interested to see what it would offer in her circumstances. On 6 July 2022, it emailed the local authority asking them to hold the property for her while it calculated what it could offer. It continued to show consideration for her concerns and communicated well with her.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 July 2022. It advised her that it was unable to offer a home loss payment to her, but she would qualify for a disturbance allowance, meaning it would consider meeting all reasonable cost incurred as a direct result of her move. It noted that it had sent her claim for loss of personal items to its insurers and stated that it trusted she had also contacted her own contents insurer. It informed her of current insurance timescales and made it clear that it had no influence in accelerating the process. It confirmed that it was prepared to cover the following under the disturbance payment:
1. It would continue to cover the storage costs for her items and in addition to this, it would cover all costs associated with moving her items to the new property.
2. If applicable, it would arrange for the disconnection and reconnection of a washing machine or dishwasher.
3. It would reimburse any costs for reconnections of telephone, television, and internet at the new property upon presentation of receipts.
4. Where she required the disconnection and reconnection of a gas cooker, it could arrange for its contractor to do this, or reimburse for the cost of a gas safe engineer to do so upon presentation of receipts.
5. It would reimburse the cost of mail redirection for all household member for up to 6 months upon presentation of receipts.
6. It would remove and refit security locks and alarms or reimburse any costs she incurred for this by an external contractor upon presentation of receipts.
7. It would arrange for the uplift and refitting of carpets and underlay, or laminate flooring. If this were not possible, it would cover reasonable costs of replacement flooring, normally up to a maximum of £8 per square metre per room, with an additional payment of £4 per square metre if she needed underlay. The maximum cost for each room would be £300.
8. If it were not possible for her to re-use her current curtains and window coverings, it would cover reasonable costs for replacements, normally up to a maximum of £75 per window.
9. Existing light fittings would be transferred and refitted. Where she required additional fittings, it would only cover the cost of basic lampshades.
10. It would cover reasonable costs for decorating works.
The offer the landlord made to the resident on 8 July 2022 was fair and directly in line with the decant policy. She told it that she felt that this was not sufficient. It responded on 10 July 2022 and explained that it was unable to make offers outside of its policy. It explained that it worked in partnership with the local authority to find a satisfactory property for her and that this offer was exceptional. It urged her to consider her options as the local authority could not hold the property due to having a long waiting list. It explained that if she did not accept the property, it would source a privately rented property for her until it had completed works at her original property. Its response was factual and appropriate in the circumstances.
The resident accepted the local authority property on 13 July 2022. The landlord provided her with a decoration voucher on 15 July 2022, this covered the cost of a variety of paint and equipment and entitled her to a large discount on any additional spend. On 4 August 2022, it explained that its financial contribution to flooring would be a maximum of £2,100 to remain compliant with its policy. The total quote for flooring was £3,129.80, so she would need to pay the difference. It also confirmed that it had paid decoration money into her bank account. It continued to remain in line with its policy and the offer it made to her on 8 July 2022. Its approach was fair and reasonable.
On 19 August 2022, the landlord advised the resident that the removal company would be covering the costs of new beds as a gesture of goodwill as there was damp and mould damage to her previous ones. If next day delivery was not available for the beds, it would extend her stay in its temporary apartment until 21 August 2022. It did this and her tenancy with it ended on 22 August 2022. This again demonstrated a conscientious approach to her circumstances and its ongoing work to make the transition as easy as possible for her.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord focused on the right to quiet enjoyment of her property, its inability to provide her with any suitable alternative accommodation and the amount it had offered for decoration allowance. She stated that while she appreciated that it had referred the matter of loss to its insurers, her claim was against it, and she would consider whether court proceedings were merited if she did not receive payment for her loss and damage promptly.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the resident, it signposted her to its insurance company for any queries related to her claim. It acknowledged that the cyber-security incident had caused a delay in providing information to its insurers, but that it was working with them to provide as much information as possible. It asked the insurers to contact her directly to provide an update. It listed the items it provided her with, as follows:
1. 3 roller blinds for the 3 bedrooms.
2. 1 venetian blind for the front room.
3. The supply and fit of new grippers, underlay and carpet to the 3 bedrooms.
4. The supply and fit of laminate flooring to the hall, front room, and dining room.
5. Fridge freezer.
6. Gas cooker.
7. Paint vouchers.
8. Decoration allowance of £2,055.
9. Replacement of single and double beds.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was thorough and reasonable in relation to the financial element of her complaint, but it did not address her concerns about her right to quiet enjoyment of the property. She was not satisfied with its response and requested escalation of her complaint.
The landlord broke its stage 2 complaint response down into 24 separate points, so it could address each of her complaints. Alongside this, it provided a timeline and summary of events leading to the burst pipe. It explained that a delay in repairs to the pipe on 14 April 2022 may have contributed to it bursting, but that it could not know this categorically and the pipe may still have burst. It further explained that the estate was a new-build scheme and it had discovered that the original developer had installed plastic pipework in place of copper, which its insurer was investigating. Its explanation of the issues was honest and accurate, as investigation into the cause was ongoing.
Also in its complaint response, the landlord explained the right to quiet enjoyment and why it was not applicable to the resident’s case. It found no evidence that it had forced her to take the new property, or that it had threatened her. However, it acknowledged that there was a degree of pressure for her to decide on whether to accept it due to the shortage of family-sized accommodation in the area. It found no evidence that its communication with her had been poor, using the evidence she had submitted to it as an example of the volume of communication it had with her. Its response to these points was reasonable and evidence based.
In relation to the resident’s complaint points about decoration and compensation, the landlord stated that as her previous home would have been available to move back to, she was not eligible for a home loss or regeneration payment. It explained that the decoration allowance provided to her was for painting and wallpaper, not flooring, so it would expect her to cover any excess cost above its agreed flooring cost. It stated that the paint voucher provided was a discretionary offer based on the circumstances. The offers it made to her were in line with the decant policy and as such, its responses to these points of her complaint were fair and appropriate.
The landlord finished its stage 2 complaint response by addressing the resident’s statement that she had lost her home through mishandling and substandard maintenance. It stated that she had been in an unfortunate situation where an accidental pipe issue meant that she could not live in the home until it completed repairs. It said that it had followed the decant policy throughout the 4-month period between the leak and her move to the local authority home. It was sympathetic to her family situation but could not agree that she permanently lost her home, as the option to return was always available to her.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint response was appropriate and well-constructed. It investigated thoroughly to ensure that it could provide evidence based and factual responses to the resident, while remaining empathetic. It consulted its legal team on tenancy matters and requested detailed information from other teams in relation to the offers already made to her. While this led to a delayed response, it ensured that it was able to respond appropriately to her complaints and it demonstrated good practice in doing this.
As part of her complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that she does not believe the landlord intended to return her to her former property. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman demonstrates an extensive amount of work, both administrative and physical, from the landlord and third parties to ready the site for rehousing of former tenants. There were delays to these works at various stages for multiple reasons, including the cyber-security incident and delays in accessing individual properties, but there was a clear intention from the landlord to prepare the properties for tenants to return and this remains ongoing.
In conclusion, there was a total of 4 months between the pipe bursting and the resident moving into her new home. The landlord displayed exceptional partnership working in this period to source a new property to meet the requirements of her family in difficult circumstances. It went above and beyond in requesting a direct offer of 2 properties from the local authority as it did not have any suitable properties of its own, rather than suggesting she apply for the already oversubscribed housing register.
While this Service does not doubt that this was an incredibly stressful and challenging time for the resident, the evidence provided in this case demonstrates the landlord always adhering to its policies. Its offer of recompense was fair and aligned with the decant policy. It demonstrated an empathetic approach while communicating with multiple different parties and it worked diligently to ensure the safety of residents in the immediate aftermath of the burst pipe. This Service must also note that the landlord’s record keeping was excellent, and this enabled the Ombudsman to complete a full and thorough investigation into the complaint and its response.
Considering the above, a finding of no maladministration is appropriate in respect of the landlord’s handling of the decant process, including the offer of alternative permanent accommodation and its offer of compensation.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s provided its stage 1 response to the resident 15 working days after receipt and acknowledgement. It was therefore within the timescales set out in its complaint policy. It offered £50 compensation for a delayed response which was not necessary in the circumstances. It did not respond to one of her complaint points, relating to the right to quiet enjoyment, but did so in its stage 2 response. Overall, its stage 1 response was timely and reasonable.
There were delays in the landlord providing its stage 2 response to the resident. It sent its response 58 working days after receipt of her complaint. This exceeded the timescales set out in its policy. However, it kept her updated throughout the investigation period and offered an additional compensatory amount of £150 for the time take, inconvenience and delays. This took its overall compensation offer to £200, broken down as follows:
1. £50 as offered at stage 1 for inconvenience and delay.
2. £100 for the time taken to resolve the complaint, inconvenience, time, and trouble at stage 2.
3. £50 for providing its stage 2 response outside of its published timescales.
Alongside its offer of compensation, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay. Considering the extensive investigation that it completed ahead of its response, a delay of 18 working days was reasonable in the circumstances. It calculated its offer of compensation in line with its policy as a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses. The amount offered was also reasonable in line with the remedies guidance published by the Ombudsman.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy were not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This has not assessed in this report as it has since published an updated complaints policy with timescales compliant with the Code.
In conclusion, while the Ombudsman has identified failings in the landlord’s complaint handling these were not excessive. Furthermore, its offer of compensation was reasonable, and it did apologise for all noted issues. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the decant process, including the offer of alternative permanent accommodation and its offer of compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Recommendations

This Service recommends that the landlord pay the resident its previous compensation offer of £200 if it has not done so already.