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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202229609)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229609

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 June 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of hot water.
    3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. Between February and June 2022, the resident reported various leaks in the bathroom that appeared to be impacting the ceiling underneath with water marks. The landlord attended and completed various repairs.
  3. On 18 October 2022, the resident reported another leak through the ceiling underneath the bathroom. She made a further report on 19 October 2022, explaining that the ceiling had a large visible crack in it, and looked like it was about to collapse.
  4. On 31 October 2022, the resident reported that the ceiling underneath the bathroom had collapsed due to the leak. The landlord attended and contained the leak and arranged for follow on work to be completed in the bathroom and to the ceiling. However, the resident raised a complaint as she did not believe that the landlord had responded to her concerns appropriately about the source of the leak. She was also dissatisfied that she was unable to use her sink due to the emergency repairs that had been carried out.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one response on 8 December 2022. It said that it capped the water feed to the resident’s bath on 30 October 2022 due to the leak. It completed further repairs on 4 November 2022, which included reboarding the hall ceiling that had collapsed. It advised that it had been due to replace the resident’s bath and wash basin to prevent any further leaks, but work had been delayed due to the resident’s availability. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing repairs and issuing a complaint response. It offered the resident £200 compensation; £150 for the delayed repairs and the inconvenience this would have caused and £50 for its delayed complaint response.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 December 2022 as the landlord had failed to acknowledge how long the leak had been ongoing for, as she said it had been a problem for over a year. The resident was also unhappy that due to delayed repairs, she had no access to a bath or shower for 3 days. She also raised concerns about an operative being rude and unprofessional when they came to complete repairs. However, following discussion with the landlord, she agreed not to formally escalate her complaint on the condition that outstanding work was completed on 19 January 2023. The follow on work was regarding a lack of hot water in the bathroom following repairs for the leak.
  7. On 20 January 2023, the resident confirmed that the outstanding work had not been completed and escalated her complaint. The landlord issued its stage two response on 24 February 2023. It said that its operative had tried to gain access on 19 January but had been unsuccessful and was unable to leave a failed access card. It also confirmed that there was no issue with the hot water and no defects were found with the boiler.
  8. The landlord also confirmed that there was no evidence of any further leaks in the bathroom. The landlord offered the resident a further £250 compensation in recognition of the resident’s reports that the leak had been a longstanding issue, as well as the inconvenience caused by repeat repair visits. The landlord also offered further compensation for its delayed complaint response.
  9. The resident remains dissatisfied because of the significant distress caused by the ceiling collapsing, which the landlord has not appropriately recognised. The resident also disagrees that the landlord tried to attend the appointment on 19 January 2023. Furthermore, she does not agree with the landlord’s claim that there was no issue with the hot water supply to the bathroom after the leak repairs were carried out.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has raised recent concerns to this Service about the condition of her bathroom after various repairs were carried out. However, the resident’s original complaint to the landlord was about how the landlord had handled her reports of a leak that caused her ceiling to collapse.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  3. While this Service does not dispute the resident’s reports of her bathroom being in poor condition, there is no evidence that she has raised her concerns as a formal complaint directly to the landlord. Therefore, should the resident wish to pursue this issue, she will need to ensure that she has first exhausted the landlord’s internal process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

  1. The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that responsive repairs fall into two categories; emergency and non-emergency. An emergency repair is classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public, or the property. The policy states that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs should be attended to within 28 days of the repair being reported by a resident.
  2. On 18 October 2022, as the resident reported no visible signs of water, it is understandable that the landlord may not have dealt with the matter as an emergency. On 19 October 2022, however, the landlord noted the severity of the issue – that there was again a leak, that the ceiling was reported as looking like it was going to collapse, and that the resident expressed being worried as it looked very dangerous. At this time, the landlord should have at minimum inspected the issue, within the emergency timeframe, to assess the risk.
  3. The landlord will be aware that a continuous leak through a resident’s ceiling can cause serious structural damage. It can also lead to mould growth over a long period, which would also inevitably weaken the structure of the ceiling. In this case, the resident’s ceiling collapsed, seemingly as a direct result of the leak.
  4. The resident had raised concerns about the ceiling being black (with mould), and the landlord having treated this, but taken no further action. The landlord’s repair records evidence that it was aware of the historical leak issues the resident had faced and how this impacted her ceiling. This Service also notes that several repairs had been undertaken between February and June 2022.
  5. While the works the landlord undertook in June 2022 seemed to have resolved the issue for a few months, when it received the resident’s further report in October 2022, the landlord should have considered the repair issue in the context of the historical issues the resident had faced and the likely impact on the ceiling.
  6. It is of significant concern that the resident told the landlord about the ceiling bowing, yet it does not seem that the landlord took her reports seriously, which placed the resident and her family in a dangerous position. The resident informed the landlord that debris from the ceiling had fallen onto her cat, which again highlights the severity of the issue and potential injuries that could be caused.
  7. The landlord identified failings associated with its handling of the leak, which it recognised at stage one and stage two of the complaints process. It apologised and offered a total of £350 compensation.
  8. However, the landlord failed to apologise for not treating the matter with more seriousness, nor did it respond to the resident’s concerns about an operative being unprofessional. This was inappropriate and undoubtedly caused the resident significant frustration and disappointment.
  9. Overall, this Service has seen evidence of maladministration by the landlord. While the landlord acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation and does not appropriately remedy the significant distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  10. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100-£600 should be considered where there are failings by the landlord which had adversely affected the resident. The landlord has already offered the resident £350. Therefore, the landlord will be ordered to pay the resident a further £250 in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience she endured as a result of the leak.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of hot water.

  1. The landlord completed the required repairs to the ceiling and replaced the resident’s bath and sink to prevent a further leak. However, on 30 December 2022, the resident reported that the replacement bath had impacted her supply of hot water. The landlord recorded it as a routine repair, as the resident had reported having lukewarm water, rather than no hot water. This was reasonable.
  2. There was a dispute between the landlord and resident regarding a missed repair appointment on 19 January 2023. There is no evidence to support the landlord’s assertion that an operative attempted to gain access. While the landlord has said that it did not have any cards to leave, operatives should ensure that in the absence of cards, it has other means to evidence that it has tried to gain access to a property to complete repairs. While not a service failure, the landlord should reflect on this and ensure that operatives are always able to evidence a failed access to a property.
  3. Nevertheless, the landlord attended on 20 January 2023 to assess the reported issue which was reasonable as it was within the timescales outlined in its policy for non-emergency repairs.
  4. The landlord confirmed that there was no issue with the hot water supply. While the resident disputes this, the landlord is entitled to rely on the findings and opinions of their qualified staff when assessing required repairs.
  5. Subsequently, this Service has been unable to find that there was any maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of hot water.

The associated complaint handling.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The CHC specifies that a stage one complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage two complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason.
  3. From 17 June 2022, the landlord implemented an interim complaints policy, following a cyber security incident that impacted the landlord’s internal systems. In April 2024, the landlord implemented a new complaints policy that brings its response timescales in line with the CHC. However, for the purpose of this report, the reasonableness of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint will be assessed using the landlord’s interim complaints policy from 2022.
  4. The policy outlines a two stage procedure. On receiving a formal complaint, the landlord aims to acknowledge and log at stage one within 10 working days. It aims to respond to complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. If the resident is dissatisfied with the stage one response, they may request a peer review. On request for a peer review (stage two), the landlord aims to log and acknowledge all complaints within 10 working days and to provide its stage two response within 40 working days.
  5. The landlord received the resident’s initial complaint on 31 October 2022. In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have acknowledged and logged the resident’s complaint by 14 November 2022. The landlord should have then issued a response no later than 12 December 2022.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 8 December 2022; 29 working days after the resident raised her initial complaint. This was within the timescales outlined within its interim complaints policy and therefore appropriate. Nevertheless, the landlord said that its response was delayed, and it offered the resident £50 compensation, which was positive.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation requests on 12 December 2022, and again on 19 December 2022. While it is not suggested that this placed the resident at a significant disadvantage, it unnecessarily confused the process. The landlord should ensure that it is accurately acknowledging and logging complaints. It should adhere to the timescales set out in its policy and the CHC.
  8. Following discussion with the resident, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 20 January 2023. In accordance with its policy, the landlord should have issued a response no later than 17 March 2023. However, it informed the resident that it aimed to respond by 17 February 2023. This was positive and evidenced a willingness to exceed the timescales to quickly resolve the resident’s complaint.
  9. The landlord issued a stage two response on 24 February 2023. While this was within the timescales outlined within its interim complaint policy, it was 7 days later than the landlord advised the resident it would respond. It was reasonable nevertheless, that the landlord apologised for its handling of the complaint and offered the resident a further £50 compensation. As above, this was reasonable and evidenced a positive approach to its complaint handling.
  10. The landlord offered a total of £100 for its complaint-handling failures. This was in line with the suggested award in the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which outlines that an award of between £50 to £100 where there has been service failure would be an appropriate remedy. The landlord’s offer and willingness to put things right in respect of its own identified complaint-handling failures was appropriate and reasonably remedied any detriment caused to the resident.
  11. As such, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to pay the £100 compensation previously offered to the resident for the complaint-handling failures.

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 leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of hot water.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress that satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint in respect of the associated complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £600 compensation, consisting of:
    1. £350 already offered by the landlord.
    2. An additional £250 for the significant distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident because of the leak and the ceiling collapsing.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £100 compensation that it has already offered for its complaint-handling failures. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.