Clarion Housing Association Limited (202307928)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307928

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s report of a leak in the property and the associated repairs.
   2. The decant of the resident into temporary accommodation.
   3. The resident’s claim for compensation for damage to his personal possessions.

Background

2. At the time of the complaint, the resident held an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord for the property, a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is aware the resident has several vulnerabilities, including mental health conditions.
3. In January 2023 following a leak in the resident’s property, the landlord moved him into a hotel. This was emergency temporary decant accommodation.
4. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 March 2023. He declared he had been living in temporary decant accommodation for around 3 months and his permanent property was still uninhabitable. He was concerned that his personal possessions were damaged as they remained in the property after the leak.
5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 21 April 2023. It said its records showed the resident had refused works and it had difficulty contacting him to discuss the repairs. Following a site visit with a surveyor in mid-April 2023, it defined the works required. It acknowledged it did not put the resident’s possessions into storage and gave him the details of its insurer. It offered £300 compensation.
6. On 11 May 2023, the resident requested the escalation of his complaint. He disputed the allegation that he refused entry for works. He said his phone does not accept calls from 0800 or withheld phone numbers. He was concerned the repairs cited by the landlord at stage 1 did not relate to the bedroom, mould, skirting boards, or general crumbling plaster within the property.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 July 2023, explaining it had to break the concrete floor to trace and access the leak. It became concerned about the textured coating on the ceiling once the property had dried and arranged for asbestos specialists to complete necessary works. It said it would arrange for its surveyor to inspect the property once it completed the final flooring repair. It offered an additional £600 compensation, resulting in a total compensation offer of £900.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident was concerned about the impact his living conditions had on his health and the course he was studying at university. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health or education of a resident. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. This matter is better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim.
10. The resident explained his personal possessions were damaged due to the landlord’s failure to move them into storage following a leak. It is not the role of this Service to determine liability for the resident’s items. This would normally be a matter for an insurer or court to decide. However, we can consider how the landlord managed his request for compensation for his personal possessions.
11. The resident told this Service he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the property. Records show he expressed this to the landlord after it had issued its stage 1 response. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) we would not expect a landlord to consider this within the existing complaint. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond under its internal complaint procedure, as per paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. Therefore, we will not address this concern within this report. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord directly and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.
12. We recognise that after the landlord issued its final complaint response, the resident raised other concerns. Some of these included concerns about the landlord’s handling of a further leak in the property in 2024, repair delays, the end of the decant, reports of rising damp, and his request for a home-loss payment. As these did not form part of the complaint initially raised in March 2023, the Ombudsman will not assess the landlord’s response to them within this report. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. The resident can contact the landlord directly about these issues should he want them considered under its complaint procedure.

Leak and repairs

13. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
14. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
15. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
16. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that it should attend an emergency repair within 24 hours. It should complete works to make safe or a temporary repair at this visit. It defines an emergency repair as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, public, or the property, or would jeopardise the health, safety, or security of the resident.
17. The landlord completes complex repairs through its responsive repairs service. However, it has not cited a specific timeframe for these.
18. In a letter to his MP, the resident said the leak started around late October 2022 and by November 2022, it was leaking in every room. The repair history provided by the landlord shows it first recorded water ingress on 8 December 2022 when it raised a work order for a plumber to inspect the source. The landlord has not demonstrated that it treated the resident’s initial report of a leak as an emergency. The Ombudsman is minded that the landlord did not act in accordance with its repairs policy here.
19. On 20 December 2022, the landlord’s repair notes asked for a new work order for follow-on works. It did not properly evidence when the plumber initially attended the property, what the outcome was, if it took any mitigating action, and what follow-on work it needed to do. It also failed to show what specific actions it took with tracing and accessing the leak. This demonstrates shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping.
20. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
21. While the landlord has provided a copy of its repair history for the property, the Ombudsman notes the information contained within does not fully evidence its actions regarding its investigation into the leak. However, we recognise that it has provided copies of communication between staff and system notes, which helped this Service to broadly establish what occurred. A surveyor also submitted their own timeline of events. Nonetheless, due to the lack of more detailed evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted fully in line with its repairing obligations or that it treated the initial report of a leak with the appropriate urgency.
22. Within its complaint response, the landlord explains it resolved the leak on 8 February 2023 and the property needed to dry before repairs could begin. The Ombudsman agrees this was necessary. As such, the delay moving forward to the repair stage was unavoidable. The repair history provided shows the landlord raised a work order on 29 March 2023 for remedial works. Shortly after, it recorded that the resident refused works until a surveyor had attended. The resident refutes this, stating that although he asked for a surveyor to review the damage, there was no communication about work starting. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s strength of feeling here. Based on the limited information available, we are unable to determine the exact course of events.
23. The Ombudsman conducted a special investigation into this landlord and reported our findings in October 2022. During this investigation, we identified a theme of poor record keeping across several complaints. We recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping and communication. The landlord accepted our recommendation. As the record keeping shortcomings in this case occurred shortly after we published our special investigation report, the Ombudsman has not made further recommendations concerning the landlord’s record keeping provision within this determination.
24. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication throughout. He informed the landlord that his phone does not accept withheld or 0800 numbers and that he was not available Mondays, Tuesdays, or Wednesdays. The Ombudsman recognises from the evidence available, the landlord attempted to contact the resident on multiple occasions by phone. The landlord acted appropriately within its final complaint response by stating that it ought to have provided updates to the resident via other means, and that he had followed up with it several times. It apologised and offered compensation. The Ombudsman considers that compensation in the region of £100 would be appropriate in the circumstances. The Ombudsman has addressed the matter of compensation in more detail below.
25. Neither party disputes a surveyor discussed works with the resident on 14 April 2023. Within the stage 1 response dated 21 April 2023, the landlord clarified the outstanding repairs. At stage 2, the landlord confirmed that the vinyl flooring replacement was the final work, however it had been unable to book an appointment to fit this with the resident. As he remained unhappy with the works, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer a post-inspection. The landlord evidenced that it completed a post inspection in July 2023. From the evidence available, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord followed through with this commitment as per its stage 2 response.
26. Overall, while there were shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping, the Ombudsman understands this was a complex case following a significant escape of water. It took time to trace and access the leak, dry the property, remedy the asbestos, and complete remedial works. The Ombudsman recognises this was an extremely challenging time for the resident. However, following a leak, it is normal for there to be an element of disruption and upheaval. This does not mean that the landlord has made a mistake; rather it is the nature of the event and subsequent works.
27. After considering all the available evidence, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered appropriate compensation in line with our remedies guidance to recognise its shortcomings in the handling of the leak.

Decant

28. The landlord’s decant policy states a temporary decant is when a resident is moved out to enable work on the property to be conducted, with the intention of returning them to it at the earliest opportunity. A resident remains liable for the rent at their principal home, with no rent due on the temporary accommodation.
29. The decant policy states that for temporary decants, the landlord may consider bed and breakfast, hotel, or hostel accommodation for a maximum of 4 weeks. The most appropriate accommodation will depend on several factors such as, the availability and suitability of accommodation, the relative costs, the personal circumstances of the household, and the length of time the tenant needs moving for.
30. The decant policy explains that where a tenant is asked to leave bed and breakfast, hotel, or hostel accommodation due to their behaviour or that of their household, it reserves the right to refer the resident to the local authority and not provide alternative accommodation.
31. When arranging a decant, it is good practice for a landlord to consider the resident’s circumstances, the location, and make best efforts to make a reasonable offer of suitable accommodation. Records show the landlord completed an emergency decant questionnaire with the resident before decanting him to a hotel 2.4 miles away. It also issued a letter, setting out the terms of the temporary move. The Ombudsman is minded that it was appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s individual needs and to write to him clearly setting out the terms of the decant.
32. The Ombudsman notes that due to the behaviour of the resident’s guest, the hotel refused to honour the full duration of the booking. The landlord acted over and above its obligations set out in its policy by arranging a different hotel, rather than refusing to arrange alternative accommodation. The Ombudsman finds the landlord acted fairly in this instance, considering the resident’s vulnerabilities.
33. The resident asked the landlord to refund 50% of the rent charged on his permanent home while it had temporarily decanted him. The landlord explained full rent was due. The Ombudsman finds it gave him the correct information here, in line with the terms of its policy.
34. The landlord has not evidenced that it explored other options for alternative decant accommodation after the resident had been in a hotel for over 4 weeks. In this respect, it failed to act in accordance with its policy. Within its final complaint response, it was appropriate for it to recognise the impact on the resident due to the extended hotel stay and to offer compensation. It also reflected on its failures when communicating with the resident. Our remedies guidance suggests an award in the range of £100 to £600 for failings which adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact. Considering the issues identified, the Ombudsman determines that the £600 offered by the landlord was proportionate and the highest award within this compensation range.

Damage to personal possessions

35. The resident stated that his personal possessions were damaged because the landlord did not move them into storage following a leak. This included furniture, clothing, and other personal items.
36. Our remedies guidance explains that we do not award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance.
37. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it does not consider liability or personal injury concerns under its complaints procedure. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may not offer compensation in certain circumstances, for example if a resident could make a claim against their insurance policy.
38. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord said it did not remove his personal items from the property and put them into storage, as per its standard practice. However, it did not provide evidence of this being standard practice to our Service. It is unclear what policy or procedure the landlord was referring to here. Furthermore, it confirmed its surveyor had previously asked the resident to send the details regarding his damaged items to its insurance team. It reiterated this information within its complaint response.
39. It is a reasonable expectation for a resident to have contents insurance to cover their personal items in the event of loss or damage. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to claim upon his own insurance (if held) in the first instance. However, as he believed that the landlord’s lack of action led to a significant amount of damage to his possessions, it acted appropriately by signposting him to its own insurance team. The stage 1 response shows the landlord set out what information he needed to provide. The Ombudsman finds the landlord presented this information in a clear and understandable way.
40. The Ombudsman recognises that at stage 1, the landlord offered compensation to the resident because it did not follow standard business process. In view of this oversight, the Ombudsman finds it was appropriate for it to apologise and offer compensation. In considering our remedies guidance and the circumstances, the Ombudsman is of the view that redress in the region of £100 is fair and reasonable.

Compensation

41. The landlord’s compensation policy has 3 ranges when considering compensation. Awards of £50 to £250 are for instances of service failure. Awards of £250 to £700 is where the landlord has identified considerable failure. Awards exceeding £700 is for circumstances where there has been a significant and long-term impact on the resident.
42. At stage 1, the landlord offered:
    1. £50 compensation for the delay responding to the complaint.
    2. £250 compensation for its failure to follow business process, repeated contact with the landlord, and inconvenience.
43. At stage 2, the landlord offered:
    1. The £300 awarded at stage 1.
    2. An additional £600 for the long stay in temporary accommodation and lack of contact.
44. After considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman is of the view that the total compensation of £900 is fair and reasonable to remedy the extent of the landlord’s shortcomings as described within this report. This is also in line with the landlord’s own policy. As such, we find that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in its handling of the complaint elements defined in paragraph 1.

Determination

45. 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, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s report of a leak in the property and the associated repairs.
    2. The decant of the resident into temporary accommodation.
    3. The resident’s claim for compensation for damage to his personal possessions.

Recommendations

46. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £900 it previously offered within its final complaint response, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure. The reasonable redress finding is made on this basis.
47. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord ensures that it specifies how much compensation relates to what aspect of its failings for clarity in future cases.