Clarion Housing Association Limited (202318100)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318100

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 July 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 response to the resident’s request that it pay compensation for damage caused to her property following a leak.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident is disabled, of which the landlord is aware.
The landlord has not supplied a complete customer contact or repair record relating to this complaint. However, the background facts are not in dispute and can be summarised as follows:
1. On about 28 October 2022, the resident suffered flooding to her property which caused damage to her laminate flooring, underlay, and skirting boards. The resident reported the problem to the landlord for which it raised a routine repair job.
2. The landlord attended the property on 22 November 2022 to carry out an inspection. It noted that the resident’s laminate flooring had been removed. It recommended that the floor tiles be checked for asbestos and supplied the resident with a dehumidifier to assist in drying out the property.
3. On 2 December 2022, the water ingress to the resident’s property was discovered to be coming from a leak at the resident’s neighbour’s property and remedial works were carried out to resolve it.
4. Inspections of the resident’s property were carried out in December 2022 and January 2023 to check whether the property was dry. This was required before the follow on works could be carried out.
5. On 13 January 2023, the landlord’s specialist asbestos contractors conducted an asbestos management survey with refurbishment elements and issued a survey report to the landlord dated 19 January 2023. This identified that floor tiles in the lounge and hallway were in poor condition and remediation was required. It also identified that the floor tiles were bonded to the concrete floor with bitumen adhesive containing chrysotile, which was assessed as a very low material risk.
6. On 24 January 2023, the landlord instructed the asbestos contractors to remove the floor tiles and bitumen adhesive in both the lounge and hallway.
7. On 8 February 2023, the contractors removed floor tiles but further work was deferred due to the floor still being wet.
8. The resident was advised by the landlord that the outstanding repair works would be carried out on 24 February 2023 and she cleared the affected rooms in preparation, as she had been instructed to do. However, the contractors who attended on that day did not carry out the works. The resident was unable to put her furniture back due to her disability and states that she was left with only a kitchen as a living area.
On 9 March 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding the delay in resolving the leak and related issues. A copy of the original complaint has not been supplied to this Service. However, it is understood from the landlord’s complaint responses that the resident sought the following outcomes from the landlord:
1. For it to carry out the remedial works.
2. For it to replace the flooring, underlay and skirting boards which had been damaged by the leak.
3. Compensation for the extra cost of running the dehumidifier.
4. A deep clean of the property on completion of the works to remove dust caused by the repairs.
Following the resident’s complaint, the outstanding works to remove the floor tiles and bitumen were completed on 21 and 22 March 2023 by the landlord’s contractors and subsequently the flooring was sealed with a self-levelling compound.
When carrying out their work, the contractors taped protective sheeting to the walls to form an enclosure in order to comply with regulations for asbestos removal. The tape caused damage to the resident’s wallpaper and paintwork when it was removed. Photographs supplied to this Service indicate that the damage to the resident’s decorations was substantial. The resident complained to the landlord’s contractors on 21 March 2023 regarding the damage.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 29 March 2023. It found that the time taken for all the works to be carried out was due to the complexity of works required rather than any failure in service and so did not uphold the complaint. It agreed to consider the resident’s claim for costs of the extra fuel to run the dehumidifier upon receipt from the resident of her fuel bill (for the relevant and a comparative period). It stated that it was not able to approve compensation for the underlay, flooring and skirting boards. It advised it was standard practice for the resident to claim against her home contents insurance instead. However it provided details if the resident wished to pursue a claim against the landlord.
The resident did not agree with the decision and escalated the complaint on 30 March 2023.
On 2 May 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident and arranged to visit the property. By this time, the resident confirmed that the leak was resolved, that she had had no further water ingress and the works to the sub–floor were complete. Following the landlord’s visit on 5 May 2023, it arranged for repairs to the skirting board and an unrelated repair to be carried out on 17 May 2023.
It is noted that in communications between the landlord and its asbestos contractors between 12 May 2023 and 18 May 2023, the landlord’s contractors agreed that they had caused the damage to the wallpaper and would reimburse the resident for the cost of it. The landlord reported to the contractors that the resident was also seeking rectification of damage caused to the paintwork and requested that its contractors take ownership of this aspect of the complaint.
For reasons which are unclear, there was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 response beyond the landlord’s policy timescales. The response was issued on 6 June 2023 as follows:
1. It found a delay in resolving the repair which was due to changes in the area management and an inadequate handover. It acknowledged this was a service failure.
2. It also acknowledged a missed appointment and the inconvenience caused to the resident who had been instructed to empty rooms.
3. It acknowledged that dust would occur with the works and confirmed that its operatives would clean the area to ensure it was safe to return.
4. With regard to the damage caused, it confirmed that the repair to the skirting boards had been carried out on 17 May 2023. It recommended that the resident refer to her own contents insurers in respect of the damage to her wallpaper and the need to reinstate the laminate flooring. It provided details if the resident wished to submit a claim against it.
5. It offered compensation of £415, being £250 in respect of the delay in addressing the repairs, inconvenience caused to the resident by this and communication failure; £15 in respect of the missed appointment; £100 in respect of the extra fuel costs in running the humidifier; and £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 19 August 2023. She wanted the landlord to pay for redecoration to her home and new flooring. The decorations and the flooring had been newly installed by the resident only 9 months prior to the damage being caused, which the resident had receipts to prove.

Assessment and findings

Although there were several aspects to the resident’s original complaint, as set out above, some have been addressed and resolved through the landlord’s complaints process. The main outstanding issue is the resident’s request that the landlord compensate her for damage caused to her internal decorations and the cost of the damaged laminate flooring. Accordingly, that is the focus of this investigation report.
The landlord’s customer compensation and remedies policy explains the circumstances where compensation payments may, and may not, be awarded for claims of damage to a tenant’s property.
Circumstances where the landlord may not offer compensation include where damage is caused by circumstances beyond the landlord’s control, examples being damage caused by storms and flood; and claims which should be covered by a tenant’s home contents insurance policy, including damage to belongings (including floor coverings) due to leaks, flood, or fire.
However, where a failure in the landlord’s service, or that of a contractor working on its behalf, has directly caused damage to a resident’s belongings, and it is not reasonable to expect the damage to be covered by the resident’s home contents insurance, the policy states that this is an example of where compensation will be awarded. The policy further states that it will ensure that the resident does not incur further inconvenience and cost if making a claim for compensation in these circumstances, particularly where it, or its contractor, is clearly at fault.
Caselaw has also established that where a landlord has an obligation to effect repairs, the obligation extends to making good any consequential damage to decorations caused by the repair work.
With regard to the damage to the resident’s laminate flooring, there appears to be no dispute that the damage was caused by the initial flooding to the resident’s property rather than repairs carried out by the landlord. The damaged flooring was uplifted at some point prior to the landlord’s first repair attendance on 22 November 2022.
This Service has not been provided with any documentary evidence regarding the cause of the leak occurring in the resident’s neighbour’s property or whether the landlord was responsible for it and that is not a matter for this Service to determine in this investigation. The Ombudsman’s remit is to review the contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident claimed compensation for the laminate flooring in her original complaint of 9 March 2023. In its substantive complaint responses dated 29 March 2023 and 6 June 2023, the landlord advised the resident to refer the claim to her own contents insurers. It also provided details for the resident to submit a claim if she felt that the landlord was liable for the damage. This was a reasonable response by the landlord and in line with its policy, as set out in paragraphs 15-16 above.
It is not clear whether the resident submitted details to the landlord’s insurers in this respect (if she wished to) or whether she requires assistance to do so as a resident with vulnerabilities. Accordingly, a recommendation has been made below.
With regard to the damage to the resident’s internal decorations, this was caused by the landlord’s asbestos contractors in the course of carrying out the repair works which it had been contracted to do by the landlord.
In these circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to make good or meet the cost of the damage caused to the resident’s internal decorations, in line with its policy.
The resident raised a complaint about the damage on 21 March 2023. In its stage 1 response of 29 March 2023, the landlord mentioned the damage caused to the resident’s wallpaper by its contractors but offered no resolution for this.
Subsequently, in May 2023, the contractors agreed with the landlord that they would meet the costs of the resident’s wallpaper. The landlord left this aspect to be resolved directly between the resident and the contractors. While this may have been a practical way to reach a resolution of the matter, the landlord should have monitored and followed up with the contractors to ensure that this aspect of the complaint had been successfully resolved. The landlord remained the responsible party vis a vis the resident, albeit the direct discussions were being handled by its contractors. The landlord’s policy also requires it to ensure that residents do not incur further inconvenience and cost where damage has been caused by a failure in service by contractors working on its behalf.
However, this did not occur, which was a failing by the landlord. For reasons which are not clear, the discussions between the resident and the contractors regarding compensation for the damage were never concluded. Further, the landlord’s stage 2 response of 6 June 2023 recommended that the resident refer her claim for damage to the wallpaper to her own contents insurers, or alternatively make a liability claim against the landlord. In effect, this was a reversal of the landlord’s earlier indication to the resident that her wallpaper costs would be paid.
This was not fair or reasonable conduct by the landlord. It caused detriment to the resident in that the issue of the damaged internal decorations in her home remained unresolved and she was required to spend time and trouble in pursuing her complaint to this Service to obtain a resolution.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request that it pay compensation for damage caused to her property following a leak.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the maladministration identified in its handling of her request that it pay compensation for damage caused to the internal decorations to her property.
2. Reimburse the resident for the cost of wallpaper, subject to receipt of invoices for the same, and carry out remedial works to the internal paintwork damaged by its contractors on a date suitable to the resident.
3. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by the failings in its handling of her request for compensation for damage caused to the internal decorations to her property.
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident and provide support (if she so requires) in submitting an insurance claim to its insurers for the damage caused to the laminate floor at her property, if she wishes to make such a claim.
The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions with regard to the above recommendation.