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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202345971)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345971

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 February 2025


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 a leak at the rear of the resident’s building.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder of a two-bedroom first–floor flat. The landlord, a housing association, is the freeholder of the flat and the building.
  2. The landlord’s records show that there have been long-running and intermittent problems with the building’s roof or gutters for several years prior to the events considered in this report.
  3. On 30 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord via their live chat service. The resident wanted to know why scaffolding had recently been erected outside his building and what works had taken place. The landlord said they did not know. It also said they had recently changed contractors and because of this the information was possibly no longer available to the landlord.
  4. The resident followed up with an email to the landlord’s repairs team with the same query the same day. He did not receive a response so he chased the repairs team again on 18 September 2023. He did not receive a response.
  5. On 29 September 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about a range of issues. These included his concerns about the scaffolding.
  6. The landlord provided its Stage 1 response on 24 October 2023. It explained it did not have any knowledge of scaffolding at the building at the time of the complaint.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 November 2023. He explained he had thought the scaffolding was in relation to ongoing water ingress into the building. He said he wanted the landlord to resolve the water ingress issue.
  8. On 28 December 2023, the landlord provided its Stage 2 response. It explained it was aware of long running roofing, guttering, and water ingress issues, but the last reported repair was in April, which it had responded to. In light of the resident’s further report it had arranged new inspections and repairs. It said scaffolding would be erected on 16 January 2024 and roofing repairs would take place on 18 January 2024. It apologised for the length of time the problem had persisted, and for the effort and inconvenience the resident had been put to pursuing the matter. It offered him £1600 compensation.
  9. On 23 February 2024, the landlord emailed an update to the resident on the works promised in its stage 2 response. It confirmed:
    1. The works promised in the Stage 2 response took place on 6 and 7 February 2024.
    2. These works included “renewal of the touch-on felt to the gulleys to prevent rainwater overflowing above the rear entrance’ and ‘an inspection of the scaffolding.”
    3. It had raised another job for its contractor to complete “render repairs” on 11 March 2024.
    4. It was working with its contractors to work out the best way to clean the render on the building to remove the stains.
  10. On 3 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say the repairs that had been carried out had not worked. During some heavy rainfall that weekend the water marks and stains had reappeared on the external walls.
  11. As the issue was not resolved the resident brought his complaint to this Service. He said he wanted the root cause of the water ingress issue to be fixed and then for the stains on the external wall to be removed. He wanted confirmation from the landlord that he, and the other leaseholders, would not be recharged for the cost of these works. He also wanted additional compensation for the stress the issue had caused. 

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. The resident has complained to the Service that the leak returned or continued after the work the landlord undertook in early 2024. This investigation centres on the events leading up to the resident’s complaint in 2023 and the landlord’s final complaint response in December. Any issues of concern arising after that period need to be raised with the landlord as new formal complaints, even if they seem to be linked to the matters assessed in this report.  
  3. If the resident remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s response to his new complaints, he has the option to then return to the Ombudsman. Accordingly, in line with paragraph 42.a. these more recent issues will not be considered in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the leak

  1. The resident’s complaint to the landlord centred on water ingress into a communal area of the building. He said the issue was ongoing and he had mistakenly thought the scaffolding in place at the time of his complaint had been to address it. He wanted the leak resolved and the external area it had affected redecorated. He said he did not believe there should be a cost for leaseholders from the redecorating.
  2. In its response to the complaint the landlord acknowledged long running problems with roof and guttering repairs and maintenance, which it linked to the water ingress. It also acknowledged the resident had been required to make repeated contact about the issue. It explained it had recently ended its contract with its previous roofing contractors to bring its repair service in-house. It said it was now working to resolve the issue and gave dates in January 2024 for its attendance at the property to survey the roof and start work. It offered the resident £1600 compensation for what it described as “Repeated failures to reply to letters, return phone calls or resident repeatedly having to chase.”
  3. When the landlord identifies failures, our role is to consider whether the redress it offers to put things right and resolve the complaint are satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we assess whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own remedies guidance and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  4. In this case the landlord clearly recognised it had not provided an appropriate level of service for the roofing problem, and the resulting water ingress. It appreciated that had an impact on the resident and caused him inconvenience and frustration. It acknowledged its failings, explained how it intended to put things right, explained the changes it had made to improve its service, apologised, and offered a significant level of compensation. The steps it took to resolve the repair issue and the remedies it offered for its poor service were appropriate and relevant, and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the Code.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord followed through on what it said it would do in early 2024, including planning redecoration work to the affected areas of the building. The resident has explained that its efforts did not resolve the problem, or that new issues arose. Some repair problems, such as a roof leak, can sometimes take time to find the right solution and different repairs may need to be attempted to fully resolve them. The reasons why the problem has continued in this case are not within the scope of this report. As is explained above, the resident has the right to make a new complaint to the landlord if he has concerns about its actions following the period considered here.
  6. The landlord did not address in its complaint response the resident’s request that leaseholders not be charged for the landlord’s redecorating after the leak was resolved. In line with basic complaint handling practice it clearly should have responded to the point. Nonetheless, the resident’s lease makes clear that whilst the landlord is responsible for repair of the common parts of the building, the landlord has the right to recharge costs to the leaseholders of the building. This is in line with sections 18 to 30B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Therefore, the resident bears a general responsibility to pay a share of such communal costs. If he disputes the reasonableness of the costs, he has every right to take his dispute to the First-tier Tribunal (property chamber).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should now pay the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint response. The conclusions in this report are partly based on it doing so.