Clarion Housing Association Limited (202324668)

Background

1. The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor flat in a purpose-built block. The estate is made up of 3 blocks. Heating and hot water is supplied to each block through a communal heating system. On 8 October 2023 a neighbour reported a leak to one of the communal pipes. The landlord attended and drained the heating system down to stop the leak. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord was in the process of completing the repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s concerns about the heating and hot water system.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to concerns about the heating and hot water system.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Concern’s about the heating and hot water system

4. The landlord responded to reports of a leak in line with its policy. It demonstrated it followed its maintenance plan and had introduced further inspections to ensure the integrity of the heating and hot water system.

Complaint handling

5. There was a delay of 13 working days in the landlord issuing it’s stage 2 response. It apologised and offered the resident compensation in line with its policy. The landlord’s compensation offer was fair and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

 What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident has complained the leak caused flooding to other properties in the various blocks on the estate. The Scheme allows us to investigate matters which have affected the resident in respect of her occupation of a property. It does not allow us to consider the impact on other residents in different properties under her complaint. Therefore, our investigation will not consider the impact of issues caused to other residents.

What we did investigate

7. The resident’s lease states the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the heating and hot water system. Prior to the leak on 8 October 2023, the is no evidence to suggest the resident reported any issues with the heating and hot water system.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to make the area safe. Its contractor attended on the day the leak was reported and stopped it, in line with its policy. The landlord’s contractor attended in the 2 days that followed to complete the repair. The landlord treated the repair as a priority, and its response was reasonable.
9. There is no evidence of the resident reporting any damage to her property as a result the leak.
10. A further leak was reported in a different block on 10 October 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended the leak the same day in line with its policy. The evidence shows the landlord’s contractor proactively inspected the pipes in all blocks following the second leak. This was reasonable action for the landlord to take and demonstrated it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously.
11. On 12 October 2023 the resident reported there was no heating and hot water in the block. She also requested the landlord inspect her property for damage. The landlord responded to her the same day. It advised the lack of service was caused by a drop in pressure that would be rectified later that day. The landlord also advised the resident she would need to instruct her own contractor to inspect her property.
12. The evidence shows the landlord provided updates to the resident on an individual basis throughout the repairs. It also proactively reached out to the other residents of the block to keep them updated on the situation.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response addressed each leak that had been reported and the steps it had taken to resolve the issue. The response was reasonable.
14. When the resident escalated her complaint, she said she was complaining about the quality of the infrastructure. The landlord’s stage 2 response addressed these concerns by informing her the system was maintained on a quarterly basis, serviced on an annual basis, and its contractor was satisfied with the quality of the infrastructure in place. It also committed to carrying out additional bi-annual inspections of the pipes. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its specialist contractor as to the condition of the system. Therefore, the landlord’s response reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns and further demonstrated it had taken the resident’s complaint seriously.
15. The landlord did not offer the resident compensation for her complaint. The lease states the landlord will only be liable to the resident for disruption to the service if the issues are caused by neglect or default. The evidence shows the landlord had maintained the system, with a service being carried out 3 months earlier. The evidence does not suggest the landlord neglected to maintain the system. In these circumstances the landlord was not obliged to compensate the resident as per the terms of her lease.
16. Furthermore, the landlord’s compensation policy states it will only compensate for loss of heating in the winter months. It also states it will compensate for loss of hot water after there has been an interruption in the supply for 7 days. In these circumstances the landlord was not obliged to offer compensation under its policy.
17. The landlord responded to the leaks in line with its policy. Its decision not to compensate the resident was in line with the lease, and its compensation policy. As such, it was a decision it was entitled to make. The landlord provided reassurance to the resident’s concerns regarding the quality of the infrastructure and has implemented further inspections. This leads to a finding of no maladministration.

18. The landlord’s complaint policy, effective from June 2022, was a 2-stage process:
    1. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days.
    2. It would respond to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
19. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 12 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This was in line with its policy timescales.
20. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 33 working days after the resident escalated her complaint, in line with its policy timescales. The Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code), states landlord’s must provide a stage 2 response within 20 days of the resident’s request to escalate. While the landlord’s response was in line with its policy, it was outside of the timescales in the Code and was unreasonable.
21. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its response. It apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation.
22. Our guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £50 may remedy a failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. When considering the length of the delay, the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case.

Communication

24. The landlord demonstrated effective and proactive communication with the resident.