Clarion Housing Association Limited (201906498)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201906498

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 January 2021


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 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 response to the resident’s request for compensation in relation to repairs to the property’s guttering, patio door, boiler, wet room and damp and mould.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident’s complaint refers to repairs to the property’s guttering, patio door, boiler and wet room, dating back to 2015. The landlord has noted that successful repairs were previously completed in respect of these issues and no further repairs were reported to the patio door, guttering or wet room until the resident’s formal complaint.
  3. The landlord noted at stage 2 that some of the issues raised in this complaint had been the subject of a previous complaint made in December 2016. This complaint had been closed following the stage 1 response as the resident did not request a review. The landlord has therefore treated the matters raised in this complaint as new repairs issues. The previous complaint was not referred to this Service.
  4. Paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not normally investigate matters that were brought to its attention more than 12 months after exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints process. In addition, paragraph 39(e) states that matters will not be investigated if they were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time, normally 6 months from the date of the matter arising.
  5. This investigation is therefore limited to consideration of the compensation offered by the landlord in relation to the boiler repair first logged in August 2018 and the other repairs issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint of 25 June 2019. The Ombudsman will not investigate or make findings in relation to the landlord’s handling of historic repairs, although information about events occurring prior to August 2018 is included below to provide additional context.

Background and summary of events

  1. The complaint is brought by the resident’s representative on behalf of his mother, who occupies the property under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. The resident is a vulnerable tenant with a number of health conditions. References throughout this report are to the resident, including where actions have been taken by her representative on her behalf.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 25 June 2019 about repairs to the property’s guttering, patio door, boiler and wet room, as well as the presence of damp and mould in the property. The resident noted that the issues had been ongoing for a number of years but had never been successfully resolved. A copy of the formal complaint has not been provided to this investigation.

Boiler Repair History

  1. The landlord’s repairs records show that issues with the property’s heating system, involving full or partial loss of heating and hot water, were previously reported in 2015, 2016 and 2017. On each occasion, jobs were raised to attend to address the issues and marked as completed.
  2. The landlord has noted that the resident subsequently reported a loss of heating in August 2018. It states that it made attempts to contact the resident on 14, 15, 17, 21 and 30 August to arrange an inspection and subsequently sent a letter confirming an appointment for 3 September 2018. The operative attended but was unable to gain access on that date.
  3. An appointment was rebooked for 17 September 2018 but was subsequently cancelled by the resident. The landlord reports that temporary heaters were delivered to the property on 23 November 2018, indicating that heating had not been restored by this date.
  4. An appointment was booked for 3 December 2018, however the landlord received no confirmation from the resident and so the operative did not attend. The appointment was rebooked for 7 December 2018 but the operative was unable to gain access at that visit. Works to the boiler were then completed on 10 December 2018 and the heating was restored.
  5. The landlord arranged an appointment for 9 January 2019 to address further issues but this was cancelled by the resident. On 19 January 2019 the resident reported that there was no heating at the property. An engineer attended that day and on 23 January 2019 the lead engineer was booked to attend to confirm the required works but this appointment was cancelled due to the engineer being unwell. The lead engineer attended on 28 January 2019. The landlord obtained the required part and works were carried out on 16 February 2019 and 18 February 2019, after which the system was left working.
  6. The resident reported further issues with the system on 25 February 2019 and the landlord attended that day and ordered further works. The recommended works were completed on 15 March 2019 but this did not resolve the issue. Additional works were completed on 3 April 2019 and a replacement part was ordered.
  7. The landlord’s operatives attempted to gain access to the property to complete the repair on 12 April 2019 and 13 May 2019 but were refused. An appointment was rebooked for 4 July 2019 but was cancelled due to the engineer being unwell. On 8 July 2019 the engineer attended but was unable to gain access and the part was finally installed and the heating left operational on 15 July 2019.

Guttering Repair History

  1. The landlord has stated that the earliest recorded report of issues with the guttering at the property was on 29 May 2018. A job order was raised on 25 October 2018 to erect scaffolding and clear the gutters. The resident has reported that the guttering was fixed 2 years prior to the formal complaint, initially preventing water from falling on the patio, however she considers that the work was completed to a poor standard as the issue has now reoccurred.
  2. On receipt of the resident’s complaint the landlord raised a job order on 4 July 2019 to inspect the guttering and advise of any issues. An inspection was carried out on 12 July 2019 and it was noted that scaffolding would be required to access the guttering to complete further works.

Patio Door Repair History

  1. The resident stated in the formal complaint that the patio doors at the property were left unsecure for a period of 3 years, resulting in the property being burgled. It is unclear when this issue was first reported, however, the landlord has confirmed that a job was raised in May 2015 and after some difficulties in arranging an appointment repairs were completed in December 2015. The resident reported difficulties closing the doors in March 2016. The landlord states that no further reports of repairs to the patio doors were received until the resident’s formal complaint.

Wet Room Repair History

  1. The landlord’s repairs records also evidence that the resident had experienced leaks within the ground floor wet room at the property since 2015. Extensive works were completed to the wet room in September 2015 and 4 more jobs were raised for subsequent leaks between 2015 and October 2018. The notes on the landlord’s system from 19 October 2018 record that the resident reported water coming through the walls and soaking the carpet. The landlord noted that numerous jobs had been carried out but the resident reported that the problem had never been fully resolved. The landlord raised a job order to renew the wooden frame under the shower tray.
  2. The landlord received no further reports of issues with leaks in the wet room until receipt of the resident’s complaint. A job was then raised on 25 June 2019, noting that the resident was reporting the ‘shower leaking from connection pipe and shower head’. The repair was logged as a routine repair and completed on 27 June 2019.

Complaint Response

  1. The landlord provided a response at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 26 July 2019. The landlord made the following comments in relation to each aspect of the complaint:
    1. Further works to the guttering were identified at the appointment on 12 July 2019, which would require scaffolding, and this had been raised with the appropriate team. The resident would be contacted with a date for the works.
    2. The landlord had arranged to attend the property on 26 July 2019, to inspect the patio doors and to consider the various issues of loss and damage raised in the complaint but this was cancelled by the resident. The resident landlord invited the resident to make contact to arrange a more suitable time. The landlord confirmed that any further repairs would be raised following the inspection.
    3. The landlord provided a timeline of the action taken to address the loss of heating at the property. The landlord explained the difficulties it had encountered in arranging access to investigate in August 2018 and noted that several appointments were either cancelled by the resident or the contractor could not gain access. These appointments were on 17 September 2018, 18 December 2018, 9 January 2019, 12 April 2019, 13 May 2019 and 8 July 2019.
    4. The landlord confirmed the works completed and that the heating had now been restored, and offered compensation for 3 periods of loss of heating; £120 for a period between 26 January 2019 and 18 February 2019, £200 for a period between 25 February 2019 and 12 April 2019 and £70 for the period between 4 July 2019 and 15 July 2019.
    5. The landlord confirmed that all gas safety checks had been completed and enclosed certificates for the years 2017 to 2019. The landlord also confirmed that the heating contractor had deemed the boiler repairable and fit for purpose.
    6. Following the appointment to inspect the issues in the wet room a job was raised on 4 July 2019 and an appointment booked for 12 July 2019. The resident provided verbal confirmation to the landlord that all works to the wet room had now been completed.
    7. The resident has requested compensation for damage to personal belongings as a result of repairs not being carried out or damage caused during repairs works. She has also requested compensation for the effect on her health, which she believes resulted from a failure to complete repair works. She has requested compensation and a reduction in rent for the inconvenience and disruption and the loss of use of parts of her home.
    8. The landlord recommended that the resident refer the claim for damage to personal belongings to their home insurance company and provided the details of its insurance team should the resident wish to pursue a personal injury claim for the reported impact on her health. The landlord rejected the resident’s request for a reduction in rent as it found that the landlord had not left the property in a state of disrepair.
    9. The landlord offered an additional £195 compensation; £50 for delivering services outside its service level agreement, £100 as a goodwill gesture and £45 in respect of 3 missed appointments identified.
  2. Following intervention from this Service to establish whether the complaint had completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, the resident emailed the landlord on 19 August 2019  to request a review. In an email dated 23 August 2019, the landlord requested further details of the resident’s desired outcome before proceeding with the review.
  3. The resident provided details of the compensation requested on 26 August 2019, stating that following legal advice, she believed the landlord’s behaviour to be ‘completely unreasonable, unacceptable, unprofessional [and] unlawful’. The resident requested financial redress for the distress, inconvenience, pain and suffering caused by the landlord’s failings, together with financial compensation for losses relating to the cost of telephone calls, letters and stamps. The resident believed compensation should be considered for negligence, delay and poor service below the landlord’s operational standards. The resident indicated that their physical and mental health conditions should be taken into account and that the landlord should consider financial compensation for discrimination. They also requested a payment of ‘8% interest at the statutory rate’.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the review request on 5 September 2019, noting that a response would be provided within 20 working days. During the course of the investigation the landlord contacted the resident on 30 September 2019 stating that it would like to arrange an inspection. The resident confirmed her availability on 1 October 2019. The inspection took place on 25 October 2019.
  5. The landlord provided a review response at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 9 December 2019, although the copy of the stage 2 response provided to this Service is dated 9 November 2019. In the stage 2 response the landlord outlined that the review was limited to consideration of the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint of 26 June 2019 that had not been raised and responded to as part of a previous complaint. The review reached the following findings:
    1. The landlord noted that the guttering had been successfully repaired 2 years ago and so the more recent problems were treated as a new issue. The landlord had since failed to take forward the works to erect scaffolding. It apologised and confirmed that an award of compensation was appropriate.
    2. There had been no reports of issues with the patio doors between March 2016 and the resident’s complaint of 26 June 2019. On receipt of the complaint the landlord had arranged an inspection for 26 July 2019. There was no service failure as the landlord must be given the opportunity to put things right once reported.
    3. An appropriate award of compensation was made at stage 1 for delays in repairing the boiler and leaking shower. The landlord had committed to inspect the property on 26 July 2019 following the resident’s recent reports of damp and mould. This issue was last raised in October 2016. Any outstanding repairs issues would be identified when the property was inspected. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s request to rearrange the inspection for 2 August 2019. It apologised and agreed that an award of compensation was appropriate.
    4. At the inspection on 25 October 2019 the landlord noted works required to the guttering, as previously advised, together with works to replace a weather beaten window sill and remedial works to the bedroom ceiling to address water damage. The landlord confirmed that no repairs were required to the patio doors, although it would install a weatherboard to prevent future damage. The resident’s carpet was observed to be in good condition and no damp was identified, other than that which could be attributed to condensation. The resident was advised of ways to prevent this.
    5. Appointments were arranged for 4 and 10 December 2019, however the landlord’s contractor was unable to gain access to complete works on 4 December 2019 and the landlord asked the resident to contact its repairs team to rebook the appointment.
    6. The landlord confirmed that the compensation awarded at stage 1 was appropriate but noted that there had been subsequent failings warranting an additional award. It therefore awarded the resident £50 compensation for the delays in arranging the guttering repair, £50 compensation for the delay in arranging an inspection of the property and £50 compensation for the time taken to respond to the stage 2 complaint.
  6. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 14 May 2020.

Tenancy Agreement, Policies & Procedures

  1. The resident’s Tenancy Agreement states at clause 2(4) that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the ‘drains, gutters and external pipes’ and ‘external doors’. It is also responsible under clause 2(5) for keeping in good repair and working order installations provided for heating, sanitation and the supply of water, gas and electricity. This includes sanitaryware and central heating installations.
  2. The resident has an obligation under clause 3(9) of the Tenancy Agreement to report to the landlord any disrepair or defect to the structure or exterior, or to the installations at the property that the landlord is responsible for maintaining. The resident is also obliged, under clause 3(12), to provide access to the landlord at all reasonable hours and on reasonable notice to carry out repairs or other works.
  3. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that it will aim to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and appointments for non-emergency repairs will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. Paragraph 5.6 of the landlord’s Repairs Policy refers to claims for legal disrepair, noting that a tenant may serve a disrepair notice stating that repairs have not been carried out to their property, which will be dealt with under the landlord’s legal policy.
  4. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that it may provide compensation for loss of service, out of pocket expenses or quantifiable losses resulting from the landlord’s actions or failure to act. It may also consider discretionary compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to a resident by its actions or failure to act. 
  5. Paragraph 5.5.1 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that where requested, it will pay £15 compensation in recognition of a missed appointment where it has failed to give 24 hours’ notice. Paragraph 5.6.1 states that where there has been a delay beyond the landlord’s target timescales it will pay £10 for the first day plus £2 for each additional day, up to a maximum payment of £50.
  6. Appendix 2 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy sets out the amount of compensation payable for loss of heating and hot water. The landlord will pay £5 compensation per day after the first 7 days from when the issue was reported. The policy states ‘if without both heating and hot water then compensation will be provided for each amenity’.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Repairs Handling

  1. The Ombudsman cannot make a judgment about the standard of historic repairs completed by the landlord and whether this caused a reoccurrence of the issues. As stated above, it is outside this Service’s jurisdiction to consider complaints about matters that were not referred to the landlord as a formal complaint within six months of the matter arising, or referred to this Service within 12 months of completing the landlord’s internal complaints process. The Ombudsman therefore considers that it was reasonable for the landlord to assess its handling of the repairs as new repairs issues within the context of the complaint and to use its discretion to review historic repairs where relevant.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement requires her to report issues of disrepair to the landlord and it is at this point that the landlord’s repairing obligations arise. This is because the landlord cannot take action to investigate and remedy disrepair until it has been informed of the problem. On receipt of the complaint the landlord raised job orders to investigate and complete any necessary repairs, including replacing the shower hose and head, investigating the guttering and inspecting the patio door. There is no evidence that recent disrepair to the patio doors, wet room and guttering was reported prior to the formal complaint and that the landlord failed to take action in response. The action taken at stage 1 was a reasonable approach to resolving the complaint at this stage.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged that there were delays in addressing the guttering works and arranging an inspection following the stage 1 response. It has apologised for this and awarded additional compensation. This demonstrates that its review process effectively identified the outstanding issues and shows a desire to put things right for the resident.
  4. The landlord inspected the property for mould and damp and has reported that the small amount of mould observed was likely caused by condensation, as the resident was drying clothes in the property without adequate ventilation. The landlord has provided advice to reduce the presence of mould and has also committed to repair a stain to the ceiling caused by a previous leak and complete a mould wash once the guttering works have been completed. The landlord has therefore taken reasonable steps to investigate this aspect of the complaint, is taking the appropriate action to complete works that it is responsible for and has offered to complete additional works as a gesture of goodwill.  
  5. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s frustration that she has experienced similar issues in the past. In some cases problems have reoccurred or further works have become necessary over time. It is also noted that the resident has mental and physical health conditions that may make it more difficult to contact the landlord to report repairs or to agree and provide access to the property. However, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding of maladministration where the landlord’s failure to complete repairs has been due to repairs not being reported or difficulties arranging access. The Ombudsman encourages the parties to discuss the best means of communicating about repairs in the future, to ensure they are reported and attended promptly.
  6. The landlord’s complaint responses demonstrate that it has conducted a thorough investigation of the issues and the evidence provided shows that it has kept good records of the repairs raised and the action taken in response. The landlord has identified areas where its service fell short of the required standard and has apologised and offered compensation. The appropriateness of the amount of compensation is discussed in more detail below. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s approach was reasonable, proportionate and in line with its policies and procedures.

Compensation

  1. When considering whether the landlord has made an appropriate offer of compensation, the Ombudsman looks at what is fair in all the circumstances of the case, taking into account the duration of any avoidable stress or inconvenience, the detriment to the resident, the landlord’s policies and procedures and whether the landlord’s or the resident’s actions or lack of action have contributed to any loss, distress or inconvenience.
  2. The resident has requested compensation for negligence and the addition of statutory interest on any award of compensation made. This Service does not award compensation in the same way that a court might quantify damages and the Ombudsman does not have the authority to reach a binding determination that the landlord has been negligent. This investigation has, however, taken into account the service failures acknowledged by the landlord, the impact on the resident as a vulnerable tenant, and what is stated in the landlord’s Compensation Policy.
  3. The Ombudsman will not normally make an order for compensation for damage to personal belongings resulting from a leak, unless it is clear that the damage was caused by the landlord’s service failure. Cases where such an award may be made include where damage has been caused during the repair works or because the landlord has failed to respond within a reasonable time. In the present case, the Ombudsman agrees with the advice already provided by the landlord that a claim for damage to personal belongings caused by the leak should be pursued via the resident’s home insurance or by reference to the landlord’s insurance team.
  4. The landlord awarded the resident a total of £585 compensation at stage 1, made up of £390 for the periods where the resident was without heating and hot water and £195 for poor service, inconvenience and missed appointments. A further £150 was awarded at stage 2 for delays in progressing the works identified, arranging an inspection and providing a stage 2 response.
  5. The landlord calculated the amount due for loss of heating and hot water at a rate of £5 per day and the periods of heating loss have been calculated from 7 days after the issue was reported, in line with the recommendations of the landlord’s Compensation Policy. The landlord has not awarded compensation for periods without heating between August and December 2018, however the Ombudsman considers that this is reasonable given the difficulty the landlord encountered in obtaining access to the property to resolve the issue.
  6. The landlord awarded £150 for providing service below the required standard and in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord’s Compensation Policy does not specify an amount for such payments but notes that it may take into account the resident’s needs, the time taken to resolve the issue, additional costs incurred by the resident and failure to follow its policies and procedures.
  7. The Ombudsman is satisfied that an award of £150 is reasonable. Although it took a considerable time permanently restore the heating at the property to working order, the landlord did provide alternative heaters and was actively working to address the problem. Delays were increased by the need to order parts, by contractor illness and by the landlord being unable to gain access to the property. The landlord has not awarded compensation for the cost of phone calls, letters and postage stamps as requested, however, the resident did not provide evidence of the costs incurred. The Ombudsman is satisfied on the basis of the evidence available that the amount offered for service failure and inconvenience is appropriate to cover the time, trouble and cost of pursuing the complaint.
  8. As stated above, the landlord awarded an additional £150 compensation at stage 2 for the further failings identified since the stage 1 response. Again, these amounts were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances and the landlord subsequently arranged an inspection and committed to take action to progress the guttering works.
  9. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has reached reasonable and appropriate conclusions as to the amount of compensation payable, in line with its policies and procedures and that a total of £735 compensation is a proportionate remedy in all the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord has identified service failure in its handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system, in its failure to progress identified works and arrange an inspection and in its complaints handling. It has made an award of compensation to the resident that is in line with the recommended amounts set out in its policies and procedures and which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.