Clarion Housing Association Limited (202007394)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007394

Clarion Housing Association Limited

13 May 2022

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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damage caused by leaks from the upstairs flat and a decant.
2. Reports of damage caused by operatives to flooring whilst relocating an electrical socket.
3. Reports of staff not wearing face masks.
4. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a two bedroom flat. The tenancy started on 17 January 2019.
The resident has vulnerabilities. She explained that she has a lung condition and depression and that her children have eczema and asthma. She said that during the time of this complaint her doctor increased the dosage of her antidepressants, inhalers, and her daughter’s skin cream due to the mould and damp in the property.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and her family and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated.
On 29 June 2020, the landlord attended a leak under the kitchen sink which it identified was from the resident’s washing machine outlet hose. It advised that it was her responsibility to replace the hose.
On 22 July 2020, the landlord attended the property following the resident reporting dripping from her bathroom and kitchen ceiling which it identified was coming from the WC in the flat above. It raised jobs in relation to the cracks to the bathroom and kitchen ceiling, mould on the bathroom ceiling, a leak from the resident’s shower and to repair and to relocate the washing machine socket from the “as built” location due it being behind the sink waste pipe. It also raised a job order in relation to damage to the kitchen base unit which it suspected had been caused by another earlier leak from the upstairs boiler.
The landlord’s repair chronology states it attended on 3 August 2020 to relocate socket from under the kitchen sink to behind the resident’s washing machine. This evidence also indicates that operatives attended on 4 August to address the ceiling issues and that follow on works to reboard and skim the ceilings were raised. They also reference subsequent contact from the resident on 10 August 2020 advising that due to a lung condition, she did not want to stay in the property whilst works were being completed and that access would only be available between 9.30 am and 2.30 pm. The landlord’s notes state it estimated that works would take two days to complete.
The landlord completed the work orders to replace the show mixer bar on 13 August 2020 and to replace the kitchen base unit on 9 September 2020.
The landlord’s repair chronology states the resident called on 21 September 2020 advising she was waiting for a surveyor to attend. She advised again that she wanted to be decanted whilst the works were being carried out as it was not safe for her and her young family to remain in the property.
On 3 November 2020, the resident complained to the landlord regarding the time taken to repair the damage to her bathroom and kitchen ceilings caused by the leak.
The landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint on 16 November 2020. Its notes of the call refer to the resident stating someone was supposed to have visited the property, but no one did. She stated there were brown foul water stains on the ceilings with mould growth as well as cracking to the kitchen ceiling which she said was growing. The resident said an operative told her that the ceiling would need to “come down”. She reiterated that she wanted to be decanted from the property during the works as she was concerned about the impact of dust and mould on her and her children’s health as they had asthma and eczema. The resident was also concerned that she would not have use of her bathroom and kitchen during the works. She questioned whether the leak upstairs had been fully repaired.
The landlord’s internal notes refer to its Area Surveyor being asked to attend the property to assess if the repair required a decant however that they stated in response that works could go ahead with adequate dust protection.
The landlord spoke to the resident again on 23 November and wrote to her on 24 November 2020 assuring her that the leak from the upstairs flat had been repaired on 16 July 2020. It explained when its operative attended to carry out a further repair to the upstairs flat on 6 October 2020 no evidence of any further leak was found.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 24 November 2020 indicate the landlord’s surveyor spoke to resident that day and an appointment for the surveyor and its repairs contractor to attend the property was made for 30 November 2020.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 25 November 2020 asking it to respond to her complaint about the repairs required following the leak and in relation to an electrical hazard within the kitchen and operatives attending without wearing face masks.
The landlord’s internal notes indicate the electrical hazard referred to concerned damage caused to the kitchen flooring when its electrician had moved the washing machine to repair the leak under the kitchen sink reported.
On 30 November 2020, the landlord’s contractor and surveyor attended the property to carry out a survey of the bathroom and kitchen ceiling.
The resident called the landlord on 7 December 2020 regarding a key box that had been placed in her property and a note asking her to leave keys when she moved however, she said that had not yet been advised of any details of the decant.
On 8 December 2020 the landlord provided a stage one response. It confirmed that following the survey on 30 November 2020, the following works had been identified:
1. Scrape off flaking paint, sanitise the ceiling with anti-bacterial wash.
2. Over board and skim the existing bathroom ceiling.
3. Remove skirting to left-hand side of bathroom door.
4. Hack off mould damaged plaster to left-hand side of bathroom door and re-plaster this area.
5. Renew skirting to new plaster.
6. Paint new skirting.
7. Emulsion ceiling and plastered wall.
8. Remove top coat of skim plaster to section above kitchen area.
9. Re-skim and blend with existing ceiling.
10. Paint kitchen and lounge ceiling.
It advised that the estimated time for these works to be completed was three to four working days. Due to the family’s medical conditions, it had been agreed to decant them whilst the works were completed. It said that the decant had now been scheduled for 14 December 2020 until 17 December 2020. Its previous decision not to decant her did not constitute any failing as it did not usually offer decants for the type of works required in this instance.
The landlord acknowledged however that there had been a service failure due to a lack of continuous communication and relay of information between it and the resident and said it was sorry for the inconvenience this may have caused.
In regard to damage caused to the flooring, this would be an insurance matter. It said prior to operatives attending she was asked to move any furniture or white goods beforehand to avoid the chance of damage occurring. It included details about how the resident could make a claim in respect of damage caused to her flooring.
The landlord’s internal notes indicate that the decant was rescheduled from December to January 2021 after this was agreed with the resident as her first-choice hotel was closed due to the pandemic and the hotel suggested by the landlord was too far away.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 17 December 2020 reference that based on the visit of 30 November 2020, the condition of the property did not pose a health and safety risk to the occupants.
The decant and works began on 21 January 2021 and were completed on 25 January 2021.
On 29 January 2021, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord advising that the resident would like to escalate her complaint to stage 2, setting out her concerns.
On 19 March 2021 the landlord provided a stage two response. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in providing its stage two response and offered £50 in compensation for this delay. It responded to the resident’s concerns set out in escalation request of 29 January 2021 including:
1. In relation to the length of time taken to respond to her reports of dripping water from the kitchen and bathroom ceiling and a worsening in the condition– it attended all repairs within its Service Level Agreements (SLAs). It said there were some delays that occurred however these are justifiable due to Covid 19 restrictions and national plaster shortages. It also said there were some instances where she appeared to have been “uncooperative” in agreeing to appointments. Nonetheless, there was a period of time from September to November 2020 when it was not very proactive causing the resident to have to chase its staff including contractors. It said it was sorry that nobody took personal responsibility for resolving this matter quickly and for any inconvenience that may have caused. To reflect this failure of service it arranged for a discretionary payment of £100 in compensation.
2. In response to her point that she and her children should not have had to live in the property in the condition it was in, it said that the leaks were all relatively minor. The leaks and the repair works needed did not pose any risk to her household and would not usually warrant the need for a decant or emergency rehousing. Due to her family’s reported health problems, a decant was agreed. However, it could have dealt with the repairs quicker.
3. She was not contacted to agree a date for the decant and was given a date that was unsuitable – it discussed details of the decant with her on 7 December however when the officer then tried to book the hotel agreed which was near her home, they discovered it was closed due to the tier 3 Covid restrictions in the area at that time. As this was the only hotel she wanted to stay in, it agreed to delay the works until the Tier restrictions were reviewed on 16 December 2020. When it called her to arrange the decant on that date, she advised that she did not want to move until after Christmas, which it agreed to. It then called her to confirm when the works would begin and to advise her of the hotel details.
4. Regarding contractors not wearing personal protective equipment – since Covid-19 restrictions had been in place, it was a requirement that its contractors wear face coverings and other PPE as standard. Its repair contractors refute her comment that face masks had not been worn on any occasion when they have worked at her home. Its surveyor and its repairs manager both confirmed they both wore masks, gloves and shoe protectors when they attended on 30 November 2020.
5. Regarding its contractors being unable to complete the work due to lack of materials and her comment that it should have been better prepared– it explained that at the outset of the ceiling repair issue, there was a national shortage of plasterboard and plaster, which delayed its ability to complete the works. However, when it was eventually given access, the shortage of plaster materials had been resolved. This matter was entirely outside of its control.
6. She felt the landlord had not taken the repair needed to the kitchen and bathroom ceiling sufficiently seriously, mentioning she had sent it photos – the repair in her bathroom and kitchen ceiling was reported on 22 July 2020, and these repairs were attended to on 4 August, which was within its SLAs. A follow up appointment was requested at this time by its operative to reboard and skim the bathroom and kitchen ceiling.
7. She was not told by the landlord to move the washing machine before a contractor attended and she did not feel safe unplugging and moving the washing machine as there was water leakage. She requested compensation for the damage to the flooring – the landlord reiterated that a claim could be made for this via an insurance claim. It added that the operative who attended this repair no longer worked for it so it had been unable to interview him about this matter.
On 29 January 2021, the resident raised another complaint with the landlord following her return from the decant. As these concerned new issues, the landlord logged this as a new complaint. These matters were escalated through the landlord’s complaint’s process and the landlord provide a final response dated 16 April 2021, which the resident then brought to the Ombudsman. This complaint is currently within the Ombudsman dispute resolution process and will be investigated under case refence 202014288.

Assessment and findings

Damage caused by leaks from the upstairs flat and a decant.

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy state that for non-emergency repairs, an appointment will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s decant policy states it will only decant in exceptional circumstances where the property is uninhabitable, and it is not possible to undertake works with the tenant in -situ. It also says it will consider the household composition, needs and preferences, likely level of disruption when deciding if a decant is necessary however ultimately it is the landlord’s decision as to whether the situation requires for the resident to be temporarily rehoused.
When the landlord attended the property on 22 July 2020 in response to the resident’s reports of water dripping from her kitchen and bathroom ceilings, it identified that this had come from the upstairs flat where it had repaired a leak from the WC on 16 July 2020. It raised jobs orders to address the damage caused to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom ceiling due to this leak and also in relation to damage it found had been caused by an earlier leak from the upstairs flat’s boiler as well as to resolve a leak to the resident’s shower. This action taken to address the damage and leak identified on the shower, was appropriate.
The leak to the shower was resolved after visits on 31 July and 13 August 2020 when the shower mixer bar was replaced. The water damage caused to the resident’s kitchen base unit was resolved on 9 September 2020 after the landlord fitted a replacement unit. Therefore, it is clear these jobs were completed either within the landlord’s 28 day timescale or within a reasonable time of replacement parts being received. On 4 August 2020, the landlord also repaired a leak under the kitchen sink and moved an electrical socket from this location to behind the washing machine (dealt with further below). The landlord therefore dealt with these repairs appropriately.
However, the repairs required to the kitchen and bathroom ceilings were not completed when operatives were scheduled to do so on 4 August 2020. A lack of progress on this issue over the next three months led the resident to raising a formal complaint on 3 November 2020. Following this, the landlord arranged for a survey of the ceilings to be carried out on 30 November 2020 in order to identify the scope of the works. The landlord confirmed the works to the resident in its stage one response and which were subsequently completed by the landlord between 21 and 25 January 2021.
Whilst the landlord addressed the required repairs in January, in her escalation request the resident raised concerns about the length of time it had taken to complete the work.
On the face of it, the six months taken for the landlord to address the damage caused to the ceilings from when the resident reported this in July 2020, was unreasonable as this significantly exceeded the timescale in its policy. However, in its stage two final response the landlord explained that part of this delay was caused by factors outside of its control including its operatives being unable to complete the ceiling work at the outset due to operatives not having any plaster and plasterboard due to a national shortage. It is noted that there was a national plaster plasterboard shortage during 2020.
The landlord also cited Covid 19 restrictions. A three-tier system of covid 19 restrictions did begin on 14 October 2020 and the country entered into second and third lockdowns on 5 November 2020 and 7 January 2021, respectively. It is reasonable to expect these factors to have had an impact on the landlord’s ability to provide its usual service. It is evident that the resident’s preferred choice of hotel to stay in which was nearby, whilst the landlord completed works, was closed in December 2020 due to the restrictions and so it was agreed between the parties for the works to rescheduled for January 2021. This demonstrates how the Covid-19 restrictions contributed to the overall delay in getting the works completed.
In its final response the landlord suggested that some delay was due to the resident being “uncooperative” when it sought to make some appointments to address the damage to the ceilings. Following the appointment on 4 August 2020, the resident raised a concern about her and her children being at the property whilst the works were being carried out because they had health conditions. It is clear this was because the repair involved the damp and mouldy sections of ceiling being removed and replaced which was likely to cause significant dust and mess. She was also concerned she would not have use of her kitchen and bathroom during works. On this basis, initially she asked if works could be carried out between 9.30am and 2.30pm only. This was understandable, however due to the works being estimated to take two days, it was not possible for the landlord to complete works within these times.
It is evident that this led to an impasse between the parties as whilst the resident had requested for a decant which was considered by the landlord, after discussions internally, authorisation was not given as it was thought dust could be contained so as not to impact the resident and her family. It is clear the landlord did not take any steps to progress completing the works or resolving the issue from September 2020 until after the resident complained to the landlord and Ombudsman in early November. In her complaint the resident complained that she was expecting the landlord to visit during this timeframe but no one did. This is evident from the landlord’s internal records and communications. In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged there had been a service failure due its lack of continuous communication and relay of information to her for which it apologised. It reiterated this in its final response and offered £100 in compensation in recognition of the issues and service failure.
In her escalation request the resident said the mould growth from the damp patches of ceiling had gotten worse during the delay requiring more repair work and said there was a smell in the property. Based on its visit of 30 November the landlord maintained its position that the repairs needed was relatively minor -as well the ceiling repairs there was some mould and damage to the bathroom walls and skirtings which needed addressing but it was noted at the time that there was no health and safety risk. However, the longer period estimated for the works to be completed from two days to three/four is indicative that further works were required and the condition may have worsened.
In regards to the decant, whilst the landlord did not initially agree to decanting the resident, in its final response it said this did not amount to a service failure as the type of repair did not justify it decanting the resident. Its policy makes clear that ultimately it is the landlord’s decision as to whether a situation requires a decant. However, its policy also says it will consider household needs and the level of disruption the repair was likely to cause. Following its visit to the property on 30 November 2020 to scope the works, it agreed to decant the resident and her family most likely because of the increase in disruption caused by the longer period estimated for the works. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
Nonetheless, it is noted that the landlord’s compensation policy says discretionary payments of between £50 and £250 are for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. In the resident’s case, on balance the £100 offered does not sufficiently reflect the extent of impact caused by the landlord’s failure to progress resolving the damp and mouldy ceilings between September and December 2020. A figure at the highest end of the bracket is more proportionate as such its offer of compensation did not resolve the complaint.

Reports of damage caused by operatives to flooring whilst relocating an electrical socket.

The landlord’s contractor attended on 3 August 2020 to repair a leak under the kitchen sink and relocate the washing machine socket from the “as built” location under the sink to behind the washing machine. In her subsequent complaint, the resident raised the issue of damage having been caused to her kitchen lino flooring when its operative moved the washing machine to gain access to complete this work.
In its responses, the landlord explained that it was standard practice to ask residents to move furniture and possessions to enable to access to areas that needing repairs/ works. However, it also advised that as the operative in question no longer worked for it, it had not been able to interview them in regard to her comment that she had not been told to do this.
In the circumstance where an operative agrees to move a tenant’s possessions during the appointment, it is reasonable to expect the operative to carry out this task with due care and attention. In its response the landlord did also advise the resident she could progress a claim for damage to personal property through its insurance policy and provided details of how she could do this. However, on balance as her claim concerned alleged damage caused by its operative, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken further steps than it did, to rectify this. An appropriate order has been included below.

Reports of staff not wearing face coverings

In view of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have had in place a policy surrounding this issue and for it to consider any claims indicating operatives had not followed its policy.
The landlord has provided this service with its Covid-19 policy which was in place during the period which is the subject of this complaint. This required operatives to wear face coverings and other PPE equipment whilst in residents’ homes.
In November 2020 the resident complained to the landlord that operatives had not worn face coverings when attending her property. Within its stage one response, the landlord said it would raise this to be investigated in line with internal procedures. This was appropriate. In its stage two final response, it stated its repair contractors had refuted her comments that they did not wear a face covering on any occasion when they were working in her home. However, this service has not seen any evidence of the internal investigation the landlord said it would take in its stage one response.
The landlord did say in its final response that if the resident wanted the matter investigating further, to provide further details including some dates her comments related to. As there is no evidence of the resident having mentioned specific dates, this was reasonable. However, the lack of evidence to demonstrate it investigated the resident’s stage one complaint regarding the lack of face coverings worn by operatives, shows a failure in the service provided by the landlord.

Complaint handling.

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy does not give timescales for responses however the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes clear a stage two response should be provided by the landlord within 20 days of the escalation request.
It is noted that the landlord’s stage two final response did address the multiple concerns raised by the resident at stage two in her escalation request. This is in accordance with the Code which also requires the landlord to address all concerns. Nonetheless, the resident requested escalation of her complaint, via the Ombudsman, on 29 January 2021. As the landlord only provided a stage two response on 24 March, this delay was unreasonable and is evidence of the landlord failing to follow the timescales in the Code. However, the landlord offered the resident a discretionary payment of £50 in recognition of its failure. This was reasonable redress for the delays incurred.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling repairs of damage caused by leaks from the upstairs flat including damp on the ceilings and a decant.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling of damage caused by operatives to flooring whilst relocating an electrical socket.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s report of operatives not wearing face coverings.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord attended some of the repairs needed following leaks from the upstairs flat within the timescales its policy however the main repair needed to the bathroom and kitchen ceilings was not resolved within a reasonable timeframe. Whilst some of the delay was because of factors outside of the landlord’s control, it acknowledged that there was a three month period where it was not proactive enough in progressing the repair. The landlord did then complete the necessary repairs whilst the resident was decanted into another property however, its offer of £100 in compensation did not sufficiently recognise the impact caused by the delays, a significant proportion of which it was responsible for.
The landlord provided the resident with details of how she could make a claim on its insurance in relation to alleged damage caused to her kitchen lino flooring when its operative moved her washing machine in order to access the area behind it. However, in the circumstances, the landlord should have taken further steps to rectify this complaint raised.
The landlord had a Covid-19 policy in place which required operatives to wear face masks. In its stage one response, it agreed to investigate the resident’s complaint of its operatives not wearing face masks internally however there is no evidence to show it did.
The delay by the landlord in issuing its stage two response is evidence of it failing to follow the Ombudsman’s Code however the landlord’s offer of compensation reasonably addressed this complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that landlord:
1. pay the resident a further £200 in compensation on the following basis:
  1. £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its delay in addressing the repairs needed to the ceilings at the property.
  2. £50 for not investigating the resident’s complaint regarding the lack of face covering worn by its operatives.
2. Revisit the complaint regarding alleged damage caused to the resident’s kitchen lino flooring with a view to rectifying the damage, if it not already done so. Advise the Ombudsman and resident of its proposed action.
3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.