Clarion Housing Association Limited (202013429)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013429

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 May 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 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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder’s reports of a leak affecting the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The complainant is a leaseholder of the landlord’s property. The property is a ground and first floor maisonette in a purpose-built block. The property had been sub-let and was occupied by the leaseholder’s tenants at the time of the events complained of.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy (the policy) states that the landlord aims to carry out repairs in a “timely and efficient manner”. The policy categorises repairs as emergency, or non-emergency. Appointments for non-emergency repairs are offered “at residents convenience”, and will be offered within 28 days of the repair being reported.
  2. Communal repairs are also categorised as emergency or non-emergency; and the policy states that they must always be completed within 28 days.
  3. The policy details that any complaints about repairs will be dealt with in line with the Complaints Policy. Requests for compensation will be considered in light of the Compensation policy.
  4. The landlord’s Compensation policy details the instances in which compensation may be offered. The Compensation policy also provides guidance on the range of awards that may be made. It states as follows:

“Awards of £250 to £700

Remedies in the range of these amounts may be for cases where we find considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complaint. Examples could include:

Misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about a complainant’s rights.

A complainant having repeatedly to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.

A complainant being repeatedly passed between staff and/or teams, with no one officer or department taking overall responsibility, or a landlord not taking responsibility for sub-contracted services.

Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy. For example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments.”

Summary of events

  1. On 26 February 2019, the leaseholder called the landlord to report that water was entering her property. She was asked to knock on some neighbours’ doors to try to establish where leak was emanating from. It is not clear what happened following this; however, the resident subsequently contacted the landlord again on 18 March 2019 as water was still entering the property. During this conversation, the landlord confirmed that it would investigate the matter further.
  2. The resident has advised that she received no communication from the landlord after her report on 18 March, but she believed that the leak emanating from the property above hers – Flat A.
  3. The resident then called the landlord on 7 August 2019 to chase the matter; and to raise a formal complaint. The landlord subsequently informed her on 28 August 2019 that works were commencing at the property believed to be the source of the leak; and on 16 September 2019 that the complaint would be closed as the relevant works were complete. Following this conversation, the leaseholder contacted a buildings’ insurance company which had been appointed by landlord to start the repair works within her property.
  4. However, on 11 December 2019, the leaseholder emailed the landlord to advise that the building insurer’s expert had informed her that the wall was still full of water – three months after the landlord had advised that the leak had been repaired. The leaseholder said that the insurer had told her that it wished to appoint independent third-party damp experts to establish where the leak was coming from and if it had been fixed. The leaseholder added that she did not want to lose her tenants as a result of the delay in having the leak repaired, and the landlord needed to take further action.
  5. A week later, on 18 December 2019, the leaseholder forwarded her email of 11 December 2019 to the landlords’ complaints department, the complaint was acknowledged on 23 December 2019.
  6. The landlord subsequently created a new job and arranged for the insurer to send leak experts to assess the problem. However, the experts could not obtain access to the property. On 15 January 2020, the leaseholder emailed the complaints department to advise that the wall within the property was still wet and she had unhappy tenants. She added that as the occupants of the other property were the landlord’s tenants, it should have been prioritising obtaining access. 
  7. The landlord’s Area Manager subsequently met with the leaseholder, and it was established that the leak was potentially emanating from Flat A – and not the other property that the landlord had originally believed it to be.
  8. The landlord attempted to gain access to Flat A at the end of January, and on 3 February but was unsuccessful. The appointment was then rescheduled to 11 February 2020. The landlord updated the leaseholder and confirmed that it would continue to try to gain access. Within the update, the landlord had provided some history and referred to the leak as being ‘long standing’. The leaseholder replied to clarify that the leak affecting her property was from February 2019, and not before. She asked what the landlord had done to try to investigate the matter further.
  9. Correspondence between the landlord and the leaseholder continued. On 19 February, the landlord confirmed that access to Flat A was being pursued by the legal team and an appointment for access had been booked for 26 February 2020.
  10. The landlord’s Technical Inspection Officer (TIO) reported back to the resident on 28 February 2020. He said that inspections at Flat A found no source of a leak, but he did discover a leak in the roof and water tracking down the side of the stack pipe. The TIO confirmed that a roof repair was to be arranged; and this was subsequently booked for 7 March.
  11. On 11 March 2020, the landlord confirmed that the roof repair was complete. However, it advised that it would need to carry out an inspection once the roof was dry to confirm if the repair was successful.
  12. The landlord subsequently visited Flat A on 19 March 2020 to assess whether the works had been successful. It found that the leak had not been cured by the temporary repair and further work was needed by the roofing contractor. An appointment was subsequently made; however, owing to the outbreak of the Coronavirus pandemic no works could take place. The landlord wrote to the leaseholder on 30 March 2020 to advise of this.
  13. The leaseholder replied and said:

a.     she had been informed by the building insurers that a leak under floorboards in a neighbouring property (no number known) had been identified in relation to the leak in her property, which conflicted with the latest information from the landlord that the roof was repaired and was the cause of the leak.

b.     her tenants had now moved out and the property was empty bar a builder who was updating her kitchen and repainting and she needed to resolve the leak damage to relet the property.

c.      the leak was first reported in February 2019, and there was a disconnect between what the landlord’s insurance team had told the building insurers and what landlord was telling her.

d.     In addition, the leaseholder asked if the landlord was aware of a ‘spigot’ being fixed in neighbouring property in relation to the leak into her flat. She asked the landlord to confirm that a repair would be carried out as soon as possible if it was not already aware of the spigot. The same day the leaseholder emailed the insurers and said the builders were ready to start work, but the landlord said the leak was not fixed.

  1. In response, the landlord’s Technical Inspection Officer advised that he was unaware of any repairs taking place within neighbouring properties. He added that to his knowledge, the leak was identified as coming from the area around the vent pipe – where it exited on to the flat roof.
  2. On 29 April 2020, the leaseholder emailed the landlord and insurers to ask which flat the spigot was fixed in and when. Her enquiry was on the basis that the insurers were under the impression that the leak was fixed, but the landlord’s technical team had advised that the problem was a leak from the roof. The leaseholder advised that the wall within her property was still wet, so no repair works could start; and that she had lost her tenants and was under financial strain because of being furloughed.
  3. The leaseholder sent a further email on 12 May 2020, requesting an update. In response, the landlord advised that the complaint was on hold until a further inspection could take place. It added that it would reopen the complaint once the (coronavirus) ‘crisis was over’.
  4. On 13 May 2020, the leaseholder said she had an email from the company appointed by the insurers to carry out the leak repair, and that she was told the spigot under the floorboard was fixed (but that no one had confirmed which flat this related to), and that the insurers should continue to arrange drying, the leaseholder said she replied and copied in landlord asking for clarification and whether the spigot was responsible and if fixed, and if the roof was the source of the leak.
  5. On 16 June, the landlord advised that the complaint had been reopened and that a CCTV survey of the downpipe from the roof was to be carried out by the following week. A further update was given to the leaseholder on 26 June 2020 when she was told that there was no timeline for the roof work, but that it would carry on with investigation work to rule out other possible ingress routes.
  6. The landlord later advised that works on the roof would be taking place to reinstate the warranty. Once this was complete, additional tests would be carried out to ensure that it had not missed anything. On 11 July 2020, a job was raised by the landlord for a plumber and roofers to inspect.
  7. During an inspection on 7 August 2020, an additional leak was found in the kitchen of a different property, two floors above the leaseholder’s – Flat B. The landlord arranged to carry out repairs; and by 17 September, all works were completed, and post-works inspections had been carried out. The following day the landlord confirmed that it would close the complaint and consider compensation.
  8. The stage one complaint response was issued to the leaseholder on 23 September 2020. Within this, the landlord explained that it encountered various problems when seeking to resolve the issue the leaseholder had reported. It said:

a.     Delays had been experienced as a result of trying to identify the source of the leak and getting the specialist operatives due to covid restrictions.

b.     Previous work on the roof also had to be re-done to reinstate the warranty.

c.      The water was found to be clean water not sewage.

d.     The work had not been carried out in accordance with the landlord’s service level agreement and the complaint was upheld.

e.     Compensation of £300 had already been discussed in respect of inconvenience, time taken to resolve, recognition of its failure to follow process and the repeat visits to resolve the issue.

  1. The leaseholder declined the offer of compensation as she did not consider it to be adequate. The leaseholder responded to the landlord on 14 October 2020 and gave a detailed timeline of events from 26 February 2019 – when she first reported that water was entering the property. The leaseholder’s tenants had vacated the property in April 2020 which was said to be due to the stress of the leak. The leaseholder said she could not accept the £300 and needed to escalate the matter further.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 21 October 2020 and issued its response on 17 November 2020. It said:

a.     it understood that the leaseholder was unhappy that the original complaint was closed.

b.     the first report of damp was in June 2019, when a contractor attended and believed there to be a leak from another property. There were issues gaining access and the job closed rather than being referred to the Housing Team to arrange access. As it was shown as complete on the system the issue was believed to have been resolved.

c.      It acknowledged that it took a long time to resolve the complaint but there were mitigating factors beyond its control and leaks could be difficult to control.

d.     The repair was subsequently delayed due to difficulties gaining access to Flat A (although this was found not to be the source of the leak), and issues with CCTV and that the roof needing repair during covid restrictions.

e.     It noted that the leaseholder had complained that she lost tenants due to the leak, but the landlord felt there was no requirement to decant the tenants as the leak was not significant.

However, the landlord apologised that the leak affected the tenants and noted it had previously offered £300 compensation for inconvenience, time taken to resolve, failure to follow process and repeat visits. 

  1. As the issue was unresolved since June 2019, it felt more was due, and awarded a further £251 to make a total of £551. The landlord apologised and provided escalation rights to this Service.
  2. The leaseholder contacted this Service on 9 February 2021, she said that the landlord’s final response was inaccurate, and she had not received any compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. During the course of the complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the repairs were protracted, and that the leaseholder was inconvenienced as a result. This was appropriate. The landlord identified several mitigating factors which impacted its ability to complete the repairs – including difficulties in finding the source of the leak; and later restrictions that were brought about by the coronavirus pandemic. The landlord also considered the impact on the leaseholder and offered a sum of compensation aimed at putting things right.
  2. At stage one of the complaints process, the landlord’s offered £300 compensation, broken down as follows:

Inconvenience suffered/disruption to the household – £75

Time taken to resolve the complaint – £75

Recognition of failure to follow process – £75

Repeat visits to resolve outstanding problem – £75

  1. When the complaint was considered further at stage two, the landlord increased its offer to £551. It increased the offer in respect of the inconvenience caused by £125; and by £42 respectively for each of the other categories.
  2. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer on the basis that the complaint responses were missing details and events; and that the response did not seem to fully acknowledge the inconvenience that she was caused. The resident also informed the Ombudsman that she was having to chase the landlord for the compensation payment which had been offered in the stage two complaint response.
  3. Having reviewed the chronology of events, the compensation awarded by the landlord does not appear to take into consideration the full extent of inconvenience that was experienced by the leaseholder. The landlord’s response to the complaint detailed that the first report of a repair was made in June 2019, when the leaseholder had first reported the issue in February 2019.
  4. The evidence also shows that there was some confusion on behalf of the landlord in January 2020 about where the further investigations needed to take place, as a different property number had been quoted in error. The evidence shows that it was the leaseholder who brought this error to the landlord’s attention – and in doing so, she prevented the repair from being delayed further. The landlord did not acknowledge this when it responded to the leaseholder’s complaint, and that was inappropriate.
  5. Once the landlord had identified the source of the leak, the timeliness of the repair was affected by the coronavirus pandemic; however, the evidence shows that it was the leaseholder who was proactively chasing the matter to try and ensure that a satisfactory repair was carried out. Given that the repair was the landlord’s responsibility under the terms of the lease, the landlord should have ensured that it was keeping the leaseholder updated periodically.
  6. It is also noted that as the landlord did not take ownership of the matter, the leaseholder found herself having to engage with various different departments to enquire about the status of the repair. She was at times given conflicting information and this was the cause of confusion and concern. This could reasonably have been avoided.
  7. The leaseholder’s comments that her tenants vacated the property owing to the leak are not disputed. However, the Ombudsman has seen no other evidence that the ingress of water was the main reason for them ending their tenancy, or was of such inconvenience that they could no longer reside at the property. However, given the inconvenience that was experienced by the leaseholder – and the considerations detailed in the landlord’s Compensation policy, as detailed above – an increase in the sum of compensation would be appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s reports of a leak affecting the property.

Reasons

  1. The evidence presented by both parties suggests that the landlord was not always proactive in managing the repair; and the leaseholder was driving the process forward rather than the landlord taking ownership. While the landlord has recognised its failings, the remedy which was offered does not suggest that the landlord has fully considered the full timeline of the events and therefore the full extent of the inconvenience caused to the leaseholder.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should pay the leaseholder £700 comprised of:

a.     the £551 compensation which was offered at the end of its complaints procedure, if this was not previously paid.

b.     a further £149 compensation given the Ombudsman’s findings.