Clarion Housing Association Limited (202016776)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016776

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 January 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 landlord’s handling of repairs to fix a leak in the property and subsequent reports of damage.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a 2-bed flat on the fourth floor of the building.
The lease notes the resident will keep the interior of the premises, including the plaster and other internal covering of the walls clean and in good and substantial repair. The landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the roof foundations and main structure of the building and all external parts.
The lease further notes the landlord’s liability to pay third parties. The landlord shall not, except where it has been negligent be liable for any damage suffered by the leaseholder, through any defect in the building.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy notes non-emergency repairs will be attended within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. Repairs to communal areas should be appointed dependent upon the nature of the work but must always be completed within 28 days. Responsive repairs are limited to minor building repairs, with a driver to keep properties in a safe state and fit for habitation.
The repair section on the landlord’s website states that it is responsible for the repair of external walls, windows, and doors and that it will take care of ‘keeping walls, windows and doors water and weather tight’.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes a discretionary payment can be made where any inconvenience has been caused by its actions or failure to act. This includes any inconvenience suffered or a degree of disruption to the household and repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem. The policy notes the landlord will work toward £100 for each point above, for every year the issue has taken it to resolve.

Summary of events

In August 2018, the resident reported a leak coming through her window and the landlord attended to seal the window, however this was unsuccessful. A further visit was carried out in October, but this also did not resolve the leak. The resident was advised that the contractor would be back in touch, but this did not happen.
In July 2019, the resident reported the issue again and work undertaken in August was ineffective again. The resident reported the matter further and an operative attended on 25 November to attempt a roof repair as there was no need for scaffolding, however due to no access to the roof because of a pending roof safety inspection, this was not possible, however the resident was not informed, but rather advised the contractor would make contact shortly.
On 27 January 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint. She noted that the external leak had been reported 18 months ago, however the landlord had not resolved the matter after several visits and therefore significant damage had been caused to her property. She advised she had previously been informed that scaffolding was needed, however this had never been erected and no one could provide her with an update on the status of the repair. She requested that the landlord investigate the cause of the leak, rectify this, and repair the damage to the internal wall of her property.
On 14 February, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It confirmed that the contractor would be attending on 2 March to inspect, identify and attend to any roof repairs. It advised the resident that it would not be making good any internal repairs.
On 5 March the resident escalated her complaint as contractors did not attend on 2 March as advised in the stage 1 response. She set out the landlord’s responsibilities both under her lease and its repair policy. She sought an explanation why it was refusing to repair the damage caused by its failure to resolve the leak for 18 months.
On the same day the landlord’s repairs team was advised that it was unable to inspect or identify work required as access to the roof was prohibited until its Mechanical and Electrical contractor completed the annual servicing of the roof equipment. It noted that the earliest the servicing work could commence would be June/July, but this was also subject to Covid-19 restrictions being lifted. It noted if restrictions were lifted sooner, then the servicing would commence. The landlord internally acknowledged that the issue of the leak had been ongoing since 2018 and causing damage to the internal part of the resident’s property.
On 2 April, the landlord informed the resident that the inspection of the roof equipment was on hold due to the Covid-19 restrictions and as such there would be a further delay in inspecting the roof to address the leak.
On 16 June the landlord’s contractor inspected the roof equipment and deemed it safe to use. The following week the landlord inspected the roof to determine the cause of the leak and updated the resident. The landlord then completed the repair on 15 July, and later visited the resident to inspect the internal damage caused by the leak. It noted that there was minor damage to the window area which could be rectified by redecorating.
On 24 July, the landlord provided its final response. It apologised for the delay in doing so and offered £200 compensation. It noted there were limited records as to why its previous contractor had not taken further action to remedy the leak in 2018 and it was only aware when a further report was made by the resident in July 2019. It reiterated the failed attempts made to rectify the leak and offered £100 for repeat visits to resolve the outstanding issue.
It acknowledged the incorrect advice given in its stage 1 response about when the leak would be rectified and offered £50. It explained that due to the inspection of the roof equipment commencing on some of its properties, in February it had received notice from its Mechanical and Electrical contractor that access to the roofs in question, was prohibited. It noted the work across its affected buildings was due to commence in February, however no set date had been given for the resident’s building. It apologised for the error in advising the resident work would be completed in March.
It noted the inspection had been put on hold due to the Covid-19 restrictions and advised the roof equipment had since been inspected and deemed safe, with works completed after. It referenced the visit to the resident’s property to inspect the damage, reiterating that there was minor damage. It advised that it expected leaseholders to make an insurance claim via their insurance for any internal damage and offered a goodwill payment of £22.09 which it stated equated to the amount its contractor would charge if it were to make good the area.
The landlord confirmed the total compensation being awarded for the service failure identified was £372.09 and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
At the time of bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2021, the resident stated the leak was still present.

Assessment and findings

It is accepted by both parties that the leak had been ongoing since 2018. Whilst the landlord is unable to explain why its previous contractor failed to remedy the leak at the time, the landlord remained responsible for ensuring the repair was completed, not doing so amounted to maladministration.
While the landlord made attempts to resolve the issue in 2019, these were ineffective, and the leak continued. The resident was informed that the contractor would make contact again, however it failed to, and she subsequently complained. The landlord’s obligations are to ensure the property is kept watertight by keeping the external areas in good repair. Where there is an issue, the landlord is expected to remedy this within 28 days. As the landlord has stated that there was no need for scaffolding, the repair was therefore a routine repair and should have been completed within the stipulated timeframe, but was not.
The Ombudsman is unable to assess the level of damage caused to the resident’s property, however whilst the resident is responsible for the internal decorations, it would be unreasonable to expect the resident to continually repair the area following the landlord’s inaction and then subsequent failed attempts.
Whilst the landlord offered some redress for the failings it identified, this was not reasonable given the length of time the resident had complained of the matter and the general stress and inconvenience caused not only by the leak, but by the lack of communication around the matter.
Although the landlord states the resident should make an insurance claim, the Ombudsman’s position is that had the landlord carried out the repair as per its obligations when it was first reported, then the matter of internal damage would not have occurred. The prolonged failure to do so was not as a result of any wrongdoing by the resident.
Furthermore, should the resident indeed make such a claim, the Ombudsman perceives that any excess would be far greater than the £22.09 offered by the landlord and thus the resident would be unduly penalised for the landlord’s failings, by payment of the excess and any increase in premiums and this is wholly unreasonable.
The landlord has failed over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with its policy and obligation in addressing the repairs and the Ombudsman deems that there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, and inconvenience by the landlord’s maladministration and that a payment in recognition of that impact is necessary.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of reports to fix the leak and subsequent damage.

Reasons

The landlord unduly delayed in repairing the leak and this subsequently caused damage to the property. The redress offered is in its stage 2 did not adequately address the failings, nor did it consider the overall impact on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Pays the resident a total of £600 comprised of:
  1. £350 as offered in its stage 2 response
  2. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the lack of repair and communication.
2. Arranges for an inspection of the resident’s property in order to determine whether the external leak still exists and then set out a plan of works to repair it, if necessary.
3. Following the inspection and any subsequent work (if necessary), inspect the internal damage and set out a plan to carry out the necessary repair and redecoration.
4. Consider whether any further compensation is due if the leak has remained unresolved following its final response in July 2020.
All orders should be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its record keeping relating to works completed by contractors.