Clarion Housing Association Limited (202101179)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101179

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 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

  1. This complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of plumbing costs and repairs to damage following a toilet leak.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the communal area of the property.

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.

Reports of damp and mould in the communal area of the property

  1. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  2. The landlord has two stages to its complaints process. The resident raised her concerns about damp and mould issues in the communal areas of her building in her original complaint to the landlord. She did not raise the matter again in her escalated complaint to the landlord, referring only to issues relating to the toilet leak. However, she raised the communal damp and mould issue in her complaint to the Ombudsman. As this issue was not raised in the resident’s escalation request with the landlord it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In line with paragraph 39(a) it is not a matter the Ombudsman will consider in this investigation. If these issues are continuing, the resident will need to raise a new complaint about them with the landlord.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The lease began on 19 June 2018. The property is a second floor flat situated in a building with similar properties.  As a new build property, it had a defect liability period which, according to the landlord, expired in June 2019.
  2. On 16 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord asking for reimbursement of £120 that she said she had paid to a plumber to investigate and repair concealed defects. She said she also hoped to agree reimbursement for any future works that might be needed as a result of this investigation.  She explained that:
    1. It had come to light that the building developer had failed to install the toilet and the kitchen sink pipework to a safe and acceptable standard. Both had been slowly leaking when in use. As the leaks were concealed and of a small volume, it had taken a long period of time to cause noticeable exterior damage.
    2. She had to pay a plumber for the rectification work and would also now have to get quotes to replace the bathroom flooring.  She hoped that any flooring underneath the laminate was not rotten otherwise that would also need replacing as a matter of safety.
    3. She said that the poor workmanship of the property developer was the cause of these problems, and the property was now outside of the defects period.
  3. On 6 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord asking for an update in respect of her request for reimbursement of the plumber invoice.
  4. On 9 April 2021 the resident sent a further email emphasising that it had been more than eight weeks since she asked for reimbursement for her plumbing costs. The resident said that she had tried to call but the call automatically hung up after a few minutes. She sent a further email on 12 April 2021 and said that she would involve the Ombudsman if she had no response with 48 hours.
  5. The resident called this Service on 14 April 2021 to complain about the landlord’s handling of her request to replace the bathroom flooring, and its lack of response to her request for reimbursement of her plumber costs.
  6. This Service passed on to the landlord the resident’s concerns on 14 April 2021.  On 14 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and acknowledged it had logged her complaint. It said it would be in contact within ten working days.
  7. On 6 May 2021 the landlord gave its response to the complaint. It apologised for any inconvenience caused in the process of making the complaint, and for the delay in providing a full response outside of the target of ten working days. It explained that Covid19 restrictions might have impacted its ability to contact the resident, and that there may have been a fault with the telephone system in response to her complaint about difficulties contacting the landlord. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the leak, but explained that because the leak was identified outside of the defects period, the resident would be responsible for it. However, it suggested the resident could make a claim under her newbuild warranty. Alternatively, damage to the skirting boards and flooring could be claimed under home contents insurance.
  8. In light of the difficulties the resident had experienced making contact with the landlord, it apologised and offered her £75 compensation. It explained how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied and on 14 May 2021 asked that the complaint be raised to stage two in respect of two matters, namely the reimbursement of the plumber costs and an agreement to cover or provide someone to ‘make good’ the bathroom flooring and skirting board.
  10. On 14 July 2021 the landlord sent its stage two complaint response. It reiterated that because the leak was reported a long time after the defect period ended, it would not be liable to reimburse her for it. It explained that if the resident wished to claim the leaks as a latent defect, she would need to make a claim on the building warranty and claim any subsequent damages from her home and contents insurance. It apologised for the resident needing to complain, and offered a further £50 compensation for the time it took to respond. It explained its complaint process was at an end and provided information for the resident to approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. As the resident is a leaseholder she is responsible for any repairs to her property.  Paragraph 3.4 of the lease requires the resident to repair and keep the premises in good and substantial repair and condition – this would include repairs to leaking pipes within the property.
  2. In response to the resident’s report of the toilet leak and costs she had incurred repairing it, the landlord explained that the defect, whether it be latent or not, was outside of the defect liability period and as such any repairs would fall to the resident. The landlord explained in its response to stage one of the complaint that there were options open to the resident, and informed her that she could approach her building warranty provider. In respect of internal damage, it explained that she might be able to make a claim under her house contents insurance. If there is a newbuild warranty in place, then that is the appropriate avenue for a leaseholder to explore for any potential defects in their home, and if any damage to items or decorations has occurred, then a claim should be made under home contents insurance. In that circumstance the landlord’s explanations were appropriate and reasonable. It would be for the warranty provider to assess the resident’s concerns about the length of time the defects had been present, and take the relevant remedial action if the warranty provider agrees the matter relates to a defect. The landlord generally plays only a limited role when internal pipes and leaks are involved in a leasehold property.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The alleged defects were reported outside the property’s defects period, and so it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to both her lease obligations and newbuild warranty provider. It was also reasonable to recommend she make an insurance claim in relation to internal damage, because the landlord was not responsible for leaks originating inside the resident’s home.