Clarion Housing Association Limited (202116449)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116449

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of water ingress to his living room;
2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was assigned the tenancy of the property on 6 February 2012. The property has a ground floor living room with windows that look out over a communal garden area.
The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy that sets out that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days. It adds that these repairs will be completed ‘to an acceptable standard which comply with current statutory standards, and to a specification which does not make the item less serviceable or of an inferior quality’.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a two-stage complaint procedure with responses required within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively.
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows for it to award discretionary compensation where there has been service failure that has had an impact on a resident. It sets out a range of compensation amounts depending on the circumstances of a complaint and adds that compensation will not be paid where a resident ‘could make a claim against their insurance policy’.

Summary of Events

Internal landlord emails show that it raised a repair order on 24 January 2020 for a plasterer to attend to make good due to water penetration and that the plasterer had noted a roofer was needed to inspect the balcony asphalt.
The landlord raised a repair job on 11 July 2020, noting that the balcony was leaking into the property, causing a damp spot.
The landlord noted on 9 September 2020 that the resident had continued to chase progress, an ‘operative… attended multiple times in the past’, ‘quite extensive repairs’ were needed to the wall or window where the balcony was, ‘the plaster gets wet on the inside’ during heavy rain and the resident thought an operative had submitted a report but it had no record of this.
The landlord noted on 16 September 2020 that the resident told it his property was last visited in mid-August 2020 but there had been no follow up and he was consistently needing to chase progress.
The resident’s councillor wrote to the local authority on 12 October 2020, advising that the resident was concerned at the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp to the living room wall, given it was reported in November 2019 and no works had been done. He added that the resident had been unwell and was worried that another lockdown would cause further delay. This was forwarded to the landlord on 14 November 2020.
The landlord noted on 22 October 2020 that it had inspected the property on 19 October 2020 and found ‘weep vents on the front bottom of the window unit have been covered’ and it would attend on 27 October 2020 to ‘open up the vents, flush them out and reseal the window unit’.
The resident’s councillor chased the landlord on 2 November 2020, noting that the works could not proceed the week before due to bad weather.
The landlord recorded on 12 November 2020 that it had attended on 3 November 2020 to clear the vents and reseal panels to the window unit.
The landlord noted on 17 November 2020 that the resident had called it and reported that the recently completed works were good but the damp was still an issue. It noted on 18 November 2020 that it would send an operative to ‘inspect the internal walls to ensure they are drying out’.
The landlord responded to the resident’s councillor on 18 November 2020. It advised that:
1. it visited the property on 24 January 2020 and noted the balcony asphalt required inspection by a specialist roofer, which was conducted on 21 February 2020, but Covid-19 lockdown restrictions had stopped works progress
2. as lockdown eased, it was looking to re-organise works and completed them on 3 November 2020
3. it would visit the property on 18 November 2020 to check if the living room damp was drying out and, if so, it would organise remedial works.
The landlord noted on 21 December 2020 that the resident had advised that the damp issue had been getting worse. Internal emails show that it was trying to ensure a plasterer attended before February 2021. It also recorded on 23 December 2020 that the resident was dissatisfied that it was not able to offer a mould wash appointment until 1 February 2021.
The landlord noted on 7 January 2021 that damp works had been unsuccessful and that a blocked outlet could be allowing water to run in under a frame and that a ‘rubber gasket around the décor panel could also be a point of water ingression’. A technical inspector asked for a dehumidifier to be provided and for the outlet to be cleared, a frame seal to be repaired and a water proof covering applied to the balcony.
The landlord noted that the resident chased works on 13 January 2021 and that he said an appointment for 12 January 2021 had been missed.
The landlord obtained a quote on 10 March 2021 for renewal of ‘tilt & turn windows with bottom panels’ and to ‘make and install a waterproof ledge for windows to sit on’.
The landlord asked its contractor on 22 March 2021 to proceed with the manufacture of windows. The landlord’s contractor advised the landlord on 25 March 2021 that the timescale for the windows would be at least two to four weeks.
The landlord noted on 26 March 2021, 13 April 2021 and 14 April 2021 that the resident had called, chasing up when the window works would be done. It recorded on 16 April 2021 that it had provided the resident with an installation date of 11 May 2021.
The landlord’s contractor provided photographs on 14 May 2021 to confirm the window works were complete.
The resident’s councillor wrote to the local authority on 28 May 2021. He asked for a complaint to be logged on the grounds that:
1. works during November 2020 to January 2021 had been unsuccessful so it was recommended that the living room windows be renewed and the wall re-plastered
2. the window replacement had been done a couple of weeks earlier but they did not match the other windows in the living room which was an error by the glazing contractor
3. the newly plastered wall already had a new damp patch
4. the resident wanted the living room windows to be like-for-like as originally intended and was seeking compensation.
The landlord took photographs on 8 June 2021, showing a wet section of wall and floor in the living room and indicating that the new windows had been post-inspected. The contractor advised the landlord on 9 June 2021 that the ‘casement sizes are smaller on this window than the rest of the block due to the manufacturer providing a guarantee on the mechanical parts’ and that a guarantee would not have been provided with larger casements. The contractor passed on correspondence from its supplier that confirmed the same.
Internal landlord emails show that it reviewed the windows on 14 June 2021 and concluded that they would not be replaced again given they were functional. It also reviewed the drying out of the living room on 25 June 2021, confirming this was ongoing and would take some time due to the period the wall was wet for.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 2 July 2021. It concluded that:
1. it had replaced the windows and they were functioning as designed so would not be replaced again
2. the living room was drying out and more time was needed for this to be completed
3. delays leading up to the replacement of the windows were caused by Covid-19 as there were restrictions on non-emergency works and building supply problems
4. repairs were initially attempted but proved unsuccessful and it had offered updates to the resident in April and June 2021
5. it nevertheless awarded £50 for the repair delays and £25 for a complaint handling delay.
The resident’s councillor wrote to the landlord on 19 July 2021, asking to escalate the complaint as the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had refused to fix the error with the incorrect windows and had only awarded £75 compensation.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident about the complaint on 13 August 2021. He told it that he did not believe he should have to pay the excess should he make an insurance claim for a damaged carpet and that the pipework that drained water from the balcony still needed to be repaired.
The landlord noted in late August 2021 that no further water ingress had occurred since its last visit and that a mould wash was booked in.
The landlord sent a complaint holding email to the resident on 13 September 2021, apologising for its delay in answering the complaint.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 20 September 2021. It concluded that:
1. the decision not to use a like for like replacement window in the living room was intentional and because ‘the mechanism could not be guaranteed as safe to use with the original window unit’ and the ‘manufacturer would not guarantee the parts would be substantial enough for the window’ given its size and weight
2. it had attended to address the leak from the previous living room window on 11 and 13 February 2020, 21 September 2020 and 27 October 2020 but these repair attempts were unsuccessful
3. it increased the compensation award for repairs delays to £100 and the compensation for complaint handling delays to £75
4. it was standard practice for the resident to make an insurance claim on his contents insurance for the damaged carpet but it also signposted him as to how he could make a claim against it by approaching its insurance team and it informed him what information he would need to provide to support the claim.
Internal landlord emails show a maintenance surveyor reviewed the window issue on 27 September 2021 and noted that there was no mention on the quote that the windows would look different.
The landlord noted that it spoke to the resident on 1 October 2021, who advised it that he did not have home insurance and that he was dissatisfied that it had not compensated him for the carpet damage. It noted that he had reiterated that the new windows looked terrible and there were still outstanding balcony works.
The resident’s councillor approached this Service on 11 October 2021 on the grounds that:
1. the resident disagreed with the landlord’s explanation about why it had fitted the different living room window
2. the landlord dragged out works for longer than it should have so it was inappropriate that it was just advising the resident to make an insurance claim for the damaged carpet and underlay.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Water ingress

The resident has advised that he reported a damp problem to his living room walls in November 2019 and the landlord raised repair orders at least as early as January 2020 to address the problem. The landlord’s records indicate that it initially suspected a problem with the balcony asphalt in January 2020 and attempted repairs to the living room windows in November 2020, before deciding in March 2021 that it needed to renew the defective windows.
Although diagnosing the cause of water ingress can be a complex process and it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt window unit repairs before deciding that renewal was necessary, it was inappropriate that it failed to resolve the water ingress until it renewed the windows in May 2021, around 18 months after the initial damp report from the resident.
This meant that the resident experienced the problem with damp patches to his living room wall for around 18 months which was inappropriate given the landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will attend to non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days. Further, related balcony works to assist drainage of water were still outstanding in October 2021, almost two years after the resident initially raised his concerns. As well as impacting the resident’s living conditions, the delay and the landlord’s failure to pro-actively organise follow-on works meant that the resident had to consistently chase it for progress to be made.
The landlord has attributed some of the delay to the impact of Covid-19 and it is inevitable that the government’s lockdown measures slowed progress given landlords were sometimes unable to access properties from late March 2020 unless it was for an urgent health and safety issue. However, the landlord had already been aware of the problem at the resident’s property for a few months when lockdown regulations came into effect so it should have been able to diagnose and remedy the water ingress before Covid-19 restrictions became a factor.
Through the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged there had been failings, apologised and awarded £100 compensation. Although it was appropriate that the landlord recognised there had been unreasonable delays, its compensation award was minimal and only within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend where there has been a failure over a short duration. Given the living room water ingress issue lasted for more than 18 months, this level of compensation was insufficient. Further, the landlord missed the opportunity to consider how it could learn lessons from its handling of the repair to ensure that similar errors were not made in future. It therefore failed to offer sufficient redress in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
A major concern raised by the resident through the complaints process was the quality of the new windows the landlord installed in May 2021. It is not disputed that the windows were not like-for-like and the evidence seen by this Service indicates that the landlord was unaware that the windows would be different when it agreed the contractor’s quote in March 2021. Nevertheless, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concern by seeking an explanation from the contractor and manufacturer (which was that it was only able to secure a guarantee by fitting a window of the type it did), passing on this explanation to the resident and post-inspecting the works to check they were satisfactory. Given the landlord was not obliged to fit a like-for-like product, it was appropriate for it to investigate why a different type of window had been installed and check that the new product was of good quality.
In summary, the landlord contributed to unreasonable delays between early 2020 and mid-2021 in diagnosing and remedying water ingress into the resident’s living room. It responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the new windows and awarded compensation for its delays but this did not offer sufficient redress given the extent of its failings.

Complaint handling

A complaint was initially made to the landlord on 28 May 2021 via the resident’s councillor. The landlord’s complaints policy shows that it should respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days. However, in this case, it did not respond until 2 July 2021 which represented an inappropriate delay of almost three weeks.
The resident’s complaint escalation request was subsequently submitted on 19 July 2021. The landlord was obliged to respond within 20 working days according to its complaints policy but it failed to do so until 20 September 2021. This again meant that it responded outside of the timescale set out in its policy, this time by around a month, albeit it did send a holding response to the resident during this period of delay.
While the landlord was investigating the resident’s escalated complaint, he explained to it that he did not believe he should have to pay the excess that would be involved in him making a claim on his own contents insurance for damage to his carpet. The landlord addressed this in its final complaint response by confirming it was standard practice for residents to make claims for damage to personal possessions through their own insurance but it also gave the resident the necessary details for him to pursue a liability claim against it. Given the resident’s concerns about making a claim on his own insurance and that the landlord had acknowledged it had contributed to delays in remedying the water ingress, it was reasonable that it gave the resident details as to how he could pursue a claim against it.
Through the complaints process, the landlord did recognise that there had been complaint handling failings for which it apologised and awarded a total of £75 compensation. Given the complaint handling delays were of a short duration and the landlord did maintain communications with the resident during the periods of delay, its apology and compensation award offered sufficient redress.
In summary, the landlord delayed in providing complaint responses at both stages of the complaints process but its apologies and £75 compensation award represented reasonable redress for these delays.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress to his living room.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably over 18 months in resolving water ingress into the resident’s living room and its apology and £100 compensation award did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord delayed by several weeks in offering responses at both stages of its complaints process but its apology and £75 compensation award offered sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £400 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by its service failure in the handling of his reports of water ingress to his living room.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

The landlord to review its handling of the resident’s living room water ingress reports and create an action plan within eight weeks of the date of this report to ensure that it can diagnose and resolve leaks more promptly in future.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £175 that it offered in its final complaint response of September 2021.
If it has not already done so, the landlord to post-inspect the resident’s balcony to ensure that there are no outstanding repairs.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.