Clarion Housing Association Limited (202124981)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124981

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 March 2023

 

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. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of the following:
    1. a leak into her property, and
    2. The subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of a two-bedroom flat owned by the landlord. She reported a leak from the flat above was entering her bathroom.  There were delays in the landlord undertaking works to stop the leak which resulted in the resident being unable to use the light. Damp and mould started to effect the walls and ceiling, and a crack appeared in the ceiling. The resident took time off workto provide access only for the work to not take place due to lack of access above, or the non-attendance of operatives. Once the work to fix the leak was completed there was then a lengthy period of delay before the light was reinstated and the walls/ceiling made good. This caused inconvenience and distress to the resident and she does not believe the level of compensation offered by the landlord fully recognised this.
  2. The landlord’s complaint response at stage one confirmed that it was first notified of the leak in June 2021. The exact date is not known. An order to investigate the leak was raised by the landlord on 13 July 2021. The landlord has explained that it had difficulty gaining access to the flat above, but this was finally obtained on 24 August 2021 and the leak was repaired.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord in October 2021. The exact date is not known, but a complaint acknowledgement was sent on 11 October 2021. The resident complained about the poor service she had received. She had taken four days off work, including the day of the complaint.  She stated that the operative had not turned up and the appointment had had to be rebooked for 22 November.  She pointed out that she was still without a light in her bathroom, and there was still damp and mould that had been caused by the leak. She requested compensation.
  4. The resident was awarded an automatic payment of £15 for the missed appointment.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 November 2021 when no operative turned up. She had taken a day off work as the appointment had been confirmed by the landlord on 16 November 2021. The landlord had not been in touch with her and it was only when she contacted the repairs team that she was told that the appointment was not booked.
  6. The landlord sent its response to the complaint at stage one of its process on 22 November 2021. The letter acknowledged that there had been delays in repairing the leak due to problems contacting the resident above. It noted that the electrics had been made safe on 3 August 2021. Operatives also attended on 13 August 2021 and assessed the leak as ‘light’ and not requiring a dehumidifier. From the letter it appears that the resident had purchased her own dehumidifier and sought recompense from the landlord, which was declined.
  7. The letter refers to an appointment to complete the internal repairs and reinstate the bathroom light on 29 November 2021, with a further appointment arranged for 17 December for the remedial repairs to the ceiling and mould affected areas. No mention is made of an appointment date for 22 November.
  8. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and confirmed that a service failure had been identified in relation to its communication as calls had not been returned nor updates provided.  It acknowledged that there had also been a significant delay in resolving the repairs. It offered £200 compensation for these failings.
  9.  The resident was unhappy with this offer. She contacted the landlord on the same day (22 November 2021) and pointed out that the damage hadn’t been fully assessed as yet, and the amount offered did not recognise the number of times she had had to take time off work for appointments which did not happen. She heard nothing in response and chased the landlord in January 2022. She asked for confirmation that the complaint had been moved to stage two of the complaints process.
  10. The landlord apologised for the delay and confirmed that the complaint had been progressed to stage two on 3 February 2022. The resident pointed out that there had been further cancellations as an appointment for 30 January 2022 had been cancelled and moved to 11 February. She was dissatisfied that the work remained incomplete.
  11. The landlord’s final response was sent on 10 February 2022. This confirmed that the appointment on 11 February was to repair the crack in the bathroom ceiling, to carry out a mould wash and repair damaged pipe boxing.  An apology was given for the missed appointment on 20 January 2022 which was not attended as the operative was off sick.
  12. The letter explained that compensation was not awarded for any loss of earnings, but in light of the lack of the response sent to the email in November 2021 the landlord offered further compensation of £50, along with a further £50 to acknowledge the delays, plus the £15 for the missed appointment on 20 January 2022. This increased the landlord’s offer of compensation offer to £315, or £330 when the automatic payment of £15 already paid was included.

Assessment and findings

Leak

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies into tenancy agreements an obligation upon landlords to carry out basic repairs. The landlord is obliged to  keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house (including drains, gutters, external pipes, external and internal walls, floors, and ceilings).
  2. The landlord must be given notice of the repair before it becomes liable under the legislation. In this instance, notice was provided by the resident at some point in June 2021 when she informed the landlord of the leak. It is of concern that this Service was unable to identify the specific date of the resident’s initial report as this is information that the landlord would be expected to retain.
  3. Once aware of the repair the landlord is expected to complete the repair within a reasonable time. There is no definition of what constitutes a reasonable time in the legislation. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy states “Any emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Further repairs may then subsequently be required.” For non-emergency repairs an appointment will be offered within 28 days of the repair being reported. The policy gives no insight into what may be a reasonable time for completion of the repair.
  4. From the evidence provided the first appointment to make the electrics safe was on 3 August 2021. This is significantly outside of the 24 hour timescale for an emergency repair. It is of concern that the electrics may have been left unchecked from June to 3 August.
  5. The leak was remedied on 24 August 2021. Therefore, it took the landlord approximately 2 months to remedy the leak.  The landlord’s obligation to repair includes making good any damage to decorations caused by the disrepair, and to clear up afterwards. The landlord had not completed this work by the 10 February 2022, some eight months after the resident notified it of the leak. Even allowing for a drying out period, this was an unreasonable amount of time to complete a relatively straightforward repair.
  6. As set out above, it took the landlord approximately two months to stop the leak.  It is not clear why it took so long for a works order to be raised, which was not done until 13 July 2021. Had the landlord raised the order promptly following the resident’s reporting of the repair in June, the leak may have been resolved more promptly, avoiding some of the subsequent damp, damage and discomfort for the resident.
  7. The landlord must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including damp and mould growth and also protection from accidents. For damp and mould this means taking preventative measures that could have a significant effect on likelihood and harm outcomes relating to moisture production and ventilation. This includes ensuring that the external fabric of the building is kept in good repair.  No particular preventative actions are listed in relation to falls from baths, although this is recognised as a potential hazard under the protection from accidents.
  8. The resident was left without a working light in her bathroom for a five month period from June 2021 – 29 November 2021. This would have made it difficult to use the room in the evening/night time.  As this was the room with the washing facilities and toilet, it was not possible for the resident to avoid using the room at night. The lack of lighting would have increased the risk of accidents in the bathroom and the landlord failed to mitigate this risk within a reasonable time frame.
  9. The landlord has rightly recognised that there were failings in its handling of this repair. To put things right it has offered £280 (£330 including complaint handling addressed below).  This was broken down as follows:
    1.  An apology
    2. Compensation for two missed appointments at £15 per appointment totalling £30.
    3. For having to chase responses, failure to follow process/policy to address the repair and for the impact experienced by the resident £150.
    4. For the lack of response to the email sent by the resident in November regarding a missed appointment £50
    5. For delays in completing the works £50
  10. It is for the Ombudsman to determine whether this offer provided reasonable redress for the landlord’s failings. As set out above the resident was unable to make full use of her bathroom for a period of eight months. Whilst the room was not uninhabitable, the evidence suggests the resident’s ability to use the room was severely reduced. The landlord’s offer of redress fails to fully recognise this and its offer of the impact experienced by the resident was not sufficient.
  11. Given the above, the landlord should increase its offer to reflect the delay over the reasonable time period for the repair. Since the commencement of the tenancy the resident has been liable for £589.29 rent per month, yet for the period of the repair she was unable to fully enjoy the use of her bathroom.  Three months is considered a reasonable time frame for completion of the repair and therefore any offer of redress should reflect the remaining 5 month period.  As the use of the room was not fully restricted a 10% rent refund is deemed appropriate over a five month period.  The landlord should therefore refund the resident 10% of her total rent over five months.
  12. Whilst it is clear that the resident has had to provide a large amount of access, the landlord has sought to address this through its automatic payments for missed appointments and its offer of compensation. There was no obligation on the landlord to offer recompense for the days the resident had to take off work.  Had access not been provided, the landlord’s liability to undertake the repairs and pay any damages may be suspended.  The landlord explained that this was not something it offered, but took steps to put things right by its offer of compensation.
  13. The remainder of the redress offered by the landlord is considered fair in the circumstances as it has clearly identified areas of service failure. The offer addresses the remaining distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  14. It is of significant concern that the resident has made further reports to this Service following the completion of the complaints process that the leak and mould issues have reoccurred. As these instances have post dated the complaints process by some time, it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to assess these further reports here. Nonetheless, a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to contact the resident and to confirm its plan of action for resolving any new issues that have presented.
  15. The resident has the option of raising a new complaint on this issue and is encouraged to do so here if she remains unconvinced by the landlord’s overall approach. Following completion of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident will have the option of progressing this new complaint to this Service for further investigation.

Complaint handling

  1. It is not clear when the resident first complained to the landlord. There is a complaint acknowledgement dated 11 October 2021 and the residents’ complaint of 14 October 2021 refers to having made two earlier complaints. The complaint response at stage one states that the complaint was made on 14 October, whereas the stage two response states the 20 October 2021. The earlier missing complaints do not appear to have been identified or investigated by the landlord.
  2. In addition there were delays in the landlord issuing its complaint responses, with the stage one response being sent 27 days after the complaint of 14 October 2021. The landlord acknowledged this failing and provided redress through its apology and offer of £50 compensation.
  3. The landlord did not progress the complaint to stage two until the resident chased in January 2022. Whilst the resident’s earlier email dated 22 November 2021 does not explicitly request that the complaint be escalated, it is clearly an expression of dissatisfaction with the complaint response and should have been treated as such. The stage two decision was sent on 10 February 2022, more than 11 weeks after the initial request. Once made aware of its error, the landlord responded promptly and the decision was sent within the 20 days target set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  4. In relation to complaint handling the stage two response offered compensation on for the following “£50 for the lack of communication concerning your stage 1 complaint outcome”.
  5. The landlord did therefore recognise that there had been delays in its complaint’s response and provided adequate redress for this to the resident. It did not, however, fully recognise or investigate the resident’s concerns that she had to make three complaints before she was able to access the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, I make the following findings:
    1. There was a service failure by the landlord in relation to the handling of the leak
    2. There was a service failure by the landlord in relation to the handling of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord recognised that there had been failings within its handling of the leak and the complaint, but missed elements of both complaints.
  2. In relation to the leak it failed to fully recognise the impact of the situation on the resident within its offer of redress.
  3. In relation to the complaint handling it failed to address the residents concerns that she had made two previous complaints that had not been responded to.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident a total of £675 compensation to the resident.  Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £295 for the delay in remedying the damp, reinstating the electrics and making good
    2. £315 which the landlord awarded during its stage two response (plus the additional £15 automatic payment already made)
    3. £50 for the failure to identify and/or investigate any earlier complaints made by the resident.
  2. The landlord should confirm its compliance with the orders in this case to this Service within four calendar weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord review how complaints made via its online portal are identified and processed, and in particular, what happened to the earlier complaints made by the resident and why these were not processed as complaints.
  2. The landlord to confirm in writing to the resident its plans for addressing her more recent reports about leaks and mould within the property.
  3. The landlord to discuss with the resident whether she desires to submit a new complaint in relation to these more recent reports.