Clarion Housing Association Limited (202126537)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126537

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 May 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to a roof leak, broken window, blocked sink and the refusal of a decant.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord that began in January 2021 after a mutual exchange. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a three-storey converted building.
The resident has advised this Service of a disability that affects his mobility and that he uses crutches to assist him to walk.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 outlines repair responsibilities and the tenancy agreement supports this. The landlord is responsible for certain repairs to the property including the structure and exterior of the property as well as to keep the equipment for the supply of gas, electricity and water in safe and good working order. This includes keeping the roof, windows, doors and walls watertight and plumbing, leaks and blockages. The tenancy states that the tenant is responsible for minor blockages to sinks, baths and toilets and it gives advice on what to do.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy gives guidance on priority timescales for different repairs as follows:
1. Emergency – it will respond within 24 hours where there is an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident.
2. Non-Emergency – appointed and offered within 28 calendar days.
3. Other repairs – minor building repairs.
The Housing Act 2004 sets out that landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The landlord has a complaints policy with a two-stage approach and a compensation policy outlining guidance on compensation payments for when things go wrong. It gives examples along with a tiered approach as follows:
1. £50-£250 where there has been some impact on the resident.
2. £250-£700 where there has been considerable failure.
3. £700 and above where there has been significant failure and serious long-term effect.
The landlord’s decant policy applies when properties are unsafe, uninhabitable or the scope of works makes it impractical for the resident to remain at the property. It will only use this in exceptional circumstances where the property is uninhabitable and or unsafe or if it is not possible to undertake the work with the tenant living at the property.

Scope of Investigation

The resident has brought recent information to this Service in relation to a disrepair claim. As these recent events did not form part of the complaint, we cannot consider this and, whilst the disrepair claim is yet to be heard at court, this investigation is focused on events up until the landlord’s final complaints response and not the recent events which may be subject to the disrepair claim. However, reference to these events may be made where appropriate to give context.

Summary of Events

On 9 December 2020, prior to the resident taking over the tenancy, a mutual exchange inspection was carried out at the property by the landlord. This report identified each room within the property and gave the officer the opportunity to comment on the property condition. No issues of concern were reported.
The landlord raised an emergency order on 14 January 2021 for a leak in the bedroom, shortly after the resident’s tenancy started. The operative attended on 15 January 2021; notes show that the doorbell was not working, and a call was made to the resident and a voice message left advising that the operative was outside. The resident called the next day and advised that he had left the property at 10.30pm as he said he was advised that if no-one arrived by 10pm then they would not attend until the next day. The call handler advised that this information was not correct, and the resident should have waited in until the operative had attended. No records have been provided to state what happened from this point onwards.
On 12 February 2021, an operative attended to inspect the gutters and roof to identify the source of the leak. The operative advised the landlord that both walls at the back of the property required repairs where the cement had corroded and the gully in the middle of the roof had overlapped and was loose. It also noted window repairs were required.
The landlord has confirmed that the first complaint was submitted by the resident through an email dated 17 February 2021 but due to an error on its system, it says that there were significant delays in responding but no evidence has been provided to clarify if it did or did not respond.
On 15 March 2021, the resident sent the landlord an email asking for an update on his formal complaint. He expressed concerns that it had been over two months since he signed for a mutual exchange and over one month since an operative had deemed the flat uninhabitable. He confirmed that the repairs had still not been carried out, he had not been decanted and he was paying to stop on a friend’s sofa and paying another friend to store his personal property. He raised concerns about the landlord’s duty of care and that the situation was unacceptable. He advised the landlord that he would not be paying rent until the repairs were carried out and he was able to safely move into the property.
On 2 April 2021, the resident sent another email to the landlord to follow up on his previous email of 15 March 2021, stating that he still had not heard anything. He asked for someone to contact him urgently.
On 29 April 2021, the resident sent a further follow up email requesting a date and time for the outstanding repairs to be completed. He asked for someone to contact him as soon as possible.
On 18 May 2021, a job was raised to carry out a condition assessment which was due to take place on 21 May 2021. The officer attended and left a voice message for the resident as they were unable to access the property as the resident was not staying there.
The appointment was rescheduled for 10 June 2021 and the tenant liaison officer noted the roof leak had affected the bedroom and window repairs were required. The landlord confirmed that no information was available to support a decant but it has not provided this Service with a copy of the condition assessment report.
On 22 June 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord giving an update, advising that an operative had visited the property on 10 January 2021 and confirmed that it was uninhabitable and there had been no repair date set. He expressed concerns that he had now been five months without a place to live and that he would be calling on a weekly basis and sending emails until the repairs were completed.
On 23 August 2021, the resident sent another email to the landlord, advising that he was left with no choice but to forward the matter to his solicitor, commenting that there had been no effort to carry out the repairs apart from erecting scaffolding, no attempt to rehouse him and the landlord had not responded for months.
On 23 September 2021, the resident sent an email to the landlord wanting to formally put in writing the lack of progress made. He was concerned at the duration he had been homeless with ongoing physical health issues. He commented that the landlord had completely failed to prioritise his health and safety and that it was failing in relation to its duty of care. He confirmed that he was still willing to put off legal action if he could be rehoused and given a permanent tenancy.
On 4 October 2021, a maintenance officer sent an internal email attaching their report of the property. The report has not been made available to this Service. Another email on the same day advised that the resident had asked for a decant while he awaited roof repairs as he was told by an officer that this would be possible. The email asked for clarification.
On 14 January 2022, the landlord’s internal emails mentioned contact with the resident where he had advised that he was not living at the property due to works that had been ongoing for around 12 months. It confirmed that the resident had said that he would not be returning until these matters had been dealt with.
On 20 January 2022, the landlord sent its stage one complaint response. It said that this was in response to the resident’s formal complaint of 20 December 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding and confirmed the following:
1. It noted that the resident’s complaint was about delayed repairs to a roof leak, broken window and blocked sink, and that the resident felt the property was uninhabitable due to the outstanding repairs.
2. It confirmed the resident wanted the following as an outcome:
  1. The repairs to be completed and a review of the delays.
  2. Rent rebate and compensation for the duration of the delays.
3. The initial complaint was submitted by email on 17 February 2021 and, due to it being created during the mutual exchange process, there were significant delays to the response. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience.
4. It initially raised an emergency job on 14 January 2021 for the leak in the bedroom and there had been no access.
5. An operative attended on 12 February 2021 to inspect the gutters and roof and reported on the required works as well as works to windows. It referred to the resident stating that the operative findings were that the property was uninhabitable; it said it had checked the operatives notes and this was not mentioned and therefore decanting to another property was not actioned.
6. On 18 May 2021, a job was raised to carry out a condition assessment which was due to take place 21 May 2021 but there was no access and the appointment was rescheduled for 10 June 2021.
7. On 30 January 2022, a further inspection was carried out by the tenant liaison officer and the following issues were identified that still required repairs:
  1. Rear bedroom window – cracked glass and rotten frame – and a blocked kitchen sink for which it said an operative attended on 14 January 2021 but the resident was not at the property so it was rescheduled and the resident was given a contact number if he needed an alternative date.
  2. Roof leak to rear of property – affecting the bedroom and bathroom ceilings – for which it confirmed a job was raised on 13 October 2021 to start repairs and these were completed on 9 December 2021 (with a monitoring period to check the job had been successful).
8. It agreed that there had been significant delay in completing the repairs, repeat visits to resolve the outstanding problem and a lack of communication by not returning the call requests the resident made or providing updates including incorrect information provided by an operative.
9. It offered the resident £650 compensation in recognition of the service failures and advised him that if there were any arrears on the rent or service charge account, then compensation will be offset against the arrears. It advised that £50 of this was for the delayed complaint response.
10. It confirmed that feedback had been provided to the relevant officers about the events in order to improve the service.
On 21 January 2022, the resident responded to the landlord to formally decline the compensation offer and request that the complaint be escalated. The resident confirmed that the stage one complaint did identify a few of the issues he had raised but the more serious and severe issues were not adequately investigated. The resident explained that the major issue was that he had been made homeless for the last 12 months because of the outstanding repairs and that operatives on more than one occasion had commented that the property was uninhabitable. The resident confirmed that he had been paying to sleep on a friend’s sofa for the past year and he had a physical health condition. The resident gave further details of officers who had said the property was uninhabitable and made reference to a window that was smashed, and that it had a hole in it due to water damage and wood rot, stating that it still had not been boarded. The resident also pointed out that:
1. The error with the first complaint being logged did not explain the various replies he had confirming receipt of the complaint and the multiple telephone calls he had made.
2. Numerous officers and operatives had stated that the property was uninhabitable.
3. He had now lost all confidence, trust and respect for the landlord and did not feel safe moving into the property with the current area manager dealing with the repairs.
On 24 January 2022, the landlord replied to the resident advising that his dissatisfaction had been referred to the customer solutions team who would review the complaint at its final stage and contact him within 20 working days.
On 4 March 2022, this Service sent the landlord a first request for action. It advised the landlord that the resident had not received a response and that the 20 working days had been exceeded. It requested a response by 11 March 2022.
On 7 March 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response. In its response the landlord apologised for the delay in replying and said that:
1. It was satisfied that the stage one complaint response was fair, reasonable and accurate in that it gave the correct information, identified service failures and offered compensation to reflect the failures in accordance with its compensation policy.
2. It had reviewed the operatives’ notes and it was unable to locate any records that the operatives made about the property being uninhabitable.
3. The surveyor who attended the property advised that she did not tell the resident that the property was uninhabitable, and the resident had already decided to stay elsewhere before her visit.
4. When the resident made calls, he confirmed that he had not received any calls or letters from the landlord to confirm the property was uninhabitable and therefore it was unable to agree that it was reasonable that the resident cited this as the reason for not staying at the property.
5. Service failures were identified in the stage one response and in an effort to resolve these, a maintenance surveyor made contact with the resident to arrange an inspection, but the resident refused this, stating that a solicitor was involved who had recommended no personal dealings with the landlord at the present time.
6. It arranged two window repair appointments and the resident refused access.
7. It was satisfied that the property was habitable, but it wanted to carry out a further inspection to confirm if there had been any deterioration.
8. It reminded the resident about the terms of his tenancy agreement in relation to occupancy and access.
9. Due to no access, it had explored options to board up the window from the outside and it had arranged for its contractor to attend on 4 March 2022 to complete the work.
10. It had offered compensation to reflect the service failure of the delays and increased its offer to £800 as follows:
  1. Previous offer of £650;
  2. Window repairs (delays from stage one complaint to present) £150.

Summary of Events after landlord’s complaint process

During March–May 2022, the resident contacted this Service to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. The resident said that he would not intentionally make himself homeless, that various officers of the landlord had confirmed that the property was uninhabitable, and that he had not refused access. He quoted information from the surveyor’s visit in September 2021, when she allegedly said that, as it had failed to board up the damaged window in the front room, this would imply that the property was uninhabitable until this work was completed but all repairs remained outstanding. The resident pointed out that he had lost confidence in the landlord and had suffered physically, mentally and financially over the previous year. He requested a resolution of:
1. An exchange to another property that did not have any outstanding repairs.
2. A full rebate on rent arrears.
3. Compensation for the duration he had been left homeless.
During March–April 2022, various email exchanges occurred between the resident and landlord about the outstanding repairs. An appointment was made for an inspection of the property on 13 April 2022 and the resident was given the officer’s telephone number. The resident provided evidence to the landlord to confirm that he was at the property at the time given but a new appointment had to be made for the following week.
On 21 April 2022, the landlord confirmed in an internal email that the appointment went ahead on that day and that there was no reason why the resident could not live at the property whilst it carried out the repairs around him as they were routine repairs. It outlined the following:
1. The resident had advised that the roof was still leaking despite repair efforts and there was some evidence of a leak in the corner of the bedroom that could be historic.
2. Two timber windows were rotten and required replacement, but they were safe and secure. There was a six-week lead time for replacement.
3. The sink was still blocked.
4. It was agreed that a key safe would be fitted for the resident to leave his keys so that operatives could access the property. Once work was completed, it agreed to change the locks.
On 28 April 2022, another internal email gave an update that the landlord had attended to complete the works, but the key had been removed from the safe.
On 29 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident, and it was reported that the property was habitable and a decant was denied. It confirmed that the sink was unblocked on 22 April 2022 and the roof contractors were due to attend within the next two weeks dependant on the weather. It clarified previous emails and confirmed that:
1. The walls and ceiling did not need to be pulled apart as the resident had suggested. Instead, an inspection panel would be cut in both areas measuring less than a square foot. The evidence of staining did not constitute a severe leak.
2. The windows were safe and secure although they did need replacing.
3. The rooms were not ‘‘off bounds’’.
4. No agreement had been made for a decant.
5. There were no applicable grounds for a move that could be agreed.
6. It strongly advised the resident to return to the property to comply with the tenancy agreement and allow access for repair work to be completed.
Due to the time elapsed since the complaint was accepted by this Service, both parties were given the opportunity to provide evidence of the current position with regards to repairs. The resident provided an independent inspection report that had been prepared for the disrepair case. The resident has confirmed that court action had not commenced at that time as the landlord had admitted liability. The independent report deems the property unfit for habitation and gives options of required work.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a roof leak, broken window, blocked sink and

the refusal of a decant.

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to:
1. Be fair;
2. Put things right; and
3. Learn from outcomes.
The mutual exchange pre-inspection reported no areas of concern in relation to the property. However, almost as soon as the resident accepted the tenancy, concerns were raised about the property condition. This was initially in relation to a roof leak that was evident in the bedroom.
The landlord acted appropriately and raised an emergency order on 14 January 2021, in line with its repairs policy. The operative could not gain access and it appears there were some miscommunication of repair timescales in relation to when the operative would be attending, and this was why the resident was not at the property.
It was not until 14 February 2021, a month later, that an operative attended again. On this occasion, some repairs were noted to be necessary but it does not appear that any works were carried out at this time.
Given that the initial report was for a leak in the bedroom, the landlord should have been more proactive in following up on this and made contact with the resident to ensure it could gain access earlier. It has not demonstrated that it made reasonable efforts to prevent potential damage to the property and this is a service failure. Despite regular chasers from the resident, it was not until May 2021 that a condition assessment was re-attempted.
Although the landlord made arrangements to carry out an inspection of the property on 21 May 2021, no access was available. The landlord was aware in February 2021 that the resident was not staying at the property (as he alleged that operatives said the property was uninhabitable) yet it did not make pro-active attempts to contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The landlord not only failed to keep the resident updated, but also failed to be proactive in its attempts to resolve the outstanding repairs.
The resident has evidenced that he made numerous attempts to contact the landlord to chase up the outstanding work, but he received no response. He chased the matter further between June-September 2021 but the landlord failed to communicate with the resident. This was unreasonable and was likely to have caused distress and uncertainty to the resident as to how the landlord intended to resolve his concerns.
Despite the resident contacting the landlord on numerous occasions, the landlord failed to respond and did not raise a repair order for the leak until 13 October 2021 and it did not complete roof works until 9 December 2021. This was 11 months after the resident’s initial leak report and represented an unreasonable delay. These service failures amount to maladministration because the landlord failed to keep its obligations to maintain the structure of the building. Although it rightly raised an emergency order when the roof leak was first reported, it failed to follow up on this repair and instead it left the leak unresolved for 11 months. It said that it would monitor the success of these repairs but it is unclear if this has happened and what the outcome of this was.
There were additional delays with further repairs that the resident had reported. Concerns in relation to two windows were raised in January 2021 and again when the tenant liaison officer visited the property on 12 February 2021 but it was not until March 2022 that one of the windows was boarded up from the outside. Whilst there were some difficulties with access, the landlord should again have been more proactive in liaising with the resident. It is unclear whether work has been fully completed on the windows and the delays of 13 months were inappropriate, particularly given the resident advised at least as early as March 2021 that he felt he could not stay at the property.
In January 2021, a blocked sink was reported but there were again delays, and it was not until April 2022 that the works were recorded as complete. This was a significant and unreasonable delay of 15 months.
In regards to the decant request, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s concerns. The resident advised in March 2021 that he was not able to stay at the property but the landlord did not confirm its view that the property was habitable until January 2022. This delay in the landlord investigating, and responding to, the resident’s report that the property was uninhabitable was unreasonable and indicates that it failed to treat the matter with sufficient urgency.
Whilst there is some evidence that a condition assessment was carried out in June 2021, the report has not been provided and therefore this Service cannot determine whether the condition assessment was in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. It was important that this was evidenced as the landlord has responsibility to satisfy itself and the resident that there were no hazards or risks at the property in compliance with the Housing Act 2004.
It is therefore unclear from January 2021 whether the property was habitable or not and whether the decant policy should have been applied. The landlord should have investigated this and communicated its findings to the resident in writing. Its failure to do so will have left the resident uncertain as to whether his property was habitable or not in the landlord’s view and whether it was willing to offer a move as he later requested. It is of concern that the landlord’s inspection records are so limited, particularly given the survey completed as part of the disrepair claim which indicates that the property was later found to be uninhabitable.
The landlord did recognise through the complaints process that there were service failures – it apologised for these and offered £800 compensation in recognition of its delays. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to offer redress for its failings, this level of compensation was not proportionate given the extent of the failings and the likely impact on the resident. The landlord’s repair handling delays were over a period of more than a year and the resident went to unnecessary time and trouble to chase a resolution during this period.
Further, apart from general comments that it would offer feedback to involved staff, there is no evidence that the landlord has identified specific service improvements that will prevent such delays and poor communications occurring in future. The landlord therefore failed to act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

On 17 February 2021, the resident submitted an initial complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the complaint. The landlord later said that this was because there had been a recent mutual exchange but this should not have prevented the logging of the complaint and the error caused an unreasonable delay and a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the repairs issues.
On 20 December 2021, the resident made another complaint, and this was responded to by the landlord at stage one of its complaints procedure on 20 January 2022; this was outside of the landlord’s 10 working day complaint timescale and represented an unreasonable delay, particularly given it had overlooked the original complaint.
On 21 January 2022, the resident requested that his complaint be escalated and on 24 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and advised him that it would respond within the 20-working day timescale. However, the landlord failed to send its stage two response until 7 March 2022; this was 30 days later and again meant that the landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonably delayed.
The landlord recognised there had been a delay when it offered £50 compensation in its stage one complaint response. However, this was insufficient redress given its initial failure to log a complaint meant that there was effectively a delay of 10 months in it answering the resident’s complaint followed by further delays at each stage of the complaints process during December 2021 to March 2022.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the handling of repairs to a roof leak, broken window, blocked sink and the refusal of a decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out roof, window and blocked sink repairs within its repair obligation timeframes.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in demonstrating that it assessed whether the property was habitable and therefore did not answer the resident’s decant request.
Overall, the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident in relation to the outstanding repairs and whether the property was habitable or not. Its apology and compensation award did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord failed to respond to an initial complaint and delayed responding to the stage one and two complaints. Its apology and compensation award did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. Apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. Confirm when it intends to complete repairs to remedy the roof leak and window replacements;
3. Explain to the resident if it is willing to support a move to alternative accommodation given the independent inspection report produced as part of the ongoing disrepair claim.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,800 (inclusive of the £800 offered through its complaints process), made up of:
1. a further £750 in recognition of the delays in the handling of the roof leak, windows, blocked sink and the lack of communication in relation to whether or not the property was habitable and whether a decant was required.
2. a further £250 in recognition of the lack of response to the initial complaint and delayed responses to the stage one and two complaints.
The compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against his rent account.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to evidence compliance with the above orders.
Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its handling of the repairs at this property since January 2021 and provide an action plan to this Service to demonstrate how it will avoid similar delays in future.
2. Review its handling of this complaint and advise this Service of what actions it intends to take to ensure that it logs complaints appropriately in future where there has been a mutual exchange.
The landlord should reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders in accordance with the timescale set out above.