Clarion Housing Association Limited (202201201)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201201

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 June 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her decorations from various leaks in the property.
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is aware that the resident is vulnerable due to her age and disability as this is recorded in its repair logs.
  2. During January 2021, the resident reported that there was a leak in her property. The landlord attended and replaced the shower pump and unblocked the bathroom sink. Following this, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing. The landlord inspected the property with a plumber at the end of January and found that there was a leak on the resident’s washing machine due to how it had been plumbed in. A further leak was reported in February 2021 which was found to be condensation from a pipe, and therefore no repairs were needed at this time. In August 2021, there was a leak from the hot water cylinder.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord via her councillor on 9 August 2021. The councillor said the leak did not stop until the bathroom drain was cleared but the landlord had incorrectly maintained that the leak was from the washing machine. They said there was a further leak from the water tank shortly after, and then again recently, and the resident wanted compensation for the decoration costs she had incurred.
  4. In its stage one complaint response of 22 September 2021, the landlord said that the claim for decoration costs and compensation should be addressed as an insurance claim. It said that the reasons for the leaks were unconnected and it had given appropriate advice and attended in appropriate timeframes on each occasion. The landlord acknowledged that it could have communicated with the resident more effectively and that it had responded to the complaint late, offering a total of £100 compensation for these failures.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 October 2021, when she sought clarity on making an insurance claim and disputed the landlord’s explanation of the causes of the leaks, which had affected her ability to obtain contents insurance. The landlord’s final response on 21 January 2022 reiterated that the leaks were unconnected and that one of them was from the plumbing to the washing machine. It confirmed that the damage from the leaks in January 2021 was minor and it had offered to prepare the walls ready for painting, in line with its policy. It said it had carried out a full decoration of the hall and patch decorations to the living room and bedroom in November 2021. It offered further compensation of £150 for not fully explaining how to make a liability insurance claim and for the delay in replying at stage two.
  6. The resident’s councillor informed the Ombudsman during April 2022 that the resident remained dissatisfied as she disputed the landlord’s explanation that the leak in January 2021 resulted from her washing machine. She relayed that she had been unable to get home insurance because of the multiple leaks in her property and she considered that the recent leak from her hot water tank was due to a failure by the landlord to maintain the installation. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted reimbursement of the £1,000 she had spent on redecoration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns that there have been multiple historic leaks into the property. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on the handling of the leaks reported in 2021; this is also the timeframe that the landlord considered in its complaint responses.

Handling of the request for compensation for damage to decorations

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord states that it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the interior of the property in “good decorative order”. Therefore, decoration of the property is usually the resident’s responsibility. However, where damage has been caused as a result of a failure by the landlord, the landlord would be expected to remedy this by either completing the decoration works itself, facilitating a claim through its own insurance provider, or providing compensation to put right the resident’s costs in remedying the damage.
  2. It is acknowledged that there were several leaks in the resident’s property in 2021 with resulting damage to the property and decorations. Understandably this would have been distressing for the resident and it is acknowledged that she incurred costs decorating the property after the leaks in early 2021. However, the available evidence shows that the leaks all had different causes including from the shower pump, washing machine and hot water cylinder. There is nothing to suggest that the landlord’s failures caused the leaks, and therefore, the landlord would not be responsible for decorating the property following the leaks.
  3. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the landlord to initially advise the resident that it would not carry out full redecoration works and that it would only make good the damaged walls and stain block/prime, ready for the resident to decorate. Following the leak in August 2021, the landlord agreed to carry out a full redecoration of the hall and patch decorations to other rooms. Therefore, the evidence indicates that the landlord has taken steps to restore the property to the condition it was in before the leaks occurred.
  4. The resident has disputed that there was a leak from her washing machine and says the operative who removed it confirmed this was the case. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the landlord has provided evidence to show that it inspected the property with a plumber in January 2021 and identified that there was a leak from the washing machine plumbing. The landlord is entitled to rely on the advice of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors and therefore it was reasonable for it to conclude that this leak related to the resident’s washing machine.
  5. The resident has raised concerns about being referred to the landlord’s liability insurer to claim for the costs she incurred decorating. The landlord’s stage one response explained that the resident could refer her claim to its insurers to deal with as a negligence claim. In response, the resident questioned how she could make such a claim if the landlord did not admit liability. The landlord provided a further explanation in its final response as well as recognising that its initial advice about the matter could have been clearer. It offered the resident compensation of £50 in recognition of this.
  6. The landlord has taken adequate steps to address this aspect of the complaint as it has explained the insurance claim process to the resident and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the lack of clarity in its initial response. Ultimately, the landlord gave the resident appropriate advice as its liability insurer would be able to make a decision on liability irrespective of the decision the landlord reached in this regard.
  7. The resident has said she has been unable to obtain contents insurance due to the multiple historic leaks affecting the property. The Ombudsman is sorry to learn of the resident’s difficulties in this regard. However, no evidence has been provided to show that the landlord’s failings are the reason for the resident being unable to secure contents insurance. It is not known if the landlord has partnered with any insurance providers to provide lower cost contents insurance for its social housing tenants, as is common practice in this sector. It is therefore recommended that the landlord confirms if it runs any such schemes or knows of any insurance providers that may be able to assist the resident.

Handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one the landlord should provide its response to the resident within ten working days; at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. The timeframes specified in the landlord’s policy above mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which all member landlords are required to adhere to. The Code states that when a landlord is unable to respond to a complaint within the above timescales, it should explain to the resident why and provide a clear date by which they may expect its response.
  2. The Code also confirms that when a stage one response from a landlord does not resolve the resident’s complaint, it must be escalated to the next stage. This is unless there is a valid reason not to, in which case this should be clearly explained to the resident.
  3. The resident raised her stage one complaint with the landlord, through a councillor, on 9 August 2021. The landlord provided its stage one response on 22 September 2021; this was after 32 working days. There is no evidence of the landlord explaining to the resident that there would be a delay or it providing an updated timeframe for its response. The landlord, therefore, failed to respond to the stage one complaint in accordance with its policy and the Code, and delayed unreasonably.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint via her councillor on 11 October 2021 and the landlord provided its final response on 21 January 2022; this was after 71 working days. The landlord has not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay or evidence that it kept the resident adequately updated on when she could expect to receive a response, and therefore it again delayed unreasonably in responding to the complaint.
  5. The landlord has offered the resident a total of £100 for the delays in its complaints procedure. While the overall delay was significant and likely led to uncertainty and inconvenience for the resident while she awaited the landlord’s response, the compensation offered by the landlord was broadly in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This provides for awards of this amount where a failure occurred that caused detriment to the resident, but which was not permanent and did not necessarily affect the overall outcome of the complaint.  There is no evidence the delay affected the outcome of the complaint itself, and therefore, the compensation offer together with the landlord’s apology resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her decorations from the leaks.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord does the following within the next four weeks:
    1. Pays the resident the £250 compensation it offered in its complaint responses, if it has not done so already.
    2. Provides the resident with details of any insurers that may be able to provide contents insurance for her.
    3. Reviews its complaint handling procedures and puts measures in place to ensure that complaints are responded to in a timely manner, in accordance with its policy.