Clarion Housing Association Limited (202218786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218786

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 July 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:

a.     the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of sewage odour affecting the property, and;

b.     the level of compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident has been a shared owner with the landlord since June 2021. The property was a newbuild house in the defects period.
3. On 22 December 2021, the resident began to experience an ever-present sewage smell throughout the property and reported this to the landlord. In turn the landlord reported the issue to the property developer as per the defects period arrangements. In turn, the property developer asked its contractor to attend and rectify the issue.
4. The defects contractor attended on 03 February 2022. This was eight weeks after the issue was first reported. The defects contractor carried out a first fix of the issue and follow on works were organised for the coming weeks.
5. On 7 February 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the time taken to resolve the issue and complained the first fix was a failed resolution as the smell was still present in the bathroom. The landlord’s contractor attended on 15 February 2022 and the smell was substantially reduced.
6. On the 17 May 2022 the landlord and resident had a telephone call about the issues and the resident requested two months’ rent rebate as a resolution. The landlord informed the resident it was unable to provide a rent rebate and advised her to seek advice about this from Citizens Advice.
7. On the same day the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord apologised for the delays in service by the defects contractor and offered the resident £300 in compensation for the inconvenience caused.
8. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. In her stage 2 escalation request the resident attached a detailed description of the ways in which she and her family had been affected by the ever-present sewage smell and requested a review of the compensation amount offered.
9. In its stage 2 response the landlord did not change its position on the compensation amount but offered an additional £100 for a staff conduct issue that had occurred and £50 for the lateness of its stage 2 response.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2022.
11. In March 2023, the landlord carried out an internal review of the case. This was four months after the landlord’s complaints process was completed. It apologised that it had made an error in assessing the circumstances of her case and offered the resident £954.76 (two months’ rent) for loss of facility for the bathroom and kitchen due to smell.
12. To resolve the issue the resident would like to be compensated for loss of rooms for four months.

Assessment and findings

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of sewage odour affecting the property.

13. The landlord was reliant on the developer’s defects contractor to carry out the work in accordance with the landlord’s instruction. Unbeknown to the landlord, the defects contractor reclassified the priority of the job to ‘routine’ rather than treating it as a ‘priority 1’ as was originally requested by the landlord.
14. The resident had to chase the landlord for an appointment date and time, who in turn chased the defects contractor and it took several visits to get the matter fully resolved.
15. The documents provided demonstrate when the landlord became aware the defects contractor had reduced the priority of the job, it worked to get the job priority reinstated to priority 1 status due to the resident’s advanced pregnancy. As a result of the landlord’s efforts the developer brought forward the date it would attend.
16. The developer’s contractor attended on 3 February 2022 but due to the nature and location of the work was unable to progress without the attendance of the landlord’s contractor. This was not reasonably foreseeable.
17. The property was a new-build in the defects period, this meant some works were the responsibility of the landlord and some were the responsibility of the property developer. The Ombudsman finds the number of visits needed was reasonable in the circumstances due to interdependencies between organisations and different specialist contractors needed to carry out different tasks, ie carpentry, then plumbing followed by decorating and finishing touches.
18. The joint visit was organised for 15 February 2022 and the records indicate the ever-present sewage smell was reduced to barely discernible at this visit. This means it took the landlord and developer two months to reduce the smell to a level that did not spoil the resident’s enjoyment of the home or result in the loss of use of rooms.
19. The resident confirmed that by 19 April 2022, follow-on works such as making good, and decorations had been completed.
20. Documents provided indicate the landlord understood the root cause of the delay was the developer’s contractor changing the priority of the job order. The landlord apologised for this and acknowledged the resident had not received the level of service she should have when she first reported the issue and offered £300 in compensation for inconvenience. (The compensation amount offered to the resident has been investigated separately and is covered later in this report).
21. The landlord failed to monitor and follow up the job it issued to the property developer. The landlord was not aware the job priority had been downgraded and was not aware the contractor had not attended until the resident informed them many weeks later.
22. The landlord’s lack of oversight resulted in delay in the resident receiving the service she expected and caused stress, inconvenience, and loss of use of rooms for longer than was necessary.
23. Accordingly, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of sewage odour affecting the property.

The level of compensation offered.

24. The landlord’s compensation policy states at 5.4. “Where a household has not had the use of a room(s), beyond published repair response times, we may offer compensation as a proportion of the weekly/monthly rent. The amount paid will be based on a pro-rata amount of the net rent according to the number of unavailable rooms.”
25. On 17 May 2022 as part of the stage 1 complaint investigation the landlord and resident spoke on the telephone about the complaint. To resolve the matter the resident requested a rent refund as compensation for the two months she was unable to use the rooms in the property.
26. The landlord appeared to rule this out straight away during the telephone call as it advised the resident it was unable to do this. The landlord then confirmed this in writing in the stage 1 complaint response of the same date.
27. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and provided the landlord with a detailed description of the impact of the ever-present sewage odour. The resident described frequent headaches and nausea, difficulty sleeping due to having to keep the windows open throughout the night, anxiety and stress about the possible effects of the sewage gases on her unborn baby having to stay away from the property at times, the inability to have friends or relatives visit due to embarrassment over the sewage smell, not being able to use the kitchen or bathroom due to the powerful smell, and not being able to spend the Christmas season at the property.
28. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated “A loss of facility payment would not apply in these circumstances”. In view of the impact of the issue on the resident the landlord’s stance was unreasonable and lacked empathy.
29. The Ombudsman finds the landlord was incorrect to inform the resident at stage 1 of the complaint process that it was unable to offer a rent refund for loss of rooms. This is because the circumstances of the case met the threshold to be considered for it, and the landlord’s compensation policy allows for it.
30. The Ombudsman finds the £300 compensation offered at stage 1 for inconvenience was not appropriate in the circumstances and did not align with the landlord’s compensation policy and procedure on loss of room use. Accordingly, there was maladministration in the level of compensation offered.
31. Four months after the landlord’s complaint process had been exhausted, and after the landlord became aware the resident had escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord carried out a case review of the resident’s complaint.
32. The outcome of the landlord’s case review was the landlord offered the resident compensation in the amount the resident requested during her early conversations with the landlord and again formally at stage 1 of the complaint process, (a refund equivalent to two months’ rent). It wrote that the circumstances did qualify for loss of room use and offered £954.76 in compensation, in addition to the £500 compensation it had offered following its peer review on 25 July 2022.
33. The landlord’s late offer of compensation is not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding.
34. The late offer of compensation means the landlord did not follow part 4.4 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states “A complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity”.
35. The landlord should have offered the compensation at the appropriate stage of the complaints process. The Ombudsman may then have found the landlord had put things right and resolved the issue fairly.
36. Additionally, when compensation offers come after the landlord’s complaint process is exhausted it is harder for the landlord to demonstrate it will act fairly and consistently in all cases.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of sewage odours affecting the property.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

39. Within four weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident a total of £1,454.76 in compensation.
40. This is broken down into £954.76 for the loss of rooms for two months and £500 offered at peer review stage for the inconvenience and distress, complaint response times, and staff complaint.
41. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord should apologise to the resident for its handling of her request for compensation for loss of room use.
42. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

43. During its internal review of the case the landlord has acknowledged the previous recommendations made by this Service in respect of developing a Defects Policy. The landlord should work towards finalising and publishing this.