Clarion Housing Association Limited (202224938)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224938

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 August 2024

 

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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a roof leak affecting the communal areas.
    2. The resident’s reports of deterioration to the structure of the building and the lack of a cyclical programme of works.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord and the lease started on 22 June 1987. The property is described as a 2nd floor flat.
  2. The landlord has not provided any evidence regarding events prior to the residents complaint, however, the resident has informed this Service that she had been reporting concerns regarding leaks, structural cracks, the condition of the windows and the overall maintenance of the building for sometime. The landlord has not disputed this.
  3. On 1 February 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord regarding multiple repair issues:
    1. Outstanding roof repairs
    2. Severe cracks in the external walls and render
    3. Rotten window frames
    4. Water damage to the communal stairway
    5. Poor communication
    6. Lack of cyclical decoration and maintenance
  4. Following the resident’s complaint the landlord inspected the building on 27 March 2023. The inspection report noted that the internal communal stairwell was showing signs of water ingress, there were visible signs of a leak in the guttering at the rear of the property and the external masonry paint was in need of renewal. The inspection was carried out from ground level, so no observations were made in relation to the condition of the roof.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 June 2023. It said:
    1. 2 leaks had been found, one on the side elevation and one in the guttering. As a result, scaffolding was required.
    2. Due to a delay with the contractor providing costs, it was unable to submit the section 20 application until 9 May 2023. Following further errors with the application a decision had been made to waive these costs and proceed with the required works.
    3. Scaffolding would be erected on the 9 June 2023 and the roofing works were scheduled to begin week commencing 26 June 2023.
    4. With regards to cyclical works and maintenance, it had recently carried out a condition survey to all properties within the region and the data collected would be used to create a seven year programme of works from 2024/2025.
    5. A dedicated member of staff would make fortnightly contact with the resident for the duration of the works.
    6. In recognition of the failures surrounding the section 20 and the subsequent delays, it offered the resident £300 compensation, plus an addition £100 for the delayed complaint response.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 June 2023 as she felt that the landlord had not responded to all of her concerns. Furthermore, the promises made in the stage 1 response had not materialised, the scaffolding was not erected on the scheduled date, nor had any work begun on the roof. In resolution of her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to:
    1. Carry out the roofing works as agreed within stage 1 response.
    2. Complete the outstanding repairs that were not addressed within stage 1 response, such as the rotting windows.
    3. Provide confirmation that leaseholders would not have to pay for repairs due to Section 20 cancellation.
    4. Provide dates that cyclical decorations were last carried out and what was covered.
  7. On 8 August 2023 the landlord provided its final complaint response. It said:
    1. It was sorry that the scaffolding was not erected on the date agreed. It also apologised for not providing a full response to all concerns at stage 1.
    2. It believed that the roofing works were now complete and confirmed that the costs would not be passed on to the leaseholders on this occasion.
    3. It had provided incorrect information regarding the cyclical works at stage 1, the survey mentioned only applied to blocks over 4 stories high. As such, a stock condition survey was imminent.
    4. With regards to the ‘rotting’ windows, it acknowledged that previous reports had been made and not acted upon. As a result, a survey would be carried out to establish what works were required.
    5. An appointment had been arranged for 3 August 2023 to carry out repairs to the water damage in the communal stairway, bedroom window and cracks in the external wall and rendering.
    6. It apologised for the delay in completing the required repairs and attributed this to the delays with erecting scaffolding and the recent changes to move to an in-house repairs’ provider.
    7. In recognition of the further service failures and delays it offered an additional £300 compensation, taking the total to £700. This comprised:
      1. £400 previously offered at stage 1
      2. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the continued delayed roofing repairs
      3. £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response
      4. £50 for its failure to respond to all concerns at stage 1
      5. £50 for the delays to the other repairs
  8. The resident contacted this Service to escalate her complaint in September 2023, she felt that complaint had not been resolved, she said that the roofing works had not been completed and that all other issues also remained outstanding.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The evidence shows that in October 2023 the landlord confirmed that the roofing works to the front of the property had been completed but not the rear. At this stage the resident also informed the landlord that the rendering had not been repaired and that the water damage to the communal areas had still not been addressed.
  2. A further inspection took place in March 2024 which highlighted evidence of further leaks and the poor condition of the internal communal décor and the external cast iron gutters.
  3. In recent communication with this Service, the resident has confirmed that the roofing repairs were completed in July 2024 but that all other issues remain outstanding.

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.

  1. The resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the main structure of the building including the roof. The landlord did not dispute this and was aware of its obligations.
  2. Although the evidence of when it was first reported is inconclusive, It is not disputed that the landlord failed to address and repair the roof leak in a reasonable timescale. The resident reports that the landlord was aware of the issue prior to her complaint in February 2023. The leaks were affecting the communal areas of the building rather than the residents property.
  3. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation, and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
  4. Within its stage 1 response the landlord attributed the delays to issues with a contractor, as a result the landlord made the decision to waive the Section 20 consultation and the associated recharges to the resident. It committed to resolving the issue and offered the resident £450 compensation. This was a reasonable response at this stage, however, the landlord then failed to adhere to the schedule of works set out in its response. This resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord and escalate her complaint.
  5. In its stage 2 response in August 2023, the landlord apologised for the further failures to carry out the agreed actions. In increased its offer of compensation to £700 compensation, comprising:
    1. £300 for the time taken to resolve the complaint, its failure to follow process, repeated visits and the time trouble and inconvenience caused
    2. £150 for the delayed complaint responses
    3. £50 for not addressing all issues at stage 1
    4. £200 for the delays to the roofing repair
  6. However, within its response it said that the roofing repairs were complete. The evidence shows that this was not accurate and that only a partial repair had been done at this stage, therefore, despite the offer of financial redress the landlord had failed to appropriately resolve the complaint. The resident continued to chase the outstanding repair until its completion in July 2024. There is no evidence that the landlord revisited its offer of compensation following the additional delays and added inconvenience to the resident.
  7. The evidence shows that there was a continued pattern of poor communication from the landlord throughout the complaint process, the resident had to frequently chase the landlord for updates, she also asked for a schedule of works on several occasions, but the landlord failed to provide her with this.
  8. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak. Despite identifying within its complaint responses that there had been failures to rectify the leak and communicate with the resident and paying her compensation, it continued to make the same mistakes. After concluding the resident’s complaint in August 2023, it has taken approximately a further 11 months to resolve the repair, demonstrating a lack of learning. The additional delay the resident experienced was unreasonable, she expended a considerable amount of time and trouble chasing the landlord and this caused prolonged distress. Furthermore, it has not taken steps to revisit what compensation it could offer her to put matters right as a result.

The resident’s reports of deterioration to the building and the lack of a cyclical programme of works.

  1. As mentioned above, under the terms of the lease agreement the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the main structure of the building, including windows and brickwork. In addition to this, the landlord is also obliged to decorate the exterior of the building and the main entrances, passages, landing and staircases ‘as often as reasonably necessary’.
  2. The landlord’s planned investment policy states that it will produce an annual, medium term 5 year major works plan. In addition, where there are leaseholders present within a block, it will follow all legal requirements and carry out a formal consultation of any works intended in communal areas likely to cost in excess of £250 per leaseholder.
  3. Within her complaint the resident raised concerns about ‘severe cracks’ in the external walls and rendering and about the deterioration of the ‘rotten’ windows. The landlord failed to respond to either of these concerns within its stage 1 response. As a result, it failed to meet the ‘promise’ set out within its own complaints policy. The resident raised this matter within her escalation and the landlord apologised. It appropriately offered £50 compensation for the failure to address all issues and said that it would provide feedback to the relevant teams to avoid this happening in future.
  4. In the stage 2 response provided in August 2023, the landlord also acknowledged that it had received ‘various’ reports about the condition of the ‘rotten’ windows but failed to explain why no action had been taken. In recognition of this failure and in line with its repair obligations it said that a survey had been arranged and ‘any required action will be taken to resolve this’. It also offered an additional £50 compensation for the delay.
  5. There is no evidence of when or if this survey took place. Within its correspondence with this Service the landlord has said that ‘a stock condition survey took place in 2016’, it said that windows & doors refurbishment works were due on this building, and these would be added to the next available planned works programme. Given the fact that this formed part of the resident’s complaint it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated this and provided her with regular updates, the resident confirms that this has not happened.
  6. The landlord informed the resident that the repairs to the external cracks and rendering would be carried out on 3 August 2023. The repair notes suggest that this was done but also that ‘broader render and external related works may need to be completed’. Again, the landlord failed to communicate this to the resident.
  7. In addition to the issues above, the resident also raised her concerns about the lack of cyclical works to the exterior and interior décor. She said that in the 37 years she had lived in the property this has only been completed twice. She said the communal areas were tired and showing signs of water damage following the leaks. In its stage 1 response the landlord inaccurately informed the resident that a survey had recently been carried out to assess all properties within the region and that a seven year programme would be put in place from 2024/2025. The landlord corrected its error within its stage 2 response and said that a stock survey was ‘imminent’. It is clear from the evidence provided that this survey was not carried out until March 2024, 13 months after the resident’s initial complaint. This was an unreasonable response from the landlord and the resident remains unclear on when the property is scheduled for decoration.
  8. In summary, there were multiple failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the maintenance of the building. The landlord has failed to appropriately demonstrate that it is meeting its obligations in line with the lease agreement. It did not communicate effectively nor update the resident on all outstanding issues following her complaint, including the cyclical decoration and external cracks. Although the landlord acknowledged that it did not act on her reports regarding the condition of the windows, it failed to do what it said and put things right, 11 months have passed, and the issue remains outstanding.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of deterioration to the structure of the building and the lack of a cyclical programme of works

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report. Within this letter it must also provide the resident with an update regarding.
      1. The window and door replacement works, including anticipated timescales.
      2. The cyclical decoration programme, including anticipated timescales.
      3. Any outstanding works to the external structure and rendering.
    2. Pay directly to the resident an additional £800 compensation, in addition to the amount offered within its stage 2 response. This comprises:
      1. £600 compensation in recognition of the delays to the roofing repair and the time, trouble and distress caused.
      2. £200 in recognition of the failures identified in its handling of the reports of deterioration to the building and the lack of a cyclical programme of works.
    3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the above within 4 weeks.