Clarion Housing Association Limited (202326316)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326316

Clarion Housing Association Limited

4 April 2025

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 20 February 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a first floor flat. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities.
The resident reported a leak in the property on 28 July 2023 and the landlord attended to fix this on 4 August 2023. The resident reported the leak had reoccurred on 25 September 2023. The landlord raised appointments to investigate the leak from the upstairs property however issues with access delayed the progress of investigating the leak.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 October 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. She had been going back and forth with the landlord for 4 months with regards to the leak.
2. A contractor had attended and said the leak was from upstairs and needed repairing from above. The landlord had told her she needed to ask the resident in the property to fix it, which she had done.
3. The contractor had attended 4 times to replace and repair the ceiling but was unable to do so as the landlord had not resolved leak resolved.
4. The resident asked why she should suffer because the neighbour was not cooperating and said the landlord should give the neighbour an ultimatum.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 October 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord thanked the resident for her time during a call on 17 October 2023 and confirmed it had liaised with the area manager to understand the history of the complaint.
2. The resident had reported the issue in late July 2023 following which the landlord said it attended in line with its repairs policy but that it had not completed the follow on works within the required timescales.
3. It confirmed its record showed that the resident had contacted the neighbour and informed them of the leak and to contact the landlord to attend. The landlord said it did arrange to attend but the neighbour cancelled these advising there was no leak which caused a delay in completing the remedial works.
4. It had raised an appointment for 20 October 2023 to trace and fix the leak and it had made arrangements with the neighbour.
5. It awarded compensation of £50 for completing the repair outside of the repair timescales and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord attended the neighbour’s property on 20 October 2023 and fixed the leak and it noted it would raise the required follow on works.
On 26 October 2023, the resident reported the leak had returned. She requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 21 November 2023.
The landlord attended an emergency out of hours appointment on 27 November 2023 after the resident reported the leak was coming in through the bathroom light. The repair log notes that the contractor tried unsuccessfully to gain access to the above neighbour’s property and noted it would need to make arrangements with the neighbour to investigate the issue fully.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 January 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. It reiterated the history of the repair given at stage 1 and noted the resident escalated her complaint to stage on 21 November 2023 due to the leak being still ongoing and the amount of compensation awarded.
2. The landlord confirmed it had raised a works order to attend on 10 January 2024 to remove the bathroom ceiling following which it would investigate, repair the pipework, and replace the ceiling.
3. It confirmed that during an appointment on 1 December 2023 the contractor had requested to cut a hole in resident’s ceiling, but the resident had refused that.
4. It had also visited on 8 December 2023 as the resident had said water was coming through the light, but it found that not to be the case.
5. The landlord inspected the neighbour’s property on 11 December 2023 but did not find the leak. It then made an opening in the communal ceiling where it found the leak.
6. It noted that the resident delayed the works due to her refusal to allow the operative to cut open the ceiling on 1 December 2023. It accepted that it did not raise works to attend within its policy periods.
7. It offered compensation as follows:
  1. A further £50 for the identified service failure.
  2. £150 for not addressing the leak as an emergency.
  3. £50 for the delayed stage 2 response.
The contractor repaired the leak on 10 January 2024 and provided the resident with a dehumidifier to dry the ceiling. The landlord replaced the ceiling on 21 February 2024 and the final decoration works completed on 28 June 2024.
In referring her complaint to this Service, the resident requested a month’s rebate of her rent due to the overall distress and inconvenience caused and the total time taken to repair the leak.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy sets out that it will respond to emergency repairs, which it defines to be repairs that present an immediate danger to a resident or property, within 24 hours. It attends to non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s leak, condensation, damp, and mould policy set out that the landlord with diagnose the cause of leaks, damp and mould and deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of the problem. It will inform the resident of findings following inspections which will include finding the possible causes of the issue, recommending effective solutions, details of all necessary remedial works and the estimated timescales to complete the works.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property.

The resident reported a leak in the property on 28 July 2023 and the landlord attended in line with its repairs policy on 4 August 2023 to complete a repair.
Following the repair, the landlord appropriately raised works to repair the ceiling. However, the repairs did not take place until 20 October 2023 which was outside of the landlord’s published timescales for completing repairs. However, the landlord accepted this delay, apologised, and offered the resident a £50 discretionary payment to reflect its failing. While it would be best practise for the landlord to have attended within the set timescales, it acknowledged its failings, and the compensation offered was reasonable in the circumstances.
The leak reoccurred, and the landlord appropriately arranged for its emergency out of hours team to attend. The upstairs neighbour cancelled this saying there was no leak. This shows a lack of effective communication, and the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the nature of the inspection to the neighbour to explain why it needed to undertake an inspection from inside the neighbour’s property. Landlord’s need to ensure they have effective communication with residents to rectify repairs at the earliest opportunity.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged the overall distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the time the resident spent chasing updates on the repair. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have effective systems in place to ensure repairs are completed within published timescales and to maintain clear and consistent communication with residents. The lack of such systems caused the resident to spend time chasing the landlord for updates during the period when she had an ongoing leak. However, the landlord appropriately recognised its failings in its stage 1 response and awarded an added £150 to the resident to acknowledge the impact. This compensation showed that the landlord had identified its shortcomings and used the response as an opportunity to make amends.
The contractor repaired the leak on 20 October 2023; however, this was not the case, and the leak reoccurred. Although it is unfortunate that the leak reoccurred, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors to undertake repairs and trust their judgment when it considers the issue resolved.
Following a further report of a leak in the property coming through the bathroom light on 27 November 2023, the landlord raised an out of hours emergency repair to attend. Given the resident reported the leak was potentially affecting the electrics, it was appropriate of the landlord to attend the leak as an emergency.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it noted that it had attended on 1 December 2023 to remove part of the resident’s ceiling which the resident refused. The resident disputes this and says she was happy to let the works go ahead. The evidence provided by the landlord does not confirm the accuracy of the landlord’s claim, therefore the Ombudsman cannot make a determination either way about this issue, however, it does highlight a lack of effective record keeping.
The landlord raised a further appointment to complete another inspection of the neighbour’s property for 11 December 2023. Given that the leak had reoccurred, it was reasonable for the landlord to conduct a further inspection to satisfy itself that the problem did not occur from the neighbour’s property.
Following this, the contractor removed a section of the communal ceiling to further investigate the leak. This action highlights the landlord’s commitment to resolve the issue and demonstrates an escalation in its efforts to find the source of the leak and address the problem for the resident.
The contractor found the source of the leak, and the landlord raised a works order to remove the resident’s ceiling and repair the necessary pipework. The landlord raised this on 21 December 2023 and the landlord attended, in line with its policy for non-emergency repairs on 10 January 2024. While it was unfortunate it took an extended period for the landlord to find the source of the leak, the period from finding it to undertaking a repair was reasonable in the circumstances.
After the repairs, the landlord put in place a dehumidifier to ensure the ceiling had dried out fully prior to any repair. Given the extended period the leak had continued for, it was appropriate of it to install the dehumidifiers to ensure the ceiling was fully dry and to prevent the occurrence of damp and mould in the property.
The dehumidifiers remained in place for 3 weeks following which the landlord appropriately raised for the ceiling to be reinstalled. The landlord raised this on 31 January 2024 and completed the works, in line with its policy, on 21 February 2024. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, the evidence suggests that the landlord did not complete the follow on works to ceiling until 28 June 2024. During that time the resident was left chasing the landlord for updates and while the landlord did attend on 23 April 2024 to complete some of the works, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it raised the follow on works until the resident chased the landlord again during a home visit on 28 May 2024, almost a month later. This delay is unacceptable and caused the resident to spend a significant amount of time chasing the landlord meanwhile living with an incomplete bathroom ceiling.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the leak and follow on repairs could have been reasonably improved. While it acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it had failed to undertake the repairs in line with its policy, the evidence suggests that it did not appropriately learn from its mistakes and the resident experienced further delays following the further leak in the property. While it did offer further compensation of £250 in its stage 2 response, this is not enough to reflect the further distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Therefore, in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property there was maladministration.
A compensation order has been made for £550. This is to be paid less any amount previously paid in this case for its handling of the leak and is made up of the following:
1. £200 for the overall distress and inconvenience.
2. £200 for the time and trouble.
3. £150 for the delays in completing the ceiling works.
The Ombudsman notes that, in referring the complaint to this Service, the resident requested reimbursement for the electricity costs associated with the dehumidifier. Although the landlord installed the dehumidifier after the complaints process and has not been considered in this investigation, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to clarify its position on this issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 10 October 2023 and the landlord provided its response, in line with its policy, on 18 October 2023.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 21 November 2023 which the landlord acknowledged on 23 November 2023. However, it did not provide its response until 2 January 2023. This was 7 days outside of the timescales published in its complaints policy.
Furthermore, it has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the delay to the resident. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that where a landlord cannot provide a complaint response within the set timescales, the landlord must communicate such delay to the resident and provide a date of when it will provide the response. Not doing so caused the resident a delay in receiving the resolution for her response.
However, in its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delay and in doing so offered the resident £50 compensation to reflect its failings in the case.
Therefore, while the landlord’s complaint handling could have been improved, its recognition of its shortcoming and its offer of compensation amount to a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the property.
In accordance with 53.b of the Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £550. The landlord must pay this less any compensation it has previously paid in this case for its handling of the leak.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations.

As a finding of reasonable redress has been made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation in its complaint handling, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 offered if it has not already done so.
The resident raised with this Service that she wanted to be reimbursed for the increased energy costs associated with the usage of the dehumidifier. The landlord should consider this request and set out its position to the resident in relation to this issue.