Clarion Housing Association Limited (202333661)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333661

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 March 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a roof leak and the time taken for it to remove scaffolding so the required repairs could be carried out.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 28 April 2008. The property is a 1-bedroom maisonette. The landlord’s records note that the resident has a severe or long-term illness, mental health condition or disability.
  2. On 19 July 2023, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about scaffolding having been at his property for 4 years. The resident also complained about the impact this had had on repairs being carried out to resolve a roof leak that was affecting his bathroom. The resident advised the landlord of the distress and inconvenience the delays had caused him.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 September 2023, in which it said:
    1. The scaffolding that was currently at the property had been struck off and would be removed. The landlord said this would enable new scaffolding to be erected, a full investigation of the roof to take place and works completed to resolve the leak.
    2. It was sorry it could not use the same scaffolding and that this was because a different company were carrying out the works.
    3. The resident would be contacted once the new scaffolding had been erected.
    4. It had reviewed the timeline for repairs and noted that the scaffolding was erected in 2019. The landlord said, in 2021 there was an extension for the scaffolding, however, it was unclear why this was not removed after the required works had been completed.
    5. It had located a repair, raised in April 2021, for a roof leak that was directly affecting the resident’s property. The landlord acknowledged there were extensive delays in starting the works to rectify the roof leak, due to the scaffolding being in place. The landlord also acknowledged that the roof leak resulted in water ingress into the resident’s property and ongoing damage when it rained.
    6. It offered its ‘sincere apologies’ for the inconvenience caused, for which it offered the resident £1,000 compensation. The landlord explained that this was for the impact the delay in the removal of the scaffolding had on the resident and his property.
    7. It also offered £50 compensation for the delay in its stage 1 response.
    8. It had learned from the complaint, saying that its repairs contractors should ensure that a post review is carried out on scaffolding works so the scaffolding could be promptly removed once it was no longer required.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 September 2023. The resident said the scaffolding was taken down just over a week previously and he understood that new scaffolding would need to be put up in order to fix the roof. However, he disputed that the issue with the roof started in April 2021. The resident said that he had complained about this in the summer of 2017, the scaffolding then went up in 2018 in order to fix the leak, but no work was carried out.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 October 2023, in which it:
    1. Apologised for the delay in its response.
    2. Said that whilst the resident’s assertion that the roof repair was first reported in 2017 it had no evidence of this. The landlord explained that this was due to changing its internal systems in 2019.
    3. Said that, on 24 July 2023, the resident was contacted regarding an inspection to determine the owner of the scaffold. On 4 August 2023, its repairs team conducted the inspection and confirmed what contractor the scaffold belonged to. The contractor was contacted to make arrangements for its removal, which they completed on 30 August 2023.
    4. Said its repairs team had difficulties reaching the resident by phone to inform him about the challenges it was facing gaining access to a neighbouring flat for the scaffold to be erected. A member of its repairs team visited on 6 October 2023, to update the resident and coordinate with the neighbouring resident to arrange access for the scaffolding. The scaffolding was due to be erected on 19 October 2023. The landlord said once the scaffolding was in place, the repairs to the roof would begin the week commencing 23 October 2023.
    5. Said that once the roof had been repaired, any internal repairs that were required would be scheduled directly with the resident. The landlord said that it would like its Area Supervisor to visit the resident once the repairs to the roof were completed. It said this was to identify, and discuss with him, which repairs were required in his home.
    6. Confirmed that, following its stage 1 response, the resident asked for a welfare call. This request was made on 3 October 2023 and the resident contacted on 5 October 2023. During the call it had checked on the resident’s wellbeing and listened to his frustrations with its processes. The landlord said, at the resident’s request, it had asked that a named Neighbourhood Response Officer keep in touch regarding the roof repairs, any outstanding repairs and general wellbeing support.
    7. Said, while it understood a long-term leak could be distressing and having scaffolding outside of his home ‘for years on end without a resolution’ must have been frustrating, its compensation policy did not include impact on health. The landlord explained the process, and provided an email address, should the resident wish to make a personal injury claim.
    8. Apologised for the time it had taken to respond to the resident’s initial enquiry regarding the leak in his home. The landlord acknowledged the extended amount of time taken to arrange for the roof to be repaired was a failure on its part. To learn from the complaint the landlord said it would be ‘implementing processes to improve the communication between different departments’.
    9. Offered the resident an additional £150 compensation bringing the total offered to £1,200. The landlord explained that the additional £150 was in recognition of its ‘failure to follow process’, in consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and for any inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  2. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.

Scope

  1. Whilst this Service understands both the scaffolding and the leak to be long-standing issues for the resident, we may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention within 12 months of issues arising. This is for both the landlord and the Ombudsman to have a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live,” and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred.
  2. However, in fairness to the resident, as the landlord considered matters as far back as April 2021, this investigation will also consider matters back to that date. This being over 2 years before the resident logged his complaint on 19 July 2023.
  3. In his complaint the resident referred to the impact the matters raised had on his wellbeing and mental health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s wellbeing and mental health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of reports of a roof leak and the time taken for it to remove scaffolding so the required repairs could be carried out.

  1. The landlord is obliged under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs for which it is responsible and to do so within a reasonable period of time. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
  2. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs and Maintenance policy states that it will make ‘every effort’ to complete routine repairs within 28 days. The policy goes on to state that ‘from time to time,’ repairs will need to be completed outside of this timescale due to material shortages or unforeseen circumstances. The policy states that these cases will be monitored through performance reporting and it will aim to keep the resident regularly updated until completed.
  3. It is evident that there was a significant failure by the landlord to comply with its obligations in this case, which the landlord has not disputed.
  4. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. The landlord has acknowledged that in April 2021, it raised a repair for a roof leak that was directly affecting the resident’s property. The landlord has also acknowledged that it was unable to progress the repairs until scaffolding, erected in 2019, was removed.
  6. At the point of the resident’s complaint in July 2023 the scaffold had been in place for almost 4 years. The landlord had also failed to take any meaningful action to address the repairs to the roof in the 2 years since it raised the repair in April 2021.
  7. Following the report of a leak from the resident’s roof in April 2021, the landlord took no action. The resident made a further report of a leak from the roof affecting his bathroom ceiling on 31 March 2022. The landlord raised a repair following this report but again failed to take any action. A resident of a neighbouring property also reported leaks from the roof in April 2023 but yet again failed to take any action. These multiple missed opportunities by the landlord to resolve the leaks resulted in further delay in the repair being completed and further unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  8. In addition to its failure to address the leak in accordance with its obligations, it is also evident that the landlord’s failure to manage the scaffolding at the resident’s property contributed to the excessive delay in the repairs being completed. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not know why the scaffolding was not removed after ‘the required works’ were completed in 2021. It remains unclear what ‘the required works’ were. However, what is evident is that the landlord’s lack of effective oversight of the scaffolding at the resident’s property, and its lack of clarity about why the scaffolding was not removed, represent failures in both its record keeping and oversight of repairs.
  9. In its complaint responses the landlord attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident and offering £1,000 compensation for the delay in the removal of the scaffolding and its completion of the repairs to the roof. This amount was in line with those set out in its compensation policy for situations where its failure had a severe long-term impact on the resident. An offer of £1,000 is also in line with the amounts set out in our Remedies guidance for situations where there have been serious failings over a significant period of time, which had a significant impact on the resident.
  10. In addition to responding to repairs in line with their repairs policy, landlords should also recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident. Landlords should therefore ensure their responses appropriately reflect both the urgency of the case and the vulnerabilities of the resident.
  11. In this case the landlord recognised that it had failed to follow the correct process in relation to the resident’s vulnerabilities. In light of this it offered the resident an additional £150 in its stage 2 response. However, whilst this was an appropriate step for the landlord to take, it is our view that £150 was not sufficient to provide the resident with redress for this failure.
  12. This is because, as the landlord confirmed to us, it was aware that the resident had a ‘severe or long-term illness, mental health condition or disability.’ As early as July 2023, the resident had also advised the landlord that the ongoing issues had caused him ‘a lot of stress’. However, it was not until the resident asked for a welfare call on 3 October 2023, stating that his mental health had been suffering due to the outstanding leak, that the landlord took any action to ensure the wellbeing of the resident, who it knew to be vulnerable.
  13. The landlord acted promptly and appropriately to the resident’s request of 3 October 2023, arranging for a welfare call to be made to him on 5 October 2023. However, as the landlord had taken no steps prior to this to ensure the resident’s wellbeing, despite being aware that he had particular needs that were made worse by the situation, it would have been expected to have provided a higher level of compensation than the £150 offered. This is because £150 falls within the range suggested in the landlord’s compensation policy for situations where its failure had no significant impact, which was clearly not the case here.
  14. To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £550 bringing the total payable, for its acknowledged failure to follow the correct process in relation to his vulnerabilities, to £700. This amount being in line with those set out in both the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance where there have been serious failings which had a significant impact on the resident.
  15. In addition to apologising and offering compensation, the complaint process provided the landlord with the opportunity to take action to put right the outstanding repairs. At the time of the landlord’s final response, whilst the scaffolding had been addressed, no works had been carried out to resolve the leak. As such the landlord made a number of commitments in its complaint responses with regards to resolving the leak and rectifying damage caused to the interior of the resident’s property.
  16. As per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its complaint responses, we will consider subsequent events in order to establish whether the landlord has put things right in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  17. Despite its commitment to begin the repairs to the roof in the week commencing 23 October 2023, the landlord did not raise a job for these works until 10 November 2023. The landlord’s records note that this job was then not completed until 22 December 2023. That this was 2 months after the date the landlord had committed to commence the roof repairs in its stage 2 response, and that the landlord was aware of the impact this was having on its vulnerable resident, represents a further failure.
  18. Whilst the landlord’s repair records note that the roof works were completed in December 2023, we have had sight of further reports being made of leaks from the roof into the resident’s bathroom in March 2024. We have also seen evidence of an email in April 2024 from the landlord’s repairs team to its Maintenance surveyor which stated, ‘the conditions tenants are living in regarding water penetration damage from roof leaks etc are alarming. We currently have works being done by (the roofing contractor) which have been ongoing for some time’.
  19. Further in his recent discussions with the Ombudsman, the resident has said that a significant amount of the work still remains outstanding. We have also had sight of an email from the resident to the landlord on 8 January 2025 which again refers to a leak through his bathroom ceiling and which describes his living conditions as ‘inhumane’. The resident has also spoken to us about the impact this is continuing to have on his health and wellbeing.
  20. That the roof leak appears not to have been resolved in December 2023, would explain why the damage caused to the interior of the resident’s property has yet to be resolved, despite the landlord committing to do so in its final response.
  21. In light of its failure to do what it had committed to do in its final response, within a reasonable period of time, the landlord has been ordered to provide the resident with a further apology and pay him an additional £500 compensation.
  22. The landlord has also been ordered to arrange an independent inspection of the resident’s property and, if necessary, to agree a schedule of works with timescales based on the recommendations made, if any. The inspection must consider if there are any outstanding repairs to the roof and what internal repairs may be required as a result of the leaks from the roof.
  23. It is acknowledged that the landlord evidenced some learning points saying:
    1. Its repairs contractors should ensure that a post review is carried out on scaffolding works so they instruct the prompt removal of scaffolding once no-longer required.
    2. It would be implementing processes to improve the communication between different departments.
  24. Whilst the landlord’s reference to learning is welcome, it made no commitment as to ‘how’ it would do the above. For example, how would it ensure that its scaffolding contractors carry out post reviews and what the process of improving communication would look like. As a result, a further order has been made for the landlord to confirm to us what actions it took as a result of its learning points and what the outcome was.

Handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord introduced an interim complaints policy on 17 June 2022. This was following a cyber-attack. For complaints received after 17 June 2022, the landlord operated a two stage complaints process:
    1. At stage 1 it would log and acknowledge the complaint within 10 working days of receipt. It would issue the stage 1 response to complaints received within 20 working days.
    2. At stage 2 it would acknowledge a request for an escalation of the complaint within 10 working days and would aim to resolve the complaint within 40 working days.
  2. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 19 July 2023. In accordance with its interim complaints policy, the landlord should have provided its stage 1 response by 16 August 2023.
  3. The landlord’s Customer Solutions Manager emailed the resident on 31 July 2023 to confirm the complaint had been allocated, they were liaising with the repairs team and would update the resident on a weekly basis with any responses received.
  4. Having committed to do so, the Customer Solutions Manager emailed the resident on 10 August 2023 to provide him with an update from the Area Manager with regards to the removal of the scaffolding. They did not, at this point, provide the resident with any indication that they would not be able to provide the stage 1 response by 16 August 2023.
  5. Following contact from the resident, the Customer Solutions Manager emailed him on 21 and 24 August 2023. In their emails they apologised for the delay in providing the resident with an update. They explained that the Area Manager had advised that they were still awaiting an update from the scaffolding contractors. However, they provided no update as to when the resident might expect the stage 1 response.
  6. The stage 1 response was not sent to the resident until 2 September 2023, just over 2 weeks outside of the response time stated in its interim complaints policy. This delay was acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 1 response, for which it offered the resident £50 compensation.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 13 September 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 21 September 2023. In accordance with the landlord’s interim complaints process, the landlord should then have provided its stage 2 response by 8 November 2023. This it did on 20 October 2023.
  8. Overall, given the relatively short duration of the delay in the landlord’s stage 1 response, it is our view that the £50 compensation offered was proportionate to the level of failure in this case. As such a finding of reasonable redress has been made.
  9. It is acknowledged that the timescales set out in the landlord’s Interim Complaints Policy were not in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, no order has been made for the landlord to review its policy. This is because, the landlord has already done so and its new complaints policy now includes the 10- and 20-day timescales set out in the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and the time taken for it to remove scaffolding so the required repairs could be carried out.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

  1. Within 28 calendar days of this report the landlord is to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £2,200 compensation. This is made up of:
      1. The £1,000 compensation previously offered with regards to its handling of the roof repairs and the time taken to remove the scaffolding, if this has not already been paid.
      2. £700 for its acknowledged failure to follow the correct process in relation to the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is inclusive of the £150 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
      3. An additional £500 for its failure to complete the repairs, it committed to in its complaint responses, within a reasonable period of time.
      4. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.
    3. Arrange an independent inspection of the resident’s property and, if necessary, to agree a schedule of works with timescales based on the recommendations made, if any. The inspection must consider if there are any outstanding repairs to the roof and what internal repairs may be required as a result of the leaks from the roof.
    4. Confirm to us what actions it took as a result of the following learning points referred to in its complaint responses, and what the outcome was:
      1. That its repairs contractors should ensure that a post review is carried out on scaffolding works so they instruct the prompt removal of scaffolding once no-longer required.
      2. That it would be implementing processes to improve the communication between different departments
    5. Confirm compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £50 offered in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on it doing so.