Clarion Housing Association Limited (202346766)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346766

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 May 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak in the bathroom.
2. Reports of concerns while he was in temporary accommodation.
3. Associated formal complaint.

Background

At the time of these events, the resident had been the assured tenant of the property which is owned by the landlord, a housing association, for about 10 years. He has various health concerns including mental health issues and takes medication which must be refrigerated.
On 31 January 2024 the resident told the landlord there was a crack in the bathroom sink. He said he needed to maintain hygiene due to his need to inject medication and was concerned that this could be unhygienic. The landlord logged this as a routine repair and it was completed in late February 2024.
On 7 March 2024 the resident reported a leak under the bathroom sink. He said it had soaked the floor and was leaking into the flat below. He also said waste was leaking from the toilet. He said he was going away the next day and wanted someone to repair both issues before he went. A contractor attended the next day and made an appointment to return to carry out repairs on 18 March 2024. However, due to an error, it did not attend.
The resident moved into temporary accommodation in a hotel so the works in the bathroom could take place on 21 March 2024. When he arrived at the hotel, he found there was no fridge for his medication. He contacted the landlord which arranged for one to be delivered the next day. The resident also found there was no Wi-Fi at the hotel and bought a Wi-Fi dongle with data.
While he was at the hotel, he had to return to the property to allow access for the landlord’s contractors. On one occasion, the contractor missed the appointment.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 March 2024, saying it had taken too long to repair the bathroom. He said it should also have ensured he had a fridge for his medicine at the hotel and reimburse him for the cost of Wi-Fi at the hotel. Finally, he said it should have ensured its contractors provided identification (ID) when changing the locks.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 31 May 2024 it said:
1. The bathroom repairs had been completed (on 9 April 2024).
2. The resident had initially said he did not need a fridge for his medication. However, when he asked for one on 21 March 2024, it had arranged for one to be delivered the next day.
3. It had booked a room with Wi-Fi. However, as the resident had bought a Wi-Fi dongle and data, it had agreed to pay for these.
4. It had replaced locks in the property as he believed his belongings would not be safe while he was in temporary accommodation and wanted them changed. It had reimbursed him for the cost of the lock. However, the contractors had missed an appointment and it therefore offered him £15 for that failure.
5. It apologised for the late complaint response and offered £50 compensation for this.
Following our intervention in October 2024 the landlord spoke to the resident about his concerns. He repeated his points from stage 1 and added other complaint points. For example, he said:
1. The landlord should pay him more compensation as its contractors had missed 10 appointments.
2. The leak in the bathroom in March 2024 had been caused by workers cutting through a pipe.
3. The landlord had told him the works would take 2 to 3 months.
4. After he reported his toilet was broken in March 2024, a member of landlord staff had told him to use a bucket instead.
In its stage 2 response of 5 November 2024 the landlord found there had been no service failure and said:
1. Its workers did not cut through a pipe in the bathroom. The leak had been caused by “a longstanding leak”.
2. It had not said the works would take 2 to 3 months. It said they would take 2 to 3 days.
3. It had found no evidence that anyone suggested he should use a bucket instead of his toilet but, if this had happened, it apologised.
4. It had paid him £75 to cover the costs of his Wi-Fi while decanted and £27 petrol allowance for the 60 miles he had to travel while living in the hotel.
5. It denied that its contractors had missed 10 appointments and repeated that they had missed only 1.
6. While the resident had not requested a stage 2 response, there had been some confusion between them and so it offered a further £250 for complaint handling errors. This made a total of £315 compensation.
In his referral to us the resident said his mental health had been damaged by these incidents. He said the landlord had misstated the facts of his complaint and had not paid him the compensation it had offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised various other concerns during his interactions with the landlord. However, his referral to us in October 2024 raised only the issues set out above. For that reason, these are the issues considered in this report.
The resident has said these events had an impact on his health. We not doubt his comments, but it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his ill-health. He 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. However, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord

Reports of a leak in the bathroom

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it will respond to reports of emergency repairs within 24 hours. An emergency repair is one where a resident faces immediate danger. It will make the area safe and return within 28 calendar days to complete any outstanding works.
The resident first reported concerns with his bathroom sink in January 2024, when the landlord attended on an emergency basis within 24 hours. On discovering that the repair was not urgent it arranged to return to complete the works after the resident returned from a week away. The landlord then replaced the sink. This was, seemingly, an appropriate response to the reports of a leak.
However, in March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again to say the sink had been leaking for some time and soaked the floor. On the evidence seen, it is most likely that the landlord’s contractors caused this problem by failing to tighten the waste pipe. Alternatively, they failed to identify and rectify the problem. This was service failure which caused the resident distress as he had to move to alternative accommodation.
When the resident reported the second problem on 7 March 2024, the landlord arranged for people to attend the same day. It raised an order for a repair of the bathroom and the replacement of the floor the next day. It assessed the property to see if it was fit for habitation. This was an appropriate response.
The records show that the landlord instructed a contractor to carry out works in the bathroom, but the contractor failed to log the job and did not attend. This led to a delay of a week in carrying out the works. This was a failure. It meant that it did not complete the works until 9 April 2024, just outside the landlord’s 28-day policy commitment.
We have seen some evidence that not all of this delay was the landlord’s fault. The files show that the landlord was concerned about the safety of its operatives and they had to attend the property in pairs. On at least one occasion, the resident refused access to operatives. He also refused to be contacted by phone, which made communication more difficult.
The resident told the landlord, in emails on 19 March 2023, that he believed it had lied to him and was deliberately delaying the works. We have seen no evidence to support this. He also said a landlord representative told him to use a bucket as a toilet as his own was broken. This is a serious allegation, but we have seen no evidence in support of this point.
The resident also asked the landlord to install lockable hasps on all doors in the property before it carried out the works. The landlord agreed to this. He says he asked the contractors for ID and they responded that their uniforms should be adequate ID. He refused to have the work done and said he would call the police if they attempted to return. These factors all contributed to the delay.
In its complaint responses, the landlord denied responsibility for any service failure. It accepted there had been 1 missed appointment by the locksmiths and offered £15. This was in line with its policy commitment to pay £15 per missed appointment.
However, as there had been several minor service failures, the landlord should also have apologised for these and considered some form of compensation. Its customer compensation and remedies policy says it will sometimes pay compensation, although it does not offer any guidance on appropriate levels. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom leaks.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance which says a payment of up to £100 is generally appropriate for a finding of service failure. We find that £50 is sufficient as the faults were slight and some of the delay was not caused by the landlord.

Reports of concerns in temporary accommodation

The landlord’s decant policy sets out how it will arrange for residents to move to temporary accommodation. It says:
1. The landlord will consider meeting all reasonable costs that a tenant incurs as a direct consequence of being required to move home.
2. For vulnerable residents, the landlord will work to identify any additional support they may need, and to enable it to consider whether to make any adjustments to the services provided.
The landlord said it would move the resident into alternative accommodation while it carried out the repairs. The decant was due to last from 21 March 2024 until mid-April 2024. The resident says the landlord told him the works would take 3 months but we have seen no evidence to support this.
The resident asked the landlord for a fridge to keep his medicine in on 21 March 2024. The landlord said that, before then, he had said he could store it for 7 days without refrigeration. When the resident told the landlord there was no fridge in the hotel room and he needed one, it delivered one the next day. This was good service.
The resident also said there was no Wi-Fi at the hotel and he had bought a Wi-Fi dongle and some data and wanted the landlord to pay for it. The landlord said it had booked a room with Wi-Fi but, even so, it refunded the resident £40 for the cost of the dongle and £35 for the data. This was excellent service which went beyond the landlord’s obligations given it had already paid for Wi-Fi from the hotel.
The landlord also paid the resident a mileage allowance of £27. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in arranging the alternative accommodation and dealing with the resident’s concerns while he was living there. It took into account his vulnerabilities when deciding how to respond to his requests and offered a generous compensation package. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns while he was in temporary accommodation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response after 46 working days, which was an unsatisfactory delay. It apologised for the delay in its stage 1 response and offered £50 to recognise its failure. It issued its stage 2 response on 5 November 2024, 20 working days after we asked it to do so. It also asked for an extension. There was, therefore, no significant delay in providing the stage 2 response.
However, the resident has shown us emails between him and the landlord in which he stated on 21 June 2024 that he had not had a stage 2 response. It is not clear that this refers to this specific complaint. Nonetheless, the landlord accepted there had been a communications failure. It therefore offered the resident a further £250 for complaint handling errors (£100 for delay, £100 for failure to follow the correct process, and £50 for the time taken to resolve the complaint).
In the absence of any clear evidence of substantial complaint handling failures, this offer is more than sufficient to compensate the resident for any delay and the distress or frustration it may have caused. We therefore consider that the landlord has made an offer of compensation which is sufficient to redress any failings it made. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’. In the interests of fairness, the landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £300 previously offered, if it has not done so already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns while he was in temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to provide us with evidence that it has:
1. Sent a letter of apology to the resident for the identified service failure in dealing with the leak.
2. Paid the resident £50 compensation for that service failure.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £315 already offered (if it has not already done so). This offer recognised genuine elements of service failure and we made the reasonable redress finding on that basis.