Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202214536)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214536

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 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 the landlord’s response to:
    1. a leak in the property, and;
    2. a request that it reimburse the resident for damage and costs incurred following the leak.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property as a leaseholder since October 2017. The property is a two-bedroom first floor flat.
  2. On 22 July 2021, the resident was contacted about a leak by her neighbour living in the ground floor flat. The neighbour had contacted the landlord about a leak. The landlord advised the neighbour to speak to the resident as it said the leak was coming from the resident’s flat.
  3. The resident sought advice from the landlord. It said that, as a leaseholder, the resident was responsible for repairing the leak. The resident arranged a plumber, but work was suspended when suspected asbestos was discovered in the kitchen floor. Work resumed in October 2021. A damp area was found under the floor, but the plumber could not identify the source. No repairs were made.
  4. In October 2021, the resident’s neighbour reported a leak affecting a second area of their flat. The landlord’s plumber investigated and identified the source as a pipe leading to a redundant water tank in the loft above the resident’s flat. The landlord’s plumber repaired the leak. This resolved the leak in the neighbour’s flat.
  5. On 24 February 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s response. The resident said that if the landlord had investigated the leak in July 2021, it would have been repaired earlier and she would not have had to go through the situation. She asked the landlord to pay the cost of damage to her kitchen. In its response on 12 July 2022, the landlord said that a leak had been found in the resident’s flat and that as a leaseholder, she was responsible for the repair.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2022. She said that there had not been a leak in her flat, and she asked the landlord to pay the costs for damage to her kitchen. In its final response on 26 September 2022, the landlord maintained that the resident was responsible. It said that information provided by the resident about there being no leak in her flat contradicted its own information. The landlord offered the resident £100 in recognition of the delay in responding to the complaint.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and raised a complaint with this Service. She wanted the landlord to take responsibility for the leak and said the £100 offered was not sufficient for the damage and stress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident complained that the landlord did not reimburse her for damage and costs incurred following the leak. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, this Service cannot consider the complaint for damages. This is because the Scheme says that this Service will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within this Service’s authority or expertise to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might.
  2. This Service can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedures and behaved reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to a leak at the property

  1. The lease agreement sets out the resident’s and the landlord’s responsibilities. It says the resident must keep in good condition and repair all fixtures and fittings “and whenever necessary to rebuild and reinstate and replace the property and every part thereof”. However, the lease agreement also says that the landlord will maintain and keep in repair the common service installations, which includes: all cisterns, tanks, sewers, drains, gutters, pipes, and wire cables, ducts and other conduits serving the premises and not repairable by the resident. It is this Service’s view that under the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to shared pipes and water tanks.
  2. When the resident contacted the landlord, it advised her that it was her responsibility, under the lease, to trace and repair the leak. The resident arranged and paid for a plumber to carry out an inspection. The resident said that the inspection was suspended when the plumber found suspected asbestos in the kitchen flooring. Because of this, the plumber did not find a leak and no repair work was done. The resident contacted her insurance company. The insurance company arranged for a plumber to carry out investigations. There was a delay while the flooring was tested for asbestos. In October 2021, the resident’s plumber carried out an investigation. The plumber found a damp area under the kitchen floor but could not identify where the damp was coming from. The resident said that no repairs were made.
  3. In October 2021, the resident’s neighbour reported a leak affecting a second area of their flat. On 12 October 2021, the landlord’s plumber investigated the report. The resident said that the landlord’s plumber looked in the loft space above her flat and in her neighbour’s flat. She said that the landlord’s plumber identified the source of the leak as a pipe leading to a redundant water tank in the loft above her flat. The resident said that the water tank had not been used during her occupation of the property. The pipe had been capped off, but the cap was leaking. The resident said that the landlord’s plumber cut the pipe and capped it in the neighbour’s flat and this resolved the leak.
  4. From the evidence provided by the resident and landlord, this Service has noted that there are differences in descriptions of what happened. There are also inconsistencies in the information provided by the landlord about the two reported leaks and in its response to the resident.
  5. The landlord’s complaint response on 12 July 2022, said the resident’s plumber found and repaired the first reported leak under the resident’s kitchen floor. The resident disputed this when she escalated her complaint on 3 August 2022. The landlord has provided this Service with an internal document where it acknowledged that it had “accidentally advised” that the resident’s plumber had fixed the leak reported in July 2021. However, the landlord’s final response on 26 September 2022, repeated that the resident’s plumber had located and repaired a leak under her floorboards. The landlord has provided this Service with an internal email dated 26 August 2022, where it said that system issues prevented it from looking at the repairs history. Given the acknowledged lack of repairs history available to the landlord, this Service finds that it is not convincing that the landlord can be certain that the resident’s plumber had located and repaired a leak under her floorboards.
  6. On the second reported leak and the landlord’s involvement, in its first complaint response on 12 July 2022, the landlord said it was unable to locate any evidence that it attended the resident’s property to trace and repair a secondary leak. It said it may have done so if the leak was severely affecting the neighbour’s property. However, the landlord’s internal email on 26 August 2022 said that system issues prevented it from looking at the repairs history to see whether the leaks reported in July and October 2021 were related. In its final response on 26 September 2022, the landlord said it had been unable to locate any evidence to suggest the two leaks were related. The landlord’s internal email also said that system issues prevented it from looking at whether it had investigated the first leak thoroughly.
  7. Taking everything into account, it is this Service’s view that the leaks were related and that the leak was caused by a pipe leading to a redundant water tank in the loft above the resident’s flat. The resident informed this Service that the water tank was redundant when she moved into the flat. The resident does not know whether the tank supplied water to her flat and the neighbour’s flat, but it is reasonable to consider it did as the landlord’s plumber cut and capped the pipe in the neighbour’s flat. The lease says that the landlord will repair tanks and pipes that are not the responsibility of the resident. As it is reasonable to consider that the water tank was shared, it is this Service’s view that the water tank and pipe were the landlord’s responsibility under the terms of the lease.
  8. This Service has noted that when the landlord repaired the leak in October 2021, three months after the original report, the leak affecting the neighbour’s property stopped. The matter could have been resolved in July 2021 if the landlord had acted sooner. As the landlord did not act sooner and take responsibility for the leak in its pipe, the resident was inconvenienced, experienced distress, and incurred costs. This Service has found that the landlord’s failure to act was maladministration.
  9. The resident has told this Service that the landlord’s failure placed emotional stress and pressure on her and her family. She said that the disruption to her kitchen affected the family’s daily life and that she was not able to provide home cooked food for her young child. The resident took time and trouble arranging a plumber and contacting an insurance company. The leak went on for three months. Once the leak was repaired, the resident was left with a disrupted kitchen.
  10. The landlord did not consider the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in investigating the cause of the leak. It appeared to assume the leak was in the resident’s property. However, this Service has seen no evidence that substantiates this. The landlord itself provided contradictory information in its communication with the resident. The landlord appears to have provided the final resolution when it repaired a faulty pipe that it had responsibility for. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, maladministration is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a failure which adversely affected the resident. This includes instances where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right. Awards of between £100 and £600 should be made to reflect maladministration. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £600 to account for the delays in identifying its obligation for addressing the leak and the related distress and inconvenience.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to a leak at the property. This is because by not carrying out investigations into the leak reported in July 2021, the landlord failed to meet its obligations under the lease agreement.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to meet its obligations under the lease agreement.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £600 in compensation. This is exclusive of the £100 previously offered by the landlord for delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
    1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over several months by the landlord’s failure to repair the leak when it was first reported.
    2. £200 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to repair the leak.
  3. The landlord is ordered to confirm to this Service that the above orders have been complied with within 4 weeks of this report.