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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202218930)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218930

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 September 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 handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. In June 2022, he reported a leak in the pipe leading from his property to street level. He told the landlord he had turned the water off to avoid being charged for waste water he was not using. The landlord raised a repair request, stating that ‘water mains have burst between the stop tap and property, but its within our boundary so it’s our responsibility’. The water company also advised the landlord that there was a leak.
  2. In August 2022, the landlord again raised a repair request and asked the contractor to attend and find the leak ‘somewhere in the wall or under the stairs’. The resident stated that a plumber and several landlord staff members attended on 9 August 2022 and agreed there was a leak. The resident further stated he was advised it would be a substantial repair, with permits needed to dig up the road. He then said he was given a water meter key, and advised to turn off the water meter to avoid a large water bill and that the leak would be repaired soon.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to his reports of a leak on 18 October 2022 (the landlord’s files do not record what was said in the complaint).
  4. On 12 December 2022, the landlord advised the resident works to fix the leak would begin the following day. The landlord later stated that the contractors were unable to identify a leak during this visit, although noted the freezing conditions could be the reason for this. The resident disputed that the water had been turned on or that the meter had been examined properly.
  5. On 14 December 2022, the landlord provided its stage one response. It understood the resident had been advised by the water company that the leak was from a pipe that came from the water meter into the property and was wasting 25 litres per hour. The landlord said it was aware the resident had kept the water supply predominantly turned off to limit water usage and not flood his neighbours’ properties. The landlord apologised for the delay in attending the repair, and explained this was due to a change in contractors.
  6. The landlord confirmed that works were booked in for 13 December 2022 to dig the water mains up and replace the pipe. It later advised the works had not gone ahead because the contractors had been unable to identify a leak, so works were deemed unnecessary. The landlord recognised there was a delay in responding to the resident’s reports, and apologised for the inconvenience this caused. It offered £250 compensation as an apology for the delay and lack of communication, and £50 for providing the complaint response late.
  7. On 21 November 2022, the resident brought his complaint to this Service. He said the water was leaking into the neighbour’s property boundary wall. The resident said he turned his water off at street level, so this meant he also had no heating either. He said he turned it on twice a week to fill up buckets of water in order to wash, cook, clean and flush the toilet. He was frustrated at a lack of communication from the landlord and concerned nothing was being done to resolve the leak.
  8. On 22 December 2022, the water company sent a letter to the resident advising it believed there was a leak at the property. On the same day, the resident escalated the complaint to stage two. He provided a video of the flow indicator on the water meter spinning as evidence of a leak, and disputed that any action had been taken by the landlord to repair it. He argued the water was turned off when the contractors attended previously and complained to the landlord that he needed to go up and down 50 flights of stairs to turn the water on and off every time he washed. The resident said he wanted to escalate the complaint because he did not accept the leak had been fixed, or that the contractors had carried out any work.
  9. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 January 2023 and he confirmed the water was still leaking. He advised he kept the water turned off due to flooding at his neighbours’ property and that he filled up buckets of water twice a week. The resident complained he needed the leak fixing as the issue had been ongoing for 8 months, the flow indicator was still spinning fast and the leak was under the pavement by the supply pipe.
  10. On 3 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage two response. It stated that a contractor had attended on 2 February, checked the meter in the street and confirmed there was not a leak because the meter was holding and not spinning. The landlord advised the resident to turn the water back on, as turning it off was impacting the amenities available. It closed the complaint and said it had been unable to identify a leak, so no further action would be taken.
  11. The resident again disputed that the water had been turned on during the contractor visit. He said he would turn the water back on in respect of the landlord’s advice, but was concerned that this would result in a hugely expensive water bill. He informed the landlord that his previous biannual water bill had historically been £85, and he expected this to rise significantly based on his calculations of waste water per hour.
  12. The resident said he had been contacted by the water company on 20 February 2023 and informed of a constant leak of 25 litres of water per hour. After reiterating the landlord’s position that it had investigated and found no leak, he was provided with a reference number for the corresponding investigation into the leak by the water company.
  13. In August 2023, the resident informed this Service he received a water bill for £1529.20, which was the result of an increase in water usage of 899% from July 2021. To put things right, the resident would like the leak repaired and for the landlord to contribute towards his water bill.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord’s handling of his reports of a  leak has affected his health. He stated that he became very unwell with Covid-19 and needed to take some time off work, which he said is a result of not being able to clean properly. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s statement regarding being unwell. However, it is beyond the expertise of this service to make a determination on a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of a leak and the resident’s health.
  2. The above matters may be better for the courts to decide, where evidence such as medico-legal report can be assessed, and an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing. A court can instruct medical experts who can advise on whether a series of circumstances will have prevented the claimant from fulfilling the duties associated with their job. As such, this investigation makes no determination on these matters. This is in line with paragraph 42 (g) of the scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a claim if they consider that their health and work has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy differentiates between emergency and non-emergency repairs. Emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours, and non-emergency repairs 28 days.
  2. The landlord operates a two stage complaint policy. The policy states it will acknowledge and log stage one and two complaints within 10 working days of receipt, and respond within 20 working days at stage one, and 40 working days at stage two. It is worth noting that these timescales exceed those advised in this Service’s complaint handling code (the code). As of October 2022, the code should be adhered to by all member landlords.

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

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The resident first reported the leak on 20 June 2022, after receiving a letter from the water company. In this case, it is difficult to determine the exact course of events due to lack of contemporaneous evidence. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked for its records relating to the leak, such as a copy of the resident’s reports of this, repair logs, copies of any survey or inspection reports, feedback from employees or contractors, an explanation of any work carried out, confirmation that the issue has now been resolved and completion dates for any repairs. Very little of this has been provided. For example, the repair log the landlord supplied begins in December 2022, some six months after the resident states that the matter was first reported.
  4. In light of any evidence or information to the contrary, this assessment is mainly based on the resident’s account. The resident stated he chased the landlord 3 times in July and August, and that the landlord attended on 9 Aug 2022. He said the landlord identified the leak, took photographs, and gave him a key to the water meter to turn off the water to prevent a large water bill.
  5. This shows that it took 50 days for the landlord to attend the property following the resident’s report of a leak on 20 June 2022. Due to the lack of records it is not known what priority the landlord gave this repair, but given the examples set out in the repairs manual, it could reasonably have been expected to attend within 28 days. The landlord’s initial attendance therefore appears not to have taken place within a reasonable time, causing unnecessary delay.
  6. The resident turned his water supply off on 10 August 2022, and has stated this was on the advice of the landlord to avoid an excessive water bill. This was a reasonable course of action to take, and it is understandable that he would be concerned about a water bill as he was told by the water company the pipe was leaking at a rate of 25 litres per hour. He also advised he turned it off in consideration of his neighbours, as the pipe was leaking into a boundary wall in their properties, saturating and damaging it.
  7. On the same day, the landlord raised a repair job for contractors to attend the property. It asked the contractors to ‘find the leak from the main stopcock at the property somewhere in the wall or under the stairs’. However, the next contemporaneous record of contractors attending is not until 13 December 2022, when it was advised they were unable to identify a leak but noted the freezing conditions could be a reason for this.
  8. It is understood the landlord apologised for this delay in the stage one response, and explained this was partly due to a change in contractors. However, it is completely unreasonable this visit took 4 months to be carried out when the resident was without running water and heating, especially in the winter time. The landlord’s offer of £250 compensation is insufficient and fails to reflect the seriousness of this failing or impact to the resident.
  9. The resident disputed the leak was properly investigated during the 3 December 2022 visit, and said he did not think the water was turned back on so the contractors could see the leak. He stated that the area surrounding the water meter was covered in snow and ice, and he could not see any evidence that anyone had been to look at it. The resident further stated that his toilet cistern is empty, and would fill up with water when the water was turned on. As it did not fill up, he argued the water cannot have been turned on to investigate the leak.
  10. It is unclear what action was taken on this visit from 13 December 2022. This Service asked the landlord to provide further information from the repair logs, evidencing exactly how the leak was investigated, but it was unable to. This Service would expect the landlord to communicate with the resident and his neighbours, in respect of his reports of the leak affecting their properties, to examine where the water was flowing to and assess the severity of the leak. In the absence of any detailed records, it is not possible to conclude that the leak was properly investigated. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. Further, despite recognising in its stage one response that it was noted on 13 December 2022 that the leak may not have been evident due to ‘freezing conditions’, the landlord took no action to reattend when conditions were not freezing to ensure a full investigation was carried out.
  11. The resident then escalated the complaint to stage two after another letter advising of a leak from the water company. The resident provided video evidence of the water meter spinning, indicating there was a leak. In response, the landlord arranged another contractor visit on 2 February 2023. It said: ‘the operative again checked the meter in the street, they confirmed there is not a leak given that the meter is holding and not spinning.’ The resident again disputed that the water was turned on, given the video evidence he had provided of the meter spinning when it was turned on. Again, this Service asked the landlord to evidence what action was carried out during the visit, but it was unable to provide any additional information. As such, there is no evidence to support the landlord’s position that the leak was effectively investigated on this date. As the resident disputed the water was turned on for the previous contractor visit, it also appears that the landlord failed to ‘learn from outcomes’ or ‘put things right’, by not communicating with the resident to ensure the water was turned on for an additional contractor inspection.
  12. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to identify and resolve repair issues in an effective and timely manner, in line with its policies. Whilst the landlord has said it investigated and found no evidence of a leak, it has been unable to evidence that any substantive action was taken, or that it took note of the resident’s assertion that the water meter had been turned off during any inspections, and therefore the true picture had not been evident. Given the length of time this issue has been ongoing, and the impact this has had on the resident feeling the need to turn his water supply off, the Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration in landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
  13. The resident has explained the impact not having heating or running water for this length of time has had on him. He explained that after turning off the water, he had to travel down 50 flights of stairs twice a week to turn it back on, fill up several buckets of water to drink, wash, cook, clean and flush the toilet with, and then travel back up the stairs. This also meant he did not have central heating in winter, and he said he used a camping stove and oven to keep warm over Christmas and New Year during freezing temperatures. This has caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and impacted his daily life. It is unacceptable that the resident was impacted in this way for 7 months. Orders are made below for compensation, in line with Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where: ‘the landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident; demonstrating a failure to provide a service, put things right and learn from outcomes, and the failures accumulated over a significant period of time’.
  14. It is understood the resident kept the water turned off as he was concerned about receiving an excessive water bill. In the stage two response, the landlord advised him to turn it back on as it had not found evidence of a leak and the resident was losing amenities available to him. On 7 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and said he would notify it if he received a legal notice from the water company and the basement property next door flooded again. He said he usually received a water bill of £85 every 6 months, and had done for for the past 20 years. He expected this would rise significantly.
  15. In June 2023 the resident advised the landlord the neighbouring property had experienced flooding. In August 2023, the resident advised both the landlord and this Service that he had received a water bill for £1,529.20, which was a daily water increase of 899% from July 2021. It is clear this is a result of a leak. The resident is understandably concerned about being able to afford such a hugely increased bill. As this is a result of the landlord’s failure to identify and fix the leak, it would be fair that it contributes towards it. A order is made below in this regard.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident first reported the issue on 20 June 2022, and made a formal complaint on 18 October 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 November 2022, 21 working days later, therefore it failed to meet its policy obligations of acknowledging a complaint within 10 working days. The stage one response was provided on 14 December 2022, 42 working days later. This is well outside both the landlord’s own policy timeframe of 20 working days and the 10 working days as stipulated in the Code. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints handling policy, and contributed towards the resident’s distress and inconvenience with this delay.
  2. The resident escalated the complaint to stage two on 22 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged this on 9 January 2023 and adhered to its policy timeframe of 10 working days. The stage two response was provided on 3 February 2023, 29 working days later. Whilst this is within the landlord’s policy, it falls outside of the 20 working days given in the Code to respond to stage two complaints.
  3. Overall, there were significant delays in providing a response to the resident’s complaint at both stage one and two and this was a failing. Although the landlord has offered an apology, £50 compensation in this case is insufficient. Orders are made below to increase this, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident; the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things, but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
  4. In regards to record keeping, the landlord has been able to provide very little evidence of any action taken in regards to the leak. It is a concern that the landlord does not hold these records. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to all its residents and contractors. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  3. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident at total of £1550 (comprised of £1000 for the inconvenience and distress caused by its failures in the handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, £400 for the time and trouble the resident experienced pursuing the issue, and £150 for the impact of the delays in the handling of the complaint).
    2. Arrange for the leak to be re-investigated and resolved. The landlord should liaise with the resident and ensure the water is turned on ahead of time, and also communicate with the water company to ensure that the leak has been fixed.
    3. Request copies of the resident’s water bills from 2020 and 2021, as well the more recent water bill for £1,529.20. Using these, the landlord must calculate the increase in usage and cost, and write to the resident, copying in this service, setting out these calculations, and pay the resident/the water company the difference.
  2. Pay the difference in resident’s water bill going forward until the leak is identified and repaired.

Recommendations

  1. Investigate how it manages, reviews and organises ongoing repair issues with its contractors. It should ascertain how to create a better channel of communication between the parties, to provide a better service to residents.
  2. Review how it handles complaints from residents. It should re-train staff if necessary, to ensure that its responses are in-line with the guidance set out in this service’s complaint handling code.
  3. Carry out a review of its repairs record keeping practices, and write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been done.