Clarion Housing Association Limited (202310206)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310206

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 February 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about:
   1. Damp, mould and leaks.
   2. Alternative accommodation.

Background

2. The resident is a joint tenant of the landlord, and the tenancy began in July 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a block. The resident lives in the property with her partner and young child.
3. The resident has made reports about damp and mould since November 2021. In January 2022, an operative noted that condensation was mainly due to affected areas being adjacent to cold communal walls, and recommended a surveyor inspection as other residents were affected. The landlord conducted further inspections, arranged a damp survey, installed a kitchen fan, and cleared leaking gutters.
4. In November 2022, the resident reported that damp and mould issues continued, and a surveyor inspected in December 2022. In January 2023, the landlord completed a repair to fill holes in brickwork. It also noted that while a roof leak was in hand, the resident’s property required a mould wash. The landlord’s records note that the resident cancelled an appointment for this.
5. On 24 April 2023, the landlord says it inspected completed roof works and discovered a separate leak in a neighbouring property. It is not disputed that it visited the resident to see if she was affected by the leak, and it found minor water ingress affecting her hallway. The landlord then agreed to place the resident in temporary accommodation, as it did not know when it would stop the leak, and she and her family stayed in various temporary accommodation between 5 May 2023 and 7 August 2023.
6. The resident complained on 17 May 2023. She raised dissatisfaction with damp and mould at the property. She said the landlord should have placed her in temporary accommodation in January 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction that she had to pay for her own removals and storage. She said the issues had affected her and her family’s health and led her to dispose of damaged belongings and furniture.
7. The resident raised further dissatisfaction on 15 June 2023. She raised dissatisfaction that she had to call the landlord daily for updates. She raised dissatisfaction that it extended the temporary accommodation at the last minute. She raised dissatisfaction that it had not kept a promise to move her into a permanent property once she had been in a temporary one for 28 days.
8. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 19 June 2023. It said there was no evidence she had awaited temporary accommodation since January 2023. It said it had received a temporary accommodation request on 26 April 2023 and it found an apartment on 4 May 2023. It said initial delays were due to issues such as the resident seeking a 3-bedroom rather than 2-bedroom property. It said it had been unable to complete removals as the resident had not been in, and it noted she had declined an offer to put her belongings into storage. It concluded that it had found no service failings.
9. The resident requested escalation of her complaint. She said that she should have been moved earlier, said her circumstances were similar to a neighbour who was permanently moved, said the landlord had not helped her when she had moved, and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not compensated her for the impact on her and her family and loss of belongings.
10. The landlord resolved the leak in the neighbouring property in late June 2023 and began drying the property. It then completed a 3-stage mould treatment to the property in early July 2023, completed communal damp proofing works in early July 2023, and completed redecoration works to the property in early August 2023.
11. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 18 August 2023. This said:
    1. There had been water ingress and communal damp and mould issues at the block, and it had completed works in March 2023 for the roof, the main cause of ingress. Works for communal areas and the property were also complete. It had confirmed the property was habitable on 4 August 2023 and the resident had returned to the property on 7 August 2023.
    2. It had offered temporary accommodation in April 2023 due to minor ingress found then, not because of condensation, damp, and mould. There was no evidence it needed to move the resident earlier with other residents who were affected by the roof leak. The leak had taken longer than expected so it had extended the temporary accommodation.
    3. It had agreed to book removals when it found a 2-bedroom property, but it was unable to contact the resident on 4 May 2023 when it found a property, and she had declined its offer to store items she had left with a friend.
    4. It had given housing advice to the resident at a visit, but it had been unable to confirm that it had agreed to a permanent move.
    5. It was unable to compensate for the resident’s possessions, but it detailed how to make a claim to its insurance department.
    6. It awarded £50 for delays responding to the complaint, but it had not been able to find any other service failures.
12. The resident expressed dissatisfaction to the Ombudsman that the landlord had taken no responsibility for the impact on her and family’s health and belongings. She disputed that the landlord had resolved issues in her property. She said the landlord had ignored a doctor’s note that said she should not be moved back.
13. The landlord raised further repairs from September 2023 for recurring damp and mould, after which it did further inspections, completed drainage works, cleared gutters, and noted an intention to raise failures in the damp proofing with its contractor. In December 2023, the landlord received a letter of claim from the resident. Following this, it raised works in March 2024 to stain block and then complete a 3-stage mould wash for small areas of condensation build up in a lounge, 2 bedrooms, communal hallway and above a doorway.
14. The resident recently says that she declined these works as damp and mould issues had returned after such works were done before. She says that the landlord recently erected scaffolding at her block but she is unsure what this is for. She has restated a belief that there are unresolved rising damp issues at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

15. The resident has complained about damp and mould at the property since moving into the property in 2021 and refers to damp and mould issues continuing since the August 2023 works. This investigation mainly focuses on events between May 2022, 12 months before the resident complained, up to August 2023, when the landlord provided its final response to her complaint.
16. This is in line with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out how we investigate complaints, that says we will not investigate complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.”
17. The resident has also complained about damage to her possessions and the impact on her and her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to possessions and the impact on health, as only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision on these.
18. This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of our Scheme, that says we 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, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”
19. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, which our assessment goes on to do.

The landlord’s response to the resident about damp, mould and leaks

20. The resident complained in May 2023 that since moving in, she had experienced damp and mould due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the property. She said the local authority environmental health department had been involved, as well as an MP who said there was rising damp, mould and leaks at the property. She said the issues had affected her and her family’s health and led her to dispose of damaged belongings and furniture.
21. The landlord’s June 2023 stage 1 response did not address the damp and mould, however its August 2023 stage 2 response addressed recent repairs for leaks. It confirmed that actions for other properties related to a roof leak, while actions for the resident’s property related to a leak from a neighbouring property. It confirmed that it had completed roof works, communal works, and mould treatment and redecoration of the resident’s property. It confirmed this was now in a habitable condition for her to return. It declined to compensate the resident for her possessions and detailed how to make a claim to its insurance team. It awarded £50 for its complaint response delay.
22. The landlord acted appropriately between April 2023 and August 2023 to progress and complete repairs to the communal areas and the resident’s property. In late June 2023, the landlord resolved the leak. In July 2023, the landlord completed communal damp proofing as well as a 3-stage mould wash treatment in the resident’s property. In August 2023, the landlord redecorated and cleaned the property. The works were completed in a reasonably timely manner as progress was often reliant on how long it took for areas to dry out.
23. The landlord was reasonable to say in August 2023 that the property was in a habitable condition for the resident to return. This followed first-hand inspection of the property by its staff, whose professional opinion it is entitled to rely on. The inspection photos support this conclusion and it is not evident that there was an equivalent professional opinion that supported the resident’s view.
24. The landlord responded reasonably about damaged belongings. This will have been distressing for the resident, but as noted above, the Ombudsman does not make definitive decisions about cause, liability or negligence. We do expect a landlord to initially consider if service failings have led to a resident’s incurred losses. We also expect a landlord to refer a resident to its insurer if it does not agree there have been service failings.
25. The landlord responded in line with this by advising the resident how to make a claim in its stage 2 response. The landlord could have detailed how to make a claim earlier, but it is not evident that the 3 months this took caused any detriment. The resident has the option to write to the landlord’s insurance team, as detailed in its stage 2 response, about any compensation she seeks for damaged or disposed of belongings such as flooring and carpet.
26. The landlord has evidently acted in response to the resident’s previous reports about damp and mould from 2021. The landlord internally confirmed after the August 2023 works that there was no sign of mould and that it was assumed there was no penetrating or rising damp after the communal damp proofing works. The resident made further reports in September 2023 about damp and mould, but as noted above this investigation’s main focus is on events up to August 2023. The evidence seen indicates that issues identified with the communal damp proofing works, the roof and drainage system may have contributed to these. There is initially no clear evidence of a service failure in the timeframe of the complaint that led to these.
27. However, the landlord did not respond reasonably to the resident’s complaint about damp and mould, as it did not adequately address this. In May 2023 it internally referred the complaint to a surveyor, who said the complaints team should deal with the complaint as it related to a property the resident no longer lived in and therefore did not require repairs. This was inaccurate and seemed to lead to the stage 1 response not addressing damp and mould. The stage 2 response reasonably addressed recent repairs for the roof leak, communal damp, and the resident’s property, but it did not address her belief that there was rising damp and that the landlord had failed to maintain the property in respect to damp and mould.
28. This is not satisfactory. The landlord should have reviewed events in the year before the resident’s May 2023 complaint and addressed the issues she raised clearly in writing. This should have included an evidence-based position on her claim of rising damp and covered the outcome to a December 2022 inspection for her report of widespread damp and mould at the property. While the landlord’s focus was resolving current issues caused by the leak from the neighbouring property, this would have shown that it appropriately considered the resident’s concerns and the history of damp and mould at the property.
29. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s wider concerns about damp and mould will have undermined her confidence that it had taken effective action to resolve them. Its failure to fully address issues also undermines whether its response did enough to prevent the complaint becoming a legal matter, which goes against aims in its damp policy. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about the damp, mould and leaks and to order some compensation in line with what our remedies guidance says is applicable for a service failure.

The landlord’s response to the resident about alternative accommodation

30. The resident complained that the landlord delayed in placing her in temporary accommodation as this was supposed to happen in January 2023. The landlord responded that there was no evidence that she had awaited temporary accommodation since January 2023 or that it needed to move her earlier with other residents affected by the roof leak.
31. The landlord was reasonable to respond that it did not delay placing the resident in temporary accommodation. The evidence shows that in January 2023 an inspection report recommended temporary accommodation for the resident’s neighbour due to issues in their flat. The report for an inspection at the resident’s property around the same time noted that a roof leak was in hand and only recommended a mould wash. It is not evident that the landlord identified that temporary accommodation was needed for the resident’s own situation until late April 2023, in line with its account.
32. The resident complained that she was told that she would be placed in temporary accommodation for 28 days and would then be moved permanently. The landlord responded that it gave the resident housing advice at a visit but it was unable to confirm that it had agreed to a permanent move.
33. The landlord was reasonable to respond that it had not agreed to a permanent move. The alternative accommodation being temporary or permanent when tenants are moved for works depends on if a property can be moved back into, and it is not evident that a GP letter the resident supplies would impact this. The evidence shows that the landlord always said that alternative accommodation was temporary. The landlord did tell the resident’s partner that it would try to locate one of its empty voids properties if they were in temporary accommodation for 28 days. The landlord later tried to source a property based on the resident’s criteria. However, it is evident that this was intended to minimise their having to move between different properties and be until their home was ready to move back into.
34. The resident complained that she did not receive any help during the move and had to pay for her own removals and storage. The landlord responded that it had agreed to book removals and storage, but it was unable to contact the resident on 4 May 2023.
35. The landlord’s response was not satisfactory. The resident requested some written information about the removals in late April 2023 which it is not evident the landlord responded to. This suggests its communication was not as helpful as it could have been. The landlord attempted to contact the resident about removals on 4 and 5 May 2023, but it is unclear why it did not confirm removal arrangements in the same 4 May 2023 call where it told her temporary accommodation was now available. It comes across as confusing and uncoordinated that it told her the temporary accommodation was ready to move into without a clear plan for removals being in place. The landlord should also have shown that it considered reimbursing the resident after she said she had paid for her own removals, in line with its policy to consider reimbursement for its tenants’ reasonable incurred costs when moving home.
36. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation, her going to time and trouble to contact the landlord for updates, and the landlord extending the temporary accommodation at the last minute. The landlord did not specifically address this but said it did not identify any service failures apart from the complaint response delay.
37. The landlord’s response was not satisfactory. The resident raised concerns before the stage 1 response about the handling of the temporary accommodation. The landlord discussed them with the resident on 23 June 2023 and confirmed details of a designated contact, arranged to extend temporary for 3 weeks rather than 2 to give her more certainty, and monitored the progress of repairs more closely.
38. However, the resident was previously unaware that she had a designated contact. She called the landlord frequently before late June 2023. She experienced extension of the temporary accommodation on the last day multiple times, which led to her partner taking time off work for days they thought they would need to move.
39. The above indicates that the management of the temporary accommodation was not as effective as it could have been for aspects such as a designated point of contact, removals, monitoring of repairs, extension of accommodation, and keeping the resident updated.
40. The time and trouble the resident went to for updates at points and the uncertainty caused by multiple last-minute extensions will have caused some distress, inconvenience and frustration to the resident and her family. The resident may also have been left out of pocket for costs incurred moving her belongings. The landlord did not satisfactorily acknowledge and address this although the resident detailed these issues before its stage 1 response. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about alternative accommodation and to order some compensation in line with what our remedies guidance says is applicable for a service failure.

Determination

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident about damp, mould and leaks.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident about alternative accommodation.

Orders and recommendations

42. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified. This comprises £100 for its response about damp and mould, £100 for its response about alternative accommodation, and the £50 it originally offered if this has not been paid.
43. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property, to assess current damp and mould issues and if there is rising damp.
44. The landlord is ordered, within 6 weeks, to write to the resident and:
    1. Set out the outcome to the inspection confirming its findings, any actions being taken and by when. It should set out its position on whether there is rising damp. It should also provide information and explanation about any action the resident can take to mitigate against damp and mould issues.
    2. Clarify its findings and actions about damp and mould at the block and property since May 2022, including current actions it is taking for water ingress or damp and mould issues at the block.
45. The landlord is recommended to ensure that its complaint responses sufficiently address issues raised in complaints.
46. The landlord is recommended to ensure that it manages its customers’ expectations from the start about removals, when customers are to be updated and when temporary accommodation is to be extended.
47. The landlord is recommended to write to the resident about her rehousing options. This should include options that would assess any medical evidence she has in support of a move from her current property.