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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202302116)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302116

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 April 2024


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’s request for a permanent decant due to damp and mould in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. 

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident lived with his wife in the property, a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, since 2012 under a rolling fixed term assured shorthold tenancy. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident has COPD (a chronic lung disease) and his wife suffers from severe migraine and severe photophobia, phonophobia and osmophobia as per a hospital letter from December 2022.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident reported damp and mould in the property in December 2019. A survey in 2019 identified no damp but repairs needed to address the mould including removing plaster and applying chemicals to the walls. The resident did not provide access and said he could not have the works carried out because of the household’s vulnerabilities. National lockdowns were then implemented in March 2020, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and no repairs were undertaken. The landlord’s subsequent offer of a temporary decant while the works were done was declined by the resident.
  2. Another survey was done in January 2021 and in February 2021 the landlord again offered the resident a temporary decant so repairs could be done, but he again declined. In March 2021 the resident complained to the landlord. He explained his reluctance to return and redecorate everything, and gave his household’s vulnerabilities and caring responsibilities for elderly relatives as reasons for declining a temporary move. Instead, he requested a permanent decant. The complaint of 2021 was closed at stage 1 with the landlord stating that the offer of a temporary decant remained available, but due to the invasive works a permanent decant would also be offered.
  3. The resident was offered a permanent decant on 6 April 2021 (a bungalow/ground floor flat with a garden) but he declined it as the garden was too big to manage, the wet room was not suitable for his wife, and he questioned why the landlord was forcing him into accommodation for older people. The landlord’s records show that it was struggling to provide a suitable property due to its limited stock. It advised the resident to bid for properties on the local authority’s housing register and reiterated this advice in July 2021. A further property was proposed by the landlord and declined by the resident, due to concerns about the garden size. From January to March 2022 the landlord was exploring other properties it could offer.
  4. In 2022 there were more visits to the property by the landlord and further attempts to progress the work, without success. In an estate inspection in June 2022 the landlord discovered that the resident had been given incorrect details about the platform he could use to bid for properties with the local authority. While it was initially operational and the resident (unsuccessfully) bid on the platform, it became discontinued. Following this the landlord corrected the details and advised the resident to continue bidding on the local authority’s housing register, in order to relocate to his desired area, as it was difficult to provide him with a property due to its limited stock.
  5. A surveyor visited the property on 17 August 2022 and identified that the repairs were complex and exploratory work was required to identify if there was any water ingress. They recommended a decant period of 4 weeks. The landlord’s team considered that the permanent decant was not necessary following the revision of the works schedule and timeframe and, in October 2022, it restated its offer of a temporary decant.
  6. In November 2022 the landlord considered its options under the tenancy breach process, as the resident had declined the temporary decant and it was not able to carry out the necessary repairs to address the damp and mould.
  7. The resident complained to the landlord at the end of November 2022, referring to repairs issues he had experienced since 2012, including the condition of the property following the void period, work he had carried out himself at his own cost, and the damp and mould. He confirmed that he did not wish to be temporarily decanted as he felt the damp and mould would return, and he wished to be permanently decanted to his preferred area.
  8. The landlord logged the complaint on 2 December 2022 and issued its stage 1 response on 16 January 2023. It explained that housing stock for the resident’s tenancy type was limited, and the resident had declined the offers it made for a permanent decant. It gave an update on the revised timescale for the repairs (but said this would take 3 months), and it concluded that a temporary decant was now suitable. It partially upheld the complaint and offered £800 compensation for the inconvenience of its repeat visits and £50 for its delayed complaint handling.
  9. On 25 January 2023 the resident disputed the landlord’s facts about being offered several properties. He acknowledged the limited stock it had for his tenancy type and so wanted the landlord to change his tenancy to a general needs one, under social housing, so he would be able to have access to the social housing stock, and cited his current banding which made him eligible for social housing.
  10. The resident did not wish to be disadvantaged, and the temporary decant for 3 months (which was different to the 4 week estimate he was told in October 2022) would cause unacceptable disruption. Furthermore, he complained about the incorrect information he had been given about the bidding platform for the social housing. He then chased the landlord in February and March 2023, during which time the landlord acknowledged the complaint and gave brief holding responses.
  11. The landlord provide its stage 2 response on 13 April 2023, when it:
    1. Outlined the 3 offers it had made to the resident which he had declined. It acknowledged that the resident was not, in fact, eligible for 2 of the properties (due to having the wrong type of tenancy) and apologised for this.
    2. Apologised for giving incorrect information about where to bid for social housing.
    3. Said it was unable to offer a direct let for a general needs property and explained that these had to be nominated through the local authority’s choice based letting system.
    4. Explained the options open to the resident to obtain a general needs tenancy using the local authority’s choice based letting system, where its available stock was advertised. The majority of its stock was allocated this way and it could not offer a permanent decant to the resident’s preferred area.
    5. Provided an update on the outstanding repairs, and clarified the timescale for the works (4 to 6 weeks) which required a temporary decant. It apologised for errors in its previous assessment of the works which suggested that a permanent decant was needed.
    6. Upheld the stage 1 finding of failures in the repeat visits which caused inconvenience for which it originally offered £800. It identified further failures of repair delays, misdirection and misinformation, and repeatedly being passed from different teams and staff, for which it apologised and increased the compensation by an additional £550.
    7. Upheld the stage 1 finding of service failure for its complaint handling and compensation of £50, and added an additional £50 for the further delays at stage 2 between 25 January and 12 April 2023, which fell outside of its published timeframes.
  12. The resident moved out of the property in December 2023, into privately rented accommodation. He has submitted to the Ombudsman that the landlord failed to: take ownership of his complaint; communicate with him effectively; complete necessary repairs to resolve the damp and mould for 3 years; and provide suitable alternative housing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While the resident’s reports of historic repairs issues dating back to 2012 are noted for context, they are not considered as part of the Ombudsman’s assessment. This Service expects residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, which is normally within 12 months of the issues arising (reflected at paragraph 42(c)of the Scheme), and to bring them to this Service within 12 months of exhausting the complaints process (reflected at paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme). As a result, the historic issues are now out of time for an assessment by this Service and are not considered further in this report.

Request for a decant due to damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy (Damp and Mould Policy) states that the landlord will address reports in line with its Repairs and Maintenance Policy to take the following actions: carry our surveys, diagnose water ingress and carry out remedial work, carry our remedial work connected to damp and mould, and carry out necessary treatment such as a chemical wash to affected areas. Non-emergency works should be completed within 28 days and major works should be completed within a reasonable timescale. The landlord has not disputed its repairing obligations, nor has it disputed that it failed to carry out the repairs.
  2. The resident lived with the damp and mould in the property for 3 years at the time of the complaint. The evidence shows that the landlord initially made reasonable attempts to carry out its repairing obligations. When the resident reported the damp and mould in December 2019 it promptly inspected the property and set out works to address the problem, in line with its Damp and Mould policy. The resident ultimately declined access for the repairs and a temporary decant on the grounds of his household’s vulnerabilities.
  3. The landlord was therefore limited in the steps it could take to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe while managing the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for it to consider whether tenancy breach action to gain access might be appropriate and proportionate in order to prevent the deterioration of the property and improve the resident’s living conditions. However, there is nothing to suggest that the landlord took any practical steps to progress this option. 
  4. The specific circumstances of the case mitigated the failure of the landlord’s repair service to some extent. However, there were elements of its repairs service which were within its control and which it still failed to manage effectively. This included the repeat visits to the property, unclear information about the full schedule of works, and inconsistent advice on the type of decant necessary.
  5. The repairs became conditional on the decant, and there was a dispute over the type of decant that would be provided, with the resident expecting a permanent move following the landlord’s communication in March 2021. The landlord did not make an additional offer for a permanent decant after April 2021 that was suitable and there was a dispute about whether or not the resident was told that the offer would be rescinded if he declined the first option. There is insufficient evidence to show what was agreed at the time, but the landlord then established in August 2022 that the works did not require a permanent move, and returned to its original position of offering a temporary decant.
  6. The landlord’s communication was unclear and the delays in establishing the appropriate action were unreasonable. The resident was not kept well informed of what was going on, his expectations were not managed accurately or fairly, and the landlord failed to comply with the aims of its Decant Policy. This states that it will provide regular updates, communicate with residents, and keep them informed at all stages of the decant process. The resident experienced time and trouble and distress and inconvenience as a result.
  7. The landlord’s redress comprised of apologies for the service failures and compensation for delays, repeat visits, misdirection and misinformation, and repeatedly being passed to different staff, totalling £1,350. This is in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy which states that discretionary awards of £250 to £700 will be made for cases of considerable failure including: misdirection, inadequate, contradictory or incorrect information about decants, and repeatedly chasing responses necessitating unreasonable levels of involvement by the complainant. Awards exceeding £700 will be used in recognition of failure which had had severe long term impact on the resident.
  8. Considering the terms of the landlord’s policy, alongside the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies, the offer of redress was appropriate as it recognised the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s experience. In making this offer, the landlord demonstrated that it took the complaint seriously and sought to put things right, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  9. In response to the resident’s complaint about not granting him a general needs tenancy, the landlord explained that it could not offer a direct let and directed him to his housing options. While the resident’s perspective is acknowledged, the landlord’s position on this point was reasonable as it was taken in line with its Allocation Policy. This states that residents must be nominated by the local authority and it does not hold its own housing register to allocate available homes.
  10. The landlord’s explanation to the resident of its limit in granting a general needs social housing tenancy independently from the local authority’s housing process was therefore appropriate. It also took reasonable steps to provide the resident with details of how to engage with his housing options. The outcome of this would not be within the remit of this Service to assess and would, instead, fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord must respond to complaints within 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2, with possible extensions with agreement from the complainant. The landlord did not provide its complaint responses in accordance with these standards. Its stage 1 response was issued 20 working days outside of the accepted timescale and the stage 2 response was issued 14 working days outside of the accepted timescale.
  2. The landlord proactively investigated its complaint handling, identified service failures at both stages of the process, and awarded £50 compensation for each delay (total £100). While frustrating for the resident, the delays were not significant and did not materially alter the outcome on the substantive issue. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the compensation award was proportionate to the level of service failure and adequately recognised the time and trouble caused to the resident. Therefore, there was reasonable redress for the complaint handling failures.    

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which resolves the following complaints satisfactorily, and amounts to reasonable redress for the complaints about:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for a permanent decant due to damp and mould in the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. There were established failures in service by the landlord which caused the resident and his family distress and inconvenience and they expended time and trouble in pursuing the matter with the landlord. In response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered redress in line with its Compensation Policy. Where the landlord could not provide the resident’s desired outcome, it clearly explained why, in accordance with its Allocation Policy.
  2. The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in its complaints process, and offered proportionate compensation which adequately recognised the impact on the resident. 

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should reoffer to the resident the £1,450 compensation offered in the complaints process, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress findings are made on that basis. It should do so within 4 weeks of the date of this report (if it has not done so already).