Clarion Housing Association Limited (202231267)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231267

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports about her neighbour’s building works and associated damage to her property.
2. Reports about water leaks affecting her property and the neighbouring property.
3. Requests for it to investigate rising damp.
4. Formal complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She lives in the 2-bedroom terraced house with her husband, and 4 children, 2 of which are adults. The property is adjoined to the neighbouring property, which is occupied by a private leaseholder.
The resident has several health issues, which include back problems impacting her mobility and she has a stoma bag. She also suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety. Her younger children are neurodiverse and one has recently been diagnosed with developmental coordination disorder. The landlord is aware of the family’s health conditions.
The resident’s neighbour commenced works to extend his property to the rear in December 2022. The resident told the landlord that this had resulted in blocked drains and damage to her fence. On 9 February 2023 she reported an underground leak affecting her and her neighbour’s garden. The leak had been caused by, or discovered during, the building works.
The resident made 4 complaints about the landlord’s handling of these issues throughout February 2023.
In complaints made on 7 and 10 February 2023, she complained about the landlord’s poor communication with regards the building works. She said she had asked it for support with this since October 2022. She felt hurt, unheard, and disrespected, and referenced her vulnerability.
On 14 February 2023 she complained that the leak had not been rectified and again referenced her vulnerability and the landlord’s lack of support. She explained that damp was rising along the back wall of her property. She followed this up with a formal complaint saying the area manager had not responded to her emails and she felt ignored.
On 27 February 2023 the resident complained a fourth time. She said the landlord had not called to see if the water company had rectified the leak. Nor had it supplied her with temporary water during a loss of access while the pipes were repaired.
The landlord amalgamated the complaints and issued its stage 1 response on 19 April 2023. It confirmed that:
1. a party wall agreement had been needed and it had enlisted a party wall surveyor to review works at the property
2. the party wall surveyor had attended on 4 April 2023 and identified that the resident’s decking had collapsed due to the neighbour’s excavation works
3. it recommended that the neighbour replace the resident’s decking and said it had shared this finding with both the resident and the neighbour’s surveyor
4. the water company was responsible for rectifying the water leak and for any loss of access to water as a result
5. it would continue to monitor and take steps to progress the garden repairs
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 April 2023. She maintained:
1. the landlord was responsible for providing water under the Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA)
2. it had failed to keep her updated about the terms of the party wall agreement and its communication had been poor
3. its poor communication had undermined her relationship with her neighbour and she was experiencing aggression from them as a result
4. it had not considered her vulnerability, in that:
  1. it had not followed its vulnerable persons policy
  2. its staff were not trained in PTSD or mental health
  3. operatives had turned up without notification and she was unable to answer in a timely way due to her health condition
5. it had provided no clarification on when the issues with her garden would be rectified
6. it had not responded to her reports that:
  1. there was possible rising damp at the back of the property
  2. the patio was uneven following works by the water company
7. it should apologise for its lack of communication, support and action
The landlord provided its final response on 13 July 2023. It apologised if she had felt dismissed but found no service failure and said:
1. it was the water company’s responsibility to provide water
2. the surveyor had provided weekly updates to the resident and would continue to do so
3. it was working to get a resolution where it was within its powers, but the process was not quick
4. the family’s health conditions did not meet the definition of vulnerability according to its policy but it had recorded them
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service. She reports that neither the neighbour or landlord have repaired the garden and it has been unusable since March 2023. She described the impact this has had on her family. She explained that the children’s diagnoses and the family’s overcrowding mean the loss of outdoor space has been especially detrimental and the landlord’s handling of the matter has caused her stress and anxiety.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident wants her garden reinstating following damage caused by works at the neighbouring property. While we can consider whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to her reports about this, we cannot determine liability for the repairs. This is a legal issue, better suited to an insurance claim or court.
The resident raised concerns about several other issues with the landlord following the escalation of her complaint. We must be satisfied that a landlord has had the opportunity to fully consider a complaint through the operation of its 2-stage complaints procedure before we can investigate.
As such, this investigation is focussed on the issues that the resident brought to the landlord within her initial complaint, and that were defined as being part of her complaint by the landlord in its final response. Other concerns raised by the resident relating to repairs to her windowsill and door, and another neighbour’s tree, are outside the scope of this investigation.

Response to works and damage to property

If a proposed development will affect a shared (party) wall or a boundary line between properties, the Party Wall Act 1996 may be relevant. The party wall process ensures that both property owners are informed and have a legal framework to resolve disputes. Parties may appoint a surveyor to prepare a party wall award which sets out stipulations for work. These include protective measures for the neighbouring property and how disputes or damages will be resolved. Once the agreement is in place, work can begin.
According to the terms of the tenancy and the LTA, the landlord is required to maintain the structure and exterior of the property. The tenancy conditions also outline the resident’s responsibility to keep the garden tidy and maintain any fencing or walls that border the garden, as well as any shed, lean-to, clothes lines, and posts. The tenancy agreement does not specify the extent of the resident’s maintenance duties. However, it is general practice, in accordance with the LTA, that a landlord should repair external areas that a resident cannot reasonably maintain or that pose a safety risk.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties including external areas like gardens. Landlords must eliminate or reduce risks relating to trip hazards and structural dangers.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out timescales for responding to repairs. It will respond to routine repairs within 28 days. For emergency repairs it will attend within 24 hours to make the situation safe. It defines emergency repairs as those presenting an immediate danger or jeopardy to health and safety.
This Service has not had access to any communications between the landlord and resident with regards works at the neighbouring property prior to 11 November 2022. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to assess the landlord’s response prior to this date.
On 11 November 2022 the resident informed the landlord she had received a letter from the local authority about a proposed development at the neighbouring property that could affect her home. The landlord said it had informed its development team.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 December 2022 to report that the neighbour had commenced work and this had caused her garden drains to block. The resident expressed frustration that it had disconnected her calls many times when she tried to report this. She also said the landlord had not informed her whether it had approved the neighbour’s works. The landlord attended the following day to unblock the drains.
Landlords should have systems in place to allow for easy and prompt reporting of repairs. The resident’s frustration at the difficulty she faced when doing so was understandable. She reported that this was a frequent occurrence throughout the period under investigation.
Once aware, the landlord responded promptly by prioritising and resolving the repair within 24 hours. This was consistent with its repairs policy. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report was reasonable. However, the landlord should ensure it has rectified any issues with its phone lines.
On 20 December 2022 the resident reported that her neighbour had dug foundations in their garden right up to the border with her garden, which had destabilised her fence. She provided photographs which the landlord sent to the area manager for review. The area manager did not agree to repair the fence while works were ongoing. They were also unsure who owned the fences and who was responsible for any damage.
There were understandable questions about liability for repairs to the fence and it was reasonable that the landlord put repairs on hold while works were ongoing and further damage was possible. However, the resident had reported that the fence was unsafe and the landlord should have inspected and considered any appropriate temporary measures to mitigate this. It should also have made its position on this clear to the resident who continued to chase it for updates.
At this point the area manager identified that the works were affecting the party wall. They informed the surveyor who was not aware of the proposed development, despite the resident having notified the landlord in November 2022. This suggested there had been a breakdown in its internal communication. However, the onus was on the neighbour to issue a party wall notice and there is no evidence they had done so.
On 29 December 2022 the neighbour asked the resident to sign a party wall notice. The resident contacted the landlord to ask for clarity on what to do and it confirmed this was its responsibility. A month later, on 25 January 2023, a party wall surveyor from an external company contacted the resident to arrange an inspection of the works. Again, the resident contacted the landlord for clarity about what capacity the surveyor was acting in and how to proceed. The landlord confirmed that the surveyor was representing it in establishing a party wall agreement.
Given it had evidence the works were impacting its property, it took appropriate action in enlisting a party wall surveyor. However, there was a lack of communication from the landlord throughout this period which left the resident feeling anxious and unsupported. It had offered no proactive explanation or assurance that it was engaged in the party wall process, or of the steps it was taking to assess, monitor, and agree the works. It left the resident to report concerns resulting from the work and to chase for clarity and updates, which caused her inconvenience, time, and trouble.
Works at the neighbouring property were on hold while the parties were establishing the party wall agreement, but on 7 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that the neighbour had resumed works. She was upset that it had not informed her whether it had agreed a party wall award and what the stipulations were.
The landlord updated the resident on 14 February 2023. It confirmed the neighbour had followed procedures according to relevant legislation and acknowledged the works may cause disruption. This suggested an agreement was in place for the neighbour to proceed.
While there was no legal duty on the landlord to share the details of any agreement, it should have informed the resident that works would resume before they did, and outlined how she could report any concerns. The resident felt the situation was out of her control which caused her anxiety. The landlord’s poor engagement exacerbated this.
On 9 March 2023 the resident reported that the concrete slab supporting her decking had tilted and her decking was being held up by the fence. She noted that this had exposed the waste and water pipes that ran below which were at risk of being damaged. She asked that the landlord contact her urgently. Later that day the concrete slab supporting her decking collapsed into the neighbour’s garden along with her fence.
The landlord’s records do not clearly evidence its initial response. The resident’s communications indicate that someone from the landlord attended on 10 March 2023 to ‘look at’ the damage. On 13 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor put up a temporary barrier. The supervisor attended the following day and took pictures which its surveyor passed on to the party wall surveyor, noting this was a breach of the agreement.
The resident had reported that her garden was structurally dangerous. While responsibility for any repairs and damage was to be established and managed through the party wall process, the landlord had a duty to act in the instance its property was unsafe. The records suggest it acted reasonably by inspecting the following day, which was within its emergency response time. It followed up by restricting access to the area and progressing a resolution through the party wall process, which was appropriate.
The resident complained that the landlord had not informed her in advance that its contractor was attending and she was unable to answer the door in a timely way due to her health condition. The tenancy agreement notes the landlord should give at least 24 hours’ notice when attending to conduct repairs. Its failure to do so caused the resident inconvenience and it did not acknowledge or apologise for this in its complaint response which was unreasonable.
The resident’s garden was unusable and she was anxious to understand whether the party wall agreement covered the damages. She told the supervisor during his visit on 14 March 2023 that she had been waiting for a call from the surveyor for several days. She also said that her call had disconnected while talking to someone at the landlord that day and they had not returned the call. The Ombudsman has not had access to the landlord’s call records so is not aware of the extent of its communications with the resident on this, but it is clear she did not feel adequately updated.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on several occasions over the following weeks. She noted that she had waited longer than 28 days, as per its response time for routine repairs. The records state that the party wall surveyor inspected the damage on 4 April 2023. On 12 April 2023 the surveyor updated the resident that it had recommended the neighbour cover the cost of the damages. This was a welcome update but again, this had been in response to a request from the resident.
The landlord sought a resolution through the party wall process and relied on third parties, including the neighbour and party wall surveyors on either side, to engage and progress this. While it had a responsibility to push for a resolution, it was not in control of how long the process would take. It was reasonable for it to use this process rather than assume responsibility for the repairs itself, and the timescales in its repairs policy did not apply.
However, it could have been more explicit and proactive in its communication with the resident. On 21 April 2023 the surveyor said they had told the resident there was no ‘quick fix’ to the situation on numerous occasions. As discussed, the Ombudsman does not have access to the phone records, but it had not provided this clarity in its written communications up to this point. In its initial complaint response, it offered a vague assurance that it would monitor to get a resolution in a ‘timely manner’. The resident wanted a more specific timescale. If the landlord was unable to provide this, it should have clearly explained this to the resident.
It would have been helpful for the resident to have a clear point of contact in the landlord. The resident mostly communicated by social media and the landlord’s social media team directed her queries and relayed information to/from the area manager and surveyor. This resulted in delay which contributed to the resident’s frustration. The social media team also informed the resident the officers would call her directly but she reported they did not always do so.
From June 2023 the surveyor arranged to call the resident on a weekly basis which was a positive step, providing assurance and demonstrating accountability to her. It confirmed this commitment in its final complaint response. However, the resident said she did not receive the weekly updates it promised, either before or after its complaint response.
The Ombudsman cannot determine the frequency of the landlord’s updates. A recommendation has been made that it keeps accurate records of its communications to provide an audit trail and allow for effective monitoring of its actions.
The resident reported other concerns to the landlord resulting from the neighbour’s works throughout June and July 2023. This included builders:
1. leaving a gap in the facias between her property and the neighbouring property
2. working outside of regular hours, which caused disturbance and impacted her children’s sleep
3. leaving residue on her windows which she was unable to clean off without access to the garden
4. leaving rubbish on the communal pathway.
There is no evidence that the landlord directly addressed these concerns within its written communication, including in its final response. This left the resident feeling unsupported and unprotected. It should have confirmed that it had brought them to the attention of the party wall surveyor and sought resolution on her behalf.
The resident felt that the landlord had not considered her vulnerability in how it had handled the issues she raised. She said it had not trained its staff in mental health or PTSD. She also said it had not complied with its vulnerable persons policy and had failed to make adjustments based on her health needs. She noted it was aware of her needs but it had left her to chase for responses.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy outlines the landlord’s responsibility to make adjustments in the delivery of its services to residents where it is reasonable to do so. The resident had referenced her vulnerability and how the situation was impacting her mental health on numerous occasions, including within her complaint. However, this Service has not seen that she made a specific request to the landlord for an adjustment of a particular policy or procedure.
As discussed, there were failures in the landlord’s communication around the works which caused the resident distress but there is no evidence it disregarded her vulnerability or had specific duties towards her based on her health needs. Nor has this Service seen evidence that its staff did not have the adequate training or awareness of mental health conditions. It apologised if its staff had made her feel unheard or dismissed and invited her to share specific details in its final response. It acted appropriately in doing so.
However, the landlord could have done more to acknowledge her conditions in its complaint response and invited her to share details of any adjustments it could make based on the concerns she had expressed. It said it had asked the customer services team to respond to an email she had sent about the application of its vulnerable persons policy but has not provided evidence that it did so.
The resident asked for details of the vulnerabilities it had recorded for her on its system in line with its policy. It provided this clarity in its final response but the resident noted it had only called her on 28 June 2023 for this information and she said she had previously informed it of her conditions. The Ombudsman has not had access to communications she or representatives had with the landlord prior to November 2022. However, she had reported to it that she had PTSD in her complaints of February 2023 and the landlord should have recorded this promptly.
Overall, there were failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the neighbour’s work which centre on its communication. It did not keep her adequately updated about the party wall process and its engagement in this, which caused the resident worry and inconvenience. It could have better managed her expectations about the timescales involved and its ability to update her. For this reason, the Ombudsman has found maladministration.
In line with the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £150 for detriment caused by failures in its communication.
It should also write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified.

Response to water leaks

The resident reported a leak from the water pipes in her garden on 9 February 2023. The landlord attended the following day, which was a Friday, to inspect. It prioritised the resident’s report by attending within 24 hours.
Subsequently, the landlord sent an automated confirmation to the resident that it had closed the repair job. She reported that it had not resolved the leak and water was ‘gushing’ from the pipes. She received no further communication from the landlord over the weekend.
The landlord told the resident on 14 February 2023 that because the leak was from a mains water pipe and affected several properties, it was the responsibility of the water company. It said it was aware that her neighbour had reported the issue to them. The water company accepted liability for the repairs.
Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord had closed the repair job on its system. However, it is understandable that this caused the resident alarm and it is not clear whether it told her that the issue sat with the water company and had been reported to them prior to doing so.
The leak caused suspension of the neighbour’s works. The resident reported that the neighbour held her responsible and told her they would bill her for losses they incurred because of this. The landlord explained to the resident that she was not liable unless she had caused the damage herself. It asked the area manager to contact the water company to assist the resident with a resolution. While the leak was not the landlord’s responsibility, it was affecting its property and causing the resident distress. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord assisted.
On 23 February 2023 the water company attended. Its operative said it could not complete works until April/May 2023 and there would be a cost of at least £1,000 to the resident. The resident notified the landlord of this. It contacted the water company and clarified that no costs would be passed on to the landlord or resident. Its intervention was prompt and provided assurance to the resident.
To conduct repairs to the pipeline the water company had to turn the water off for up to 3 hours. The landlord reported that the water company had said it would not supply drinking water in the interim. The resident was concerned by this and explained that her medical conditions require that she has access to water. In its internal correspondence the landlord said that it would have to provide water if the water company refused to. It shared this message with the resident.
On 27 February 2023 the water company attended to repair the pipes and neither it nor the landlord provided a temporary water supply. In its final response the landlord said it had asked the water company to provide the water.
The Ombudsman accepts this was the responsibility of the water company. The resident felt the landlord had a duty to do so under the LTA which states the landlord is responsible for installations for the supply of water to a dwelling. However, this refers to its responsibility for the water pipes connecting the property to the mains supply.
Regardless, the landlord was at fault for not providing water after saying it would do so. It should have acknowledged and apologised for this in its complaint response.
The leak reoccurred on 6 March 2023 and the resident asked the landlord for assistance in chasing the water company again. The records show that it was initially unable to discuss the matter due to data protection rules, given the leak was now in the neighbour’s garden. For this reason, the resident had also struggled to report the issue to the water company. The area manager asked the supervisor to contact the water company again. The water company attended on 9 March 2023 and completed further repairs.
The resident reported that the neighbour was harassing her and wanted the landlord to liaise directly with them. She referenced her diagnosis of PTSD and said her mental health could not cope with the situation.
The neighbour was not a tenant of the landlord and responsibility for the repairs lay with the water company so the landlord was limited in what it could do. It responded appropriately by liaising with the water company on the resident’s behalf and assured her she had no liability for the damage. It also advised her to contact the police if she felt intimidated by her neighbour. The Ombudsman appreciates the situation was stressful for the resident, and especially so considering her mental health conditions. However, overall, the landlord took the steps that it could within its remit to coordinate and progress works to the pipes.
The water company attended on 15 March 2023 to reinstate the area of the garden which it had dug up. On 27 March 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that it had left the ground uneven and water was collecting there. She said this made the only part of the garden that she could still access unusable. The landlord said that this was the responsibility of the water company to rectify. However, the resident reported that the water company were unable to do so as the patio was connected to the concrete base, which was damaged and unstable due to the neighbour’s works. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this and it did not address this concern specifically in its final response.
The Ombudsman understands the water company is responsible for any remedial works due to repairs it has conducted. However, given it was unable to do so to a satisfactory standard due to the damages, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to have notified its party wall surveyor. The resident sent multiple queries to the landlord asking when it would address the problem but there is no evidence of further engagement with her on the issue. This caused the resident time, trouble, and frustration.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by pursuing the water company for a resolution to the leak. While it was not responsible for providing an interim supply of water, it should have done so given it had said it would. It should also have engaged with the resident on the issue of her uneven patio and advised her on a resolution. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds service failure. The landlord should compensate the resident £100 for distress and inconvenience and advise her on how she can seek resolution for the uneven patio.

Response to rising damp

The resident reported potential rising damp along the back wall of the property in her complaint of 14 February 2023. She chased the landlord on 11 April 2023 and said she was still waiting for it to investigate this.
It passed her concerns on to its surveying team. The Ombudsman understands the landlord had conducted a routine home improvement survey of the property in March 2023 and it was appropriate that it check for any known issues relating to damp before proceeding. This Service has not had access to the survey report so is unable to comment on its findings but the resident later reported that the survey had identified rising damp.
Regardless of whether there were any known issues, the landlord had a duty to investigate and resolve them in accordance with its repairs policy and damp and mould policy. The landlord’s damp and mould policy emphasises diagnosing damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. It should conduct repairs to minimise damage to the structure of the property. There is no evidence the landlord raised an inspection or a repair job at all during the period under this investigation.
This was despite a total of 5 requests from the resident in which she expressed her frustration that she had to keep explaining the problem. On one occasion the landlord responded asking her where the damp was so it could raise a repair. The resident did not respond directly to this, but raised concerns again a week later noting the issue was separate to the leak and party wall issues and it needed to address it.
The landlord missed several opportunities to investigate the rising damp and did not address this within either of its complaint responses. This was to the detriment of the resident who experienced distress and inconvenience living with damp for a prolonged period. She also experienced frustration and time and trouble chasing the landlord for a response.
The landlord failed in its responsibilities to the resident, for which the Ombudsman finds maladministration. As a remedy, the landlord should pay the resident £200, in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. It should write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified.
The Ombudsman understands the landlord completed a stock condition survey in December 2023 which identified rising damp to the front and rear. This was due to the foundations of the property sitting higher than the damp proof course. The Ombudsman had not had sight of this survey but understands the landlord conducted works to the damp proof course in 2024.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its standards for complaint handling which reflect the requirements of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. It should respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. It should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
The resident stated that she wished to complain on 4 occasions in February 2023. The landlord responded on 14 February 2023 and said it had passed her query on to the tenancy sustainment team, but it did not confirm that it had logged a complaint. In response to the resident’s request on 27 February 2023 that it take all her complaints to the next stage, it said it had no complaints recorded on its system.
The landlord’s complaints policy distinguishes a service request from a complaint. A service request is where a resident is unhappy with a situation that they wish to have rectified and the landlord will deal with it as an enquiry. In these circumstances the landlord will explain why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process or will log a complaint if the resident requests it.
The evidence suggests the landlord treated the resident’s complaints as a service request, despite her being clear that she wished to complain and without adequate explanation it was doing so. This ultimately delayed its formal response. It caused the resident confusion and frustration when she chased it for a response to her complaints and was told there were none.
The landlord amalgamated the ‘service requests’ into a single complaint on 1 March 2023. Applying the response time for stage 1 complaints from this date, the response was due by 15 March 2023. On 11 April 2023 the resident had received no response to her complaint and contacted this Service for assistance. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked that it respond by 20 April 2023. This should not have been necessary.
The landlord responded on 19 April 2023. It apologised for the delay which it attributed to a high demand in its services but did not acknowledge the frustration this had caused to the resident. It provided no explanation of why it had initially failed to recognise the resident’s complaints. It did not address the resident’s complaint fully, making no assessment of how it had communicated, which had been among her main concerns. It identified no service failure or learning.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 April 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day. It said it would respond within 20 working days. The landlord did not respond by the due date of 25 May 2023.
The resident chased it for an update throughout May 2023 to July 2023. She also raised several other issues she wanted it to address, some of which related to her original complaint about the neighbour’s works, and others which did not. These included repairs to her door and windowsill, and concerns about another neighbour’s tree. She also wanted to know the outcome of a home improvement survey it had conducted.
The landlord’s response to these issues was confused. It confirmed on separate occasions that it had passed them onto the complaint handler as part of the stage 2 response, but also said it could only respond to the original complaint. The resident expressed frustration that the landlord kept adding to her complaint but was not resolving issues.
Within its internal correspondence on 2 June 2023 the complaint handler requested that it raise repairs where necessary about concerns outside of the complaint. It addressed issues relating to the resident’s original complaint only in its final response. It is not clear whether the landlord raised repairs and resolved other matters. A recommendation has been made that it engages the resident to clarify and progress any outstanding works to the property outside of those under dispute.
The landlord provided its final response on 13 July 2023 following a request from this Service on 10 July 2023. Again, this should not have been necessary. At 54 working days this was a significant delay.
The landlord apologised and again attributed the delay to a high demand on its services as well as the complex nature of the complaint. However, it identified no service failure or learning. While the Ombudsman appreciates the circumstances were complex, this did not sufficiently explain the delay. It also failed to keep her adequately updated about its delays.
In conclusion the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not follow its policies and procedures in failing to log the resident’s initial complaints and it delayed unnecessarily at both stages without sufficiently managing her expectations. This caused the resident frustration, time and trouble chasing it, and the inconvenience of having to approach this Service to prompt a response. As a remedy, in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident £150.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s building works and associated damage to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about water leaks affecting the property and neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for it to investigate rising damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation comprised of:
  1. £150 for failings in its response to the resident’s reports about the neighbour’s building works and associated damage.
  2. £100 for failings in its response to the water leaks.
  3. £200 for failings in its response to the resident’s reports about rising damp.
  4. £150 for complaint handling failures.
It should write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation. It should provide a copy to this Service.
The landlord should clarify its position on the outstanding garden works, including fence repairs, repairs to the decking, and uneven ground, in writing to the resident and this Service. It should advise the resident how she can seek resolution to these issues.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). Going forward it should ensure that it keeps complete and auditable records of its communications with residents.
2. Engage with the resident to clarify and progress any outstanding works to the property outside of those under dispute within the party wall process.