Clarion Housing Association Limited (202304995)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304995

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of repairs required in the resident’s bathroom.
2. The resident’s request for additional insulation in her loft.
3. The resident’s reports of subsidence in the property and subsequent issues with internal doors.
4. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
5. Its decision not to upgrade the resident’s kitchen.
6. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The resident has lived there since July 2018 with her children, one of whom has additional physical and mental health needs. The landlord has told this Service that there are no recorded vulnerabilities within the household.
On 14 July 2022 the resident reported that her bathroom had been adapted within the previous 12 months however, the tiling seal was coming away which was causing leaks. The ceiling paint was also peeling away and dropping onto the floor. The landlord attended on 21 July 2022 to add new mastic and grout. There is no record of work being done to the ceiling on this date.
The resident reported on 17 November 2022 that the bathroom ceiling had developed black mould which she had been clearing away, however the paint was still chipping and falling off. A job was raised on 30 November 2022 for additional insulation to be added to the loft, and for ventilation to be checked in the bathroom. It is unclear when this job was attended by the landlord, as records indicate that work was rescheduled on several occasions between December 2022 and February 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord to request a form to make a formal complaint on 2 March 2023 as while some repair had been scheduled to her son’s window and for gutter clearance, no work had been done to the bathroom ceiling. She stated she was also unhappy that the kitchen upgrade promised in 2022-2023 had been pushed back to 2023-2024. She said she had been told by the landlord that other kitchens in the area had been upgraded, and she felt she had been overlooked. She felt that she should be seen as a priority given her son’s additional needs, which she stated that the landlord should have on record. The resident completed a complaint form online on 4 April 2023.
Another email was sent by the resident on 5 April 2023 to follow up on her complaint request, and she stated:
1. She had an ongoing “battle” with mould in her son’s bedroom and felt the landlord had been negligent.
2. The window which had been reported in her son’s room had not been repaired which was contributing to the mould.
3. She had reported that insulation was required in the loft on 4 occasions however it had not been completed.
4. She had reported subsidence however this had not been assessed. She suspected this was contributing to mould as the mould was appearing in the areas where cracks had formed.
5. Her son’s belongings were being damaged, and she believed that the mould was affecting his health.
The resident called the landlord on 14 April 2023 to chase her complaint and stated that she was running a dehumidifier in her son’s room as the mould was spreading and he was not able to use the room. She stated that the landlord had attended on several occasions but there had been no resolution, and she disputed the account given by operatives on what works had been completed. She also stated that additional cracks had appeared in the property, her doors were sticking, and an operative said it was potentially the subsidence causing it. The paint in the bathroom was still flaking off which was negatively impacting her son as he had sensory needs, and the bathroom had been adapted for him. A complaint acknowledgment was sent to the resident the same day, giving a timescale of 10 working days for a formal response.
On 1 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to chase a response to her complaint, and an automatic response informed her that the query would be passed to the contact centre. The landlord called the resident on 10 May 2023 to discuss the complaint, and the resident followed this up with an email. In the email she indicated that there had been some dispute over the original date of the complaint, with the landlord stating she had made a complaint on 14 April 2023. She also requested a single point of contact for her complaint and expressed her anger and disappointment at the landlord’s handling of her complaint until that point. She described the measures she had taken to reduce the chances of black mould, however felt that the landlord was not supporting her as it was not investigating the cause. She also stated that her son had become physically ill from the mould, was having difficulties with his mental health and was unable to sleep in his bedroom. The resident informed this Service that at the time of this contact with the landlord, her son was sleeping in the hallway.
A repair job was raised by the landlord on 17 May 2023 to resolve the issues with the bathroom ceiling and to lay additional insulation. Records state that the w ceiling was completed on 24 May 2023 and the insulation was added on 6 June 2023.
The stage 1 complaint response was issued on 19 May 2023. In this response the landlord apologised for the delays with the loft insulation, and confirmed the job had been booked for 6 June 2023. It also said the bathroom works were scheduled for 24 May 2023. In relation to the reports of subsidence, a surveyor had attempted to call the resident to book an appointment but had no response. It asked that she contact the landlord to book this survey. With regards to the kitchen, the landlord confirmed that its planned investment team had taken the decision to “refocus resources” and the resident would be contacted to schedule the new kitchen in due course. Compensation of £400 was offered comprising of:
1. £350 for delays in completing repairs, time taken to complete works, inconvenience caused, consideration of household vulnerabilities.
2. £50 in recognition of the complaint response being sent outside the published time frame.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 June 2023 to request stage 2 escalation. She acknowledged that she was a day outside the landlord’s deadline for escalation however explained that she had been undergoing medical treatment. She confirmed that while the works to the bathroom and loft were completed, her drains were leaking which she believed was a result of the subsidence. She said that a number of operatives and surveyors had attended but there had been no real resolution. She expressed dissatisfaction that the compensation she was offered for the complaint went straight onto her rent account rather than her being given the option to receive it to her bank account. She was therefore unable to use this money to replace her son’s damaged belongings, and felt the landlord was paying itself the compensation.
The landlord’s records show that a stage 2 escalation request was logged on 29 June 2023 however it is not clear to this Service which contact with the resident prompted this as there were a number of calls and emails. A formal acknowledgement was sent to the resident on 10 July 2023 and a deadline given of 20 working days for a final response.
Notes from a conversation between the landlord and resident on 12 July 2023 indicate that mould treatment had been carried out, and that surveyors were managing the issue with subsidence. A joint survey was carried out between the landlord and its insurer on 25 July 2023 following which it was suspected that some of the damage and subsidence was being caused due to the weakening of soil supporting the foundations of the building by leakage within a nearby drain.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 August 2023 to say that it would provide a formal complaint response within 5 working days, and again on 24 August 2023 advising of a further delay of 5 working days. The delays were cited as being due to the “complex nature of subsidence.”
The final response was issued on 1 September 2023. It acknowledged that the resident’s original request for escalation was on 18 June 2023 and apologised as the request had been mishandled. It stated that it was satisfied that the stage 1 response was accurate and fair, and listed the resident’s requested complaint outcomes as:
1. Investigate and resolve the cause of the damp and mould.
2. Investigate and resolve any cause of subsidence as a matter of urgency.
3. Investigate and resolve any cause of external drainage flooding.
4. Re-paint the bathroom ceiling.
5. Investigate and resolve the cause of the sticking doors.
6. Provide financial recompense for the resident treating the mould herself and replacing decor and possessions damaged by mould.
7. Provide an apology to the resident and her son.
The landlord stated that it was aware that damp and mould was recurring, and the resident was managing it herself. It acknowledged that while subsidence could have had an impact on the damp and mould, it was more likely that it was caused by blocked guttering. The guttering had been cleared in March 2023, and the landlord stated that it believed the issue was resolved. It stated that in May 2023 an inspection was completed which identified mould in a bedroom and the dining room. Signs of subsidence were also noted including cracks on the ceiling in the bedroom and dining room, external wall cracks and signs of concrete lifting on an external path. It stated that all works were completed in the bathroom and loft by 12 July 2023, along with additional mould treatments. It confirmed that the subsidence was being dealt with by its insurance company. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised issues with her drains however as this was not reported at stage 1 it was unable to provide a formal response. It also confirmed that works were done to shave the internal doors on 12 May 2023 which it believed had resolved the issue, as no further reports had been received. Additional compensation of £450 was offered to the resident comprising of:
1. £250 for “delays in actions regarding subsidence, recognition of any failure to follow process/policy, inconvenience caused, and in recognition of the household vulnerabilities including age and disability”.
2. £100 for errors in complaint handling.
3. £100 for the delay in issuing a stage 1 response due to its error.
4. The landlord noted that any compensation would be offset against any arrears.
On 10 May 2024, the resident reported that her front door was misaligned, and the bathroom door frame had come away from the wall. Notes from site on 6 June 2024 state that the resident did not want a repair as she wanted the door and frame replacing. The same day, she also raised a request for repair as a leak from her bathroom was entering her kitchen, and the extractor fan was not working. The landlord attended on 14 May 2024 and completed a temporary repair, as it was noted that new boxing would need to be installed around the pipes. On 29 May 2024, the resident reported that the temporary fix was starting to fail. The landlord’s records show that a tiler was required to remove tiles, remove a redundant pipe and then retile the bathroom. This work was booked for 30 July 2024 however it is not clear from the landlord’s records whether this was completed.
An engineering appraisal report was completed by the landlord’s insurer on 12 June 2024 which found:
1. The level of damage from subsidence was slight and classified as a level 2 in accordance with ‘Building Research Establishment Digest 251 – Assessment of damage in low-rise buildings’.
2. The damage had occurred recently, and it was likely that movement was progressive.
3. The foundations were concrete upon soft sandy gravelly clay.
4. A borehole was extended to 1.6m below ground level and found no water.
5. Roots were uncovered to the underside of the foundation which were identified as clematis. They were not deemed as being the cause of any subsidence.
6. A programme of level monitoring was recommended to determine whether there was any movement.
7. If there was no progressive movement it was anticipated that repairs could be limited to crack repairs including masonry reinforcement and localised decorations only.
8. A follow up letter was sent to the landlord on 21 June 2024 summarising the findings, and that the cause of the subsidence was inconclusive. The letter stated that it did not anticipate that the damage would result in the property being uninhabitable, and the occupants did not need to move. Consequently, there would be no valid claim for loss of rent or alternative accommodation.
9. It gave a timeline for works as:
  1. End of mitigation – Feb 2025
  2. End of monitoring/repair decision – Jan 2025
  3. Start of repairs – May 2025
  4. Anticipated finalization – Aug 2025.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her repairs and has escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to the bathroom

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that all emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours, and non-emergency repairs will be completed within 28 days. It states that when a repair is reported, details should be taken of vulnerabilities, and this should be clearly recorded. In its vulnerable residents policy, the landlord states that it aims to “consider any additional needs due to the vulnerability and where appropriate vary our service delivery to ensure vulnerable residents still receive the same level of service.” It also states that its repairs centre will prioritise residents who receive a personal budget for care and support needs. The resident has confirmed to this Service that her son is registered disabled and would meet this criterion.
The resident initially reported the repairs in July 2022, and repairs to the ceiling were completed in May 2023. It is reasonable that the resident expected the bathroom to be hard wearing, and did not expect issues to arise so soon after its installation. While decoration in general falls to the resident in the terms of the tenancy, in this case there was evidence to suggest that the paint may have been peeling due to an issue with the bathroom installation which was completed by the landlord. It should therefore have attended within 28 days in line with its policy for non-emergency repairs, determined the reason for the peeling paint, resolved the issue and redecorated the ceiling.
The landlord took 10 months to repair the ceiling. The resident was clear that the issue was affecting her child who was vulnerable. The landlord had adapted the bathroom for her child so should have been aware of the vulnerabilities within the household. Flaking paint on ceilings often points to an underlying issue and the landlord was not professionally curious in that it did not carry out prompt investigations. This left the resident living with a ceiling that was causing her and her vulnerable child distress.
In May 2024, the resident reported that there were still broken tiles around her bath, which were allowing water to enter her kitchen ceiling. This had also resulted in rotting wood under the bath. According to the Decent Home Standard a “reasonably modern bathroom” is a working bathroom under 30 years old. In this case, a brand-new bathroom was installed and had issues with leaks, peeling paint and rotting wood within 3 years of the installation. This warranted further investigation from the landlord. The resident reported issues with the bathroom on several occasions, and it is not clear to this Service from the landlord’s records whether the work to reseal the bath was ever completed.
The compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her son for the year that there were issues in the bathroom. There is no evidence that the landlord recognised how the issues would affect the resident’s son given his specific sensory needs which led to the work not being prioritised accordingly.
For the reasons above, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to her bathroom. The landlord did not recognise the level of distress the resident’s son experienced due to the issues in the bathroom. The individual for whom the adapted bathroom was installed was unable to use it for a prolonged period due to the issues with the paint, and this was not rectified in a reasonable period. While it is positive that compensation was offered, it did not represent the level of distress experienced by the household.

Request for additional insulation in the loft

The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2022 to request that her loft be checked as she was having damp and mould issues on the ceiling of rooms on the first floor. A job was raised by the landlord the same day and was attended on 15 December 2022 where follow on work was identified. There is no record of what was completed on this date and what the nature of the follow-on work was.
She chased the landlord on 2 March 2023, 5 and 14 April 2023, and the work was completed on 6 June 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that its response had been outside of its policy timescale and provided an apology. An offer of compensation was included in the £600 compensation offered to the resident for delays but it is unclear how much was offered for the delays with the loft, and how much was for the delays with the bathroom. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report for the landlord to consider how it presents its offers of compensation.
Approximately 5 months passed between the report of insulation being required and the final installation. The landlord’s policy states that non-emergency works will be completed within 28 days, and so it was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology and compensation.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for insulation. While it is positive that the landlord recognised its failure and offered compensation, it is not possible for this Service to determine whether the compensation offered was appropriate as it was not clearly defined what compensation was offered for which repair issue. The total offer of compensation for all repair issues was not sufficient and so this Service cannot find that reasonable redress was offered on this issue.

Handling of subsidence

The Ombudsman notes that the landlord took a joint approach with its insurer when surveying the subsidence and developing a plan to resolve it. This Service will not assess whether the insurers actions and decisions were appropriate, as this would fall into the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman. We will focus on the landlord’s actions and how it communicated with the resident throughout.
The resident first reported visible cracks in the property on 14 April 2023 as her internal doors had become misaligned and she had seen cracks in the walls. On this day, the landlord notes indicate that a surveyor would be sent to the property. In the stage 1 complaint the landlord stated that an attempt had been made to book a surveyor but there was no answer, so a message was left. Given the potential consequences of subsidence, the landlord should have made additional attempts to contact the resident through a variety of methods to ensure an appointment could be booked.
She chased the survey again on 8 June 2023 following discussions with a member of staff where she was advised a survey would be booked. The resident informed this Service and the landlord that a surveyor attended in June 2023 but said that another surveyor had to attend. The landlord alluded to this visit in its stage 2 response, stating that it attended on 12 June 2023, and determined that a specialist was required. In her stage 1 escalation the resident indicated that a number of other operatives had attended who she believed were surveyors, however it is not clear from repair records what happened on these attendances, and when they took place.
The landlord’s decision to refer to its insurers was appropriate, and it carried out a joint visit on 25 July 2023 to complete a specialist survey. This survey found no clear cause for the subsidence as while root damage and leaking drains were previously considered to be contributing factors, evidence gained on the survey was not definitive. The insurer proposed a period of monitoring, and confirmed to the landlord that in its opinion the property was habitable in the meantime.
A letter was sent to the resident which contained a copy of the monitoring schedule but there is no evidence that the landlord explained the findings of the survey. It was reasonable to consider a period of monitoring given no clear cause for subsidence was found, however the landlord should have discussed with the resident why it was needed, what the monitoring period entailed, when another surveyor would attend, and what to do if she felt the subsidence was worsening. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether the site investigation and engineering appraisal reports were shared with the resident. Due to the technical language and jargon used, the resident should have been given the opportunity to have the findings clearly explained to her along with next steps.
The landlord attended the property to attempt to resolve the misaligned internal doors, however the resident informed it that she wanted replacement doors. While it may have been more appropriate to repair the doors rather than replace, as replacements may incur the same damage if subsidence continued, the landlord should have explained its decision to the resident.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in its handling of subsidence in the property. While subsidence is a complex issue which can take some time to resolve, particularly when there is no clear cause, the landlord should have communicated more effectively with the resident. She had expressed her concern consistently and was experiencing several other issues with the property which had a negative impact on her household. The landlord should have considered this, along with the vulnerabilities in the household, and ensured there was a clear explanation of the process for monitoring and resolving the subsidence.

Handling of damp and mould

The Ombudsman notes that the resident informed the landlord and this Service that she was cleaning mould away throughout the complaint period but did not always report it. It is not possible for this Service to quantify how many incidents of damp and mould occurred during this period, instead we will assess the landlord’s response to incidents which were reported by the resident.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will work with residents to prevent, diagnose and treat mould. Actions it will take include:
1. Diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. Carrying out appropriate works where necessary to minimise damage to the structure, fixtures and fittings of the property.
2. Communicating with its residents clearly and regularly regarding any actions it plans to take, and any actions residents are advised to take.
3. Undertaking a comprehensive risk assessment in cases of severe or recurring mould.
In November 2022, the resident reported that she was experiencing damp and mould in the bathroom, and the landlord attended in December 2022 to assess whether adding insulation would resolve the problem. There is no record of what other mould works were completed at the time, or in fact what was found to be the cause of the mould.
On 5 April 2023, the resident reported that she had noticed mould in her son’s bedroom and had been attempting to treat it herself for 6-9 months. This Service has not seen any evidence of previous reports made to the landlord of mould in that bedroom, however, acknowledges that due to a cyber-attack experienced by the landlord in 2022 some records may be missing.
Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the impact these delays have had on her son’s health. The ombudsman does not dispute this however we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the delays and the health of the resident and her children. When she chased her complaint on 14 April 2023, she told the landlord that she was running dehumidifiers, belongings had been damaged and her son could not sleep in his room.
There is no evidence that the landlord completed a damp and mould risk assessment, even though the resident had indicated the mould was a recurring issue for 6-9 months which was affecting the property and her son’s health and belongings. The landlord’s notes from 12 July 2023 indicate that the resident confirmed that mould treatment was carried out however there was no clear record of where it was completed, what works were completed, what was found to be the cause of the mould, or whether it resolved all the issues.
In some cases, a repair was logged in November 2022 and listed as completed in December 2023 despite other records showing that the same job was completed in January 2023. This Service has been made aware that the landlord experienced a cyber-attack in late 2022 resulting in a loss of data, which may have contributed towards these record keeping issues. However, it is therefore not possible for the Ombudsman to rely on these records to determine whether the works were completed in line with the landlord’s policies.
The Ombudsman has made several orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its record keeping relating to repairs and formulating a plan to prevent any future loss of data. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its ongoing reviews of its processes.
The resident informed this Service that the landlord found that a blocked vent in her son’s bedroom was contributing to the damp and mould. The landlord’s records indicate that the vent was repaired in November 2022, but mould was reported after that date which demonstrates that the vent repair did not fully resolve the issue. She has also confirmed that she paid for the mould to be soaked off, another damp proof layer to be added to the walls, and full redecoration. She has also replaced all the affected belongings. While the landlord provided overall compensation for all the delays and inconvenience she experienced, it is not clear what proportion of this was relating to the issues with damp and mould. Additionally, the compensation was paid to her rent account meaning that it could not be used to replace her damaged belongings or reimburse for the money she paid for the redecoration and mould works.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property. Although we acknowledge that the quality of information provided by the landlord may have been compromised by the cyber incident in 2022, mould was reported in 2023 and there is no evidence the landlord investigated the causes. There is also no record of any works being completed. Compensation was offered however the resident could not access it as it was paid to her rent account. There is no evidence of any long-term impact on the household, but it is not clear whether this is due to the landlord’s actions or the resident’s.

Decision not to upgrade the resident’s kitchen

The Ombudsman recognises that budget is a key issue for social landlords in determining how to manage its cyclical upgrades and that shifting priorities can delay planned works. The resident was originally told that it would be completed in the 2022/2023 period, however this was then postponed. During the complaints process the resident was informed that work had been postponed due to a necessary refocus of budget, and she would be contacted once works were scheduled.
While this is reasonable, the landlord could have been clearer about the next steps. It should ensure that the resident is aware that she should still report any disrepair in the kitchen, and it should ensure that the kitchen remains compliant with the ‘Decent Home Standard’ when considering any delays. It should also consider how it provides updates to residents who have previously been promised cyclical upgrades, to ensure they do not feel forgotten about.
The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to postpone kitchen replacement works. The reason for the delay has been explained, and the resident is aware that she will be contacted when the work is scheduled.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that a resident does not need to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as one, and that complaints will be acknowledged within 10 working days of receipt. It promises to respond at stage 1 within 20 working days, and at stage 2 within 40 working days.
The resident originally expressed that she wished to make a formal complaint on 2 March 2023, through the repair request system. The complaint date listed on the stage 1 response of 19 May 2023 was 23 March 2023, however the landlord’s complaint notes only started on 4 April 2023. Although the complaint was submitted to the repairs team rather than directly to the complaints team, the landlord should have logged the complaint for the resident on 2 March 2023.
From the date the resident made her complaint to the date that the stage 1 response was issued, was 53 working days. This is outside the set timescale in the landlord’s policy. The landlord offered compensation of £50 for this delay, which is the minimum it was able to offer based on its compensation policy. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
It was positive that the landlord accepted the resident’s stage 2 escalation request past the deadline and considered her health concerns in this decision. The stage 2 response was issued to the resident on 1 September 2023 which was 53 working days later. This was not in line with its policy or the Code and demonstrates that lessons had not been learned from the delays at stage 1. It acknowledged this in its response and awarded £100 compensation for complaint handling failures and an additional £100 for the specific issue of the complaint being closed at stage 1 in error.
In total £250 was offered for complaint handling failures at both stages of the process and an apology was provide at each stage. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds that the compensation offered combined with the landlord’s recognition of its errors provides reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.
The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling.

Overall treatment of the resident

When investigating complaints, the Ombudsman considers how a resident has been treated by a landlord and seeks to identify if a resident has been treated in what we consider to be a heavy-handed, unsympathetic, or inappropriate manner.
In this case, and as our assessment has clearly set out above, the resident was not treated appropriately, and due regard was not given to what she told the landlord about how the situation with the bathroom was impacting on her son. The landlord’s notes demonstrate that it was aware of the household disabilities, however its records do not reflect what the vulnerabilities are, or which of the household are impacted and in what way. It did not fully recognise that what may be an annoyance for neurotypical individuals, had a severe impact on the resident’s son due to his individual needs.
We expect landlords to have due regard for their duties under the Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate either directly or indirectly against residents. The landlord and managing agent were aware of the resident’s physical and mental health concerns and should have considered whether the resident was disabled within the meaning of the Act and if it determined that she was, reasonable adjustments should have been made. Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 indicates that practices are indirectly discriminatory if they put any individual with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage compared to persons who do not have the same characteristic.
The resident has disclosed to this Service that her son is neurodivergent and has a number of other health conditions including incontinence which have been negatively affected by the issues with the bathroom. The bathroom had been adapted for her son’s needs however due to the flaking paint, he was unable to use it for approximately 1 year. It may have also taken some time for him to become comfortable in the room again following the repairs, given the issues he had experienced. The resident has stated that this had negatively impacted his self-care and hygiene, and she had been concerned about the long-term impact on him.
During the complaint period the resident was diagnosed with a tumour on her thyroid and underwent treatment. This was considered by the landlord when it made the decision to accept her complaint escalation past its deadline, however there is no evidence that it was considered when assessing the effect of repair delays on the resident.
This Service asked the landlord for its records pertaining to the household and any vulnerabilities listed. It has provided evidence that it does not have any vulnerability information listed for any of the residents, despite its mention of vulnerabilities during the complaint procedure. Additionally, although it provided compensation to the resident for “recognition of household disabilities” there is no evidence that it considered the individual impact of the issues in the property on the members of the household. The resident told the landlord about the impact on her son on several occasions, but there is no evidence the landlord referenced this in its responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs required in the resident’s bathroom.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for additional insulation in her loft.
3. Service failure in the resident’s reports of subsidence in the property and subsequent issues with internal doors.
4. Maladministration in the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
5. No maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to upgrade the resident’s kitchen.
6. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology to the resident from its Chief Executive for the failings identified in this report. The resident should be given the choice as to whether this is verbal or in writing.
2. Pay the resident a total compensation of £1450, (this includes the £600 offered during the complaint process, which the landlord can deduct from the overall compensation if it has already been paid) which is made up of:
  1. £1000 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairing the bathroom ceiling, and in recognition of the length of time that her son was unable to use it.
  2. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  3. £100 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the request for additional loft insulation.
  4. £100 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the subsidence and issues with the internal doors.
  5. Proof of payment must be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report. Compensation must be paid directly to the resident, and not be credited to her rent account.
3. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord must contact the resident to:
  1. Determine whether the damp and mould issues have been fully resolved. If there are any current issues with damp and mould, a full assessment should be completed within a further 4 weeks to determine the cause of the damp and mould, with an action plan for its resolution. A copy of the communication with the resident must be provided to the Ombudsman as proof of compliance, along with a copy of the report and action plan if required.
  2. Meet with the resident to discuss her son’s additional needs, and in particular whether any additional support or variation in usual Service provision is appropriate in respect of his vulnerabilities. Following this meeting it should ensure that all records relating to household vulnerabilities are up to date along with any agreed service adjustments. This information should be clearly visible to all departments to ensure it takes a consistent approach. As proof of compliance the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its discussions with the resident, and confirmation of any service adjustments.
4. Within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a plan to provide its staff with training on neurodiversity. This should be completed by all management staff and customer facing staff, including the repairs contact centre. The training must be completed within 6 months of this report and the plan should also demonstrate how it will ensure new staff, and those who are absent will receive the training.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
1. The landlord should seek advice from neurodiversity specialists within 12 weeks of the date of this report, to inform its communication and overall approach for its neurodiverse residents. Within 12 weeks of this report it should inform the Ombudsman of any changes it will make as a result.