Clarion Housing Association Limited (202413355)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413355

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 March 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 handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. The resident’s request for further loft insulation.
3. Damaged tiles and skirting board in the toilet.
4. Blown windows.
5. A trip hazard between the lounge and the kitchen.
6. The resident’s request for the landlord to jet wash the external front of the property.
7. The resident’s request for the landlord to install a driveway.
8. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The tenancy started in October 2019.
The resident lives with his partner and daughter. The landlord’s records state that the resident’s partner and daughter have vulnerabilities due to health conditions.

Summary of events

The resident initially complained to the landlord in a letter dated 8 July 2024. The resident raised a number of complaints regarding repairs not being completed. This included but was not limited to damage to tiles in the bathroom, a trip hazard between the lounge and the kitchen, and damp and mould.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 6 August 2024 it apologised and acknowledged it failed to follow its repair policy. The landlord offered the resident £450 made up of a discretionary payment of £250 for any inconvenience caused in repairing blown windows and £100 for the delays in it completing loft insulation. Additionally, the landlord offered £50 in compensation for the right to repair the blown windows and £50 for the right to repair the loft insulation.
The resident requested the landlord progress the complaint to stage 2 on 7 August 2024. He said no appointments had been made for repairs only cards left when the landlord attended without prior warning, as such no repairs had been completed. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 5 November 2024 the landlord apologised that it did not respond to repairs as it should have. The landlord offered further compensation of £750. This included £150 for its delays in resolving repairs and £450 previously offered at stage 1 but rejected by the resident. Additionally, £150 due to its delays in responding at stage 2.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, the outstanding issues, and the impact on his living conditions. He referred his complaint to this Service for further consideration.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of investigation

The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on his partner’s health and wellbeing. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s family’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages in the way a court will. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim where the evidence of independent medical experts may be examined. However, we will consider any impact that resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family.
As part of the resident’s complaint, he has said the mould issue at the property had been ongoing for around 5 years. In such circumstances the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised such issues as a formal complaint within 12 months. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. In relation to the complaint about black mould in the property, it has been decided that the complaint will be considered from September 2023 as this was the period investigated by the landlord in its stage 1 complaint.
The resident initially raised a complaint about the blown windows in 2020. Whilst this Service notes that the landlord had a cyber attack that impacted on its investigations, there is no record of this matter being raised again until 2024. Therefore, this investigation will only focus on the resident’s complaint regarding blown windows from 2024.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe
The landlord must ensure its homes meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). For a home to be considered ‘decent’, it must be free of ‘serious’ hazards. Hazards arising from faults or deficiencies could cause harm and include the presence of damp and mould growth, risks presenting from pest entry, and sanitation and drainage issues.
It is further implied into the tenancy by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 that a landlord must ensure its dwelling is fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. The existence of any hazard as defined by the HHSRS is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness.
The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy say that it will:
1. Provide well-maintained homes, free from hazards for its residents.
2. Diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner.
3. Proactively support residents to manage their homes where they are known to be susceptible to leaks, condensation, damp, and mould for any reason.
4. Track and equip staff to diagnose potential causes of damp, mould and condensation and leak tracing so they can advise residents and provide solutions.
5. Where damp and mould are caused by condensation, it will work with residents to take appropriate measures to resolve the issues. This may include:
  1. Providing self-help advice about how to control moisture levels.
  2. Increasing ventilation or heating so that damp levels are kept low.
  3. Providing financial guidance or support for those in fuel poverty.
  4. Advising residents what not to do, for example, turning off ventilation systems or sealing over air vents.
The tenancy agreement states that residents agree to allow the landlord, its agents and contractors to enter their home at reasonable times, subject to reasonable notice or not less than 24 hours (unless in an emergency). This is so the landlord can inspect the condition of the property and to carry out repairs.
The records state the landlord found mould was present in the bathroom and bedroom cupboard on 9 October 2023. The resident made the landlord aware that his partner suffered from asthma and his daughter lived in the property whose health conditions could be affected by damp and mould.
The landlord completed a 3-hour mould wash and stain block on the bathroom ceiling and bedroom cupboard on 19 October 2023. The landlord correctly assigned the repair as a routine repair and repairs were completed within its repair guidelines to complete repairs within 28 days. Therefore, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy to diagnose and resolve mould using a mould wash and stain block in a timely and effective manner.
The resident reported further reports of mould forming 6 months later on 25 March 2024 in the bathroom and bedroom cupboard. The landlord’s records show it attended on 17 and 30 April and 1, 22 and 28 May 2024 and 25 June 2024 but could not gain access so left a card. Also, that an inspection was arranged for 31 July 2024 however, the landlord noted it was unable to gain access. Its records show the resident was contacted by text prior to each appointment. This was appropriate as the tenancy agreement states that residents should receive prior notice that the landlord was attending to carry out inspections or repairs. A surveyor attended and completed an inspection on 29 October 2024. The surveyor did not identify any damp and mould in the property.
The resident said appointments had not been made for repairs, as such, the landlord left cards where it attended without prior warning. The evidence provided by the landlord shows it provided the resident with appropriate notice of appointments via text messages. The resident was responsible for allowing access to the landlord and its contractors to inspect the property. Also, to carry out repairs or other works. Therefore, between April and July, the landlord was limited in what actions it could take due to not being able to gain access of the property. With this in mind, it was not unreasonable that works did not take place at this time and was mitigation for the delays in investigating the matter.
As the resident continued to report that damp and mould was present the landlord arranged an inspection from its surveyor on 31 July 2024. However, the surveyor was unable to gain access to the property. Following this appointment, the landlord asked the resident to contact it to rearrange this in its stage 1 complaint response dated 6 August 2024. As such, the survey took place 3 months later on 29 October 2024.
The survey completed by the landlord on 29 October 2024 identified no damp in the property. The report stated there was condensation mould on windows and mould in the cupboard. The landlord said it advised the resident on ways to reduce condensation and to purchase dehumidifiers. This was reasonable and in line with its LCDM policy to advise residents on what they can do to help prevent or manage condensation issues. Whilst this was reasonable, the landlord has not confirmed what advice it provided. The resident disagreed with the survey and said there was damp and mould throughout the property.
In its stage 2 the landlord said there was no damp in the property. Whilst this was correct it should have expanded to say that the surveyor found condensation.
The Ombudsman does not consider that there has been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of damp and mould to the property. The landlord has demonstrated that it has tried to gain access to the resident’s property in order to carry out an inspection to determine what repairs need to be carried out. The landlord acted in line with its LCDM policy in providing advise to the resident on how to manage condensation within the property.

The resident’s request for further loft insulation.

The tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This mirrored its repair obligations of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that a repair must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out target times for repairs. This states emergency repairs to be completed within 24 hours and routine and non emergency repairs to be completed within 28 days.
In March 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that the loft insulation needed replacing. He explained that when the landlord previously replaced the insulation in December 2022 it was only 100mm when by law it should have been 270mm in thickness. Consequently, the resident was concerned that the lack of proper insulation was causing higher energy bills.
The landlord arranged appointments to inspect and complete works on 30 April, 15 and 28 May, 25 June, 3 and 9 September 2024. The records state that it was unable to obtain access to complete works. The records provided by the landlord do not show when works had been completed. However, the resident in his contact with the landlord on 7 August 2024 confirmed that he had topped up the insulation.
In the landlord’s stage 1 it offered the resident £100 in compensation for its delays to complete works between 2022 and 2023. Whilst this was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged its previous failings this investigation was focused on the repairs from 2024.
The records show that the landlord was proactive between the end of April and September 2024. The evidence shows that the landlord notified the resident of its appointments in line with the tenancy agreement. As noted earlier in the report the resident is responsible for allowing the landlord access to the property to complete its investigations. As this did not happen, the landlord is not accountable for the delays in completing the repairs during this time. Therefore, the Ombudsman does not consider that there has been maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to add further loft insulation.

The resident’s reports of damaged tiles and skirting board in the toilet

The resident initially contacted the landlord on 16 December 2023 and reported that when it attended to put new flooring in the toilet, some tiles had been smashed in the process. Additionally, skirting boards had not been treated and painted. The landlord attended to complete the repair works 2 months later on 8 February 2024. However, as the resident had to leave the property works were not completed at this time. Whilst the landlord attended on 8 February 2024 this was not reasonable as it was outside of the landlord’s repair obligations to complete repairs within 28 days.
The landlord reattended to complete repairs on 15 and 28 May 2024 and 24 June 2024. However, the resident was unavailable at these times. With this in mind, the landlord was proactive as it attempted to complete the repairs a number of times and was unable to do so due to factors outside of its control.
Taking this into account, it was proportionate given the nature of the repairs for the landlord to await contact from the resident to rebook in the repairs. The resident requested that the landlord action the repairs in his complaint dated 8 July 2024. The records show the tiles were fully replaced 4 months later on 1 November 2024. The reason for the 4 month delay in the landlord completing the repairs is unknown as the records do not provide any mitigating factors. This was not reasonable as the repairs were completed outside of its 28 day repair timescale.
In its stage 2 the landlord recognised and apologised for further delays in completing repairs. As such, it awarded £150 in compensation. This Service finds reasonable redress as the remedies offered were fair, put things right and the landlord learnt from the outcomes. Its offer compensation was reasonable in the circumstances and reflective of its compensation policy.

The resident’s reports of blown windows

The resident complained to the landlord in July 2024 that his windows were blown causing the windows to be misted. In its stage 2 complaint response in November 2024 the landlord said it had arranged a repair for 29 August 2024. However, the resident cancelled as he had Covid-19 and he said he would contact the landlord to rearrange. The records show it arranged a further appointment with the resident on 25 October 2024 following a period of no contact from him, but the resident cancelled this. The landlord’s repair logs state that the repairs were completed on 1 November 2024. This included replacement windows in the bathroom and kitchen. Taking this into account, the landlord took just over 4 months to complete the repairs to the blown windows.
In arranging the repairs, there were delays outside of the landlord’s control. On occasion the resident was unavailable for booked appointments, and he had agreed to rearrange the appointments.
In the landlord’s complaint responses, it apologised for its failure to comply with its repair obligations as it noted that the resident had originally reported the repair in 2020. It apologised for its lack of communication and distress caused to the resident. The landlord offered the resident £250 to cover any inconvenience caused and £50 for its right to repair. This was reasonable given the landlord had considered the repairs from 2020. However, this investigation has found no maladministration in the landlord’s actions in 2024. The landlord was proactive in arranging an appointment for the landlord once the resident informed it of the need for repair in July. When it was aware that the appointment was not convenient it agreed for the resident to contact it when ready.

The resident’s reports of a trip hazard between the lounge and the kitchen

The resident reported to the landlord on 21 September 2023 that there was a trip hazard between the lounge and kitchen. The resident said he was particularly concerned due his child living in the property. The landlord attended and completed the repair on 8 March 2024.
This was nearly 6 months later and not in line with its repair obligations to complete routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord attended on 4 October 2023 to inspect the threshold causing the hazard. It arranged follow up works on 16 October 2023, however, due to staff sickness the appointment was rearranged. The landlord contacted the resident, but he confirmed he was away until the end of October 2023. The resident contacted the landlord, and it arranged an appointment for the beginning of December 2023. The landlord’s complaint response said it attended on 14 December 2023 and it removed the threshold. It noted that the resident requested for the threshold to stay up at this time. Therefore, it said no further works were required. However, there is no evidence of this conversation in the landlord’s records.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 December 2023 to request it replace the threshold it had removed. The landlord arranged an appointment for 27 December 2023 but the resident requested that it was rescheduled for February 2024. The records show the landlord was unable to gain access for a further 2 appointments.
Taking this into account, the delays in completing repairs were outside of the landlord’s control between October 2023 and February 2024. As such, this Service has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this repair.

The resident’s request for the landlord to jet wash the external front of the property

The resident requested that the landlord jet wash the external front of his property as it was mouldy. He explained in correspondence with the landlord dated 4 August 2024 that his neighbour had this completed by the landlord and he requested the same. It is unknown when the resident initially raised this request as it was not within the landlord’s repair records. Additionally, there are limited repair records regarding this matter.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 6 August 2024 confirmed it was unable to complete a jet wash as it did not have the resources to. Following the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 7 August 2024 the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend to assess what further action if any it needed to take. The records show that the landlord’s surveyor inspected the external front of the house on 29 October 2024. It confirmed that the wall had weather related spalling due being in a rural area. The surveyor recommended that a jet wash not take place as it could ingress more and acerbate the condition of the exterior.
The landlord’s actions were appropriate as it does not have a repair obligation to complete a jet wash of the property’s external front. It was also reasonable for the landlord to instruct a surveyor to ensure it obtained specialist knowledge. Taking this into account, there is no evidence of maladministration.

The resident’s request for the landlord to install a driveway

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy say that it requires an Occupational Therapist (OT) referral for all aids and adaptation requests, both minor and major. Subject to a suitable referral, adaptations will be installed within eligible homes on request from residents or a member of their household. It will only carry out major adaptations that are reasonable and practical for the property and which are supported by a local authority OT assessment. It will not allow any structural changes within the property, for example for the insulation of through floor lifts and extensions.
The landlord’s permissions policy states residents must seek approval before starting any home improvement works. Particularly, when a resident wishes to add a car port. However, permission would not be granted when a resident has arrears on their account.
The resident requested a home improvement for the landlord to install a driveway at his property on 16 November 2023. He advised that his neighbours each have driveways and he was concerned about his daughter getting out of his car on a busy main road. The landlord declined the resident’s request on 17 November 2023 as the resident had rent arrears.
In the resident’s complaint to the landlord he confirmed he was no longer in arrears and was seeking for the landlord to agree to install a driveway. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised the resident that he could apply for permission to install the driveway. This was in line with its permissions policy, therefore this response was reasonable. However, the landlord did not stipulate that this would be at his own cost. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it said that it cannot consider the installation of a driveway if it had not been recommended by an OT.
There was no evidence of maladministration as the landlord’s complaint response was clear that it would not install a driveway unless there was a specific need identified. It appropriately advised the resident that if that was the case then an OT may recommend it.

The associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
The resident initially complained to the landlord in a letter dated 8 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 22 July 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint 21 working days later on 6 August 2024. This was not in line with its own complaint procedure or the Code to acknowledge a complaint within in 5 working days and to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days.
The resident requested that the landlord progress to stage 2 of its complaint process which the landlord received on 7 August 2024. It acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 request on 16 August 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 November 2024. This was not reasonable as the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation within 5 days and it took it 3 months to provide its stage 2 response. This was not in line with its own complaint procedure or the Code to provide a response within 20 working days.
There is no evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident regarding delays in issuing its complaint responses. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code to inform residents if there is a delay in issuing its complaint response.
The landlord apologised for its delays in its stage 2 response and made an offer of compensation of £150 for the delays at this time. Whilst the landlord did not apologise for its delays at stage 1, the delay was minimal. Therefore, additional compensation would not be appropriate as the landlord’s offer of £150 is in line with its compensation guidelines and our remedies guidance. With this in mind, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. The resident’s request for further loft insulation.
3. The resident’s request for the landlord to jet wash the external front of the property
4. The resident’s reports of a trip hazard between the lounge and kitchen.
5. The resident’s reports of blown windows.
6. The resident’s request for the landlord to install a driveway.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damaged tiles and skirting board in the toilet.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that the compensation payment of £450 made up of £150 for its compliant handling delays offered at stage 2 and £250 discretionary payment offered at stage 1 for the blown windows and £50 for right to repair for the blown windows is made to the resident as this formed part of our findings.