Clarion Housing Association Limited (202211537)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211537

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 February 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:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of flooring repairs, including reports that this was the cause of a pest problem in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which started on 1 June 2021. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a ground–floor flat in a converted house. The landlord said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the resident said the landlord was aware of her vertigo and that she was undergoing cancer treatment at the time of her complaint.
According to the landlord’s repair records, on 14 July 2021 the resident reported issues with “bubbling” plasterwork in the hallway of the property. The resident also reported that the flooring in the kitchen and hallway was uneven. The resident explained that it was difficult for her to walk on the uneven floor due to her vertigo.
On 8 September 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in which she:
1. said she was unhappy that the landlord had not completed repairs to the property, which she had first reported in July 2021. The resident said she had requested the landlord to inspect the plasterwork in the property, following concerns of damp and an influx of woodlice in the kitchen.
2. said her kitchen flooring and adjoining hallway flooring were still uneven.
3. said a plasterer had attended the property on 7 September 2021 and had told her that there were several holes under the kitchen cupboards where woodlice were ‘coming through’. The resident said she was told by the plasterer that the floor would need to be replaced before any plastering work could be completed.
4. said another operative attended the property on 8 September 2021, which she thought was for the floor replacement, but this did not take place. The resident said the operative thought the woodlice was coming through the brick vents, but the resident said she was concerned that there was rotting wood in the property.
5. said she was undergoing cancer treatment, and this was a worrying time for her. The resident said the issue with the flooring and the woodlice had caused her additional stress.
6. asked the landlord to complete an inspection of the property.
On or around 12 October 2021, the landlord completed repairs to the external render of the property. Between October and December 2021, the resident said the rendering had not fixed the issue with the woodlice and she still believed there was rotten wood in the property. The resident said she suspected this was due to water damage, following a fire at the property with the previous resident who lived there. On 7 December 2021, the landlord attended the property to inspect the flooring. During this inspection, the landlord said the resident had also asked for part of her window to be covered with white UPVC as it was too high to clean and had requested a kitchen replacement.
On 17 December 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident in which it said:
1. it was sorry for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
2. a manager visited the property on 7 December 2021 and noted that some flooring tiles needed to be replaced or stuck back down. The landlord said it did not approve a kitchen replacement, but it agreed to carry out further repairs to the kitchen and hallway including stripping the existing tiles, pouring a self-level latex and screed in the hallway and kitchen, installation of new vinyl sheet flooring and an overhaul of the kitchen units “as required”.
3. the plaster bubbling was due to external rendering which had required remedial works. The landlord said it would also insert a camera via the external vents of the property to check for woodlice.
4. an appointment had been booked for 24 December 2021 to measure the UPVC top sash window panel for renewal and to measure the flooring in the kitchen and hallway.
5. it would pay the resident £100 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £50 for its response time outside of service level agreements
  2. £50 for recognition of repeated visits and the resident “having to chase”).
On 7 February 2022, the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord in which she stated:
1. the landlord had not carried out works to the flooring in the way it had previously agreed. The resident said an operative attended the property on 25 and 26 January 2022, but they did not remove the old flooring. The resident also raised concerns that the operative had not used a primer before they laid the latex, which the resident believed had caused the latex to crack. However, the resident said the operative did fill some holes behind the kitchen plinths where there was broken render. The resident said she had decided to buy her own vinyl flooring, and an independent fitter had fitted it.
2. the landlord had not replaced the window as agreed.
3. the landlord did not inform her in advance about moving appliances prior to the appointment.
4. she was unhappy with the conduct of the operative who attended to fit the flooring.
On 23 February 2022, the landlord provided a second stage 1 response in which it explained:
1. it had investigated the conduct of the operative in line with its internal procedures. The landlord said its operatives regularly undertake training to ensure their conduct is in line with policies and codes. The landlord offered the resident an apology for the inconvenience experienced.
2. it replaced the window on 17 February 2022 and the delay was due to glazing backlogs from the supplier. The landlord acknowledged it had not told the resident about this delay.
3. the information given in its previous complaint response did not allow for an operative’s “professional discretion” and the operative had found the existing tiles in good condition. The landlord also apologised that it had not told the resident about the appliance removal in advance.
4. the cracked latex was likely due to this being exposed for some time, as the resident had refused the vinyl the landlord had offered and had decided to fit her own vinyl.
5. it had offered the resident an additional £100 compensation, made up of:
  1. £50 for repairs outside of its service level agreement
  2. £50 for time taken to chase for updates
On 25 February 2022, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. In her complaint she:
1. Repeated that the operative had carried out works that were different to the works agreed by the landlord on 17 December 2021.
2. Said the floor was sub-standard. The resident said cracks were showing in the latex within a day and new vinyl was laid within 48 hours. The resident said she would have been happy to pay the cost of new vinyl, but she was unhappy that she would need to have the floor repaired correctly and new vinyl purchased again.
3. Said she had paid £120 for her cooker disconnecting, which the landlord had not informed the resident about in advance.
4. Said the holes that had been filled behind the kitchen plinths had not worked properly, and woodlice and slugs were coming into the property.
5. Said an operative turned up at the property with no prior appointment to fit the window. The resident said the operative told her that there was no backlog, but in fact, they were not aware the window needed fixing.
On 28 March 2022, the landlord provided another stage 1 response in which it:
1. Said it would not provide reimbursement for the vinyl as the resident had declined the option of the landlord to carry out remedial works.
2. Said the condition of the external and internal walls did not suggest damp that would cause a problem with the woodlice. The landlord said expanding foam was used to alleviate the problem with the woodlice, but it would not prevent other insects from coming into the property.
3. Said a glazing backlog had cleared by 17 February which allowed for an operative to obtain a UPVC panel on the day it attended.
On 29 March 2022, the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. In her complaint, she said:
1. She could not understand why the schedule of works for the flooring could be changed after the landlord had agreed to the works. The resident again said that the operative did not remove the existing tiles as they said they “did not have time”. The resident said she was not told about removing appliances in the kitchen prior to the works starting, which had cost her money. The resident also said that the operative had put expanding foam behind the plinths, but the plinths no longer fit.
2. She wanted copies of all recorded calls.
3. The issue with the window was not due to supply shortages and the window had never been measured until February.
4. The landlord had not clarified the reason it would be coming back to the property.
5. She wanted reimbursement for the cooker disconnection fee, £300 for the cost of the vinyl and fitting, compensation for 2 days holiday taken from work and compensation for distress and inconvenience.
On 1 August 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
1. the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint were due to a cyber-security incident.
2. there was no obligation to provide a bespoke vinyl and therefore it declined the resident’s request for £300 compensation.
3. the time off work could not be compensated for, but it accepted communication could have been better with the resident.
4. that any flooring laid by the resident would be her responsibility.
5. it offered an additional £220 at stage 2 (£120 for the gas cooker disconnection as the resident was not told about this prior to the appointment, plus £50 for the delay in replacing the window and £50 for the stage 2 delay). In total, the landlord offered the resident £420 across all of its complaint responses.
In referring the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. The woodlice are not as much of an issue but are still present, and slugs keep coming into the property. The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the woodlice and said it never carried out inspections into the cause of the woodlice.
2. She is unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord.
3. She wants the floor joists inspected and repairs to the screed/latex under the vinyl flooring, which she said has cracked. The resident said the landlord should have also removed the original tiles as per its stage 1 response. However, the resident said she is concerned that replacing/repairing the screed/latex would damage the vinyl flooring that she has paid for.
4. She is unhappy with the way the landlord has handled her complaint.
5. She has found the issue very stressful, particularly due to her health issues at the time.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord’s internal complaints procedure investigated and responded to several issues, including requests from the resident to change the front and back doors in the property, replacement of the kitchen, and installation of UPVC panelling on a window in the property. However, the resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that she only considers the issues defined above to be outstanding and the other issues of the complaint have been resolved. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the issues that remain outstanding, including the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of flooring repairs, including reports that this was the cause of a pest problem in the property.

The landlord’s response to reports of flooring repairs, including reports that this was the cause of a pest problem in the property

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, and it will offer any non-emergency repair appointments within 28 calendar days of the resident reporting the repair. The landlord’s pest policy states “the term ‘pest’ is a generic term, which includes but is not limited to: “rats, mice, squirrels and infestations such as cockroaches and other insects”.
From the evidence provided, the landlord raised a repair request on 14 July 2021, following the resident’s report that the flooring in the kitchen and hallway was uneven. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was vulnerable and had vertigo, which made it difficult for her to walk on uneven floors. The landlord’s repair records refer to the flooring again on 5 August 2021, but it is not clear from the evidence if the landlord attended the property on this date. The resident said in her initial complaint that an operative attended the property on 7 September 2021. This was 55 calendar days after the resident first reported issues with the flooring, which is 27 days over the landlord’s repairs policy.
There were delays between 7 September and 7 December 2021 when the landlord attended the property to inspect the flooring. From the evidence provided, the resident had several telephone calls with the landlord and explained that the floor was in poor condition and difficult to walk on. Despite this, the landlord initially said that while the floor was uneven, it was functional and not dangerous. However, the landlord later agreed to replace the flooring, including stripping the original tiles and laying new latex and vinyl. The reason for the delay is not clear, but the Ombudsman notes that the landlord changed its position on the flooring replacement in its stage 1 response and agreed to replace it.
The resident has raised concerns that the screed/latex underneath the vinyl flooring has cracked. The landlord’s operative laid the screed/latex in January 2022. The resident said she was concerned that the operative did not use a primer under the latex to prevent cracking. The landlord has suggested that the cracking was due to the latex being exposed for a period of time, as the resident had chosen to lay her own vinyl. In internal correspondence, the landlord later said a primer was not needed. However, the landlord does not appear to have inspected the screed/latex to confirm the cause of the cracking.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to confirm the cause of the cracking to the latex/screed and is therefore unable to make a definitive conclusion on the issue. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have informed the resident about drying times and exposure times if this was a potential risk to the latex cracking.
Regardless of this, the Ombudsman understands the landlord offered to inspect and repair the cracked latex in its response to the resident on 23 February 2022. While the response was reasonable, the landlord was not clear in its position regarding the resident’s concerns about the damage to her vinyl flooring, what work would be required to inspect and repair the latex and whether less invasive inspections could be considered. The resident said she was therefore hesitant to allow these works to take place given the lack of clarity regarding her flooring.
The resident said she is unhappy that the landlord did not carry out all the work promised in its stage 1 response on 17 December 2021. Specifically, the resident said the operative that attended the property in January 2022 laid a new screed/latex but did not remove the existing tiles which was part of the schedule of works. On 23 February 2022, the landlord said the information given in its stage 1 complaint response did not allow for the operative’s “professional discretion” who had since found the tiles in good condition.
It is not the Ombudsman’s expertise to determine if the operative’s decision to not remove the existing tiles impacted the floor or caused issues with the latex cracking. However, the landlord was not clear in its position regarding remedial works to the flooring in its complaint responses. While it is reasonable for landlords to rely on the professional view of its contractors, it is not clear why the landlord did not seek a professional view prior to issuing its stage 1 response to clarify what work it would carry out. The resident relied on the scope of works that the landlord provided on 17 December 2021 which said it would remove the existing tiles. Further, the resident sought clarification of the works on 30 December 2021, to which the landlord responded on 4 January 2022 and confirmed it would complete the works as per its stage 1 response.
While the landlord said it completed the works in line with the professional discretion of its contractor, it is not clear if it has investigated and compared the proposed remedial works against the works undertaken and provided the resident with a reason why its contractor did not remove the floor tiles. As part of providing a clear response, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. This is a requirement in paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Regarding the resident’s reports of a woodlice infestation in the property, there was a lack of inspection and investigation from the landlord into the cause of the woodlice. The landlord’s pest policy does not specifically refer to woodlice. However, the British Pest Control Association states woodlice feed upon “rotten wood or other vegetable matter in cool, damp areas”.
The landlord failed to acknowledge and investigate the resident’s concerns regarding rotten wood or damp in the property, which she believed to be the cause of the woodlice. On 8 September 2021, the resident raised concerns about rotting wood in the property. She later told the landlord that she thought the rotting wood could be coming from/near a kitchen cupboard and on several occasions raised concerns that the woodlice were an indication of damp or rotten wood. The resident also raised concerns about the floor joists in the property and whether this was the source of the woodlice in the kitchen. Despite this, the landlord does not appear to have inspected the floor joists in the property or investigated the resident’s concerns regarding rotten wood/damp.
When the resident notified the landlord of her concerns regarding rotten wood and damp as well as the floor joists in the property, the landlord had an obligation to inspect the property and carry out repairs. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property. This includes the walls, floors, and windows. In accordance with this obligation, the landlord should have investigated the resident’s reports of damp/rotten wood in the property and put right any issues it identified which were its responsibility.
The landlord failed to consider the impact on the resident regarding the presence of woodlice in the property. The resident explained to the landlord on several occasions that the woodlice were a daily nuisance, and she was having to clean approximately 30 woodlice per day in the kitchen. The landlord does not appear to have properly recorded or monitored the volume of woodlice in the property or asked the resident for diaries to record the number of woodlice per day or where the woodlice appeared to be in the property.
In its stage 1 response on 17 December 2021, the landlord said it would insert a camera into the external vents to inspect for woodlice. From the evidence provided, the landlord does not appear to have ever carried out this inspection. Paragraph 6.5 of the Complaint Handling Code states that the remedy offered must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. Failure to follow through with any proposed remedy is likely to have left the resident feeling frustrated and that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord carried out some remedial works to the external render on 12 October 2021 and applied expanding foam in some holes behind the kitchen cupboards on or around 26 January 2022. However, from the evidence provided the landlord failed to monitor whether this resolved the issue with the woodlice or whether further investigations were required.
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to inspect the property for any damp/rotten wood which may be causing woodlice or insects in the property. This must also include the camera inspection referred to within the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord must also contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the cracked latex flooring to determine if this requires replacement. Prior to carrying out the inspection, the landlord must consult a surveyor to establish what works are required to inspect the floor and whether less invasive options can be considered. The surveyor must then carry out the inspection and provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a copy of any proposed remedial works. The surveyor must specifically comment on whether the original floor tiles require removal and any impact this may have on the new flooring and/or latex layer.
The Ombudsman understands the resident has raised concerns about the potential this repair has to cause damage to her vinyl, and said she paid for the vinyl in favour of a higher quality than what the landlord offered. However, the Ombudsman cannot order reimbursement for damage which may or may not occur in the future. Should the vinyl become damaged during the inspection or remedial works, the landlord is to be clear in its position regarding a repair or replacement. The landlord should repair or compensate for any damage to the flooring which has occurred due to the landlord’s failure to complete the repair satisfactorily or if the repair fails to rectify the issue. This is in line with the expected good practice for landlords and the Ombudsman’s established approach. The landlord should also be clear in its position regarding the removal of appliances and appliance disconnection costs should this be required.
For the above failings and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in having to chase the landlord for a resolution to her complaint, in addition to the associated delays, the Ombudsman has found maladministration. The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation below for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 72 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. This was 62 working days more than the response time stated in the landlord’s complaints policy, which states 10 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on at least 2 occasions on 12 October and 1 November 2021 to request an update. There is evidence the landlord contacted the resident by telephone on 15 and 18 November and 1 December 2021 to apologise for the delays, but it did not provide the resident with a timescale of what was involved in resolving the complaint, along with how long the response would take. It was unreasonable for the resident to have to contact the landlord for an update on her complaint. This would have likely caused the resident distress and concern as she waited for a resolution to the issues raised.
The landlord provided the resident with 3 stage 1 complaint responses between September 2021 and March 2022. In an email dated 28 December 2021, the resident made it clear she did not want her complaint closed until the landlord had completed the work but later said on 30 December 2021, she was happy for the landlord to close the complaint once she had clarification of the date for repair works.
On 7 February 2022, the resident made a further complaint about the work carried out in the property. The landlord did not initially acknowledge this as a complaint and said it had passed the resident’s email to its repairs team. However, it later provided a second stage 1 response on 23 February 2022, 12 working days after the resident’s complaint.
On 25 February 2022, the resident escalated the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request in line with its stage 2 response procedure. However, 21 working days later, it provided a second stage 1 response, rather than a stage 2 response. It is not clear why the landlord did this when it had informed the resident that her escalation request would be dealt with in line with its procedure at stage 2. It was not appropriate for the landlord to issue a second stage 1 response, and this was a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
On 29 March 2022, the resident again requested her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The resident chased the landlord for a response on at least 2 occasions on 13 June 2022 and 28 July 2022. The landlord does not appear to have responded to the resident’s emails or provided her with an update on her complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 August 2022. This was 85 working days after the resident requested her complaint to be escalated on 29 March 2022. This is 65 working days over the landlord’s stage 2 complaint policy which states that stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. The landlord said the reason for the delay was due to a “cyber-attack” on its systems. While the Ombudsman understands the impact a cyber-attack may have had on the landlord’s systems, there was an inappropriate and significant delay in the landlord’s stage 2 response. The Ombudsman understands the cyber-attack referred to by the landlord occurred in June 2022. This was some 3 months after the resident’s escalation request and therefore the reason for delay is not acceptable.
The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all concerns raised by the resident. On 25 February 2022, and in several emails and correspondence, the resident raised concerns about insects in the property and concerns about damp or rotting wood in the kitchen. Specifically, the resident said she was unhappy that the holes that the landlord had filled behind the kitchen plinths had not worked properly, and woodlice and slugs were coming into the property. The landlord failed to address this in its stage 2 response and did not fully acknowledge or respond to the resident’s concerns about rotting wood. In accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the Complaint Handling Code, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint procedure meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also likely made her feel frustrated and that her complaint was not being taken seriously. Further, the delays would have prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
While the landlord has provided some compensation for the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has found the landlord’s offer of compensation not appropriate to the identified failings. For the distress and inconvenience caused by the above failures and the associated delays, the Ombudsman has made an order of compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of flooring repairs, including reports that this was the cause of a pest problem in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology to the resident for the errors identified in this report. A member of senior management must make the apology.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £995 in addition to the £420 offered by the landlord in its complaint procedure, broken down as follows:
  1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its response to flooring repairs and reports of woodlice in the property.
  2. £225 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling.

This totals £1,415 compensation. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident. The landlord can reduce the total compensation by any amount already paid to the resident in its complaint procedure in respect of this complaint.

Contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for a full survey of the property to be carried out. Prior to carrying out the inspection, the landlord must consult a surveyor to establish what works are required to inspect the flooring. The surveyor must then carry out the inspection and provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a copy of its report. Specifically, the report must comment on the following:
1. Whether there is any damp/rotten wood in the property, which may be causing an influx of woodlice or insects. The report must also include any remedial works required.
2. Whether there are any floor joists which require repair or replacement in the property. The report must also include any remedial works required.
3. Whether the woodlice may be entering the property through other means such as external holes or vents. This must also include the camera inspection referred to within the landlord’s stage 1 response. The report must also include any remedial works required.
4. The issues regarding the cracked latex flooring and any remedial works required. The report must specifically comment on whether the original floor tiles require removal and any impact this may have on the new flooring and/or latex layer.
5. Any other outstanding works in the property. The report must also include any remedial works required.
6. The landlord should attempt to complete the inspection within 28 days of the date of this determination. The landlord should encourage its surveyor to provide their report within 10 working days of the date of the inspection. The landlord must then use all best endeavours to ensure the work is completed within a reasonable time, in any event, 56 days of the date of the inspection, or by the dates set out in any report provided by the surveyor. The schedule of work and action plan must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman.
7. Should the existing vinyl become damaged, the landlord is to be clear in its position regarding repair or replacement and the resident’s options regarding any potential claim. The landlord should also confirm any appointments with the resident in writing and clarify its position regarding the removal of appliances and appliance disconnection costs should this be required.
The landlord must, within 56 days of the date of this determination, provide evidence of compliance with the orders specified in paragraph 45(a)-(c). It must set out its proposed completion date for any outstanding works.