Clarion Housing Association Limited (202221519)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221519

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 October 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. reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. placing the resident in temporary accommodation during the planned repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat under an assured tenancy agreement.
On 20 December 2022 the resident told this service that he had complained to the landlord that there was extreme damp and mould in the property. He said this was causing damage to the property and his personal belongings. He told us he had complained to the landlord but that it had not responded. This service wrote to the landlord on the same day to advise it of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 May 2023. In this it:
1. apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint
2. acknowledged that the resident had told it there was damp and mould all over the property as he had not been heating the property due to energy costs. It stated it should have made a referral for a surveyor to attend the property following this but accepted this did not happen. It said it made a priority referral on 3 February 2023 for a surveyor to attend the property but the surveyor did not attend.
3. told the resident it had experienced difficulties contacting him to get access to the property and asked him to confirm his contact numbers were correct
4. said its leaks, condensation, damp and mould (LCDM) team attended on 24 April 2023 to carry out a mould wash but was unable to complete this due to the amount of personal items the resident had in the property. It apologised that a surveyor was not present for this attendance.
5. it had arranged for a mould wash to take place on 26 May 2023 and advised the resident he needed to move his personal belongings away from the walls of the property. It told the resident that a surveyor would also attend to determine what further repairs were required.
6. it offered the resident £350 as compensation consisting of:
  1. £100 for its delay in responding to the complaint
  2. £250 for the resident’s inconvenience and the time taken for the landlord to resolve the repairs he had raised.
The resident responded on 3 May 2023. He told the landlord:
1. his preferred method of contact was email and the landlord would be unlikely to reach him by phone during the day
2. no arrangement had been made for further work on 26 May 2023 and short-notice visits were not feasible as he lives alone and works full-time
3. he understood that for the repairs to take place he would have to leave the property. He stated he was not happy with this and even a temporary absence would cause him upset and additional costs as he worked from home.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 November 2023 in which it stated:
1. it had not flagged the resident’s email of 3 May 2023 as an escalated complaint at the time. It apologised for the resulting delay in responding to his complaint.
2. it had attempted to carry out a mould wash and survey on 26 May 2023 but was not able to gain access to the property. It considered it had given the resident sufficient notice of this in its stage 1 response.
3. its surveyor had attended the property on 10 October 2023 and it sent the landlord’s report and action plan to the resident on 20 October 2023. It outlined that it would:
  1. offer the resident temporary accommodation whilst the planned repairs were completed
  2. organise the removal of the resident’s personal belongings to the temporary accommodation or a storage unit, provided the resident boxed these in preparation.
  3. reinspect the property once the resident’s belongings were cleared to identify any further remedial work and would share details of this with the resident. The landlord specified that at minimum this would be the full replacement of the bathroom and WC, electrical testing and removal of mould.
  4. complete a joint inspection once the repairs were complete
  5. organise the return of the resident’s personal belongings to the property once repairs were complete.
4. It would offer the resident a further £200 in compensation for the delay in escalating his complaint (for a total of £550).
The resident was dissatisfied with the temporary accommodation the landlord offered. The landlord applied to the court for an injunction to temporarily remove the resident from the property whilst the repairs took place. As of the date of this report the repairs identified by the landlord’s surveyor have not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The landlord applied to the County Court for an injunction to order the resident out of the property temporarily so repairs could take place. The court issued a schedule of directions on 2 September 2024, as part of this the resident agreed to be moved from the property temporarily on being provided with a suitable offer of accommodation. Under paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the resident’s complaint about the handling of the temporary accommodation. This is because it was the subject of court proceedings where the resident gave an undertaking and there was an agreed outcome.
Paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme also states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where a resident has, or had, the opportunity to raise the complaint as part of legal proceedings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion if the resident had concerns about the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation, such as the fairness of its decision to apply for an injunction, he could have reasonably raised this during the court proceedings. Injunctions are equitable remedies, which the courts have discretion to issue. Therefore, it would naturally form part and parcel of those proceedings on why the court ought not to grant the injunction.

Scope

In his complaint to this service the resident told us that there have been issues with damp, mould and leaks at the property since his tenancy began in 1992. He told us that he had complained to the landlord about this ‘over the years’ but did not provide specific details or evidence to show when he complained or what concerns he raised.
Whilst we acknowledge the resident’s statement, from the available records we have not seen that the resident informed the landlord about issues with damp and mould at the property before October 2022. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint this investigation focuses on events from October 2021, which is 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says that it aims to diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. It states when a resident reports damp and mould it will arrange a property inspection to identify the cause of the issues. In cases where the issues are not straightforward it says it may need to carry out further investigations to diagnose the problem.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy says it will carry out any repairs that are necessary in line with its repairs and maintenance policy. This states that:
1. it will attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord will treat any follow-up work as a routine repair.
2. it will attend and complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The landlord has been unable to produce a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement with the original tenancy terms and conditions. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to be able to access this key document. The landlord has provided standard terms and conditions it says were applicable when the resident signed his tenancy.
Clause 12.a. of the standard terms and conditions states that the resident agrees to allow the landlord’s employees, agents or contractors to enter the property at reasonable times and with reasonable notice (which it defines as a minimum of 24 hours except in the case of emergency) for purposes including inspecting the property and carrying out repairs. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy also says if it is unable to gain access to carry out inspections or works it may need to take action if it considers the integrity of the property or the safety of the resident, or those in the vicinity of the property, are compromised.
From the landlord’s repair logs it recorded that the resident first raised concerns about damp and mould on 25 November 2022. However, in response to the resident’s complaint the landlord stated the resident had complained on 18 October 2022 about multiple repair issues including damp. The landlord did not provide this service with a copy of the original complaint. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what exactly the resident reported or what action the landlord took to address this. This was a failure by the landlord.
Following the repair request on 25 November 2022 the landlord attended the property on 12 December 2022. The landlord recorded that there was severe damp and mould in the property, but it did not record any planned actions to resolve the repair. The landlord accepted in its response to the complaint that it should have made a referral for a surveyor to attend but there was no evidence this happened. The landlord’s actions were inappropriate as they were not consistent with its damp, mould and condensation policy.
The landlord told the resident that on 2 February 2023 it made a priority referral for a surveyor to attend the property. It accepted that a surveyor did not attend following this referral. Due to a lack of adequate records we have not seen evidence of this referral or what response, if any, the landlord received from its surveyor. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord raised a repair request to complete a mould wash on 2 March 2023. The landlord recorded it attended on 6 March 2023, 9 March 2023 and 24 March 2023 but was not granted access to the property on each occasion. The landlord noted in its repair log the operative did not provide evidence of any of these claimed attendances and due to a lack of records we also have not seen whether it gave the resident notice of these. This was a failure by the landlord.
On 24 April 2023 the landlord attended the property again to carry out the mould wash. The landlord recorded that it identified damp and mould in the property and a LCDM surveyor would be required as there were a number of repairs required. The landlord stated, due to the amount of personal belongings the resident had in the property, it was not possible to carry out the mould wash or other repairs and it advised the resident he needed to clear his belongings to the middle of each room so its surveyor could inspect what repairs were necessary.
In total it took the landlord 91 working days from its first attendance on 12 December 2022 to attend to carry out repairs for the damp and mould it identified. The attendance on 24 April 2023 also did not involve a LCDM surveyor despite the landlord previously identifying that this was necessary. These were significant failures by the landlord. It greatly exceeded its timescales for completing repairs. It also did not carry out timely further investigations to investigate the cause of the damp and mould in line with its damp, mould and condensation policy.
The landlord informed the resident in its complaint response on 3 May 2023 that it would arrange for the mould wash to be completed on 26 May 2023 and that a surveyor would attend to determine what further works were required. The resident responded on 13 May 2023 saying that he did not agree with the planned work for 26 May 2023, that he had pre-existing arrangements for parts of that day and stated he ‘maintained the right to refuse entry to the property’. The landlord recorded that it attended on 26 May 2023 but was unable to gain access. In the Ombudsman’s opinion there was not a failing by the landlord here, it had given the resident reasonable notice of its intention to attend to carry out repairs and he did not make arrangements to allow this to take place.
The landlord contacted the resident on 31 May 2023 to reschedule the planned mould wash and survey to 21 June 2023. The landlord recorded it attempted to contact the resident by phone and left a voicemail with this information. There is no evidence that the resident responded to this and when the landlord attended on 21 June 2023 it was not able to gain access to the property. The resident had previously told the landlord he wanted to be contacted by email and was not able to take phone calls during the day. It is not clear why the landlord could not have followed up its calls by email.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 August 2023 to explain that it had attempted to contact him regarding the damp and mould and due to a lack of contact from him it was closing the planned repair. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not known what contact the landlord had with the resident between 21 June 2023 to 17 August 2023, whether further attempts were made to carry out the mould wash and LCDM survey or what information the resident was given about this. This was a failure by the landlord.
On 14 September 2023, at the time the landlord identified that it had not responded to the resident’s escalation of his complaint, it wrote to the resident to book in a damp and mould survey. The resident responded on the same day stating he would not grant access and the landlord would have to take him to court. The landlord remained in contact with the resident to explain the reasons why it considered the survey was necessary. On 28 September 2023, the resident agreed for an inspection to take place with a surveyor present on 10 October 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the actions the landlord took following the resident’s statements that he would refuse access were reasonable and in line with its damp, mould and condensation policy.
The landlord’s surveyor completed their report on 16 October 2023 following the inspection. This recorded:
1. damp and mould growth was seen in each room of the property. The landlord recorded the resident’s excessive goods and furniture limited what could be inspected and these would need to be put into storage so a full inspection could take place
2. there was significant damp and staining around the fittings of the bathroom and WC which were likely contributing to excessive moisture in the property. The landlord recommended a full refurbishment of both rooms and their fittings
3. there was timber decay around parts of the property which the landlord considered was likely due to dry rot. The landlord recommended these required replacement and anti-fungicidal treatment
4. there was a hole in the flooring of the living room that made the property susceptible to rodents and required fixing
5. though the resident had advised there were previous leaks from the flat above the property there was no staining to indicate this was a recent problem or a cause of the excessive moisture in the property
6. the landlord would not be able to carry out the remedial work with the resident in occupation. It advised the resident would need to be moved to another property and his belongings removed from the property.
The landlord described in its response to the complaint that it would need to inspect the property once the resident’s belongings were removed to identify any further repairs. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was not a failing in the landlord’s handling of the inspection on 16 October 2023. The landlord had previously told the resident that it would need him to clear his belongings to enable a full inspection and identification of repairs to take place. From the available evidence, including the photographs taken during the inspection, the resident did not do this prior to the agreed date for the inspection.
In total there was a period of around a year following the resident’s report of damp and mould on 18 October 2022 until the landlord conducted a damp and mould survey, identified the cause of damp and mould and set out what repairs were required. In line with our guidance on remedies we consider there were mitigating factors as the resident repeatedly refused to allow the landlord access to inspect the property and assess the extent of works needed following 26 April 2023. Notwithstanding this, there were significant delays in the landlord diagnosing the cause of the damp and mould compared to its damp, mould and consideration policy and its timescales for responding to repairs.
The resident told this service that the landlord’s delays in responding to his repair request meant that he was living in a property with damp and mould. He said this prevented his enjoyment of the property, caused damage to his belongings and made it difficult to heat the property. He also stated the failure to send surveyors caused him to lose trust in the landlord’s willingness to address the repairs. Our view is that the impact on the resident in terms of distress and inconvenience would have been significant, though the resident’s refusal to allow the landlord access to inspect the property likely contributed to the situation he was in.
The resident told us he was only looking for the landlord to issue an apology as an outcome and was not seeking financial redress. Whilst we acknowledge this we have also taken our guidance on remedies into account to decide on an appropriate remedy for this case.
The landlord’s response accepted that there were failings in the service it gave the resident in responding to his initial reports of damp and mould, the time taken to arrange remedial work following the attendance on 12 December 2022 and a surveyor not being present for the attendance on 23 April 2023. It apologised to the resident for this and offered £250 in compensation for its handling of the repair. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this remedy does not fully address the impact its failures had on the resident.
In summary the Ombudsman’s opinion is that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould, in that it:
1. did not keep adequate records of the actions taken to resolve the repair request
2. did not attempt to carry out a mould wash for 91 working days after it first identified severe damp and mould in the property on 12 December 2022. It also did not take appropriate action to refer the case to its LCDM surveyor during this time.
3. did not complete a survey to identify the cause of the damp and mould for a period of around a year after the resident raised the repair request. As set out previously the resident’s repeated refusal to grant access to the landlord was a mitigating factor in this failure.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 response within 15 working days of it being logged. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Code was updated in 2024, following the previous version in 2022 that was in place during the time of the events complained about. We will refer to this as the Code where the Ombudsman’s expectations did not differ between the two versions, otherwise the version will be specified.
As set out previously, the landlord stated that the resident had made a complaint which included a report about damp in the property on 16 October 2022. The landlord accepted it did not log the resident’s contact as a formal complaint at the time. It explained it had understood the resident’s main concern was that he had not heard about the results of an electrical test that had taken place and it forwarded this to the operative involved to respond to. It accepted that the resident had also raised concerns about the condition of the property and it should have raised a stage 1 complaint for these.
The resident later contacted this service on 20 December 2022 as he had not had a response. This service informed the landlord on 20 December 2022 that the resident had told us he had not received a stage 1 response to his complaint and instructed the landlord to provide the resident and this service with a copy of the stage 1 response no later than 6 January 2023. This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to handle complaints in a way that is consistent with its policy without the involvement of this service.
Due to a lack of adequate records we have seen no evidence about how the landlord handled the stage 1 complaint until it issued its stage 1 response on 3 May 2023, 91 working days after this service told it to respond to the complaint. Though the stage 1 response confirmed it received this service’s email on 20 December 2022 it provided no explanation for the delay other than that there was ‘high customer contact’ at the time. This was not acceptable, the landlord greatly exceeded the timescales of its policy and our Code (which stated a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days) without good reason and with no evidence that it updated the resident.
The resident responded to the landlord on 3 May 2023 following the stage 1 response. He stated that he was unhappy with the further work outlined in the response and the possibility of needing to be temporarily moved from the property. The resident did not specify that he wanted the complaint to be escalated. However, in line with the Code the Ombudsman expects that any complaint not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 must be progressed to stage 2. The landlord did not escalate the complaint at the time despite the resident stating he did not consider the complaint resolved, this was a further failing by the landlord.
On 15 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident, it acknowledged that it had not escalated the complaint following his email of 3 May 2023. It explained that there was an administrative error which had meant it did not flag the resident’s email as an escalated complaint and told him its LCDM team was working to review and address its handling of complaints regarding damp and mould. The landlord told the resident it would begin stage 2 of its complaint process.
In line with its process and the Code the landlord should have issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days, which would have been 13 October 2023 starting from 15 September 2023. From the available records the landlord suggested it may be appropriate to delay its stage 2 response until it had an agreed resolution from the inspection that took place on 10 October 2023. From the records the landlord told the resident it was aiming to issue its response by 24 October 2023. In line with the 2022 version of the Code landlords could extend the timescales for responding by 10 working days if there was a good reason for this and it gave an explanation to the resident.
Notwithstanding this, the landlord did not issue the stage 2 response until 14 November 2023, 137 working days after the resident first escalated the complaint and 43 working days after the landlord began the stage 2 process. From the available records the landlord had shared its action plan for the repairs with the resident on 20 October 2023 and there was no explanation about why it did not respond by 24 October 2023 as it had previously told the resident it would. The landlord’s actions here were inappropriate as it significantly exceeded the timescales in its complaints policy (and the Code) and it did not keep the resident updated.
In its stage 2 response to the complaint the landlord accepted that there were failings in not initially logging and responding to the resident’s complaint from October 2022 and for not escalating his complaint to stage 2 following his email of 3 May 2023. It apologised for these failings and offered the resident £300 as compensation for delays in handling his complaints at stage 1 and 2.
The resident told this service he was caused frustration from the landlord’s complaint handling. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, though the landlord acknowledged the failings identified and took responsibility for these, it has not fully remedied. This is because, in line with our guidance on remedies, it has not adequately explained what it has learnt from the resident’s complaint and how it will prevent similar failures from happening again as part of its apology.
As set out previously, the resident specified to this service that he was only looking for an apology from the landlord as an outcome to his complaint. Had he been seeking a financial remedy from the landlord then, in line with our guidance on remedies, we would have considered the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation was an appropriate financial remedy to put right the frustration the resident experienced.
In summary Ombudsman’s opinion is that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint in that it:
1. did not log the resident’s initial complaint from 16 October 2022 as a formal complaint
2. significantly delayed escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 after his email of 3 May 2023
3. significantly delayed issuing its response at both stages of the complaints process
4. did not keep the resident updated throughout the complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraphs 41.c. and 42.e. of the Scheme the resident’s complaint about the landlord requiring him to temporarily move from the property to carry out repairs is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate. This is because there were legal proceedings that dealt with this or could have dealt with this.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report and the impact these likely had on the resident. As part of this order the landlord must outline what it has learnt to prevent these failings from happening again.
2. pay the resident £400 (inclusive of the £250 already offered) for the distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of his home likely caused by its handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This should include consideration of:
1. how the delays in responding to the reports of damp and mould (within its control) occurred and how it will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again
2. how the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence
3. a self-assessment against the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £300 it previously offered for its complaint handling if it has not already done so.