Clarion Housing Association Limited (202223683)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223683

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 July 2024

Amended 5 December 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould caused by leaks at the property.
2. Handling of repairs to the windows in the property.
3. Response to the resident’s request for a wet room.
4. Handling of the resident’s request for a permanent transfer.
This investigation will also consider the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the complaint.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in the property, a 2-bed ground floor flat, since 2009. The property records show there are 11 external steps leading to the property. The resident’s 2 children live with her at the property.
The landlord stated in response to an information request from this Service that it has no vulnerabilities or disabilities recorded for the resident. Evidence seen by this Service however show that the resident has made the landlord aware that she is registered disabled, uses a wheelchair, and has several chronic illnesses including a lung condition and incontinence.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident first reported damp and mould throughout the property in 2013. She reported further damp and mould in 2017 and made further reports throughout 2020 and 2021.
On 27 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to raise a formal complaint (Complaint 1). She stated that:
1. There was black mould growing in her bathroom, kitchen, hallway, and around the windows in the property.
2. She was disabled, had a “chronic cough”, and had children in the property.
3. She had reported the issue many times and the landlord had attended to treat the mould but it “kept coming back”.

We have not seen evidence that the landlord recorded or responded to this complaint.

On 27 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and asked it to log a further formal complaint (Complaint 2). She said:
1. She had been living with damp and mould throughout the flat for 10 years.
2. There was now fungus growing inside the property.
3. The issue was “spreading fast through the home”.
4. The kitchen units were “completely rotten” and she was unable to use them due to the mould.
5. The landlord had visited many times but no one had dealt with the issue. It kept spraying the mould but it always returned.
6. She was disabled, had chronic illnesses and her child lived with her in the property.
7. Her furniture and belongings had been ruined by the mould.
The landlord replied on 31 October 2022 and said the damp and mould sounded “very unpleasant” and it was sorry that it had not resolved the issue for her. It said that due to a cyber-attack in June 2022 it did not have access to historical data and so could not see any previous inspections or works. It advised that it had booked a repair for 8 November 2022 and had made the surveyor and area manager aware of the issue. The landlord said if she remained dissatisfied after the repairs appointment it would raise a formal complaint.
On 13 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said that operatives had attended and sprayed the ceiling “in one spot”. They had left and said they would return but had not. She said the property was still “covered in black mould and rising damp”. The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 to stage 2 of the complaints process. Following her email the landlord emailed the resident on 15 December 2022 and signposted her to its website for advice regarding condensation, damp and mould.
This Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 10 January 2023. We advised the landlord to raise a stage 1 complaint (Complaint 3) in relation to its handling of:
1. Repairs to the property following leaks.
2. Damp and mould in the hallway, bathroom, kitchen and around the windows throughout the property.
3. Damage to the resident’s furniture and belongings.
4. The resident’s request to be moved as she was a wheelchair user and the property was up a flight of stairs with no lift.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 3 on 1 February 2023. It said:
1. It had attended on 08 November 2022 and removed the mould in the bathroom.
2. The issue was escalated to the surveyors on 29 November 2022 for an inspection of rising damp in the property. This was chased 3 times between 1 December 2022 and 17 January 2023.
3. On 27 January 2023 the surveyor carried out an inspection and raised the following works to be completed on 10 February 2023:
  1. Trace and remedy a leak under the bath.
  2. Address “ill-fitting” toilet cistern and pan.
  3. Investigate possible water penetration from the flat above.
  4. Supply a dehumidifier.
  5. Carry out remedial works.
  6. Carry out mould treatment to bedrooms and living room.
4. The complaint was upheld due to the delay in response from the surveyors.
5. It offered £200 compensation for:
  1. inconvenience
  2. the resident having to chase
  3. failure to follow process
  4. repeat visits
  5. the “complaint being passed between teams”.
On 28 February 2023 following contact from the resident the Ombudsman asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 3 to stage 2. The resident was unhappy because:
1. The stage 1 response did not address all aspects of the complaint.
2. The following repairs were outstanding:
  1. The window would not close in the children’s bedroom.
  2. The kitchen cupboards required repair or replacement.
  3. The kitchen floor was damaged following a leak.
  4. A wet room was required.
3. The resident requested £1,400 in compensation for furniture and belongings damaged by damp and mould.
4. She requested a temporary decant while the repair works were being undertaken due to concerns regarding her poor health and a lung condition.
5. She requested a permanent transfer to a property that was wheelchair accessible and on the ground floor. This had been recommended by her occupational therapist (OT).
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 3 on 31 March 2023. It said:
1. Not all of the issues raised by the resident in her stage 2 complaint were part of the stage 1 complaint.
2. Following the stage 1 response it had attended on 10 February 2023 and found leaks in “various parts of pipe work”.
3. Works were arranged for 10 March 2023 at which time some works (installation of a new extractor fan and a mould wash) were completed. However, “due to the size and scope of [the] works”, the repairs to resolve the leaks and damp did not go ahead as an external contractor was required.
4. It had visited the property again on 23 March 2023 to complete a schedule of works. The work would commence on 3 April 2023 and would include:
  1. Bathroom – Renew the toilet, replace the defective pipework to the bath, install new flooring, reseal the bath, regrout the tiles and make good.
  2. Bedrooms – Ease and adjust the windows and complete a mould wash.
5. No decant would be required as the toilet would not be out of use for “any extended period” and would be “reinstated each night”.
6. The resident should contact her home contents insurer to make a claim for her damaged furniture and belongings. If she did not have insurance, she could contact the landlord’s insurance team.
7. She did not meet the threshold for a management move through the landlord as there were “reserved for victims of serious [antisocial behaviour] and domestic abuse”.
8. The landlord’s available properties were advertised through the local authority’s choice-based lettings (CBL) system. She had an active re-housing application with the local authority and was in the highest band that could be awarded. She had not however placed a bid since May 2022.
9. The OT assessment provided in September 2021 said that the resident may require a wet room in the future. She should contact the OT if she felt a new assessment was needed to ascertain her current needs.
10. It was satisfied that its stage 1 complaint response was “fair, reasonable and accurate”.
11. It could however have been “more proactive” in resolving the issues of complaint and there had been a lack of action which had caused the resident inconvenience for which it apologised.
12. It increased its offer of compensation to £350.
On 16 May 2024 the landlord advised this Service that following our request for information it had arranged to inspect the property. It said it would also be incorporating recommendations from the local authority’s environmental health team who had recently inspected the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman considers events that took place within a reasonable period (usually 6 months) prior to a formal complaint being made. In this case the landlord did not formally raise a complaint on behalf of the resident until January 2023.
However, as the resident explicitly asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint in January 2022 and October 2022 and it did not do so, this investigation has considered events from June 2021 onwards.
It is accepted that the resident did not raise the window repairs, her request for a wet room, and her request for a permanent transfer until she raised her stage 2 escalation of Complaint 3. The landlord did however address the issues within its stage 2 response. As the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate and respond to these issues, they have been considered within this report.
The resident has requested that the landlord compensate her for damage to her furniture and belongings caused by the damp and mould in the property. She has also reported that the property condition has impacted her health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, damage to property or health.
The investigation of property damage and personal injury and related compensation are more appropriately addressed by way of an insurance claim or a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts, cross examine the parties and make legally binding judgements, including liability. The resident should seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue a claim for personal injury. While we have not considered liability for these issues we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation.

Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould caused by leaks at the property.

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to repairs in the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs – 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs – 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s decant policy states that a decant may be required when works are required to a property which may make it “unsafe, uninhabitable, or the scope of the works makes it impractical for the resident to remain”. The policy does not explicitly define what would be included in its definition. The landlord states:
1. It will only decant in “exceptional circumstances, where the property is uninhabitable and it is not possible to undertake the works with the [resident] in-situ”.
2. It will “involve and consult residents from the outset” and keep them updated throughout the decant process.
The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring a property is fit for human habitation, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the tenancy conditions.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety in dwellings. The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, which advises that properties should be free from hazards assessed to be category one under the HHSRS; be in reasonable state of repair; have reasonably modern facilities; and provide reasonable thermal comfort. The HHSRS specifically recognises that damp and mould growth can pose a threat to physical and mental health.
This Service has been provided with photographs of the condition of the resident’s property at several instances during the period of investigation. The images show areas of widespread black mould to the walls, ceilings and window reveals. They also show large fungus growths to the flooring and skirting in several rooms throughout the property.
In January 2021 the resident reported a leak from under the bath which had caused the bathroom to “flood”. The landlord attended on the same day and the repair log states that the leak was caused by a loose nut which it tightened resolving the issue. This was reasonable and within the timeframe outlined in its policy.
In March 2022 and May 2022 the resident made further reports of damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to these reports. This was not reasonable or in line with its policy.
On 7 June 2022 the landlord carried out a mould wash in the bathroom and sealed around the toilet. We have not seen evidence that similar mould treatment was completed in the kitchen despite the resident also reporting mould in this area. It is unclear why the treatment was not extended to this area. That it was not, however, was a failing.
Repair records of 26 January 2023 show that the landlord raised works to trace and remedy a leak under the bath. It also raised works to “remove mushroom growth” from the bathroom, hallway, and the resident’s son’s bedroom. The bathroom works did not take place until April 2023. This is significantly longer than the timeframes outlined in the repairs policy.
The resident first asked to be temporarily decanted while works were completed in February 2023. She advised that due to a chronic lung condition she would be unable to remain in the property during the works. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the request at this time. This was not reasonable.
The resident requested a temporary decant again on 9 March 2023 and 20 March 2023. She pointed out that in addition to her lung condition she had “severe incontinence issues” and was concerned that the toilet would not be available during the works. Internal landlord communications demonstrate that it considered that a temporary decant was not required as the bathroom works were due to be completed within 1 day and the toilet would not be out of service during this time.
While the internal communications demonstrate that the landlord was aware of the resident’s request and her health issues, we have not seen evidence that it carried out any assessment of the resident’s needs. There is no indication that it asked whether she had use of alternative facilities during the daytime when works were taking place. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s lung condition or the impact that the mould treatment would have on this. This was a failing.
This Service considers that the resident’s health conditions may have met the threshold of the property being “unsafe, uninhabitable, or…impractical for the resident to remain” in. That it did not carry out a full assessment of her circumstances and the impact the works would have was unreasonable.
This Service published our Spotlight Report on damp and mould in September 2021, before most of the events considered in this report took place. The report recommended that landlords adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
The Spotlight Report acknowledged that diagnosing damp and mould issues can take time and repeated visits. It therefore recommended that, where appropriate, the landlord consider decanting the resident at an early stage if necessary. The aim of such a decant would be to the ensure that resident is not left living in unsatisfactory conditions for months or years before a decant is considered. This is particularly important in cases such as this when the resident and their household have vulnerabilities.
The landlord had advised the resident in February 2023 that it would provide a dehumidifier. We have not seen evidence that it did so and the resident has stated both to the landlord and to this Service that it did not provide one. This was a failing. Had the landlord provided this, the return and spread of the mould may have been prevented or limited.
The landlord attended the property on 10 March 2023 to carry out works to the bathroom. Records show that “the sub walls [had] become much worse…with extensive mould and damp” and that that further works were required that could not now be completed within 1 day. It had advised the resident that a temporary decant was not “warranted” and had removed the “mould and mushrooms”. On this date a new extractor fan was installed in the bathroom. Internal communications on this date show that while works were required throughout the property, orders had not yet been raised for any works except in the bathroom.
The resident has advised that she and her children were decanted to a hotel between 1 April 2023 and 10 May 2023. The landlord has provided evidence that the resident was decanted to the hotel from 1 April 2023 to 28 April 2023. It in unclear why the dates provided by the resident and the landlord differ, however as the resident has provided emails which show that she asked for her stay to be extended on 11 May 2023, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was decanted for the longer period of time.
The landlord has stated that the hotel accommodation comprised 2 rooms, one of which was wheelchair accessible. The rooms were adjoining as the landlord states that the resident’s son provides care for her, this demonstrates that the landlord considered the specific needs of the family when arranging the decant.
On 3 May 2023 the resident contacted this Service and said the landlord had contacted her that day and advised her to move back to her property from the hotel. She said she had visited the property earlier that day and the only works to have been completed were in the bathroom. The resident stated there were still “mushrooms” growing out of the skirting boards, mould in the living room and both bedrooms, and the flooring in her son’s room was “lifting” due to the damp.
It is not clear to this Service why it failed to raise and complete the works. This is especially so given that the landlord had identified in March 2023 that orders had not been raised for works which were required throughout the property. This was a missed opportunity to carry out all works while the family were decanted.
It was unreasonable that the resident and had to return to live in a property which was still affected by widespread black mould and where fungus continued to grow. The failing was particularly serious because the resident had a pre-existing lung condition that the landlord was aware of and the household included children.
On 18 May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and said that following a surveyor’s inspection a week earlier it would provide her with 3 bottles of mould remover as a ‘goodwill gesture’. We have not been provided with a report outlining the findings of the surveyor’s inspection. We cannot therefore ascertain whether further works beyond mould treatment were required. Our Spotlight Report on damp and mould stated that landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. We do not consider that it was appropriate or reasonable that the landlord expected the resident, who was disabled and had a chronic lung condition, to treat the mould throughout the property herself. The landlord could reasonably have arranged to carry out mould washes at the property. It is unclear why this offer was not made to the resident.
However, it is noted that the landlord attended the property in July 2023 and carried out a mould wash in the bathroom and hallway as the mould had returned. At the end of August 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the mould in the bathroom was “coming back” again. She also said she had not been provided with a dehumidifier as had been promised. Despite this reminder there is no evidence that the landlord took this opportunity to provide a dehumidifier.
The repair log shows that the landlord attended on 14 September 2023 and that there was “no mould present”. We have not however been provided with any photographs or formal reports to support this and cannot therefore confirm this.
On 15 September 2023 the landlord raised works to replace the wooden skirting boards and bath panel in the bathroom with plastic and to fit vents to the hallway cupboard door. This was completed on 6 November 2023. The records show that the delay in completion of this work was due to the works order being raised under the wrong contract.
On 5 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that she thought the leak had returned. On 23 November 2023 she reported that the mould had returned in the bathroom.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 29 April 2024. She said:
1. The work completed in April 2023 was not satisfactory and the issues had arisen again quickly.
2. She and her 2 children were decanted to a hotel for the works to be completed. They arrived home on 10 May 2023 and found that while some works had been completed in the bathroom and kitchen the rest of the property had been untouched. There was fungus and mould throughout the rest of the property.
3. The damp and mould were impacting the health of her children who were “coughing and sneezing all the time”. It was also impacting her lung condition.
4. The mould was “spiralling out of control”, there was a “stench” in the property and she was having to throw away her items regularly due to mould damage.
5. She was experiencing anxiety and depression as a result of her living conditions and her children were also becoming depressed.
The landlord has advised this Service that it arranged a further inspection of the property in May 2024. The resident cancelled this appointment as she was unwell and it was rearranged for 5 June 2024. The landlord has stated that it “cannot see evidence…to show that the appointment was attended”. It has added that the appointment had been cancelled on its system but no reason has been recorded for the cancellation. This is not reasonable and is indicative of record keeping issues which ultimately affected the landlord’s response to the resident’s continued concerns.
In response to a further information request from this Service the landlord has stated it is “Unable to find any mention of an inspection from the [local authority’s environmental health team” on its systems. It was the landlord itself that advised this Service in May 2023 that it would be incorporating recommendations from the local authority’s environmental health team’s inspection. It is therefore of concern that the landlord is now unable to locate this information, and indicative of further record keeping issues.
This Service would like to acknowledge that the conditions evidenced by the photographs we have been provided are not acceptable for anyone to live in. They are particularly unacceptable when considered alongside the resident’s health conditions and that she had children in the property. While we cannot say with certainty what condition the property may have been in had the landlord responded promptly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns, it is evident that its handling of the matter has had a significant impact on her living conditions. An award of further compensation has therefore been made and will be detailed further in the complaint handling section of this report.
Overall, the landlord has unreasonably delayed in addressing the resident’s frequent reports of damp and mould caused by internal leaking pipes. Its handling of the temporary decant was not in line with its own policy and it failed to demonstrate that it had carried out any meaningful assessment of the needs of the resident and her children. The landlord’s record keeping has also been poor. Therefore there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the complaint.

Handling of repairs to the windows in the property.

In December 2021 the resident reported that 3 windows in the property would not close. The repair log does not state which windows this refers to. Records show the landlord attended on 5 January 2021 and it was noted that follow on works were required to replace the window hinges. We have not seen evidence that the hinges were replaced.
At the end of March 2022 the resident reported that the kitchen window would not open. The landlord booked to attend on 1 April 2022 but the resident cancelled the appointment due to illness. We have not however seen any indication that it followed up on this repair, this was a missed opportunity.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord raised works to inspect the window in the living room as the resident had reported the handle was not working. It attended on 7 June 2022 and the repair notes state that parts needed to be ordered for the window. We have seen no evidence that the new parts were fitted or that an effective repair was completed.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that it would ease and adjust the bedroom windows in April 2023. We have not seen evidence that this work was completed.
In September 2023 and November 2023 the resident again reported that the windows in her children’s bedroom would not fully close or lock. She raised concerns that this posed a security risk. We have not seen evidence that the landlord attended to complete a repair.
It is unclear from the records whether the landlord failed to complete the window repairs or if it failed to record their completion. However, based on the evidence that is available there is nothing to suggest that the landlord carried out repairs in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
Overall, while the resident repeatedly reported issues with the windows in the property over a period of almost 2 years, we have not seen evidence that the landlord carried out any repairs. This was wholly unacceptable. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to windows in the property.

Response to the resident’s request for a wet room.

The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy refers to the installation of a wet room as a ‘major adaptation’. It states that it will “only carry out major adaptations that are reasonable and practical for the property and are supported by a local authority [OT] assessment”.
The resident asked the landlord to install a wet room within her stage 2 complaint.
The landlord acknowledged within its stage 2 response that a previous OT assessment had stated that the resident may require a wet room in the future. It therefore advised her to contact the OT if she felt a new assessment was required because she felt she now needed a wet room.
The resident escalated this issue to this Service indicating that she was unhappy with the landlord’s advice. We consider however that the advice was in line with its policy which itself is fair and reasonable.
Overall, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request that it install a wet room by signposting her to her OT for a further assessment. Therefore there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to her request for a wet room.

Handling of the resident’s request for a permanent transfer.

The landlord’s allocations policy states that it operates a nomination agreement and offers a percentage of its available properties for nominations from the local authority. It does also allow existing residents of the landlord to apply for a transfer but this is dependent on local nominations percentages.
The landlord also operates a management transfer policy. This is only applicable where a resident is experiencing serious antisocial behaviour, harassment, or domestic abuse.
Within its stage 2 response to Complaint 3 the landlord advised that the resident did not meet the threshold for a management move. This was in line with its policy. The landlord clearly explained this to the resident in its response.
The landlord also explained that its properties were advertised through the local authority’s CBL system. It demonstrated that it had reasonably considered the issue by checking the resident’s priority banding and bidding history. This was positive.
The landlord pointed out that the resident had not placed a bid on the CBL system for some time. We consider that it may have been clearer for the landlord to explicitly advice the resident to bid on properties more regularly in order to increase her chances of being rehoused sooner. It could also reasonably have signposted her for support in case she was struggling with the bidding process. This was shortcoming by the landlord.
Overall, while the landlord did miss some opportunities to offer additional support to the resident, its response was reasonable and in line with its own policy. Therefore there was no maladministration in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for a permanent transfer.

Handling of the complaint.

At the time of the complaint the landlord was operating an ‘interim’ complaints policy. It aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that if a resident has any rent arrears, compensation payments will be offset against these. It is highlighted that the Ombudsman considers that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. This applies regardless of whether the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to do this.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to Complaint 1. While it acknowledged Complaint 2 and arranged a repairs appointment, it did not log the complaint or provide a formal response despite the resident specifically stating that she was making a formal complaint. This was a failing.
It was not until this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf that the landlord formally logged a complaint (Complaint 3) and provided a response. We do not consider that a resident should have to contact this Service for the landlord to follow its own complaints process.
It took the landlord 16 working days to provide its stage 1 response to Complaint 3. While this was within the timeframe of its interim complaints policy, it is outside the 10 working day timeframe outline in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 3 failed to address all aspects of the complaint. It did not acknowledge or address the damage to the resident’s furniture and belongings or her request for a permanent transfer as the property was not suitable for her mobility needs. The Code states that landlords “must address all points raised in the complaint definition”, that it did not do so was therefore a further failing.
The landlord acknowledged some service failings and offered £200 compensation. While this went some way to demonstrating that it wished to put matters right it had not resolved the substantive issue of complaint. Nor does this Service consider that the compensation offered was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint after 23 working days. While this is slightly outside the timeframe within the Code the delay was not unreasonable.
The landlord advised within its complaint response that the resident should make an insurance claim for the damaged items either through her own policy or through the landlord’s. This Service considers that a landlord should initially at least consider whether there is any evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage to a complainant’s property or belongings. It should not just refer complainants straight to an insurer. While it was not unreasonable that the landlord signposted the resident to an insurer, we have not seen evidence that it considered its fault in the matter. This was a failing.
The landlord’s complaint process did not however resolve the issues the resident was reporting. We have not seen evidence that all the works outlined in the response have been completed and the resident continued to report damp and mould. Nor did landlord’s increased offer of £350 compensation provide proportionate redress for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
Overall, the landlord failed to record or respond to the resident’s first 2 complaints in 2022. This was a failing to adhere to the Code and to its own policy. The landlord’s handling of Complaint 3 has failed to resolve the substantive issue and has failed to provide reasonable redress. Therefore there has been maladministration in its complaint handling.
The average social rent of a 2-bed property in the area in which the resident lives is approximately £500 per month. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property has been affected by outstanding repair issues. For the purposes of this investigation, we consider this as being from June 2021 to July 2024 (37 months).
Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £4,623 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 25% of the total rent during the period in question. We consider that as every room in the property was impacted by black mould and some were also impacted by fungus, this would have significantly reduced the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property.
It is stressed that the loss of amenity payment is not intended to be a rent refund, or rebate. Rather, rent provides an objective basis for approximating the loss of amenity. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.

Record keeping

There have been several instances in this case where the landlord’s record keeping has impacted its handling of the substantive issue and also our investigation.
It is noted that several important pieces of information were not included in the landlord’s initial information submission and we had to issue a further information request.
The landlord’s system has no records of vulnerabilities or disabilities for the resident. This is despite the resident having repeatedly highlighted her disabilities and health conditions.
The landlord has been unable to ascertain from its repair system why an inspection of the property that was due to take place in June 20224 was cancelled. It has also been unable to find information regarding a local authority environmental health team inspection despite having access to the information 2 months earlier.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records so it can satisfy itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman). That it did not in this case was a failing.
Following record keeping issues identified in another recent case (202233437) the landlord carried out a self-assessment against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management. No further orders have therefore been made as we are optimistic that there will be an improvement in the landlord’s practices because of improvements identified in the self-assessment.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould caused by leaks at the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a wet room.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a permanent transfer.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord to apologise to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.
2. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £5,023 which comprises:
  1. £4,623 for reduced use and enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £200 for time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
  3. £200 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. This amount is inclusive of any compensation already paid by the landlord. Any compensation paid in relation to this complaint should be deducted from the award.
3. The landlord to arrange and complete a full inspection of the property. Within 2 weeks of the inspection it should provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of works and a timeframe for its completion.
4. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to conduct staff training to all staff involved in complaint handling. The training should cover the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It should also make clear that all complaints should be formally logged and responded to within the timescales outlined in the Code and its own policy.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review the resident’s solicitors inspection report and determine whether it should complete any works that have been recommended.
2. Monitor the effectiveness of the works it has completed in relation to resolving the damp and mould and schedule quarterly inspections to ensure that the issue has been resolved.