Clarion Housing Association Limited (202225088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225088

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. The replacement of the resident’s loft and cavity wall insulation.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She occupies a 2 bed house with her children. Her tenancy started in 2017. The landlord is a housing association.
Shortly after she moved into the property, the resident first reported to the landlord that there were items left by the last tenant that had been stored in her loft. She asked that the landlord remove them.
In 2019 the resident told the landlord that the property was very cold. She reported issues with mould in her kitchen. She asked the landlord about installing loft insulation in the property. She said that while the landlord had installed another heater in the property this had not made any impact. The landlord recorded that it would add the residence address to the loft installation list. She chased this a further 4 times.
In September 2019, the landlord recorded that it would only install loft insulation if it was renewing the roof. It said that the resident should request a heat loss survey from the gas contractor if she felt the property was not warm enough. In October 2019, the landlord replaced insulation in the areas of the roof where it was missing, but it had not assessed the efficacy of the existing insulation at that time. It highlighted that the loft hatch was missing but at the time did not raise works to replace this.
In November 2022, the resident called the landlord again about mould in her property. She said it was severe and getting on the clothes in her wardrobe. On 1 December 2022, the landlord inspected the property. It raised works to treat mould in the front and rear bedrooms, to repair the loft hatch and fit a draught excluder, and to check the loft insulation and report if it needed upgrading. It recorded that the last tenant had left items in the loft that it needed to remove.
On 7 December 2022, a specialist contractor undertook a heating and ventilation survey and informed the resident that her loft insulation was inadequate, and her radiators would need to be re-sited to heat the home effectively.
On 20 December 2022, the resident made a complaint. She said that she had been reporting to her landlord that her property was damp and cold for the last 4 years. The landlord had arranged for 5 surveyors to inspect the property, but it had not resolved the issue, apart from applying a mould wash. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the 20 December 2023 but did not give a target date for its response.
The landlord raised a job to remove items from the loft on the 21 December 2022. It is not clear from the information provided why this did not go ahead.
In December 2022, contractors were asked by the landlord to contact the resident to arrange an appointment to undertake works in the property, relating to the loft area. The contractors told the landlord that they could not carry out any works to the loft space until the landlord had removed the items left by the last tenant.
The resident chased the complaint twice in January 2023. On the 18 January 2023, she contacted this Service to ask that we intervene on her behalf. This Service sent a letter to the landlord the same day requesting a response by 8 February 2023.
On 18 January 2023, the landlord raised works to install trickle fans in the bathroom and to improve ventilation in the loft by installing a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit.
The landlord wrote to the resident with an update on 6 February 2023. It said that it would re-site the resident’s radiators on 8 February 2023. The property did not require a new Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), but that it would arrange one if the resident wanted this. It would remove the items from the resident’s loft, however the void report from before she moved to the property showed that the loft hatch was missing, and the loft was clear.
The resident responded to dispute this and to request a copy of the reports. She also said that the contractor had not told her about the appointment on the 8 February and that she would not have enough notice to take time off work to be at home to allow access. The landlord rearranged the appointment for later that month.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 February 2023. It said that contractors would be attending the property on 11 February 2023 to inspect the items for removal and would then arrange a mutually convenient appointment for the items to be removed. The landlord would then arrange to install extra loft insulation. It said that there had been a heating upgrade programme in 2018 when it had fitted new radiators in the property. In December 2022, contractors recommended that the radiators be re–sited under the resident’s bay window. The landlord instead would provide her with an extra 5 radiators throughout the property. It would also obtain a new EPC and it had already replaced the bathroom extractor fan. It apologised for its lack of communication about the works and for its late response to her complaint and offered £150 in compensation.
On 13 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as she did not believe that the works the landlord had agreed to do would resolve the problem, and that the compensation offer was too low. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 March 2023 and said that it would respond to her by 30 March 2023.
On 27 February 2023, the landlord confirmed with the contractors that it had cleared the loft. The loft insulation works were put on hold as there was a concern that the loft contained asbestos, and this would need to be tested and removed if present. The contractors undertook tests on 24 March 2023 and confirmed that the loft contained no asbestos.
On 30 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that it had rebooked the roof insulation for the 24 April 2023. It had fitted extra radiators on 27 February 2023 and the resident had told the engineer that she was satisfied with the heat output. In January 2023, contractors had inspected the door frame and damp in the resident’s bedroom ceiling and concluded that it could have been caused by water ingress from damaged guttering. It apologised for inaccuracies contained in its stage 1 complaint response that claimed that it had completed mould washes and cleared the loft as part of the voids process, when this was not correct. It also apologised for its service failure in it not undertaking recommended damp and mould works and for issuing the complaint response outside of its published timeframes. It offered the resident £350 in compensation. The resident rejected this offer and referred her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Post complaint.

The resident raised a new complaint in August 2023 and asked that the landlord escalate it in November 2023. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of these complaints, and they are outside of the scope of this investigation.
The landlord’s records show that it did not fit the loft insulation as agreed, on 24 April 2023. It is unclear from the records provided what the reasons for the delay were. It undertook a further inspection on 9 October 2023. Following the inspection, it recorded that it would need to arrange another appointment to install the loft insulation and that it would make enquiries with its planned works team about cavity wall insulation. It would also overhaul the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. It offered appointments to install the loft insulation between October and November, but they did not go ahead.
The landlord completed the installation of the loft insulation on 3 December 2023.
The resident told the landlord that she was unhappy that it had not removed the old insulation prior to installing the new insulation. The landlord arranged to review this on 12 January 2024 and then decide whether it needed to undertake further work. It also agreed to attend on 24 January 2024 to undertake a new damp and mould inspection.
In May 2024, the resident told this Service that the landlord had attended again in April 2024 and undertook a further damp and mould inspection and raised works in the kitchen and bathroom. She said that she remains unhappy with the conditions in her home.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles required landlords to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is proportionate for any maladministration or service failure found.

Scope of the investigation

Although this Service notes that the resident has been reporting issues with heat loss in the property for several years, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because the Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with their landlords promptly so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident has also informed this Service that she has raised further complaints with the landlord, and these have included her concerns about damp and mould in her bathroom and kitchen. In the interests of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint that was made in December 2022 and escalated in February 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Resolving an issue such as mould and damp in a property requires an investigative approach and where an issue is complex and unresolved, a collaborative one. The landlord is entitled to rely on the specialist opinion of an independent contractor.
In this instance, the landlord instructed a specialist contractor to attend to inspect the property and to provide recommendations to complete works to resolve the issue with heat loss, damp, and mould in the property. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take, which showed that it was taking the resident’s reports seriously.
The landlord raised works within its target response timescales of 28 days to install extra radiators in the property. It also arranged to install a PIV unit to aid air circulation in the property. There was an unreasonable delay, however, in overhauling extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, which happened in October 2023, 9 months after the property inspection.
The landlord raised a job in January 2023 to address damp and mould in the bedroom and contractors attended and concluded that the issue may relate to guttering. However, the landlord’s records do not show whether it undertook follow up works to address this, as the contractor had said that a roofer would need to inspect the guttering. This was a failing, and while it acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, the landlord has not provided details of when it would undertake this inspection.
The resident had to raise a complaint before the landlord took any action to resolve the issue for her. This was disappointing as the resident had been raising these issues with the landlord for several years. Further, she had young children who were very affected by the cold conditions in the home.
There were also communication issues between the landlord and resident. The landlord did not keep the resident informed of action it was taking or gave realistic estimates of when it would complete the works. Information it had provided about action it had taken to treat the mould was inaccurate. There was also evidence of poor internal communication, with different teams and officers reaching different conclusions, and this led to it cancelling appointments or not being suitably prepared for them. It undertook inspections, but it did not implement recommendations promptly. Most importantly, the landlord did not acknowledge or take sufficiently into account the resident’s personal circumstances, including her work commitments and the financial cost of the situation, when arranging works.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property was unsatisfactory. Its communication, both with the resident and with its internal departments, was lacking which led to it delaying works, causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of maladministration.
The landlord had acknowledged service failure in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and offered her £250 in compensation. The Ombudsman considers that the redress offered was not proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident. She had raised issues with damp in the property over a period and was concerned about the impact of the property conditions on her young family. She spent time and effort in following this up with the landlord, and ultimately having to raise a complaint. There was a significant delay by the landlord in completing the required works. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional amount of £350 in compensation. This includes an uplift, following our remedies guidance, due to aggravating factors worsening the impact on the resident. In this case, the aggravating factors are the presence of young children in the property.
The landlord has completed a self-assessment incorporating the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould where it detailed process changes in relation to record-keeping and communication it would implement in April and May 2023. While several of the issues raised in this investigation pre-date the implementation of these changes, the Ombudsman has included an order that the landlord undertake a review of this case to learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s loft and wall insulation.

The records confirm that the resident first asked the landlord to replace her loft insulation in 2019. The landlord also noted at the time that the loft hatch was missing, which would have added to the cold conditions in the property.
It is unclear from the records whether there were other reports between 2019 and 2022, when the landlord asked its heating and ventilation contractors to undertake an inspection. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of this report; however, the resident says that they had confirmed that the insulation was inadequate, and they also said that cavity wall insulation should be installed.
There was a significant delay in this happening. It took 3 months for the landlord to clear the loft of the last tenant’s belongings, although the resident has provided records that show that she had requested this at the start of her tenancy. The landlord did not have a record of this. The landlord only arranged to clear the loft after the resident had raised a complaint, which was a failing. There was a further delay due to a required asbestos test, which was necessary and unavoidable.
It then took a further 10 months for the landlord to then install the loft insulation, after it had told the resident that it would do this April 2023. The landlord has not provided an explanation for this delay. The landlord had failed to monitor the works to completion, and that it did not meet the timescales it had given the resident, therefore raising her expectations unreasonably. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to take prompt action to consider measures to address damp and thermal comfort.
Despite the recommendations from the report in December 2022, the landlord did not raise works to install cavity wall insulation until October 2023, and it referred the works to its planned works team to schedule. The landlord has not provided an update in relation to this.
The landlord’s approach to the works was poor. Its response was un-coordinated and poorly managed. Once the resident had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, there appeared to be no oversight of the outstanding works and no urgency on the landlord’s part to progress this to completion and obtain a satisfactory outcome for the resident.
Overall, while the landlord did take steps to undertake repairs in the property, the length of time over which the repairs had been outstanding, the number of inspections and failed appointments, meant that it took over 12 months to progress the works. The landlord missed opportunities to resolve this with the resident. This caused her considerable, and avoidable, distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint. This is because, despite the resident’s repeated reports of the cold conditions of the property and a specialist report which outlined the inadequate insulation in the property, the landlord did not take the appropriate steps before the resident raised a complaint. Even after it had completed the complaints process, it took the landlord a further 8 months to install the loft insulation and a date for the installation of cavity wall insulation has not yet been provided.
The landlord has not offered the resident a specific amount of compensation for its delays in installing the insulation. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident the amount of £850 in compensation for her distress and inconvenience, time, and effort in pursuing this matter with the landlord. As before, this Service has applied an uplift because of the impact of the service failure on young children in the home.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord responded at stage 1 outside of its target response deadline and after the involvement of this Service. It responded at stage 2 within its target response deadlines. The resident had highlighted that the landlord had included inaccurate information in its stage 1 response, which had caused her great distress. The landlord apologised for this in its stage 2 response and offered the resident compensation for this error, which was fair. It also apologised for its delay in response and offered compensation of £100, which was reasonable.
However, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s complaints handling. It did not monitor the agreed works to completion. There was a gap between its stage 2 response and it raising the insulation works again. This appears to have happened only after the resident raised a new complaint. This caused frustration to the resident, as well as her time and effort in chasing this up. In the circumstances, this amounts to maladministration, for which further compensation is warranted.
The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident an added amount of £150 in compensation to recognise the impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of the resident’s loft and cavity wall insulation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident the amount of £1700 in compensation as follows:
1. £600 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. £850 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the delays in the landlord installing loft and cavity wall insulation.
3. £250 because of the landlord’s ineffective complaints handling.
Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is to contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient time for a surveyor to attend the property to undertake a full damp and mould inspection of the property.
The surveyor must be asked to provide their report within 14 days following the inspection.
Within 14 days of the inspection, the landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the inspection report. Alternatively, the landlord must provide evidence of why it cannot produce the report within this timescale and set out a date by when the report will be provided.
The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure all the work in the report is completed within 56 days of the date of the surveyor’s report. The landlord must produce evidence of any reasons why it cannot make this deadline if that is the case.
Within 28 days of the date of this report, if it is to undertake the cavity wall insulation as part of a schedule of planned works, the landlord is to provide a deadline by when this will happen.
Within 56 days of the date of this report, landlord is to undertake a lessons-learned review of this case based on the failures identified in this report and consider:
1. Why the failures occurred
2. What it could do to prevent them from occurring in similar cases in the future.

A copy of the review should be provided to this Service.