Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202225302)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225302

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant with the landlord, a housing association and lives in a 2-bedroom house with his partner and 2 children.
  2. The resident first reported problems of damp and mould in the loft and damp patches on his ceiling at his property in 2013. These reports continued between 2018 and 2023 before the resident raised a formal complaint about the issue on 19 January 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 February 2023. It advised that its repairs team had responded to reports of damp and mould and conducted work to try and eradicate the issue. However, it was investigating an issue with damp and mould on a wider scale and would update the resident about any future works.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 March 2023 and the landlord replied with its stage 2 response on 11 May 2023. The landlord said:
    1. Its repairs team had attended each time the resident reported issues of damp and mould and carried out various works. This included the installation of vents.
    2. The issue of damp and mould has affected several properties within the resident’s estate, and it had attributed these faults to the developer of the buildings. It was currently in negotiations with the developer to resolve the problems, but due to the sensitivity of the matter it could not divulge further information.
    3. That while it could not carry out repairs to address the source of the problem, its repairs team would continue to respond to the resident’s reports appropriately.
    4. It apologised that more information about the wider issue was not given at stage 1, and it would provide an update on the matter within 6 weeks. It also offered compensation of £150, broken down as:
      1. £50 for the failure to provide adequate stage 1 information.
      2. £50 for the failure to provide updates following stage 1.
      3. £50 for the delay in issuing a stage 2 response.
  4. The Ombudsman understands that remedial work to the resident’s property took place in April 2024 and that the landlord is monitoring the situation to ensure the damp and mould does not return.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Complaint

  1. Although it there is a long history of damp and mould reports made by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from January 2022 onwards. These were the reports that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is for 2 reasons, first paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. Despite the resident stating he had raised previous complaints with the landlord, the evidence shows that the only complaint to exhaust the landlord’s complaint procedure was the raised on 19 January 2023.
  2. Secondly, paragraph 42.b. says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were either brought to the attention of this Service more than 12 months after the complaint procedure had been. Therefore, even if complaints prior to January 2023 were raised with the landlord these complaints would not fall within the scope of this investigation.

Handling of damp and mould

  1. It is noted for context that the resident had raised several issues with damp and mould in his loft between 2018 and 2021. The landlord dealt with these reports and carried out various inspections and mould treatments. In July 2021 work was conducted to introduce larger vents on the resident’s property to try and increase air flow and resolve the issue. A developer built the estate in 2011 and by July 2021 it was known to the landlord there was a wider issue with damp and mould related to roofing.
  2. On 11 January 2022 the resident reported that there was damp and mould in his loft. He told the landlord that there was a history of reoccurring damp and mould. The landlord attended the property on 11 February 2022, but there are no records to show what work it completed or if any follow-on work was required. On the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that the landlord failed to arrange follow on work after the February 2022 report. This is because the resident chased the landlord about the damp and mould issue on 27 May 2022 and asked when the landlord planned to conduct the repair as per the 11 February appointment.
  3. In addition to the above, after the resident chased the issue, the landlord failed to contact him or arrange any further work until he called again on 15 December 2022. After the resident’s call on 15 December 2022 the landlord asked its repair team to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property. The delay of 10 months between the first appointment on 11 February 2022 and the landlord arranging an inspection was unreasonable. This was outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescale which says that it will offer an appointment within 28 calendar days of a repair report. This delay increased the resident’s frustration and added to his feeling that the landlord did not know how to properly fix the matter he originally reported in 2013.
  4. Throughout 2022 the landlord had internal conversations about action it could take with the developer of the resident’s property to fix the issues raised. Following the resident’s report on 15 December 2022, the landlord communicated internally that the situation with damp and mould would not be resolved “overnight” as there was a major piece of work being undertaken in relation to a latent defect and potential claim with the developer. While it is understandable that this may have contributed to the delay in acting and arranging appointments for the resident, no updates explaining this were provided. Instead, the resident was not told about why there was no permanent fix to the problems he was reporting. This failure to effectively communicate the reasons for any delay in acting was unreasonable during the same January 2022 and December 2022 period.
  5. The resident chased the landlord again on 9 January 2023 about the damp and mould as he had not received any appointment notification. The resident told the landlord that he would only be available on Fridays for appointments due to work commitments. Despite this, the landlord arranged an appointment for Thursday 26 January 2023 and left a no access card which said it was, “in discussion with builders that build houses to find a solution”. This further delay of 27 working days was unreasonable and reinforced the resident’s view that the landlord was not managing his repair correctly.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 February 2023. In this response the landlord told the resident for the first time that issues surrounding damp and mould at his property were being investigated on a wider scale. It advised that an update on the action it had taken would be provided to the resident alongside an indicative timeline of when it would resolve the matter fully. The landlord also said that interim measures would be put in place and that the resident would be contacted directly for the works to be organised.
  7. The landlord did arrange for a contractor to attend on Monday 20 February 2023 to complete some interim measures. However, the resident asked for this to be rearranged and repeated to the landlord that he was only available on Fridays. The landlord asked its planning team on 9 March 2023 to contact the resident to rearrange the appointment, however, there is no evidence that the job was rearranged. This failure to follow through with the interim measures it said it would take in its stage 1 response was unreasonable. The resident had been waiting over a 1 year for the landlord to take steps to fix the damp and mould in his loft and this failure increased the resident’s overall distress and frustration.
  8. On 11 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. Within this response it acknowledged that it had failed to provide updates as promised in the stage 1 response and that there had been some delays in escalating the complaint. The landlord offered a total of £150 for these failures and it is positive that the landlord took time to recognise there were some issues with how the complaint had been handled. The landlord also explained that it was conducting high-level negotiations with the developer to try and resolve the damp and mould issue, but that the resident should continue to report any issues he may have so that the individual issues could be addressed “as and when required”.
  9. Despite the landlord advising the resident that it would continue addressing the damp and mould issues reported, this is not what happened after the stage 2 response was sent. The landlord’s contractor was due to attend in July 2023 to conduct a “MOT” of the resident’s property in relation to the damp and mould, however, these appointments were missed without reason and eventually were rearranged for 8 March 2024. When the contractor attended in March it said that “there was nothing I could do with the mould in the loft.” Therefore, the statement by the landlord in its stage 2 response was misleading, in that its contractors were unable to remedy the issue of damp and mould being reported. This failure to meet the actions it had set out in its stage 2 complaint response continued to have an impact on the resident at what was already a distressing time.
  10. The remedial works to the loft were completed in April 2024, and the landlord is currently monitoring the situation to ensure that these works have resolved the damp and mould issue. However, in the period covered by this complaint the resident reported the damp and mould issue on 11 January 2022 and the landlord failed to correct this issue until 23 April 2024. This was a delay of almost 2 years and 5 months. This was unreasonable and far outside its own policy timescales. This had a significant impact on the resident who said that he was very distressed and frustrated at the landlord’s actions.
  11. The Ombudsman appreciates that there is a mitigating factor for this delay which was the negotiations between the landlord and the developer. However, this issue does not supersede the landlord’s obligations to its resident. The resident tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for conducting certain repairs which includes the structure and exterior of the building, such as the roof. It is expected that the landlord will complete a full, effective, and lasting repair within a reasonable time from the date it was reported. 
  12. Had the landlord followed through with its intention to complete temporary measures then it could have been viewed as conducting a lasting repair within a reasonable time. However, between January 2022 and April 2024, there is no evidence to show that the landlord carried out any temporary or interim measures to resolve the damp and mould issue despite this being reported numerous times. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord failed to comply with its obligations and the impact to the resident stemming from the delay was because of the landlord’s actions.
  13. The impact to the resident was worsened as the landlord failed to provide any relevant and prompt communication about the actions it was taking with the developers to try and resolve the issue. While it is understood that the landlord could not divulge detailed information about its conversations, it could have provided updates on the length of time it expected the negotiations to take. These updates could have been made regularly to give some clarity and manage the resident’s expectations.
  14. The Ombudsman has considered if the failures identified above amount to severe maladministration. However, the main impact to the resident was the frustration caused by the delay in completing works to resolve the damp and mould issue. There is mitigation for this impact as even if the landlord had arranged for interim measures and communicated effectively with the resident, the delay to complete a lasting repair would likely have remained the same. This is because the landlord was reliant on a legal process between itself and the developer resolving before it could take appropriate action to complete an effective and lasting repair. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration.
  15. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord did not consider its handling of the damp and mould issue to be a failure and so did not make an offer to resolve this complaint. As a remedy the resident requested a refund of rent be considered. This would usually be an appropriate remedy if the resident had lost use of a room in the property and the Ombudsman has considered if compensation should be given for a loss of use of a room. However, there is no evidence to suggest the damp and mould issue prevented the resident from using or enjoying any room at his home. Therefore, the impact to the resident is one of distress, inconvenience and frustration. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies suggests a payment of between £600 to £1,000 where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Based on this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 in addition to the £150 it offered for other failures at stage 2 of its complaint process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident reports of damp and mould.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £800 compensation for the distress and frustration caused by its failings, in addition to the £150 it already offered.