Clarion Housing Association Limited (202229815)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229815

Clarion Housing Association Limited

1 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould in the living room.
2. Reports of a mice infestation.
3. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

Since 15 July 2015 the resident has been an assured tenant of a 4-bedroom house. There are 5 people living at the property, including young children, and there are no recorded vulnerabilities.
On 22 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord and said that the year before she had reported that rainwater was damaging the living room ceiling, due to faulty drainage on the terrace. She had also reported this to contractors who had attended her neighbour’s property, they said they would look into it and get back to her, but they never did. Since then, the condition of the ceiling had worsened and she asked the landlord to resolve this issue. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 24 November 2021.
The resident sent another email on 27 November 2021. She said water was now leaking into the living room and onto her sofa and the laminate flooring. She asked that this be resolved as a matter of urgency.
The landlord acknowledged this additional report on 30 November 2021, and a roofer attended the property on 23 December 2021.
The resident chased the landlord on 15 February 2022, stating she had spoken to the area manager on 1 February 2022 but had not heard back from them. She said the issues with the terrace had been ongoing for over a year and a half but nothing had been done to fix it.
On 31 October 2022 the resident again raised issues involving water leaking into her living room with the landlord. A roofer attended the property on 28 November 2022 and 30 January 2023, however in neither instance were they able to complete any works to resolve the ongoing leak.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 2 February 2023. She said she had been trying to get the landlord to fix the terrace for 3 years, it was now leaking water into the living room, and had caused severe damp and mould on the ceiling. She also said that recently mice had started coming into the property through the drains and damp ceiling.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 April 2023, it acknowledged that there had been service failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, a mice infestation, and damp and mould. In recognition of these failings and the impact on the resident it offered £600 compensation.
A pest control visit was conducted on 20 April 2023 and bait stations were placed in the kitchen. A follow up visit was scheduled for 2 weeks later.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 April 2023, stating that:
1. She had been reporting damp and mould to the landlord since 2020, not 2022 as it had said in its stage 1 response.
2. The £600 offered was not enough to compensate her for the length of time it was taking to rectify the issues.
3. The laminate flooring in the living room had been damaged by the leak and needed to be replaced.
4. She had spent 2 winters without closing her curtains to prevent them from being damaged, this had cost her a lot of money to keep the room warm because the windows and doors let draughts in.
The resident sent a further email on 2 May 2023 to confirm she rejected the landlord’s offer of £600 compensation and she wanted the complaint escalated to stage 2. She also said she felt a compensation offer of £3,500 or more would be more appropriate given the service she had received.
On 3 and 15 May 2023 further pest control visits took place. In both instances the bait stations were untouched and no dead mice were found.
On 22 May 2023 a roofer attended the property and carried out works on the terrace as well as the damp and mould in the living room.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 30 June 2023 stated the following:
1. It acknowledged there had been a delay in escalating and responding to the resident’s complaint, it offered a total of £150 compensation for these failings.
2. The attendance on 20 April 2023, mentioned in the stage 1 response, did not resolve the issues and was rescheduled for 22 May 2023. The contractors cut out plasterboard and removed a section of the balcony to allow the surveyor to investigate. As a result the landlord was now aware of the issue and the repairs required to resolve it, which had been scheduled for 29-30 July 2023.
3. The surveyor’s report had confirmed the damp and mould was as a direct result of the balcony issue above the living room ceiling.
4. It acknowledged the leak was reported on 26 October 2020, but the stage 1 response only awarded £300 compensation which was calculated from 31 October 2022 until the planned repair on 20 April 2023. As such it offered a further £400 calculated from 26 October 2020 to 30 October 2022.
5. While the resident had reported the leak in 2020, at that time there was no mention of damp and mould. The first mention of this was on 15 February 2022. Therefore it offered £750 compensation for the period of 15 February 2022 to the end of July 2023 when the repairs would take place.
6. The issues the resident had reported with the door would be investigated during the visit on 17 July 2023.
7. The ceiling works would be conducted once the balcony works were completed and those issues resolved.
8. Any damage to the laminate flooring would need to be raised with the resident’s home contents insurer. However, the landlord also provided its own public liability insurance details.
9. The landlord awarded a further £150 for the extended time taken to resolve the repair issues.
10. It awarded £200 in recognition of her inability to close the curtains and associated loss of privacy due to concerns the damp and mould could damage them.
11. Overall, the landlord awarded a further £1,650 compensation, bringing the total compensation amount offered to £2,250.
On 3 July 2023 the resident contacted this Service and confirmed she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. In an email dated 19 July 2023 she confirmed she was unhappy because the landlord had not acknowledged that she had been reporting issues with damp and mould since 2020, not just since February 2022. To resolve the complaint she wanted the landlord to acknowledge that she had been reporting damp and mould since 2020, offer additional compensation to reflect the actual timeframe of these reports and repair the terrace to a very high standard to prevent any further damage to the living room.
The landlord’s records show that on 30 July 2023 all works at the resident’s property were completed and the resident has not referred to any outstanding works.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy states that non-emergency repairs will be completed as soon as possible but within 28 days, this includes repairs relating to leaks, condensation or damp and mould. The landlord’s repair records show the issues relating to the resident’s reports of damp and mould were logged as ‘routine’ (i.e. non-emergency) repairs.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident is vulnerable and should be moved from the property at an early stage.
Although the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response states the resident’s first recorded report of damp and mould was on 15 February 2022, the resident has provided a screenshot of an email dated 22 November 2021, the subject of this email is “extensive rainwater penetration, damp and mould and damage to living room ceiling due to inadequate/faulty drainage on terrace above”. The landlord acknowledged this email on 9 December 2021.
Therefore, based on this email, it was in November 2021 when the resident first reported damp and mould and not February 2022.
It has been noted that the email does not provide any details about the extent of the damp and mould at the property. That said, the housing health and safety rating system places an obligation on landlords to assess whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. While the Spotlight Report on damp and mould says landlords should intervene proactively and take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. However, the evidence provided does not show that an investigation into the resident’s report of damp and mould took place.
In this email the resident stated that in 2020 she had reported water damage to the living room ceiling due to inadequate drainage on the terrace. The resident maintains that her report at that time included damp and mould, however copies of communications from 2020 have not been provided to evidence this.
Additionally, the landlord’s repair records only confirm the property was visited in November 2020 in relation to a leak from guttering on the terrace, there is no mention of damp and mould at that time.
Although the resident has said she first reported damp and mould in November 2020, there is no evidence to support this.
Following the resident’s email on 22 November 2021 a roofer attended the property on 23 December 2021. However, the repair records do not provide any details about what works, if any, were carried out and only says a variation order was requested. By ordering the incorrect works to fix the issues at the resident’s property, the landlord caused an avoidable delay in repairs being enacted.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 8 March 2022 an order was raised for a dye test to determine the level of water penetration and accessibility to the living room ceiling. This record shows the test was completed on 12 July 2022. Although there is no explanation as to why it took over 4 months, which is outside of the timescale in the landlord’s repair policy, for the test to be completed.
The stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that a roofer had attended the property on 28 November 2022 and 10 January 2023, but in neither instance were they able to complete the works.
Additionally, the landlord’s records show the visit on 10 January 2023 was for the purpose of conducting a dye test. However, it is not clear why a dye test was needed in January 2023 when one had already been carried out in July 2022. Unnecessarily repeating a test that had already been carried out caused a further avoidable delay to the repairs and indicates poor record keeping practices by the landlord.
As set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management, clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents.
The repair records provided show there were multiple visits between 22 February 2022 and 22 May 2023, but often provide little or no details about what works were conducted or why any works could not be completed. It is also unclear from these records as to when the mould in the property was removed, or indeed if it has been. All of which indicates a failure in the landlord’s record keeping and monitoring procedures, which in turn led to avoidable delays in responding and resolving the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The records contain an entry dated 30 July 2023 stating all works on the terrace had been completed, although the record makes no mention of works carried out to resolve the damp and mould inside the property. The resident has also told this Service that the hole in the ceiling, created during a diagnostic investigation on 22 May 2023, was not fixed until around October 2023.
Based on all the above and the period of time involved, the landlord has failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The policy states that non-urgent repairs such as leaks or damp and mould will be completed within 28 days, however in this instance it took around a year and 8 months for an effective repair to the leak to be carried out.
The landlord’s records show that it intended to treat any damp and mould at the property after the balcony repairs had been completed. In some cases it is reasonable to treat the cause of damp and mould before rectifying the damp and mould itself. However, the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out that in instances where the repairs will take time, then the landlord should carry out interim repairs and remove the mould to prevent ongoing damage to the property and limit the impact on its resident.
This would be of particular relevance when there is damp and mould in a property where young children live, as in this case. However, in this instance the resident often had to chase the landlord for updates on the outstanding repairs and there is no evidence that interim repairs were carried out either to the terrace or the damp and mould in the property.
Overall, the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failure to:
1. Adhere to the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
2. Keep adequate records.
3. Adequately communicate with the resident.
Cumulatively these failures amount to maladministration as they led to an unnecessary and extended delay in a repair being enacted. This in turn caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience as well as impacting her enjoyment of the home. This was due to the leaks falling onto her sofa, damaging the flooring and her not being able to close the curtains due to the mould during the year and 8 months it took for the repairs to be completed.
It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the service failings and uphold this element of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 2, offering a total of £1,600 compensation.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration overall, the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £1,600 offered for the delay in actioning the reports of the leak as well as the damp and mould is reflective and proportionate to the impact of the delay on the resident. This is because the landlord has addressed its repeated delays to repairing the terrace and the leak it caused, and it has adequately compensated the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays.
However, the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles state that when resolving complaints landlords have to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this instance, no evidence has been seen to show that the landlord has identified any learning or made improvements to prevent similar failings occurring in future. As such the ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration in this respect.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a mice infestation

The landlord’s stage 1 response says that the resident first reported an infestation of mice on 1 February 2023, however this was not raised with the relevant team and no orders to address the mice were raised. The response also confirms that an order for a 3-part rodent treatment had been raised.
Given that the stage 1 response was dated 17 April 2023, this means there was a 2-month delay in the landlord taking any action to resolve the matter.
The landlord’s records show the first pest control treatment took place on 20 April 2023, the contractor set up bait station in the kitchen and a follow up was scheduled for 2 weeks later.
When the contractor returned on 3 May 2023 they found that there had been “no fresh or current pest activity noted by way of rodenticide consumption…bait stations have been serviced and maintained with no dead or carcases found at time of today’s visit”. A third visit took place on 15 May 2023 and again found “no rodenticide consumption or dead or carcases found”, as such the bait traps were removed and the works marked as complete.
It is appreciated that in an email to this Service dated 19 February 2024 the resident said that she had had to take it upon herself to get rid of the mice because “pest control came approximately 2 time in 2023 in September and have not returned since”. However, the evidence seen does not support this as the pest control reports show that no evidence of rodent activity was found.
That said there was a service failure caused by the unnecessary delay in the landlord recording and actioning the resident’s report of mice. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this service failing and uphold the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and offer £150 compensation.
Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £150 offered for the delay in actioning the report of mice is reflective and proportionate to the impact of the delay on the resident. This is because the landlord has adequately compensated the resident for the inconvenience caused by the delays.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

Under the landlord’s interim complaints policy in place at the time, a stage 1 complaint will be responded to within 20 working days and where it is unable to do so the landlord will provide reasons for this and manage the resident’s expectations regarding what it can do until systems have been restored. It also says that if the landlord needs more time, then it will provide an action plan outlining what it intends to do and if possible, provide a timeline of when the complaint response will be issued.
For stage 2 complaints, called “peer reviews”, the policy states these will be acknowledged within 10 working days and the landlord will aim to complete the investigation within 40 working days. If it is unable to do so it will contact the resident and explain why it has been unable to resolve the complaint, provide a timescale of what is involved in order to resolve the complaint and if possible, approximately how long the investigation will take. The landlord will also agree the frequency with which the landlord will keep the resident updated.
Under normal circumstances the landlord’s 40 working days timescale for responding to a stage 2 complaint would not comply with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, as this states the response must be issued within 20 working days. However, in this case the extended timescale was agreed with the Ombudsman as an interim measure following a cyber incident.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 2 February 2023, as such the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response had to be issued by 2 March 2023. However, the stage 1 complaint response was not issued until 17 April 2023, which was 31 working days late.
Additionally, evidence has not been seen to show that the landlord contacted the resident to explain why there was a delay nor to agree an action plan as per the complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 April 2023, as such based on the landlord’s complaints policy it had until 28 June 2023 to issue its complaint response.
In this instance the stage 2 complaint response was issued on 30 June 2023. While this response was 2 days late, this was only a minor delay.
Overall, the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failure to:
1. Adhere to the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
2. Adequately communicate with the resident.
It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the service failings and uphold this element of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 2, offering a total of £300 compensation.
Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, the total amount of £300 offered for the delay in logging and responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint is proportionate to the circumstances of the case and was sufficient to put right its complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports of damp and mould in the living room.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about a mice infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks the landlord must apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s management team and should follow the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, within the next 6 weeks the landlord must carry out a review of its response to the leak in this case. The review should identify what went wrong and what it will do differently in future to prevent similar failures being repeated. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Why the delays identified in this case occurred.
2. Why there were multiple visits without a lasting repair being enacted.
3. If there are other properties on the development affected by the issues found in this case. If so, it should take appropriate steps to rectify these issues.
4. The landlord should send a copy of the review to this service and a summary of the review to the resident.