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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202310522)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310522

Clarion Housing Association Limited

13 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s
    1. repair requests.
    2. reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2009. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the first floor. The landlord holds no records of vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 21 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord why a bathroom refurbishment had not taken place. The landlord surveyed the bathroom on 23 March 2022. On 11 April 2022, the landlord told the resident that its 2022-23 program was fully committed due to a supply chain issue and the bathroom had been added to the 2023-24 program.
  3. On 29 April 2022, the resident raised a complaint. He said that his bathroom had been in a state of constant disrepair, and he would not wait until 2023-24. On the same day, the landlord replied and said that planned to replace his bathroom within the next 5 years. It said the resident should continue to report repairs.
  4. On 10 May 2022, the resident said that the recent surveyor told him that a bathroom refurbishment was the best course of action, as was the front door and kitchen. He said that these issues should be accepted as a complaint. The landlord replied on the same day and said that it had explained that his bathroom is not due for renewal until 2023/24 and because it had not received any recent repair requests for the bathroom, it would not accept the resident’s complaint, in line with its policy.
  5. On 3 October 2022, the resident reported a leak from a large pipe in his kitchen. The leak caused damp and mould in the storage area where he stored food. On 12 October 2022, the landlord attended and found that an internal stench pipe was leaking when it rained. It cleared 3 rain gullies and noted that scaffolding was required to repair the stench pipe. On 7 November 2022, it assessed the resident’s kitchen and noted that the kitchen cupboard was wet and damp. On 14 November 2022, a contractor provided a quote for scaffolding to investigate the issue further.
  6. On 22 November 2022, the resident reported that the toilet in his bathroom was not flushing, the wash hand basin was coming away from the wall, the bathroom was in an overall bad state of repair. On 24 November 2022, the resident reported that extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen were not powerful enough. On 9 December 2022, the landlord completed the repair of the extractor fans and on 16 December 2022, the resident refused access for the landlord to repair the toilet flush and wash hand basin.
  7. On 23 December 2022, the resident raised a complaint. He said that his property had been in disrepair for months and asked the landlord to raise a complaint about the roof works and internal repairs. He said he had not had use of his kitchen for months. On the same day, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and agreed to investigate and provide him with weekly updates. On 16 January 2023, a contractor identified major roof works. It completed a temporary repair but could not guarantee that the repair would last long in preventing water ingress.
  8. On 25 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It found that it had failed to action the reports of mould in the kitchen. It raised an urgent appointment to address the mould. It upheld the complaint about the roofing works. It identified delays which had caused inconvenience. It advised that a roofing repair was booked for 13 February 2023. It did not uphold the complaint about the bathroom because it had advised the resident that the bathroom refurbishment was part of its planned works, which would begin on 16 February 2023. It found no service failure in its response to repair requests for the front door or windows. It found that the resident refused appointments to upgrade the windows and that it would replace the windows if the resident would agree an appointment. The landlord offered £800 compensation, broken down as:
    1. £650 inconvenience, time and trouble chasing, roof repair, and failure to follow policy and treat mould.
    2. £150 for the repair delay.  
  9. On 1 February 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the remedy offered was not sufficient. He said that the landlord had not investigated all channels of communication between the resident and landlord and as a result its complaint investigation was incomplete. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
  10. On 26 February 2023, the landlord sent a further acknowledgement to the resident’s complaint escalation request. On 30 March 2023, the landlord explained that it was experiencing high volumes of complaints and would provide its stage 2 complaint response by 1 May 2023. On 28 April 2023, and 5 May 2023, the landlord said that it was not yet in a position to provide its stage 2 complaint response. On 30 May 2023, it said it would update the resident about the complaint by the end of the week.
  11. On 23 June 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delay in providing a complaint response. It provided a breakdown of its findings in respect of each repair.
    1. Damp and mould. It said that the resident refused the damp and mould treatment it raised because he felt the extent of the damage to the kitchen cupboards meant that it required a refurbishment. As a resolution, the landlord said it would survey the kitchen and draw up a full scope of works.
    2. Bathroom. It said that the resident refused the bathroom refurbishment because he did not agree with the scope of the works. These works had now been moved to 2023-24 planned works.
    3. Roof. It said it had completed roof repairs on 13 February 2023 and additional works were completed on 22 May 2023. It apologised for the disruptions caused by the roofing works.
    4. Front door. In respect to the door replacement in late 2021 it said that there was a delay in sourcing the correct door which delayed the repair. It noted the resident’s comments about the finish and as a resolution, it booked a repair to varnish the door on 26 June 2023.
    5. Windows. The landlord found no service failure in respect of its response to window repair requests.

The landlord identified and apologised for further service failings and offered further compensation of £415, compromising:

  1. £165 for inconvenience, repeat visits and, a missed appointment.
  2. £100 for delay in sourcing a replacement door.
  3. £50 for failure to raise a complaint.
  4. £100 delay in responding to complaint.
  1. On 23 June 2023, the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He remained unhappy because there were outstanding repairs and damp and mould in the property. He felt that he should not have had to pay full rent because the property was in disrepair. As a resolution, he wanted increased compensation, improved complaint handling processes and, outstanding repairs to be completed.

Events after the internal complaint process 

  1. On 26 June 2023, the landlord completed the repair to the front door.
  2. On 30 June 2023, the resident refused access to treat damp and mould in the kitchen.
  3. On 17 July 2023, the landlord asked the resident to allow access so it could complete the mould treatment and book follow on works. The resident refused because he wanted all work to be carried out, not just the mould treatment.
  4. On 20 July 2023, the landlord completed repairs to a window.
  5. On 6 September 2023, a resident liaison officer for the landlord arranged to meet with the resident in respect of accessing the property for repair. It is not clear if this meeting took place.
  6. On 9 October 2023, the resident reported that his kitchen was covered in mould and was in a very bad state. He wanted the whole kitchen to be repaired at once and also requested a property move because of the property condition. The landlord attempted to book access to assess the property by phone 3 times in October and emailed him on 27 October 2023 to request his availability.
  7. On 10 November 2023, the resident reported that the property had been in disrepair for a year, and he wanted a permanent move.
  8. On 16 November 2023, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey of the property. It recommended works that included mould washes throughout the property, a new timber door in the storage area of the kitchen, and an upgrade of a ventilation fan in the bathroom.
  9. The landlord carried out recommended repairs in December 2023 and January 2024.
  10. On 7 February 2024, the resident reported to the Housing Ombudsman Service that his kitchen still had mould and mildew and dry rot to the storage areas. He said that the kitchen and bathroom required decoration following the treatments. As a resolution, he wanted to be rehoused and to be awarded an appropriate level of compensation. He said that his mental health was suffering, and he had concerns about the air quality and had increased costs in heating and the purchase of a dehumidifier and sealed multicooker.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman is aware that events relating to the resident’s reports of damp and mould took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 23 June 2023. For fairness, and completeness, the Ombudsman has considered events up until 7 February 2024. At this point the landlord had carried out repairs to the kitchen because of damp and mould which was a resolution to the complaint, however, the resident remained dissatisfied.
  2. The resident has explained how the landlord’s handling of his property repairs had caused his mental health to deteriorate. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out its timeframes for responding to repair requests. The landlord has 2 main categories of responsive repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs, which present an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property should be attended within 24 hours and made safe.
    2. Non-emergency repairs are appointed “at residents’ convenience” within 28 calendar days.
  2. Major repairs such as kitchens, bathrooms, and roofs are not classed as responsive repairs and are delivered through its planned programmes.
  3. It is sometimes the case that a landlord is not able to keep to defined timeframes, as the circumstances surrounding each repair can differ, and further works may be identified after initial investigation. In such cases, basic good practice is for a landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and take meaningful steps to resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible.
  4. The landlord identified and acknowledged failings in its repair responses through its complaint responses. When a landlord has accepted failings, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. For clarity, this investigation will assess the landlord’s response to each repair request separately.

      Bathroom

  1. The resident’s initial complaint was in respect of the bathroom refurbishment. The landlord surveyed the bathroom and communicated that the bathroom was on its planned program for the following financial year. It asked the resident to continue to report responsive repairs for the bathroom. This was an appropriate initial response by the landlord.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord responded appropriately to responsive repairs for the bathroom throughout the period of the complaint. In its complaint response, it identified that it had missed 1 appointment to survey the bathroom and offered redress of £15 in line with its compensation policy. This was appropriate when it identified this failing.
  3. While the records are not clear, it is evident that there was a dispute about the scope of the works for the bathroom refurbishment. The landlord informed the resident that it could not remove a coal bunker from the bathroom as it would potentially compromise the structure of the building. The landlord explained that the bathroom refurbishment had been added to its planned works for the next financial year. While it is acknowledged that the resident was disappointed with this finding, it was a reasonable position for the landlord to take, as it is entitled to rely on the findings of its appropriately qualified staff.

      Roof

  1. The landlord accepted that there was a delay in responding to the roof repair in its complaint response. The evidence shows that after it received a report of a leak from the roof on 4 October 2022, it surveyed the property on 12 October 2022 and erected scaffolding within 5 weeks on 25 November 2022. However, roof repairs were not carried out until 12 January 2023. The reason for the delay is not clear, however, the landlord acknowledged this failure in its stage 1 complaint response. It offered £800 compensation for the service failures identified in its response to reports of a leak, and reports of damp and mould, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The roofing contractor carried out temporary repairs on 12 January 2023 but identified and recommended further major repairs. The landlord booked in further recommended repairs and advised the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that further recommended repairs had been booked for 22 February 2023. This was a reasonable timeframe, and the landlord updated the resident appropriately.
  3. The evidence indicates that the landlord completed recommended roofing works on 12 February 2023, but the leak remained. Further scaffolding was erected, and the landlord repair notes show that the roofing issue was resolved on 24 May 2023. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted that there was a further 3 months of roofing repair to address the leak and offered further compensation of £150 to reflect the inconvenience caused by the repeat visits and chases to resolve the problem. This was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.

        Front Door

  1. Based on the evidence, the landlord responded appropriately to reports of repair requests to the front door in the months leading up to the resident’s complaint. In its stage 2 complaint investigation, it identified that there was a 2-month delay in replacing the front door in 2021 because it could not source the required door. It offered £100 for this delay which was reasonable.

Windows

  1. The landlord’s records do not show any evidence of repair requests or complaints about the resident’s windows. When the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman, he did not specifically complain about windows. It is evident that the landlord reviewed its records since 2021 in order to provide a full complaint response. It identified that the resident had refused a window replacement in 2021 and advised the resident to contact it should he wish for these repairs to go ahead. This was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.

Conclusion

  1. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s repair requests. This is because it used its complaint process effectively to identify where things went wrong, took action to complete outstanding repairs and, it offered redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Service published a spotlight report on damp and mould report prior to this complaint. This stated that landlords should have a ‘zero tolerance approach’ to damp and mould and be proactive in identifying potential issues.
  2. It is noted that during the course of the complaint the landlord published a damp, mould, and condensation policy in February 2023. It states that after receiving a report of damp and mould problems it will inspect the property to identify the cause and consider what immediate action can be taken. If the cause is not clear it will conduct further investigations and carry out any necessary repairs in line with its repair timescales.
  3. The tenancy agreement requires the resident to allow its contractors access to the property to carry out inspections and/or works at the agreed appointment time. If it is unable to gain access, it may need to take action. For example, if the integrity of the property, its fabric, and/or the safety of residents or those in the vicinity of the property is compromised, and access is refused, it may seek an injunction in the County Court, in line with its Access for Contractors Policy and associated procedures.
  4. The landlord’s access for contractor’s policy states as follows:
  1. Failure to provide access on 2 or more occasions, will be classed as ‘no access’.
  2. The landlord will not pursue access if it is disproportionate to do so, for example, where there is no health & safety or asset risk.
  3. Cases of no access will be reviewed by a dedicated staff member and those presenting a health and safety risk will be identified.
  4. If there is sufficient evidence of 2 no access attempts, proportionate action must be taken.
  1. There is no dispute that there were failings with the landlord’s response to the reports of mould. In its stage 1 complaint response, it acknowledged that it failed to follow through with a repair order to complete a mould wash. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.
  2. The landlord’s repair notes on 7 November 2023 state “major damp ingress coming into cupboard”. It is evident that the landlord’s delay in attending to the repair caused distress to the resident who reported via social media that the landlord failed to address the damp and mould issue in the kitchen and leaking storage area. On 18 January he chased a complaint response stating that he was in fear for his health as the kitchen smelled of damp and mould.
  3. As a result of the complaint investigation, on 24 January 2023, it raised an urgent repair order to carry out mould treatment to the kitchen and offered redress for the delay. At that point, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident did not have full access to his kitchen for 3 months. The landlord offered compensation of £800 which incorporated the service failures in respect of the roof leak and the service failures in respect of the response to damp and mould. It is acknowledged that both issues were interlinked. The Ombudsman finds that this offer of compensation and its commitment to carry out an urgent mould treatment was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
  4. The resident refused access to the landlord to complete the mould treatment on 1 February 2023 because he said that the leak had not been repaired and he said that the storage area and wall in the kitchen would need to be replaced. Based on the evidence, the landlord had completed a temporary roof repair at that point, and its contractors had reported that the leak had been temporarily repaired. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have raised mould treatment works.
  5. The landlord carried out an inspection of the kitchen on 23 March 2023 and its notes show that the sink unit, kitchen units, kitchen worktop, and wall required to be renewed. A follow-on assessment of the kitchen was booked for 18 April 2023. It is not clear why the landlord needed to book a further assessment, and it is evident that this caused frustration to the resident who reported that the landlord was wasting his time and that he was without use of his kitchen.
  6. On 24 May 2023, the landlord called the resident to confirm that the roof leak had been repaired and it wanted to book an assessment of his kitchen to book follow on works. It is clear that inspections to the kitchen caused frustration to the resident, however, it is also considered that the landlord was in the process of repairing a leak to the roof which was affecting the kitchen, and the schedule of works may have changed after it confirmed that the leak was repaired. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to carry out a further inspection when the roof was repaired.
  7. On 7 June 2023, the contractors reported that the mould treatment was required before it could complete renewal works in the kitchen. The notes show that the resident refused the mould treatment on 2 further occasions and the job was cancelled due to no access on 17 July 2023. The repair notes show that the resident wanted the mould treatment and repairs completed at the same time. However, the landlord had instructed 2 different contractors, and its notes show that the mould treatment needed to be completed before the second contractor could complete the kitchen renewal works. While this was frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to instruct separate contractors to complete the work.
  8. Based on the evidence, the landlord took proportionate action to access the property to carry out mould treatment. It instructed a resident liaison officer, and the evidence indicates difficulty contacting the resident throughout October 2023. In November 2023, when the resident reported that he wanted to move permanently because of the mould. The landlord instructed a damp and mould assessor to provide a further specification of the works, and the follow-on works were complete between December 2023 and January 2024.
  9. There is no evidence that the landlord considered a court injunction to access the property, however, based on the timeframe, it was reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to continue to attempt to engage with the resident before considering that course of action.
  10. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress offered to the resident in respect of its response to reports of damp and mould. It acknowledged its initial service failure when it delayed completing a mould treatment and offered financial compensation. Thereafter, it is acknowledged that it was hampered by lack of access to the property, however, it did take proportionate action to obtain access to complete the repair.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. It sets out that landlords must recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. A service request is a request from a resident to the landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests are not complaints, but must be recorded, monitored, and reviewed regularly. A complaint must be raised when the resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to their service request, even if the handling of the service request remains ongoing”.
  2. The landlord failed to raise a complaint initially about the bathroom refurbishment because it said that it had appropriately explained its position with regards the timescales for the refurbishment. When the resident remained dissatisfied with its explanation the landlord should have acknowledged it as a complaint. The landlord acknowledged this failing and made an offer of £50 for the failing. This was a reasonable offer when it identified that failing.
  3. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  4. The landlord failed to respond to the stage 1 complaint 10 days beyond its timescales, and the stage 2 complaint response 79 days beyond its timescales. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a service failure. This failure was further exacerbated by the fact that, at stage 2, it had given an extended target timeframe to the resident, yet it exceeded this timeframe by a considerable amount of time.
  5. The landlord acknowledged this service failure and offered £100 for the delay. It is acknowledged that the landlord was in the process of carrying out repairs throughout the timeframe of complaint, before it issued a stage 2 complaint response. However, it is not realistic or practical for a landlord to address every substantive issue before providing a complaint response. In line with the Code, the landlord should have provided a complaint response when the answer to the complaint was known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue were completed.
  6. At stage 2, the landlord should put right the issues identified up until that point and commit to resolving the outstanding actions within a reasonable timescale and set out clearly to the resident how it planned to do so. The landlord’s failing caused time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the complaint and exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused by the substantive issue. The landlord acknowledged its failure and made an offer of £100 for the delay which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling. It acknowledged its failings in its complaint response, and made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion put things right for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in respect of its response to repair requests, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in respect of its response to reports of damp and mould, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, in respect of its complaint handling, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

  1. Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £1215 is paid to the resident within 4 weeks of this report, if it has not already been paid.