Clarion Housing Association Limited (202320638)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320638

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 April 2025

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. repairs in the kitchen, living room and bathroom.
2. roof repairs and associated damp and mould in the property.
3. asbestos in the ceilings.
4. repairs to the heating and hot water in the property.
5. a pest infestation.
6. antisocial behaviour concerning a neighbour.
7. a temporary move while repairs were completed.
8. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a one-bedroom property that is owned and managed by the landlord that is a housing association. The property was let under a fixed-term tenancy agreement in October 2017. The landlord records that the resident is a vulnerable adult living with Asperger’s Syndrome and is registered disabled. He has been represented by his sister and his niece during the period of the complaint. The resident and his representatives are collectively referred to as ‘the resident.’
The resident reported various housing repairs, antisocial behaviour (ASB), and a request to be temporarily rehoused for repairs to be completed to the landlord between January 2018 and November 2023.
The Ombudsman referred the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 25 October 2023. The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of repairs and the general condition of the property, pest control issues, ASB, the provision of temporary rehousing while it completed repairs.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 13 November 2023 in which it:
1. said that matters relating to the boiler, outstanding repairs, the water tank in the loft, asbestos, the rat infestation, and his request to be rehoused while repairs were completed were part of a legal disrepair case. It said it would not address those aspects of the complaint to ensure it did not prejudice the claim.
2. said that it had inspected the property in March 2021, but it did not find any leaks or signs of water ingress. It did not receive any further reports of roof leaks until October 2023. It inspected the property, and it arranged to complete a series of 5 roof repairs on 14 November 2023. It had not identified a service failure as it had arranged the repairs within its service level agreement.
3. it summarised the ASB investigations it had completed between December 2022 and October 2023. It had obtained an injunction in January 2023, and it had closed the ASB case in October 2023 because the resident did not want the landlord to approach the perpetrator. It had followed its ASB processes in line with its policy and it had not identified any failings.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 12 March 2024. He said:
1. he had mental and physical disabilities which the landlord had been aware of, but it had not completed the repairs he had reported for over 6 years.
2. the landlord had rehoused him in a hotel on 7 November 2023 but 4 months later it had only repaired the ceiling plaster, electrics, and the chimney stack. The property was a mess, and it was unfit for human habitation.
3. he had been told that the roof repairs had been completed but it had not replaced insulation and roof tiles as it had agreed in its stage 1 response.
4. the disrepair team would be visiting the property to discuss the repairs on 14 March 2024, but he had lost confidence in the landlord’s repairs service.
5. he had experienced no heating and hot water, a leaking roof, a rat in the water tank, he was unable to close windows and doors, holes in brickwork, mould, and more. The matters had caused him stress and anxiety and had a detrimental effect on his mental health.
6. he wanted to know when his neighbour was going to be moved due to an unprovoked attack and a subsequent court sentence. He said that he was not comfortable returning to the property while the neighbour resided there.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 27 June 2024 with a copy of the repairs it had completed at the property in November 2017. The landlord said:
1. it had completed repairs to the roof, in accordance with its surveyor’s recommendations and it itemised the repairs it had completed.
2. matters listed in the disrepair claim would be addressed by its legal representatives outside of the complaint procedure. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint as it was limited in what information it could provide without prejudicing the claim.
3. it apologised for the inconvenience rehousing the resident had caused while it completed asbestos and ceiling plasterboard repairs. It had checked the work before advising the resident that he could return to the property.
4. it had held a meeting with the resident on 27 March 2024 and concluded that it had addressed all the matters contained in his complaint. However, the resident had been dissatisfied that it had not fully decorated the property and that there were broken, exposed floorboards and degraded surfaces.
5. it had completed the floorboard repairs on 12 April 2024, and it had replaced the carpeting so the resident could move back in on 26 April 2024. He had declined to do so because he said the property was dirty and because of new repairs he had identified. It said it would clean the property and complete the additional repairs when he took up occupation.
6. it had completed a further joint visit on 8 May 2024 but as the utilities had been disconnected it would check the boiler when they had been reinstated
7. it had complied with its obligations, but the resident had added items to the complaint including a tenancy management issue with a neighbour.
8. his neighbour had been convicted, but he had not breached the terms of an injunction it had put it in place. It had sought independent advice and had decided not to pursue possession action at that time. It would review the case if there were any further incidents of ASB.
9. it would offer the resident £300 for the time taken to resolve the complaint, communication failings, inconvenience, and a delay in issuing its response.
The resident confirmed in an email he sent on 16 October 2024 that he wanted the property made fit for purpose, the removal of any threats to life, and for the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that matters had caused him stress and anxiety and were having a detrimental effect on his mental health. Additionally the resident’s sister emailed the landlord on 10 June 2024 to explain that he had been struggling with his mental health due to the condition of the property and an attack from his neighbour. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are best placed to deal with this as a personal injury claim. They will have the benefit of an independent medical expert that will set out the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he should seek independent legal advice. We have instead considered whether the landlord’s actions or inactions likely caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident stated they have been reporting repairs since 2018. The Ombudsman has started this investigation from October 2022, which is 12 months before the resident’s complaint to the landlord in October 2023.

Repairs to the kitchen, living room, and bathroom

The resident’s solicitor sent a letter before claim in respect of the condition of the property to the landlord on 25 May 2023. It listed defects which included degraded plasterwork and flooring, defective windows, a defective boiler resulting in a lack of heating and hot water, ceiling cracks, defective kitchen units, damp and mould, and a rat infestation in the loft. It reported that the defects were causing inconvenience and distress to the resident, and it was of the view that the landlord had breached its repairing obligations. It proposed the joint instruction of an expert to inspect the property to provide a report, subject to the landlord’s agreement within 20 working days.
The jointly instructed expert completed the inspection and sent a copy of his report to the resident on 31 July 2023 and 10 August 2023. The resident confirmed that he agreed with the contents of the report on 10 August 2023, and he provided authority to disclose and rely on the report to his solicitor. The landlord completed the repairs identified – but we have not seen evidence of when this occurred.
The landlord reattended the property with the resident on 27 March 2024 to post inspect the repairs. The landlord noted that it had completed all of the work that had been raised within the disrepair claim. It was appropriate for the landlord to have completed the repairs and for it to have inspected the property with the resident to ensure it had addressed the repairs the expert had identified. However, in an internal email the landlord sent the next day it noted that there had still been outstanding repairs to the living room floorboards and windows which were the subject of the disrepair claim. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to have concluded it had addressed the complaint under the circumstances.
The resident had provided consent for the landlord to proceed with the inspection report on 10 August 2023, therefore it took the landlord 7 months to respond to the repairs, prior to its post-inspection. This was outside of the landlord’s 28 working day repairs policy timescales for routine repairs. It is noted that the landlord was required to move the resident from the property to complete asbestos repairs. This was likely to have taken additional time to arrange. Notwithstanding this, it was likely to have caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. Moreso, if the repairs had been outstanding for as long as the resident alleged.
It is of note, the following the inspection the landlord agreed to undertake additional floorboard, window, and decorative repairs that the resident had identified during the visit. It was reasonable for the landlord to have agreed to complete further works in the property in response to the resident’s reports. However, it should have identified the repairs prior to completing the post-inspection. This is because the landlord had access to the property and could have identified the repairs for completion. This was a further failing which caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident.
The resident raised the repairs matters in his stage 1 complaint of 25 October 2023 and in his stage 2 complaint of 12 March 2024. In both of its complaint responses the landlord advised that it would not address these matters because they were the subject of an ongoing housing disrepair investigation. It explained that the matters were being addressed by its legal representatives and therefore it did not wish to prejudice the progress of the matters. It is unclear why the landlord did not refer to the advice it had received on 14 June 2024 that confirmed the resident had withdrawn his disrepair claim and that it had closed the file. The landlord’s handling of the complaint is addressed later in this report.
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord reviewed its handling of the repairs in its final complaint response, and it explained that it had complied with its obligations at each stage. However, it missed the opportunity to consider the impact of its handling of the repairs and recognise that it had caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. Furthermore, it failed to address the extent to which the resident had been required to pursue the outstanding repairs via a solicitor. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided an award of compensation in keeping with its compensation policy for its failure to address the repairs promptly. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen, living room and bathroom.
The Ombudsman considers that the resident is due an award of compensation in recognition of the extent to which he was inconvenienced by the landlord’s handling of the repairs overall. He was required to move from the property and further, to spend considerable time and trouble pursuing the repairs over an unreasonable period of time, via a solicitor and the complaints procedure. The circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,000 as compensation for the likely distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to him. This compensation award is at the top of the range of awards contained in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases, like here where there has been maladministration that has likely caused significant physical and/or emotional impact that the landlord has failed to recognise and put right.
In addition to an award of compensation, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for its failings.

Roof repairs

The repairs were not included in the resident’s pre-action letter to the landlord.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a duty on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair; this includes an obligation to stop any penetrating damp. The landlord inspected the loft in the property for leaks on 5 January 2021 following an inspection it had completed at the property on 22 December 2020. There is no evidence that it completed any repairs or communicated the outcome of its inspection to the resident prior to February 2021. The resident reported the roof leak again on an undisclosed date in February 2021. The landlord inspected the property on an undisclosed date in March 2021, but it did not find any leaks or signs of water ingress in the loft space. There is no evidence that the landlord completed another inspection or if it completed any repairs at that time.
The resident reported an urgent water leak to the landlord on 2 December 2022. The landlord attended on 4 December 2022 and completed a repair. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have attended the leak outside its emergency 24 hour timescale. This means that the landlord failed to follow its repairs policy.
The resident reported a roof leak to the landlord on an undisclosed date in October 2023 and he raised the matter in his stage 1 complaint on 25 October 2023. The landlord appropriately arranged for a specialist roof contractor to visit the property the next day. The resident reported that the leak only occurred in strong winds and rain and so the contractor returned to re-inspect the internal locations of water ingress. It completed 5 roof repairs on 14 November 2023. The landlord’s decision to rely on the qualified assessment of a specialist roof contractor was reasonable under the circumstances. The landlord subsequently completed the roof repairs within 15 working days in keeping with its repair policy timescales which was appropriate.
The resident reported concerns about roof soffits, felting, and leaks to the landlord on 15 February 2024. He also raised the matters in his stage 2 complaint of 12 March 2024, explaining that it had not replaced the roof tiles and the quilt insulation in keeping with its stage 1 complaint response. We are unable to comment on the extent of the works the landlord completed on 14 November 2024. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its repairs works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord’s failure to provide this information to the Ombudsman is a failing.
The landlord responded to the resident on 12 April 2024 with reference to reports he had made about the condition of the roof. It explained that it would renew the roof during a planned investment programme in 2025 and therefore it did not intend to repair the roof soffits beforehand. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that roof replacement works would be delivered through planned programmes. This ensures that they are delivered in line with the relevant standards and specifications and ensures that they are delivered providing the best value for money. A roof specialist had inspected the condition of the roof prior to completing roof repairs in November 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the expert’s opinion about the essential roof repairs it was required to complete at that time. Furthermore, it was reasonable for it to have advised the resident of the date it had planned to complete a roof replacement so as to manage his expectations.
The resident reported damp and mould staining in the kitchen to the landlord on 19 November 2022 which he said had been present for over 5 years. It is unclear to what extent the damp and mould was as result of the roof leaks. The landlord has a responsibility under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to ensure the property was fit for human habitation. This meant that it was free from a prescribed hazard (s.10), which under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) includes damp and mould. The landlord was required to consider whether damp and mould problems in the property amounted to a hazard and required remedying. There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the property to ascertain the cause of any damp and mould in response to the resident’s report of staining. This was unreasonable under the circumstances.
The resident’s report of mould in the property was listed within the resident’s disrepair claim of 25 May 2023. Additionally, he reported the matter to the landlord in his stage 2 complaint on 12 March 2024. The landlord sought to uphold its obligations to complete the damp and mould repairs that had been raised within the disrepair claim. It considered that it had done so when it completed a joint inspection of the property with the resident on 27 March 2024. It is evident that the landlord had not fully completed some of the repairs contained in the disrepair claim on this date. However, neither the landlord or the resident listed damp and mould repairs among the outstanding works during the joint inspection. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord had addressed any damp and mould repairs that had previously been present in the property. The landlord later confirmed to the resident in an emailed dated 12 April 2024 that it had not found any evidence of internal mould during its prior inspection, but that it could attend to this if it received any further reports. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
The landlord addressed its handling of the roof repairs in its final complaint response on 27 June 2024. It summarised the repairs it had completed on 14 November 2023 and restated that it had complied with the recommendations of its surveyor. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s ongoing concerns about the extent to which it completed these roof repairs. Furthermore, it failed to address its handling of the resident’s reports of mould and his concerns about the property’s fitness for habitation. Consequently, it failed to address the complaint fully and/or apologise for these failings. In addition, the landlord failed to acknowledge that it did not attend the first report of a water leak within 24 hours. Furthermore, it failed to recognise the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing a response to the matters via the complaint procedure. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to improve the resident’s perception of its housing services. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs and associated damp and mould.
The failings had no permanent impact on the resident but had an adverse effect in terms of the likely time and trouble it had caused to the resident in pursuing the matters. An award of £200 as compensation is therefore ordered below in keeping with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where maladministration is found that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord. Additionally we have ordered the landlord to apologise for its handling of the roof repairs and associated damp and mould.
The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman which shows that it reviewed its response to reports of damp and mould against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021) in March 2023. Additionally it has complied with an order to carry out a case review of failings identified in a severe maladministration finding around damp and mould handling. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not made any further orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to the landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this case that require further action.

Asbestos in the ceilings

The landlord completed an asbestos inspection in the property on 8 September 2023 during which it concluded that no asbestos products were located in a boiler cupboard. The Ombudsman has not seen a record of the inspection and therefore the extent of the inspection is unclear. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord completed the asbestos inspection. As previously explained, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. This was a failing. Notwithstanding this, it was appropriate for it to have assessed the presence of asbestos in keeping with its asbestos management policy which says it is committed to having a robust approach to the identification and management of asbestos containing materials.
There is no evidence that the landlord completed any further asbestos repairs prior to the complaint on 25 October 2023. The landlord subsequently moved the resident into temporary accommodation on 7 November 2023 so that it could complete asbestos works in the kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom. It was reasonable for the landlord to move the resident from the property in keeping with its decant policy which says it would decant residents in exceptional circumstances where the property is uninhabitable and/or unsafe, or it is not possible to undertake the works with the resident in-situ. The landlord’s handling of a temporary move while it completed repairs is addressed later in this report.
The landlord failed to respond to the asbestos matter in its stage 1 complaint response. This was because it incorrectly concluded that asbestos had been listed within the disrepair claim the resident had submitted via its solicitor on 25 May 2023. It is of note that the disrepair claim referred to degraded plaster and structural cracks in the ceilings. However, there is no evidence that asbestos was listed within the claim. The landlord had been notified that the resident had decided not to issue proceedings on 14 June 2024 prior to the landlord issuing its final response. It was unreasonable for it not to have addressed the matter in its response. This was likely to have caused, distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter further.
There is no evidence that the landlord completed any further repairs to address asbestos in the property prior to addressing the issue in its final complaint response of 27 June 2024. It apologised for the inconvenience that rehousing the resident had caused while it completed asbestos and ceiling plasterboard repairs. However, it failed to explain further the extent to which it had completed asbestos repairs and therefore the property was safe for the resident to live in. This was unreasonable under the circumstances. By failing to respond to the matter in more detail the landlord had failed to appropriately reassure the resident that any perceived hazards had been addressed and/or removed. This was a missed opportunity to manage his expectations and address his understandable concerns for his health and safety. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of asbestos in the ceilings.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s apology for the inconvenience rehousing him had caused was appropriate. However, it failed to consider the extent to which its responses had appropriately addressed the resident‘s understandable concerns for his health and safety. Consequently the landlord failed to put right the impact its handling of the asbestos had on the resident. The landlord failed to recognised the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience the matters had likely caused to him. Consequently, it failed to consider providing an award of compensation in keeping with its compensation policy which it was entitled to offer.
The Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation is due in keeping with our remedies guidance. This guidance suggests a range of awards where maladministration is found where, like here, the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right. An award of £200 is therefore ordered below for the likely distress caused to the resident in the handling of asbestos.
In addition, the landlord has not provided an asbestos management plan or survey. Due to the lack of clarity over the status of asbestos in the property, it is ordered that the landlord completes an asbestos management survey. This will aim to:
1. provide information on the location, amount and condition of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs).
2. assess the level of any damage or deterioration of the ACMs and whether remedial action is required.
3. provide information to update the asbestos register (including a risk assessment) and asbestos management plan for the property.
The landlord is expected to update the asbestos register and asbestos management plan once the survey is completed.
It is also ordered that the landlord apologise to the resident in writing for its failings. Furthermore, we have made an order for it to inspect the property, assess if any outstanding repairs are required, and to provide him and us with a timetable and details of any works.

Repairs to the heating and hot water

Between 2017 and September 2020, the resident reported a heating and hot water fault to the landlord on a number of occasions. The resident has stated that the fault related to the water pressure. He has explained that this started when the landlord replaced the thermostatic taps with standard taps in 2017.
After September 2020, the landlord responded to a series of 25 further heating and hot water repairs in the property prior to installing a new boiler on 22 December 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to have attended the property to repair the boiler in keeping with its repairing obligations and the tenancy agreement. It is of note that on most occasions the landlord sought to attend to the appointments within 24 hours. It was reasonable for it to attend within 24 hours in recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities. This was in keeping with its vulnerable resident policy that says it will consider additional needs due to vulnerability and, where appropriate, vary its service delivery.
It is of note that during the landlord’s response to the boiler repairs it:
1. repressurised the boiler on 7 different occasions.
2. repaired a fault with a leaking diverter valve gland and filling loop valve on 16 October 2020. It subsequently replaced the diverter valve gland and a filling loop valve washer in the property on 10 November 2020.
3. arranged for a different operative to assess the heating fault on 21 December 2020. It was reasonable for the landlord to seek an alternative opinion on the nature of the boiler repair in light of the number of heating faults the resident had reported.
4. noted that it required new spark electrodes and flame sensing electrodes on 11 March 2021. It replaced the ignition unit, ignition electrode and a detection electrode on 15 March 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to have ensured the boiler parts were in working order.
5. repaired the boiler pressure gauge on 13 September 2021, but it found it to be faulty when it reattended the property on 19 December 2021. It ordered and replaced the pressure gauge on 21 December 2021 which was appropriate under the circumstances. However, it reattended the property on 21 April 2022 and it replaced the faulty gauge again on 26 April 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to ensure the pressure gauge was in a good state of repair. It is not clear what may have damaged the newly installed gauge within 6 months of its installation.
6. attended the property on 30 November 2022 and 12 December 2022 to complete a pre-inspection for the boiler installation. It recorded no access.
However, there were failings in the landlord’s response to the heating and hot water repairs as it:
1. cancelled or rearranged 7 different appointments to complete heating repairs for different reasons such as staff absence, or while waiting for parts. It is accepted that repairs appointments may need to be changed on occasion. However, rearranging access to the property was likely to have caused time and trouble to the resident.
2. noted on 22 October 2020 that parts it had ordered for the boiler had not been required. This was therefore likely to have caused time and trouble to the resident while waiting for the parts unnecessarily.
3. raised a works order to supply the resident with 2 temporary heaters on 4 November 2020. However, it cancelled the works order when it arranged a repair to take place on 6 November 2020. It apologised that it had cancelled the works order when it rebooked the delivery to take place on 9 November 2020, noting not to cancel the order. However, it cancelled the works order again in response to a request the resident’s made on 7 November 2020. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured the resident had a heating supply given the heating fault had occurred during the winter.
4. noted that parts it had ordered to reconnect the boiler to the mains supply had not been needed on 10 November 2022. This was likely to have caused time and trouble to the resident while waiting for parts unnecessarily.
5. completed investigative works on 30 January 2022 during which it recommended relocating the boiler’s water supply to the mains. However, there is no evidence that it pursued the matter further until it reinspected the property on 8 August 2022, 8 months later. It subsequently raised a works order on 19 October 2022 to scope the works on 29 October 2022 during which it confirmed it could complete the works. However, on 10 November 2022 it identified that the boiler had already been connected to the incoming mains supply. The landlord’s 11 month delay in progressing the matter and its conclusion that the work had not been required was a significant failing.
6. recommended installing a new boiler on 9 March 2022. However it did not progress this despite the resident reporting further heating faults. The landlord’s contractor made a further request for it to replace the boiler on 10 November 2022. It pre-inspected the property on 16 December 2022 and installed a new boiler on 28 December 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to have replaced the boiler. However, the time and trouble caused to the resident in completing various repairs during the preceding 9 months could have been avoided.
It is evident that during the landlord’s response to the heating repairs it became aware that the resident had been topping up the boiler pressure himself. The landlord noted that the return isolation valve had been shut because resident had been trying to top up the pressure on 23 November 2021. It recorded that the filling loop had been left turned on 8 December 2020. It also noted that the programmer had been left in the ‘off’ position on 27 April 2022. On each of these occasions the landlord had been called out to attend a heating fault.
The landlord held a conversation with the resident on 17 November 2022 during which he said that he had heating and hot water because he knew what to do. The landlord noted that it sounded like he had been topping up the boiler pressure and that he had reported a leak from the heat exchanger. Consequently, the landlord advised the resident that it would book an engineer to attend and that if he topped up the pressure it could make the leak worse. It was appropriate for the landlord to have provided advice to the resident and for it to arrange for a qualified engineer to attend to the heating fault. However, there is no evidence that it sought to address the extent to which the resident had been completing adjustments to the boiler, prior to November 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident was at fault in his actions. However, given the extent of the repairs the landlord had attended, it would have been reasonable for it to have held a conversation with him about the correct use of the boiler to satisfy itself that it was being operated correctly.
The landlord’s operative attended on 28 December 2022. The record of the visit confirms that the boiler was working but the resident was unsure how to use the new wireless thermostat. It notes that the resident asked for a standard thermostat. The landlord changed the thermostat in the property on 16 January 2023. The record of the visit confirms that the operative stated that the heating was working. The resident has stated that the thermostat was changed 4 times due to the continuing problem with the water pressure. The available evidence does not support this. The boiler was checked on 20 October 2023 and no defects were found.
The landlord explained that it could not comment on the boiler repair in its complaint response because it had been the subject of the pre-action letter. The landlord’s handling of the complaint is addressed later in this report. Notwithstanding this, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have addressed its handling of the boiler repair in response to the resident’s concerns. By failing to address the matter the landlord failed to uphold the Ombudsman dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Furthermore, it had failed to recognise and provide any redress for the likely inconvenience, time, and trouble the failings this investigation has identified caused to the resident. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the heating and hot water in the property.
The Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation is due in keeping with our remedies guidance where, like here, the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right. An award of £500 is therefore ordered below as proportionate compensation for the detriment that had been caused to the resident for the likely impact of the failings identified in this investigation. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for its handling of the heating and hot water repairs.

A pest infestation

The landlord identified a dead rodent and signs of rodent activity in the property when it attended to a roof leak on 2 December 2022. The operative notified the landlord that rodents could cause issues with electric and plumbing on 5 December 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord completed any further investigative pest control work following the report. This was inappropriate, given the landlord’s pest control policy says it will work with residents to ensure that pests are eradicated in its properties.
The resident asked the landlord to send a plumber to remove a dead rat from the water tank on 21 December 2022. The landlord had been made aware of the presence of rodents in the loft space therefore the time and trouble caused to the resident in reporting the matter could have been avoided. The landlord’s pest control policy says that it will identify and block any potential access points in the structure of its properties. The landlord had overlooked the likelihood that the pest issues could have been eradicated if they had been treated. This was a further failing.
There is no evidence that the landlord sought to undertake any further pest control treatment prior to the resident’s solicitor referring to the matters in the housing disrepair claim of 25 May 2023. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have taken remedial action thereby resulting in the matters being escalated as a matter of housing disrepair. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord completed pest control treatment in response to the disrepair notice until after the resident raised the matter in his stage 1 complaint of 25 October 2023. This was inappropriate and was likely to have caused further distress, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter.
The landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to attend the property in response to the complaint on 13 November 2023. The contractor did not locate a dead rodent in the water tanks in the loft space when it treated the property. It was appropriate for the landlord to have relied on the services of a specialist pest contractor to assess and treat the property. Notwithstanding this, the landlord should have arranged the inspection over a year previously.
There is evidence that the landlord subsequently raised a 12 month baiting contract with the pest control contractor on an undisclosed date. The landlord completed 8 visits between March 2024 and November 2024. The landlord’s decision to enter into a pest control contract was appropriate and in keeping with its pest control policy which says it would enter in to a pest control contract for regular treatments for high risk blocks or estates.
The landlord reviewed its handling of pest control issues in its complaint responses. However, it noted that as the matter had been the subject of the pre-action protocols for disrepair it could not comment on the matters. The landlord’s handling of the complaint is addressed further later in this report. However, the landlord failed to identify its failings and the likely distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble pursuing the matter had caused to the resident which it could have recognised. Consequently, the landlord failed to provide the resident with an apology, or a reasonable form or redress for the likely detriment the matter had caused, in keeping with its customer compensation and remedies policy. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put right the matters it had failed to address in keeping with its pest control and compensation policies. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.
The Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation is due in keeping with our remedies guidance where, like here, the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right. An award of £150 is therefore ordered below as proportionate compensation for the distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for these failings. Given there is evidence that the landlord’s baiting programme remained in place in November 2024 we have not ordered it to complete further pest control works in the property.

ASB involving a neighbour

It is evident that this situation has been distressing to the resident. Furthermore, it is evident that the resident’s neighbour returned to reside at his property, under bail conditions imposed by the court, after committing an assault that he was later convicted for. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to examine to extent to which the resident’s neighbour’s actions caused harm or distress, but whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
In responding to the resident’s reports of ASB the landlord:
1. held an email conversation with the police on 2 December 2022 about an incident that had taken place on the same day. The police advised the landlord that it was the first time it had received reports about noise issues, and it asked the landlord to speak to both parties about the matters. This was in keeping with its ASB procedure which says it recognises the importance of working collaboratively with the police and local authorities to support and encourage their role in enforcing the law.
2. received further advice from the police about a serious incident that had taken place between the resident and his neighbour on 5 December 2022. The landlord responded to the police request to seek a without notice injunction to control the behaviour of the resident’s neighbour. The landlord’s response was in keeping with its ASB policy which says it would use police evidence together with evidence it may obtain to take enforcement action where appropriate.
3. opened an ASB case on 5 December 2022 in keeping with its ASB policy which says it will log all reports of ASB and monitor the outcomes.
4. recorded that it was unable to respond to the police advice to interview the resident while he remained in hospital with injuries. It noted this as a reason for not drawing up an action plan with the resident on its housing database. This was appropriate under the circumstances.
5. engaged with social services support workers and community mental health teams during December 2022 so as to gather evidence of the circumstances and impact of the ASB incident. This was in keeping with its ASB policy which says it recognises the importance of working collaboratively with local authorities to support and encourage their role in enforcing the law.
6. sought to obtain updated information from the police, social services, and mental health teams in advance, and in connection, with its application for a full injunction and the court hearing on 20 January 2023. This was in keeping with its ASB policy which says it will use police evidence provided together with evidence it may obtain to take enforcement action where appropriate.
7. recorded notes on its ‘ASB case details’ form of further ASB incidents that the resident’s sister had reported to it on 12 October 2023. The landlord noted that the sister had asked for the landlord not to approach the neighbour in case it made matters worse in advance of a court case. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbour about the matters thereby upholding the resident’s preference for no further contact. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
8. emailed the police on 18 October 2023 to obtain information about the possible risks to the resident in light of the recent ASB incidents. It explained that it was so that it could assess whether moving the resident under a management transfer would be appropriate. The landlord emailed the police within 5 working days which was reasonable under the circumstances. Furthermore, its decision to consider the risks posed to the resident was appropriate.
9. contacted the resident on 19 October 2023 to offer him a move via its management moves procedures. It noted the resident’s preference to stay at the property.
10. obtained independent advice about the ASB matter on an undisclosed date and concluded that it would not progress possession action further. It noted in its final complaint response that this was because though his neighbour had been convicted and it had served a notice of seeking possession, he had not breached the terms of the injunction that it had put it in place.
However the landlord failed to respond to the ASB in line with its policy as it:
1. was unclear on what date it had obtained a without-notice injunction order. It holds contradictory records that indicate it was obtained either on 15 December 2022 or on 3 January 2023. The landlord is expected to keep accurate records. This represents a knowledge and information handling failure.
2. closed the ASB case on an undisclosed date in October 2023 because the resident had said that he did not want the landlord to approach the perpetrator. It is unclear why the landlord closed the case given it was aware of the resident’s concerns about the approaching court case and the potential for repercussions following the hearing. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy that says it would adopt a victim-centred approach. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have agreed to close the ASB case with the resident.
3. implied to the resident that it would move his neighbour due to the police statement that he was at risk at the property which he referred to in his emails of 15 April 2024 and 3 June 2024. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy that says it will not raise expectations that it can take action where it cannot do so or where primary responsibility and powers lie elsewhere. This caused distress, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing a clear response to the matter.
4. failed to respond to the resident’s emails of 15 April 2024, 24 May 2024, 3 June 2024, and 10 June 2024 which asked about the landlord’s progress with rehousing his neighbour in response to the ASB. The landlord phoned the resident’s sister on 18 June 2024 to say it would issue a written response to the matters within a week. However it failed to do so until it issued the stage 2 complaint response on 27 June 2024. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy that says it would adopt a victim-centred approach.
The landlord addressed its handling of the ASB in its complaint responses. The landlord summarised its responses to the ASB incidents, and it said that it had followed its ASB procedures, and it had not identified any failings. Consequently, the landlord failed to recognise the distress and inconvenience the failings identified in this report were likely to have caused to the resident which was unreasonable.
The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice and expertise of its qualified staff is assessing and responding to ASB. However, we have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate the advice the landlord said it received. We do not know whether the advice was risk based given that the resident was hospitalised with serious concussion and that the police stated he is at risk and he is a vulnerable resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord sought to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations about the likelihood that he would continue to live above the neighbour that had assaulted him. This was also unreasonable under the circumstances. Furthermore, the landlord failed to evidence that it reasonably prioritised the resident’s concerns about the risks he considered he was facing by returning to the property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have obtained an updated view about the perceived risks from the police. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB concerning a neighbour.
The Ombudsman considers that an award of compensation is due in keeping with our remedies guidance. The guidance sets out a range of awards for situations like this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings. An award of £500 is therefore ordered below as compensation for the likely detriment that has been caused to the resident by the impact of the landlord’s ASB handling failings. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for its failings in handling the ASB matters this investigation had identified.

Temporary move into alternative accommodation

The landlord contacted the resident on 19 October 2023 to discuss rehousing him into alternative accommodation. It did so in response to concerns his sister had raised with the landlord on 12 October 2022, about ASB from a neighbour that had seriously assaulted him. The resident declined the offer of a permanent move but asked the landlord to move him into temporary accommodation while it completed repairs at the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to have held discussions with the resident about his occupation at the property in light of the ASB and repair issues he was experiencing.
The landlord agreed to rehouse the resident and moved him into alternative accommodation on 7 November 2023. The reason for the move was due to asbestos repairs in the kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom. The landlord’s decision to temporarily move the resident was in keeping with its decant policy which says reasons for moves would generally be because of major repair works, improvement, or redevelopment of a property.
The landlord maintained regular contact with the resident during his stay in hotel accommodation between 7 November 2023 and 9 January 2024. During this time the landlord consulted with the resident about his preference for food vouchers in place of arranged meals. It made arrangements to issue food vouchers to the value of £15 per day in keeping with its decant policy. It provided the vouchers by email and subsequently by delivery to the resident’s mother’s property when the resident explained he did not have internet access on his phone on 2 January 2023. It was appropriate and in keeping with the decant policy for the landlord to have responded to the resident’s needs and preferences flexibly. Additionally, the landlord provided £100 to the resident as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the disruption the move may have caused to him during the Christmas and New Year period. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
It is evident that on 11 March 2024, the resident reported that he had not received any vouchers from the landlord for over a month. Additionally he raised concerns that he had been staying in temporary accommodation for over 4 months in the stage 2 complaint he submitted the next day. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have provided regular payments to the resident given he was entitled to receive them under the decant policy. This was likely to have caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident that could have been avoided.
The landlord subsequently made arrangements to issue the resident a payment for the outstanding food allowance. Additionally it awarded him £10 per week for laundry costs which was appropriate under the circumstances. However, it failed to pay the resident until 30 April 2024 which was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to maintain suitably regular contact with the resident in recognition of his health conditions and vulnerabilities so as to ensure he was coping, and his health was maintained. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and/or regain his confidence in its housing services. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have ensured that the resident’s physical and support needs were being met during his temporary move, such as by engagement with family members and representatives from agencies working with him.
Between March 2023 and the final complaint response of 27 June 2024, the landlord had sought to move the resident and his belongings back into the property when it had considered it had completed the required repairs. This was reasonable under the circumstances. However when it visited the property with the resident on 27 March 2024 he identified a series of incomplete and additional repairs in the property. Notably, these were repairs to damaged floorboards and the cleanliness of the property. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have made arrangements for the resident to return to the property that had not been cleaned and where floorboard repairs that may have caused trip hazards had been identified.
The landlord recognised its own failings in the removal and disposal of the resident’s underlay and carpeting. It sought to put things right by arranging for their replacement and the completion of floorboard repairs .This was reasonable under the circumstances. However, the landlord failed to complete the works until 12 June 2024, due to delays caused with the provision of appropriate underlay. This was unreasonable and was likely to have caused further time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident while residing in temporary accommodation.
The landlord cancelled the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation on 24 May 2024 because it had signed off the repair works in the property. It also sought to arrange for the return of the resident’s belongings. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 28 May 2024 explaining that the repairs had still not been completed satisfactorily and that he considered himself to be homeless. He further explained to the landlord on 4 June 2024 that he had been ‘sofa surfing’ because the property carpets and floorboard repairs had not been completed. The landlord’s decision to cancel his temporary accommodation, thereby forcing him to move back into the property, or ‘sofa-surf’ was inappropriate. The landlord should have considered the health and vulnerability of the resident in addition to its own failings in preparing the property for re-occupation, prior to terminating the temporary accommodation.
The landlord reinstated the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation on 4 June 2024. It recognised its own failure to replace the carpeting in a like for like fashion. The landlord ensured the resident had checked into the temporary accommodation on 5 June 2024 and it made arrangements to complete the outstanding carpeting and flooring works on 12 June 2024 which was appropriate under the circumstances.
It is evident that the resident remained in temporary alternative accommodation provided by the landlord until 3 September 2024 which was after its final complaint response. The landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s rehousing in its final complaint response, and it apologised for the inconvenience it had caused. It summarised that it had sought to move the resident back into the property when it had considered it had completed the repairs. However, the landlord failed to address its cancellation of the temporary accommodation and the likely time and trouble this caused to the resident. It failed to comment on its delays in issuing payments that the resident was entitled to, and the likely inconvenience this caused. Furthermore, it failed to recognise the distress its handling of the matters was likely to have caused in light of his vulnerabilities and health conditions.
The landlord’s response failed to provide any significant recognition of the likelihood that the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation had been significantly delayed and hampered by its handling of matters. Furthermore, the landlord failed to offer any compensation to the resident for the failings this investigation has identified in its poor handling of the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation for over 7 months. Consequently, taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary move while it completed repairs in the property.
This Service considers that an award of compensation is due in keeping with the Ombudsman remedies guidance. The circumstances for maladministration apply and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 as compensation for the likely distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to him. This compensation award is within the range of awards contained in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases, like here where there has been maladministration that has likely caused significant physical and/or emotional impact that the landlord has failed to recognise and put right. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for these failings.

The resident’s complaint

There were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
1. did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint in keeping with paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of the stage 1 complaint. This says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt.
2. did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint in keeping with paragraph 6.11 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in use at the time of the stage 2 complaint which says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt.
3. did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 12 March 2024 until 27 June 2024 which was 54 working days later than its 20-working day complaint policy timescale.
4. inaccurately referred to its stage 2 response as a stage 1 response in the first paragraph of the final response.
5. incorrectly said that it had issued its stage 1 response on 24 May 2024, instead of on 13 November 2023.
6. said that it had addressed all the matters contained in his disrepair complaint when it had visited the property on 27 March 2024. The landlord did not comment on its failure to appropriately address the floorboard and window repairs.
7. did not address its handling of the roof repairs in its stage 2 response.
The landlord did not respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint about repairs. It explained that this was because its legal representatives were handling matters of disrepair under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims. Furthermore, it said that it did not uphold these elements of the complaint because it was limited in in what information it could provide without prejudicing the claim. Paragraph 2.2 of the Code explains that landlords must set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered as a complaint or escalated. Acceptable exclusions include where legal proceedings have started and where details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, have been filed at court.
There is no evidence that the disrepair claim had been filed in court, therefore its advice and reasons for excluding the resident’s complaint (about property repairs, the condition of the property, and the resident’s request to be rehoused while it completed the repairs) was unreasonable and not in line with the Code. The landlord’s disrepair policy makes no reference to withholding information from complaints where disrepair matters are being addressed by its legal teams, under pre-action protocols. Notwithstanding this, the landlord had been notified by its solicitor that the resident had withdrawn his disrepair claim on 14 June 2024 prior to its final complaint response. The Ombudsman sees no good reason for the landlord’s decision not to respond to the resident about its handling of these matters.
The landlord reviewed its handling of the complaint in its final response, and it recognised there had been a delay in issuing the final response. It offered the resident an apology and £300 compensation for the delay, and for inconvenience.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there were identified failings that adversely affected the resident. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failures. It has therefore been recommended to pay this to him if it has not already done so.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.
Since issuing the final response the landlord has provided a further update to the resident about its handling of the outstanding repairs and rehousing. For this reason the Ombudsman has not ordered the landlord to register and respond to a new complaint about the matters it had omitted from its previous complaint responses.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to:
  1. repairs in the kitchen, living room and bathroom
  2. roof repairs and associated damp and mould in the property
  3. asbestos in the ceilings
  4. repairs to the heating and hot water in the property
  5. a pest infestation
  6. antisocial behaviour concerning a neighbour
  7. the resident’s request for a temporary move while it completed repairs
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an additional £3,150 in compensation made up as:
  1. £1,000 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with it handling of repairs in the kitchen, living room, and bathroom.
  2. £200 for time and trouble that may have been caused to the resident by the landlord’s response to roof repairs and associated damp and mould.
  3. £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with it handling of asbestos in the ceilings.
  4. £500 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with the completion of boiler repairs.
  5. £150 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with its handling of a pest infestation.
  6. £500 for distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour concerning a neighbour.
  7. £600 for distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for temporary housing while repairs were completed.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Complete an updated asbestos management survey.
2. Once the asbestos management survey is completed, confirm it has updated the asbestos register (including a risk assessment) and asbestos management plan.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Pay the resident the £300 compensation it offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
2. Provide the resident with an update on the installation of additional insulation and felt in the loft. If this work has not been included, the landlord should provide a realistic timeframe of when it will be completed.
3. Contact the resident to provide an update on his management transfer and talk through any additional support it can provide to help him to move to a new home.