Clarion Housing Association Limited (202334330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334330

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for her windows to be replaced.
2. Request for it to remove fly tipped waste from her garden.
3. Reports of damp and mould.
4. Rent arrears.
5. Formal complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has told this Service that she has anxiety and depression, which the landlord has not recorded. Her daughter also has medical conditions which the landlord has recorded.
Under the tenancy agreement the resident agrees to “take possession of and live in your home from the start of the tenancy”, pay rent, report repairs, and allow the landlord access to inspect and complete repairs. The resident also agrees to “keep the garden…let to you…clean, tidy and cultivated, and not to store any scrap materials, furniture, appliances, vehicle parts or rubbish in it.” The landlord agrees to, and is responsible for, repairing the structure and exterior of the property, and maintaining installations for the supply of services. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s void standard sets out the minimum standard it will insure a property meets before it will be let. This includes:
1. Windows will be fully operational, wind and weather tight.
2. Gardens will be cleared of rubbish and any items left by previous residents.
3. Wall surfaces will be sound, clean, and free from mould.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it categorises repairs as either emergency (attend within 24 hours) or non-emergency (repair within 28 working days). It implemented a damp and mould policy from November 2023.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould ‘It’s not lifestyle’ sets out 26 recommendations for landlords in relation to their handling of damp and mould and complaints relating to this. The landlord has provided a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations to this Service.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy states that where residents are responsible for their gardens, they must make sure they are maintained and no rubbish or dumped waste is allowed to build up.
The landlord defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) under its complaints policy in use at the time. It operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1 the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 10 working days and respond within 20 working days of acknowledgement. If it cannot, it will tell the resident when it will be able to respond. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 10 working days and respond within 40 working days. The Ombudsman notes the landlord has since updated its policy.
The Code in use at the time sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If it needs a further 10 working days in exceptional circumstances, it must contact the resident to explain this. Any further delay beyond this must be agreed with the resident. It should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.9) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13).
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases.

Summary of events

The resident’s tenancy started on 5 November 2021. Prior to this date the landlord completed ‘void’, or empty property, works.
On 13 December 2021 the resident reported guttering and roof leaks which she said were causing damage inside the property. The landlord attended on 15 December 2021, repaired the guttering and inspected inside the loft. Its records say there was no roof leak and are silent on whether there was any internal water damage. Its notes also say the resident was videoing, refused to stop when asked, and so its contractors had to leave.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 December 2021 and said there was a “huge damp issue” at the property. She said she had hired a builder to inspect, who told her the property was uninhabitable and unsafe. She said there was black mould “all over” and she would not move in with her children because of this. It replied and said it would refer her concerns to it surveyor.
On an unknown date Environmental Health asked the landlord to inspect the property. Its surveyor did this on 7 January 2022. Its notes from the inspection said the property had been empty for around 12 months at that time. It concluded it had tested the property with a damp meter and all areas were dry, with no damp present. It did note a “small area of mould growth” to wallpaper in a bedroom, but said this had not penetrated it and could be removed when redecorating.
The resident instructed a building company to survey the property, and they produced a report on 17 January 2022. They said, “various areas of the property were completely unacceptable for common living conditions” and that black mould was present in some areas. They also said there were high damp meter readings. It provided photographs of inside the loft, and of guttering, but none to show their meter readings or the black mould found.
On 28 April 2022 the resident’s MP emailed the landlord, after she had sent a copy of her building company’s report to him. He asked it to investigate the issues raised. It replied on 17 May 2022 and said it had carried out a full inspection. It said some repairs were needed, not related to damp or mould, that the property was habitable, and those repairs could be completed with the resident in situ. The MP replied on 17 May 2022 and said the resident was concerned about asbestos and chemicals in the property. It tried to call her 3 times between 20 and 24 May 2022. It replied to the MP and said it had raised a stage 1 complaint. However, it wrote to her on 31 May 2022 and said it had closed the complaint, as it had been unable to speak to her to determine what her complaint was about.
The resident instructed solicitors, who sent a letter of claim for disrepair to the landlord on 14 March 2023. They alleged various defects including defective windows throughout the property, and damp and mould, caused by defective guttering or a roof leak. The landlord surveyed the property on 18 April 2023 and produced a report. It found there was no leak from the roof or evidence of a leak into the property. It did not find any defective plaster work or decoration, and said the walls had recently been painted. It did not note any damp or mould. It did, however, say that 4 double glazed window units were ‘blown’, meaning air and condensation had entered between the 2 windowpanes, but otherwise were operational, and needed to be replaced.
On 26 April 2023 the landlord raised a repair to replace 4 double glazed windows. Its records say there was a no access for an appointment on 24 May 2023. It reattended and measured up, then rebooked an appointment for 21 July 2023, but noted the resident refused the works on the day. She had told it all 16 of her windows needed to be replaced.
The resident called the landlord on 27 June 2023 and said she wanted it to remove the waste which had been fly tipped in her garden. She said the waste had been there months. Its records say it tried to call her 3 times, and sent a text message, on 6 July 2023 to say that the waste had not been there when the property was let and that it was her responsibility to remove it. She emailed it on 12 October 2023 and said the waste had still not been removed. She also said she was waiting for her windows to be replaced.
Between 23 October 2023 and 14 November 2023, the landlord and resident exchanged further emails about her windows and the waste in her garden. In these emails:
1. It said it had previously offered to rebook the repair in August 2023 and had been waiting for her reply. It also explained it could only replace the windows which had been assessed as needing replacement and it could not replace all her windows.
2. She replied that 2 surveyors had said the windows were in a “severely damaged and uninhabitable state”. It confirmed only 4 windows needed to be replaced as identified in its disrepair survey and that it would rebook the repair.
3. She said the waste had been in the garden since she moved in on 2 August 2022 and she had been asking it to remove this.
4. She also sent it a letter from her daughter’s hospital nurse about her medical condition and asked it to repair damp in the property.
The landlord rebooked the window replacement repair for 23 November 2023. On that date the resident refused the works as it was only going to replace 4 windows. On 17 November 2023 it wrote to her about the waste in her garden, which it said was her responsibility. It said it did this as it had received complaints. It sent her a warning letter on 19 December 2023.
On or after 16 January 2024 the resident sent the landlord a second letter from her daughter’s hospital consultant. In the letter the doctor asked it to look into her unsuitable living conditions. She contacted this Service on 22 and 31 January 2024. She said she wanted to complain to her landlord about her windows, the waste in her garden, the property being uninhabitable and the rent arrears she had built up.
The landlord sent the resident a second warning letter about the waste in her garden on 7 February 2024. Its contractors removed some of the waste on 19 February 2024.
On 28 February 2024 the Ombudsman emailed the landlord and asked it to raise a stage 1 complaint for the resident, which was about its:
1. Handling of window replacements.
2. Response to her request for it to remove the fly tipped waste.
3. Handling of damp and mould.
4. Handling of her arrears, which were built up while she was unable to move into the property.
The landlord emailed this Service to acknowledge the complaint the following day. It tried to call the resident on 11 March 2023 and emailed her to acknowledge the complaint. It tried to call her again on 19 March 2023 to discuss its stage 1 response which it provided that day. In its response it:
1. Set out a timeline of events regarding her windows and offered to arrange a new appointment to fit these.
2. Said there was no waste in the garden when the tenancy started, and so the resident would be responsible for removing the waste under her tenancy agreement.
3. Explained it had inspected the property for damp and had only found an issue with some wallpaper during its inspection in July 2022. It had inspected again following the letter of claim and no damp or mould was found. It said it had arranged to inspect again.
4. Regarding rent arrears, it said although some minor repairs were needed when the tenancy started the property had been habitable. There was no reason she could not have moved in and so she was liable to pay the rent.
5. Confirmed there had been no service failures and said how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On 25 March 2024 the landlord surveyed the property and said no leaks, damp or mould repairs were needed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 April 2024 and asked to escalate her complaint. She said she disagreed with its response, that it had delayed and mixed up her window replacement, and that the waste was there when she moved in. She also said it had removed some of the waste on 19 February 2024. She was glad it was going to inspect again for damp and said it had not taken the issue seriously. She also said the property was not in good shape when she had to move in.
On 8 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her stage 2 complaint. It did this again on 15 April 2024 and asked her to provide evidence that it had removed some waste which she did. It requested an extension of time on 29 April 2024 to further investigate the fly tipping issue. It provided its stage 2 response on 8 May 2024 in which it:
1. Set out the stage 1 complaint and its response.
2. Regarding the windows it confirmed 4 needed to be replaced as they had blown but were otherwise operational.
3. Confirmed it had not found any damp or mould during its recent inspection.
4. Repeated that the garden was free from waste at the start of the tenancy, and said it had photographs of this (not provided to this Service). Therefore, she was responsible for the waste. However, it had arranged a clearance of waste as the member of staff did not realise the property was free from waste when let.
5. Said rent had been charged correctly as the property was fit for letting when she signed her tenancy, and the property had been and was habitable.
6. Concluded it had kept in contact during the stage 1 complaint but accepted its stage 2 complaint had been delayed, apologised and offered £50 compensation for this. Otherwise, it did not uphold the complaint.
7. Explained how she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident told this Service, on 19 August 2024, that none of her windows had been replaced and they all needed to be. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the resident’s solicitors are no longer representing her, and a claim was not issued.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Within the evidence and in emails to the landlord and this Service, the resident has referred to an order made by the family court and a challenge to the local authority over suitability of the property. As both did not involve the landlord they have not been considered as part of this report. Should the resident wish to raise a complaint to the local authority, or seek assistance with this, she could contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for her windows to be replaced

The resident first raised concerns about her windows within her solicitors’ letter of claim in March 2023. Prior to this the resident had requested other repairs and the landlord had inspected but not noted any issues with the windows. It completed a disrepair survey and identified 4 windows which had blown and needed to be replaced. It correctly accepted responsibility to repair, as per the tenancy agreement, and arranged repairs. It attended within its 28-day non-emergency repairs timeframe under its policy.
Following the no access, it attended again and measured up and re-booked to fit the windows. On the day the resident refused the works as she believed all the windows needed to be replaced. Following the disrepair survey, under the Pre-action Protocol for Housing Condition Claims the landlord was required to provide a copy of its surveyor’s report to the resident’s solicitors. It would then be for them to provide a copy, or explain its contents, to the resident. It is not known whether this had been done. Nevertheless, the resident could have allowed the works and then questioned the landlord about her other windows.
When the resident asked again for her windows to be replaced the landlord explained that it had previously offered to do this and repeated this. It also clearly explained why it would only replace 4 windows. It rebooked the works again, which the resident again refused on the day of the appointment. Within its stage 1 response it offered a further time to book an appointment to replace the windows. In its stage 2 response it confirmed the windows were operational.
The landlord inspected the property and confirmed 4 windows needed to be replaced, but that they were operational, and so did not present a hazard or health and safety concern. It correctly raised appropriate appointments following its repairs policy. It agreed to rebook following a no access and repeated refusals by the resident. It explained why it could only replace those 4 windows and its explanation was reasonable. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to remove fly tipped waste from her garden

Under the tenancy agreement the resident agreed to take possession of and live in the property from the tenancy start date. At the date of the tenancy the landlord confirmed that the garden had been cut back and was free from waste. It would have been helpful if it had provided its photographs to this Service, which it referred to in its stage 2 response, to show this. However, from the evidence this point does not appear to be disputed by the resident. The landlord had followed its voids standards policy.
The resident told the landlord that she moved into the property on 2 August 2022, 9 months after her tenancy started. She said at this time there was fly tipped waste in the garden and repeatedly asked it to remove this in her emails and stage 1 complaint. Within her stage 2 complaint she said it had removed some, but not all, of the waste in February 2024.
It is an unfortunate reality that if a property or piece of land appears to be uninhabited it can attract fly tipping. On a date or dates unknown between November 2021 and July 2022 fly tipping occurred. Under the tenancy agreement the resident was responsible for the maintenance of her garden and to keep it free from waste. This is also stated within the landlord’s tenancy management policy. Therefore, the landlord’s response to her requests to remove this were reasonable. It was her responsibility.
Although the landlord did remove some of the waste, it appears by mistake, this did not make it responsible for the remaining waste or mean its position was incorrect. The landlord had, as it said in its stage 2 response, gone above and beyond what was required of it. There was no maladministration.

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

The resident first said that a leaking roof and guttering were causing damage inside the property on 13 December 2021. The landlord raised a repair and attended promptly to repair the guttering. While it confirmed there was not a roof leak, it did not say whether the guttering leak had caused any internal damage. However, in the circumstances it had to finish the appointment and leave, which was reasonable.
On 30 December 2021 the resident told the landlord there was black mould and damp all over. She also contacted Environmental Health. In response, the landlord inspected the property on 7 January 2022, which was within a reasonable time of 5 working days. Its inspection did not find the damp and mould reported, said damp meter reading showed it was dry, and there was nothing to suggest the property was uninhabitable. It would have been helpful if it had photographed the property as part of its inspection.
Ten days later the resident’s building company claimed the property was not suitable for living. It based this on high damp meter readings and black mould being present. It provided photographs of inside the loft, but none of the black mould it said it had found.
In response to the letter of claim the landlord correctly resurveyed the property. It did not find any damp or mould. In response to the stage 1 complaint, it again arranged to inspect and did this promptly, which was solution focused. Again, it did not find any damp or mould.
Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the landlord inspected promptly each time. Although it would have been helpful if it had taken photographs and provided these, it detailed the outcome of each inspection. Although the resident produced a conflicting survey report, the quality of this was questionable. Regardless, the landlord followed its repairs policy and acted reasonably in a solution focused way. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent arrears

As stated above, the resident agreed to live in the property when she signed her tenancy agreement. She also agreed to pay the rent. Whether she felt the property met the landlord’s void standard, and whether she felt it was habitable or not, she was still liable for the rent. She had the option to make a complaint and or raise a housing condition or disrepair claim through the courts if she wished to do so. There was no reasonable excuse for not paying rent and the landlord was entitled to ask for it to be paid. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

The resident raised her stage 1 complaint via the Ombudsman, and this Service raised it with the landlord on 28 February 2024. While it emailed the Ombudsman to acknowledge the complaint the following day, it delayed in contacting the resident. Although it did acknowledge the complaint within its 10 working day complaints policy timeframe, it exceeded the 5 working days given under paragraph 4.1 of the Code which was a failing.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response after 15 working days which was within its policy timeframe, but breached paragraph 5.1 of the Code and was a failing. It acknowledged escalation within its policy timeframe. It requested an extension of time within 20 working days and its reason for this was reasonable. It then provided its stage 2 response 7 working days later, in compliance with paragraph 5.13 of the Code following the extension of time.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for delays and offered £50 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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 was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
There were minor failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. However, it apologised for its delays and offered reasonable compensation. There was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman has identified the following examples where records and evidence have not been collected or provided to this Service, which include:
1. A lack of photographs taken or provided following inspections.
2. No before or after photographs taken following the guttering repair.
3. Repair records were presented in a way which made them difficult to follow, and they lacked detail.
4. A record of calls between the resident and landlord was provided but this did not include any information on what the calls were about and so added no value to the investigation. Additionally, it provided some recent call recordings which were unrelated to the elements of this complaint, but did not provide any from the relevant timeframe.
There was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for her windows to be replaced.
2. Request for it to remove fly tipped waste from her garden.
3. Reports of damp and mould.
4. Rent arrears.

Reasons

There was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management as it failed to record or provide information and evidence which would have assisted the Ombudsman’s investigation.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling as it apologised for and offered reasonable compensation for its delays and minor failings which did not affect the complaint outcomes.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s window replacement as it identified, ordered and offered to install replacement windows within its policy timeframe. It further attempted to do this following a no access and then repeated refusals from the resident.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the fly tipped waste as it was not responsible for its removal. It followed the tenancy agreement and its policy.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould as it inspected promptly each time the issue was raised. It did not find any damp and so there was no more it could or needed to do.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of rent arrears as the resident had signed the tenancy agreement and was responsible for paying the rent.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Pay the £50 compensation it offered at stage 2 directly to the resident if it has not already done so.
2. Offer again to install the 4 new windows required.