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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202340783)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340783

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 December 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, mould, and loss of electrics.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a flat.
  2. The repair records show that the resident reported a leak, damp, mould, and loss of electrics several times between 15 November 2017 and 6 October 2021.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 26 October 2022 as she said a leak from the roof into her hallway had been ongoing for over 5 years. She said there had been no electricity on the second floor since 4 October 2021, there was mould in the bathroom and hallway, and she had to remove rotting furniture. She said the issues were impacting her child’s mental health.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 17 March 2023. It said it was first aware of the leak on 30 November 2021, and it inspected the roof in December 2022. It outlined the works it had completed between 10 January 2023 and 16 February 2023 to address the leak and subsequent repair issues. It had cleared water on the top of the roof and unblocked the downpipe, and no further works to the structure were required. It would attend on 20 March 2023 to supply dehumidifiers, carry out electrical tests, reinstate the electricity, and renew the shelving in the storage cupboard. It would replaster the hallway on 4 April 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £900 compensation for its handling of the repairs and £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint. 
  5. In the resident’s complaint escalation on 29 March 2023, she said the leak, damp, and mould were unresolved and the work the landlord had completed was poor quality. She said the landlord had not attended the appointment on 20 March 2023. She asked the landlord to repair the roof, plaster and paint the ceiling, re-shelve and paint the cupboard, replace the extractor fan, and replace and repair the rotten wooden panels in the corridor.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 June 2023. It apologised that the water ingress was ongoing and that it did not attend the appointment on 10 March 2023. It inspected the roof in May 2023 and had booked further works for 29 June 2023 to have the gulleys and outlets cleared out and to remove the debris from the roof. It was confident that this would be the final work needed to the roof, and it would then visit to review the internal works. It offered an additional £250 compensation for the additional delays between March and June 2023, £15 for the missed appointment, and £50 for the delay in escalating the complaint.
  7. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 25 October 2024 stating it had reviewed the case following involvement by the Service. It noted the issues were ongoing and it apologised for the continued disruption. It completed roof works and a mould wash on 22 October 2024. It would complete additional works to ensure the areas were watertight and it was arranging the necessary internal works with the resident. It offered a further £450 compensation and would reassess the case once it had completed the repairs in full.
  8. In her referral to the Service, the resident said she remained dissatisfied as the landlord had not resolved the leak or the damp and mould. It had reinstated the lighting but there were significant delays. She said the bathroom was full of black mould, which was affecting her health. She wanted the landlord to complete the necessary repairs or move her to a different property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is understood that the repair issues have been going on for an extended period of time, reportedly since 2017. However, the resident did not raise a complaint until 26 October 2022. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the matter from 26 October 2021 onwards.
  2. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her family’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, mould, and loss of electrics

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the building in good repair. This includes the drains, gutter, external pipes, and the roof. The landlord is also responsible for resolving damp and mould, if it arises from a structural repair issue. In this case, the damp and mould were caused due to a leak, so the landlord was responsible for completing the necessary repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, and it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
  2. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged failings in its handling of the repairs, particularly due to the length of time they have been outstanding. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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 assesses 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.
  3. The repair records show that the landlord raised a work order on 1 November 2021 due to a leak into the hallway and the electrics when it rains. It noted that it had isolated the electrics. It therefore initially acted appropriately to ensure the property was safe. However, isolating the electrics should only be a temporary resolution, as it is likely to cause significant inconvenience to the resident. The landlord should have promptly completed follow-on works to address the cause of the leak and reinstate the electrics, but there is no evidence it did.
  4. It is of concern that the landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it was first notified of the repair on 30 November 2021. This is clearly incorrect, as there are several repair records relating to the ongoing leak between 2017 and 2021, including as noted above on 1 November 2021. The landlord should ensure it considers all the available evidence when responding to complaints to demonstrate that is has assessed its handling of the matter in full. If it determines that earlier events are outside of its scope of investigation, this should also be set out in its response to properly manage the resident’s expectations. 
  5. Following the initial works, there was an extensive period of inaction between 1 November 2021 and 27 December 2022. The landlord raised several work orders during this time, but its repair records lack sufficient detail so there is no evidence that it took any reasonable steps to complete the repairs. The landlord should keep comprehensive records of repairs including details of appointments, any inspection reports, details of the work carried out, and dates it attended and completed repairs. 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. In this case, the landlord failed to demonstrate it took steps to resolve the repairs for over a year, so the resident experienced the repair issues for a prolonged period.
  6. The resident said that a contractor attended on 27 December 2022 to inspect the property but said they were unable to complete the works until 2023. It is of concern that there are no records of the appointment. The Service’s knowledge and information management (KIM) spotlight report noted that “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. As there is no record of the appointment, this may have impacted the landlord’s ability to monitor the repair and correctly raise follow-on works.
  7. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it attended on 10 January 2023 to treat the mould in the hallway and bathroom and on 18 January 2023 to clear water from the roof and unblock part of the downpipe. The resident disputed that a contractor attended either appointment and there are no repair records to confirm the landlord’s actions. When there is a disagreement in the accounts regarding the condition of the property, the onus is on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it completed the repairs. However, it is recognised that the landlord may have attended the appointment on the roof without the resident’s knowledge if it did not require access to her property.
  8. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it attended to complete an electricity test on 9 February 2023, but was unable to as the downpipe was not fully unblocked. It subsequently confirmed the downpipe was functioning correctly on 14 February 2023. It said it attended to apply stronger mould treatment and remove the rotten wood from the storage cupboard on 16 February 2023. Again, it is of concern that there are no repair records to confirm these actions, but the resident has not disputed the landlord’s version of events. It therefore appears that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the leak and the damp and mould at this stage.
  9. The landlord raised a work order on 2 March 2023 to supply 2 dehumidifiers, check the lighting, and renew the storage cupboard. It then told the resident in its stage 1 response that it would complete the work by 20 March 2023. The resident escalated the complaint on 29 March 2023, as the landlord failed to attend the appointment. It is important that landlords monitor the actions set out in complaint responses through to completion. Failure to do so not only delays resolving the substantive issue of the complaint, but it also has a detrimental impact on the resident’s trust in the landlord. The landlord inspected the roof on 6 April 2023 and found that the roof was still flooded. However, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident until after involvement by her MP on 15 May 2023. It was unreasonable that the resident had to engage with alternative support in order for the landlord to progress the matter.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it inspected the roof in May 2023 and it booked further works for 29 June 2023 to clear the gullies and outlets and remove the debris from the roof. It was confident that the works would resolve the leak. It would then assess the works required to the interior of the property. While the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified contractors to determine how best to handle repairs, it is somewhat of concern that the landlord asserted clearing the gullies would resolve the leak as it had previously completed similar works, and it had not provided a full resolution. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered alternative causes for the leak before providing such assurances to the resident to prevent unreasonably raising her expectations.
  11. Following the completion of the complaint process, the landlord took the following steps to address the leak, as the works outlined in its stage 2 response did not resolve the issue.
    1. It raised follow-on works on 20 July 2023 to inspect the leak. A contractor attended on 18 August 2023 and said the only repairs they could complete was to make the ceiling safe to ensure no debris would fall.
    2. A contractor attended on 6 September 2023 but was unable to access the communal roof hatch, re-attended on 15 September 2023, and then referred the repair to the drainage team for further works.
    3. The drainage company attended on 17 October 2023 and would provide a quote for jetting the drainage points. The landlord noted on 25 October 2023 and 9 November 2023 that it was waiting for a quote and confirmation of an appointment date from the drainage contractor.
    4. On 7 December 2023 it noted that safety rails were required on the roof to complete the drainage works. It subsequently determined on 17 January 2024 that it would not be possible to install safety rails so it would install scaffolding and then carry out a CCTV survey.
    5. The landlord chased the works with the contractor on 31 January 2024 and 7 February 2024. The drainage contractor attended on 7 March 2024 and cleared the gullies and downpipes.
  12. Although the landlord took steps to address the leak, it failed to prioritize follow-on works to ensure it resolved the leak within a reasonable timeframe. This meant the works remained outstanding for a prolonged period. There is also no evidence that it managed the resident’s expectations regarding the expected timeframes or the works it anticipated would be required to put in place a full and lasting resolution.
  13. There were further delays in completing the repairs as on 20 March 2024 the contractor requested an asbestos test on the downpipe to continue with the works. The landlord internally chased and tried to locate the asbestos report for the block, and it identified on 5 June 2024 that the existing survey did not cover the gullies. It is unclear when it completed the survey to enable it to complete the works. If the landlord had adequate record keeping systems to promptly locate necessary repair documents, it could have prevented such delay in progressing the works.
  14. The landlord raised a work order on 20 June 2024 to flexitect the roof and put in new lead work to stop the water ingress. Following an inspection on 15 July 2024, it reraised the roof works recommended on 20 June 2024. It therefore appears the appointment on 15 July 2024 could have been avoided if it had correctly raised the works following the initial appointment. This would have reduced inconvenience to the resident. The landlord scheduled the repairs for 22 October 2024, so, again, it failed to demonstrate that it prioritized the necessary follow-on works, which was entirely unreasonable given how long the leak had been ongoing.
  15. The resident told the Service that the leak is still ongoing, and the landlord has not completed any further works since October 2024. As a result, in the period considered in this investigation, there were delays amounting to over 3 years, which was entirely unreasonable.
  16. As a result of the leak, there was damp and mould in the property, and the resident did not have full use of the electric for extended periods of time. The landlord therefore should have prioritized the repairs to the leak due to the compounding impact on the condition of the property.
  17. It is recognised that the landlord would not be able to fully resolve the damp and mould while the leak was ongoing. Nonetheless, it should have considered interim solutions to reduce the impact on the resident. The landlord’s leaks, damp and mould policy states when there are severe or recurring damp and mould issues, it may take a range of actions including providing and funding dehumidifiers, installing ventilation systems, dry lining walls or applying mould resistant coverings.
  18. The landlord completed mould treatments on 10 January 2023, 16 February 2023, and 11 July 2024. While this was a reasonable action to take, there was an extended period of 17 months where it did not take any action to address the mould. It is of concern that the appointment on 11 July 2024 was scheduled for 6 hours due to the level of mould. This may have been prevented if it had completed mould washes more regularly. Furthermore, the landlord failed to provide dehumidifiers, despite stating it would on several occasions, so it missed an opportunity to dry the property out at an earlier time.
  19. It is noted that the resident told the landlord on 7 March 2023 that the bathroom required a stronger extractor fan, and it was not positioned correctly to provide sufficient ventilation. The landlord raised a work order to install extractor fans on 17 June 2024. It is unclear whether it has subsequently completed the work. Regardless, it is evident there were delays exceeding a year in completing the work. The resident told the Service that there is still damp and mould in the hallway, bathroom, and bedrooms. The landlord should therefore complete a damp and mould inspection and any recommended repairs.
  20. It is evident that the leak impacted the resident’s use of the electrics, but the timeline is not entirely clear, particularly as the main electrics and lighting were not reinstated at the same time.
    1. The repair records show that the landlord initially isolated the electrics due to the leak on 1 November 2021.
    2. On 3 May 2022, the landlord noted that there had been no electricity to the top floor lights since November 2021. It therefore appears that, other than the lights, the landlord may have reinstated the rest of the electricity, but it is unclear when.
    3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it conducted an electrical safety test on 9 February 2023, but it was unable to determine whether it was safe to reinstate. It is unclear whether this related to the full electrics or just the lighting.
    4. It scheduled a further review on 20 March 2023, but did not attend.
    5. When the Service asked the landlord for a clear timeline of events, it said that other than the lights, the electrics were reinstated at the time of the stage 2 response on 23 June 2023. It then reinstated the lights on 1 July 2024.
  21. Based on the available evidence, the Service has acted on the assumption that the main electrics on the first floor of the property were intermittently not in use between 1 November 2021 and 23 June 2023, and the lighting was out of use between 1 November 2021 and 1 July 2024. However, the resident’s son told the Service that he did not recall the main electrics being affected, so it is possible that the time periods were shorter. 
  22. The delay in reinstating the lighting was wholly unreasonable, which caused inconvenience to the resident and impacted her enjoyment of the property. The resident was able to use table lights when the rest of the electrics were reinstated. While this is positive to note, there is no evidence that the landlord confirmed for itself that she had an interim solution to the loss of lighting until the stage 2 response. It should have ensured that she had adequate lighting to properly use the upstairs of the property when she initially reported the issue.
  23. Overall, it is evident that the leak, damp and mould was ongoing for a period of 3 years. The landlord therefore failed to fulfil its repair obligations, which had a detrimental impact on the resident’s living conditions. She was unable to use the storage cupboard, there was no lighting on the second floor for an extended period of time, and she reported loss of use of the oven and fridge on several occasions. The resident had to repeatedly chase the repairs and clean the mould, causing her significant inconvenience, time and effort. The landlord also failed to consider the resident’s health conditions when handling the repairs, which was unreasonable.
  24. In total, the landlord has offered £1765 compensation for its failings in handling the repairs and the complaint. Although it is positive to note that the landlord reviewed its compensation when it identified there were further delays following the completion of the complaint process, it did not set out it would do this within its complaint response. It is therefore unclear whether it would have taken such steps if the resident had not referred her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. In future cases, if the landlord has not resolved the substantive complaint issue in full at the time of the stage 2 response, it should set out what further actions it will take to provide a full resolution, including whether it will reassess the compensation offer if there are further delays. This will ensure each case is handled fairly and the landlord accurately manages resident’s expectations.
  25. The compensation was in excess of the landlord’s highest compensation bracket in its policy. The Service’s remedies guidance states that awards above £1000 are appropriate in cases where there was “a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident”. While the compensation offered largely put things right, as the landlord has not resolved the issues in full following its revised compensation offer on 25 October 2024, a further £300 compensation is warranted for the additional delays in completing the repairs. This covers the period from 26 October 2024 until February 2024 when the Service has ordered the landlord to complete the works by. In view of the fact that the landlord has failed to resolve the leak over an extended period of time, if it is unable to complete the repairs within 8 weeks of this report, it must pay the resident an additional £50 compensation per week the repairs are outstanding. 
  26. The Service has also identified issues with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor contractor conduct. In a call on 20 January 2023, the resident reported that the contractor said she “should just be grateful that she is living there”. The landlord should have investigated the matter to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously. It should have taken appropriate actions if it found evidence to confirm the resident’s reports. As it failed to take such steps, it did not take reasonable actions to address her concerns, which will likely have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s relationship with the landlord. Due to the time elapsed, it is unlikely that the landlord would now be able to conduct an effective investigation into the events, so there was a missed opportunity to act on her reports. As such, the landlord must pay the resident £50 for its failure to address the matter at the time.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £1765 already offered, the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £300 for the further delay in putting in place a full resolution to the leak, damp, and mould.
    2. £50 for its failure to handle the resident’s reports of poor contractor conduct.
  2. The landlord must provide the Service with evidence of the total payment of £2115 within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  3. Within 8 weeks the landlord must:
    1. Instruct an independent leak specialist to inspect the property. It should provide the Service with a copy of the report. It should then complete the necessary repairs to resolve the leak in full.
    2. Complete a damp and mould inspection and any recommended repairs. It should provide the Service with the inspection report and repair records to confirm it has completed any necessary works.
  4. If the landlord fails to complete the repairs within the 8-week timeframe, it must pay the resident £50 per additional week the repairs are outstanding.
  5. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record handling practices to ensure it retains clear records of all repairs to prevent a recurrence of the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord should review its handling of reports regarding contractor’s conduct. It should ensure that it appropriately investigates all reports.