Clarion Housing Association Limited (202401217)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401217

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 May 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of:
  1. The resident’s tenancy review.
  2. Lift repairs.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Reports of damp and mould.
  2. Request to be rehoused.
  3. Complaint about a member of staff.
  4. Request for non-damp and mould repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The residents have a joint tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The resident signed a 5 year fixed term assured tenancy on 1 October 2019.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the fifth floor. The evidence provided for the purposes of this investigation shows that the residents have leukaemia and limited mobility. Their daughter has an immunodeficiency disorder.
It is noted that both residents communicated with the landlord about their complaint. For the purposes of this report both residents will be referred to as “the resident”. The terms “they and their” also refers to both residents.
On 19 June 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that their fixed term tenancy had ended on 17 March 2019. It said it would contact them to arrange an appointment to sign a new tenancy agreement.
On 5 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for assistance to update their housing application to show they would consider 2 neighbouring boroughs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 February 2023 to provide medical information to support their request to be rehoused. They also reported an ongoing issue with mould in the property. A mould wash was carried out in March 2023.
Between March 2023 and April 2024 the landlord and resident communicated regarding several issues including damp and mould, the banding awarded to the resident in respect of their housing application, ongoing repairs and lift breakdowns.
On 15 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to ask why 2 separate repair jobs had been combined under 1 job reference. They were concerned that this would lead to a “bodge job.” The landlord provided an explanation in its reply of 16 April 2024.
On 14 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to set out the complaint definition being about the merging of the repair job and the resident’s request to be rehoused. The resident replied on the same day to ask that it consider additional issues including their tenancy review, a complaint about a member of staff, damage to personal belongings and other repair issues.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2024, the main points being:
1. It attended 4 appointments for damp and mould between December 2023 and March 2024 within its timescales. It said the main cause of the mould was condensation and provided a link for further advice.
2. It understood that the resident’s vulnerabilities could leave them feeling trapped in their own home in the event of a lift breakdown. It said it had reviewed the repair logs for the past year and had no concerns.
3. At least one lift had always been in service apart from an hour or so on 12 April 2024. It had responded to repair requests within its timescales. It apologised if the lift being out of action had caused inconvenience.
4. It set out a timeline of repairs between March and April 2024. It acknowledged there were communication failures.
5. In future resident’s would be told if repairs were to be merged. It said it had also issued a reminder that if an operative was running late they must give the resident a courtesy call.
6. It understood that the resident did not want any further repairs carried out until they were satisfied with the landlord’s response. It asked the resident to let it know if and when they were ready to proceed.
7. The last tenancy review was carried out on 1 October 2019 therefore it would not be reviewed again until October that year.
8. The local authority had 100% nomination rights to its properties in the borough. Its member of staff had therefore suggested the resident consider moving to another borough where it might be able to exercise “greater discretion” due the local authority not having total nomination rights.
9. It had reviewed the resident’s housing application and was satisfied it had acted “correctly” by working with the local authority to ensure the resident’s needs were identified and the correct priority awarded. The local authority awarded Band 2 medical priority.
10. It was “not within its gift” to rehouse the resident due to overcrowding because the local authority had 100% nomination rights in the borough. It said the resident had declined to widen their areas of choice to include other boroughs. It signposted the resident to the mutual exchange process.
11. It confirmed it was responsible for day to day repairs and maintenance. When the member of staff visited he felt it was appropriate to offer decoration vouchers as a gesture of goodwill. The offer was made “over and above” its requirement to carry out essential repairs and was therefore appropriate.
12. It offered the resident £150 compensation comprised of £50 for its delayed complaint response and £100 for the failures in its handling of the repairs.
On 21 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to set out their dissatisfaction with its response, as follows:
1. They provided a copy of the landlord’s letter to them saying their fixed term tenancy ended on 17 March 2019 therefore it should have been reviewed in March.
2. They had never requested to stay within the borough and that their housing application showed they were willing to consider others.
3. The condensation only became an issue when the landlord put cladding on the building.
4. A multi skilled operative was not necessarily appropriately qualified to carry out certain repairs.
5. When the contractor came to do the mould wash he only cleaned around some of the windows and the front door.
6. The decoration vouchers were to assist them to do repair works themselves which they felt the landlord were responsible for. Furthermore, they would have difficulty doing so due to their health issues.
7. They also felt the landlord’s response “played down” the problems with the lift.
8. The response failed to address the mould in the property, mice infestation or damage to their belongings.
On 10 July 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to propose to carry out a further survey of the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 19 July 2024, the main points being:
1. It had offered to carry out a fresh survey and carry out additional repairs. The resident had requested proof of its operative’s qualifications. It could not provide this information but assured them that they were suitably qualified. The resident also reported that there were additional repairs to those it had listed. However, they did not want any further repairs to be carried out until their questions were answered satisfactorily.
2. It was satisfied it acted in line with its policies to arrange for works to take place as well as to ensure they were cancelled when requested by the resident.
3. It signposted the resident to make a claim on its insurance for damage to belongings. It provided contact details and gave advice on what to include in the claim.
4. Since the resident had confirmed they were willing to move out of the borough it had offered a property in a neighbouring borough. However, this was declined by the resident on 16 April saying “we have a right to a 3 bedroom family home in a borough that works for the whole family.” It had tried to contact the resident to discuss properties in other boroughs but they had not replied.
5. It could not offer a management move because the local authority had 100% nomination rights in the resident’s borough. It had discussed the request with the local authority who advised they did not meet their criteria. It signposted the resident to the mutual exchange process.
6. The banding was allocated by the local authority. It had put the resident’s information forward for assessment and was satisfied that the local authority’s banding was in line with their own policies. Following the resident’s complaint the local authority had reviewed the banding which confirmed it was correct. It was satisfied with its involvement in the process and advised the resident to contact the local authority if they had further queries.
7. Having reviewed the staff member’s involvement in the case it was satisfied it had gone “above and beyond” to offer a suitable resolution to the resident.
8. It had reviewed the communications between the staff member and the resident. It could not find any instances where it was implied that the growth of damp and mould was caused by the resident.
9. It provided a full list of all lift breakdowns and repairs since June 2023. At least 1 lift was always in operation with most repairs being resolved on the first visit. It was therefore satisfied with its maintenance of the lifts.
10. It acknowledged that letters provided by the resident relating to lift works taking place on January and May 2024 contradicted information it provided at stage 1 for which it apologised. However, it was satisfied that the repairs were addressed within its timescales and the lifts maintained to an “acceptable standard.”
11. Following the expiry of the fixed term tenancy in March 2019 the tenancy itself did not expire. However, it returned to a rolling monthly agreement until such time it was renewed. The resident signed a new agreement on 1 October 2019 therefore the current agreement expired on 1 October 2024 at which time it would again return to a rolling monthly agreement and would be raised for review.
12. It upheld the complaint because it had identified failure to provide a service. It offered £50 for incorrect or inadequate information provided at stage 1 in addition to the £150 offered at stage 1.
On 19 July 2024 the resident emailed us to set out her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, particularly in relation to their ongoing request to be moved. The complaint became one we could investigate on 19 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy (repairs policy) states that it will carry out non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. It also sets out that mechanical and electrical maintenance, including lifts, is excluded from its responsive repairs service.
Its Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy (LCDM policy) states that where damp and mould is caused by condensation (where there are no issues with the property itself causing the condensation), it will work with residents to take appropriate measures to resolve the issues. This may include providing self-help advice which will be communicated sensitively.
Its Fire Safety Management Policy (fire policy) says that it in community premises it will be proactive in becoming aware of people who may need assistance to escape and develop Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) as required.
Its Allocation Policy says that each local authority has different nomination arrangements and allocations policies. In some areas this may be as high as 100%.
The local authority’s Allocations Policy states that in exceptional cases it may exercise its discretion to increase the priority awarded based on the exceptional circumstances of the case. Band 2 priority maybe awarded to residents with “high medical priority” and band 3 and 4 priority maybe awarded to residents who are overcrowded by one bedroom.
Its Management Transfer policy states that residents who require a move to level-access accommodation due to ongoing medical needs are not within the scope of the policy.
Its Tenancy Management Policy says that it shares responsibility for preventing, reducing and eradicating pests with its residents as follows:
1. It will identify and block any potential access points in the structure of its properties.
2. Residents are responsible for:
  1. Reporting nests, holes, potential access points or infestations promptly.
  2. Treating and/or paying for treatment of infestations in their own property.
Its Complaints Policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
Its Customer Compensation and Remedies Policy (compensation policy) states that it may not offer compensation payments for personal injury or other public liability insurance claims.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy review.

As set out above the resident raised their concern about the tenancy review process as part of their stage 1 complaint.
The previous fixed term tenancy was signed on 1 October 2019 therefore it would not expire until October 2024. Therefore the information provided in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 21 June 2024 was correct.
While the response was accurate the landlord missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations. This was because it failed to explain to the resident that although the previous fixed term expired in March 2019 the new fixed term tenancy did not start until the new agreement was signed in October 2019. It also failed to clarify that the expiry of the fixed term tenancy did not end the tenancy itself because it was automatically replaced by a rolling monthly tenancy agreement.
The lack of clarity caused the resident to raise the matter again in their reply to the stage 1 response, also on 21 June 2024. They said that the letter of 19 June 2019 advised the fixed term tenancy expired in March of that year. They therefore asserted that the tenancy review was due in March 2024 not October 2024.
In their email to the landlord on 25 June 2024 the resident said that the tenancy had now ended. They said the landlord should not renew it because the property did not meet their needs.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 19 July 2024 went some way to putting right the shortcoming identified above.
Although the landlord could have provided a more detailed explanation at stage 1 there was no maladministration in its response.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.

The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a works order on 24 June 2023 because the left hand lift door was stuck open. It attended on the same day, identified the fault and isolated the lift. The repair was carried out on 27 June, 3 days later, which was reasonable.
On 20 October 2023 the landlord received a report that the left hand lift was out of service. It attended the same day to identify the fault and isolate the lift. The repair was carried out the following day which was reasonable.
The resident’s doctor wrote a letter to “whom it may concern” on 13 November 2023. It said the resident’s mobility was worse due to pain and restriction in her joints. They were unable to manage the stairs and was “at risk being on the fifth floor.” It is unclear when the letter was shared with the landlord. This makes it difficult to assess when it was first put on notice regarding the resident’s needs in the event of complete lift failure.
A file note dated 15 January 2024 confirmed that the landlord attended for a fault with the right hand lift because it was “below floor level on several floors.” The lift was isolated and awaiting repair.
On 23 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that the lift was out of service. It expected to receive the replacement part within 10 working days. It asked residents who might experience a “high level of inconvenience” to contact it for assistance. While this was positive the lift had already been out of service for 8 days therefore it came late in the process.
The landlord attended again on 26 January 2024 however it was unable to complete the repair. A file note dated 29 January 2024 confirmed that the lift had been repaired having been out of service for 2 weeks. The landlord has not provided any response targets for lift repairs making it difficult to assess its response time.
The landlord’s repair log shows that it attended site on 2 February 2024 to carry out a temporary repair to the left hand lift which returned it to service. It noted that a new ‘tape head shoe’ would be needed. It is unclear whether the permanent repair was carried out. This is a record keeping failure.
In the resident’s email to the landlord dated 1 March 2024 they said they would be trapped in their home in the event of lift failure. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively engaged with the resident to discuss their concerns. Had it done so it would have been aware of her mobility issues which prevented her from using the stairs, as set out above. In such circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to develop a PEEP in line with its fire policy.
The repair logs show that it attended site on 24 March 2024 and found the left hand lift out of service. The fault was remedied and the lift returned to service on the same day. The landlord’s response was reasonable.
An entry on the repair logs dated 9 April 2024 noted that it attended a fault with the right hand lift that day. The cause was identified and the lift isolated awaiting repair.
The repair logs show the landlord received a report on 11 April 2024 that the left hand lift was stuck on the eighth floor. However, it was working when the operative attended later that day. It noted that the right hand lift was on ‘stop and test’ awaiting parts. Therefore, there was an unknown period when both lifts were out of service during that day. However, it is acknowledged it was several hours.
On Friday 12 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report that both lifts were out of action. The left hand lift that was reset the previous day was jamming again and the other was still out of service. This is consistent with an entry on the repair logs.
The landlord replied on the same day and apologised that both lifts were out of service. The right hand lift was awaiting parts with the contractor due to attend to fit parts the following Monday. A new call out was raised for the left hand lift that afternoon and its engineer would attend later that day.
It apologised for any inconvenience. However, it failed to enquire if the resident might experience any difficulties arising from both lifts being out of service. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances, particularly given the resident’s email set of 1 March 2024.
The landlord’s repair logs show that when the landlord attended that day the left hand lift was working on arrival. Therefore, both lifts were out of service again albeit for an unknown number of hours.
The landlord’s file notes confirm that it attended on 13 April 2024 to complete the repair and return the right hand lift to service after 4 days. The landlord’s response time was reasonable.
On 3 May 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that one of the lifts was out of service. It expected to receive the replacement part within 10 working days. It asked residents who might experience a “high level of inconvenience” to contact it for assistance. This is not recorded on the repair logs which is a record keeping failure. Furthermore, it is not clear when the lift was returned to service which means it is not possible to assess the landlord’s response.
The repair logs show that on 13 May, 3 and 13 June 2024 the landlord carried out repairs to the left hand lift. On each occasion it was returned to service on the same day the fault occurred. The landlord’s response was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 21 June 2024 said “I understand that with your vulnerabilities, if the lift in the building breaks down it can leave you feeling trapped in your own home.” However, it failed to provide a response to this possibility in line with its fire policy. This demonstrated a concerning lack of understanding of the risks associated with the resident’s ability to escape the building in the event of a fire.
The landlord’s repair logs show that on 24 June 2024 the right hand lift was reported as out of service. When it attended it was unable to complete the repair. The lift was repaired and returned to service on 8 July 2024 meaning it was out of service for 2 weeks.
Without evidence of the landlord’s target response times it’s difficult to assess whether its response was reasonable. However, there is no evidence that it wrote to the resident to inform them of the repair timescales as it had done so on previous occasions. It is unclear why it did not do so and its approach was therefore inconsistent.
The resident’s frustration was evident in their email to the landlord of 26 June 2024. They said the lift was out of service but it had not provided any notification. They were concerned that there was no plan to assist them in leaving the property in the event both lifts were out at the same time.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 19 July 2024 failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns. It only provided a response about whether it had attended within time and if it had maintained the lifts to an acceptable standard. This was inappropriate, it showed a lack of regard to the resident’s welfare and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
The landlord’s repair of the lifts was reasonable overall however, as set out above it has not been possible to assess whether its longer response times were in line with its timescales. Its communication with the resident in the event of a lift breakdown was inconsistent. It also failed to consider and respond to the resident’s concerns about how she would escape the building if the lifts either could not be used or were both out of service.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

It is unclear when the landlord was first put on notice regarding the presence of damp and mould in the property. However, the first record provided to us was the resident’s email to the landlord dated 28 February 2023. They said the mould had been reported but never been resolved because it kept returning.
They provided a medical letter dated 21 February 2023 which confirmed that their daughter has a health condition which affects her immune system making her more susceptive to “severe infections.” It said she may need a bone marrow transplant in which case it would be “imperative” that she lived in a property free from any damp and mould.
On 28 February 2023 the landlord appropriately raised a works order to carry out a mould treatment. The works order was updated on 7 March to say that a mould clean and treatment was carried out by the front door, in the bathroom and bedroom. It noted that the mould seemed to be “window related.”
An internal email dated 13 March 2023 referred to a discussion with the resident who said that the operative had not cleaned mould on all the windows. The resident said the operative had advised he was going to request a survey of all the windows and the door. A query was raised that day with the surveyor to see if they were aware.
There was no response so this was chased in a further internal email dated 20 March 2023. It was then forwarded to the appropriate team who booked in works for the operative to attend on 28 March 2023. The job description was to check all windows and the front door as “all seals have gone.” Follow on works were appropriately raised to remove and replace the sealant around all the windows. The works order was updated to say all works were completed on 2 April 2023. Its response was appropriately in line with its repairs policy.
On or around 29 November 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the mould had returned. On 30 November 2023 the landlord appropriately raised a further works order to carry out a mould treatment. The job was booked for 11 December 2023 however, the resident said this was not suitable and provided alternative dates.
The landlord conducted an ‘MOT’ survey of the property on 8 December 2023. During the visit the windows were cleaned down and it noted that follow on works were not required. It recorded that advice was given to the resident about wiping condensation off the windows to help control the problem “until a fix can be done.” The survey did not recommend follow on works and advice was given to the resident about condensation therefore, it is unclear what “fix” was required. This is a record keeping failure.
On 21 December 2023 the resident reported that mould had returned around the windows and front door. The landlord appropriately raised a works order for a surveyor inspection. The job description noted that the resident reported that there was black mould due to cladding. The landlord appropriately booked in a survey for 3 January 2024.
The works order was updated on 4 January 2024 to say there was a small area of condensation which had formed mould in the hallway. It noted that there was no evidence of mould anywhere else. On the same day the landlord appropriately raised a works order to carry out a mould wash above the front entrance door in the hallway.
However, when it attended to carry out works on 9 February 2024 the resident declined to give access because they were not informed of the appointment. There is no evidence that the landlord had told the resident about the appointment which was inappropriate causing distress.
On 28 February 2024 the landlord attended the property to discuss the various issues raised by the resident, including damp and mould. The resident was dissatisfied with their discussion because she they felt the landlord was “not interested” in the damp and mould issue. They asserted that the landlord had said it could not be resolved permanently and therefore it could only offer temporary solutions.
The landlord’s email to the resident of 1 March 2024 provided a different version of the conversation. While we do not doubt the resident’s account we cannot reasonably establish what was discussed during the visit.
However the landlord confirmed it was not satisfied with the standard of the mould wash and confirmed that a new order had been raised accordingly. On 6 March 2024 the landlord raised a works order to wash down mould from the window seals. While this was positive the failure to carry out works adequately on the first occasion caused inconvenience to the resident.
In their email to the landlord on 13 May 2024 the resident raised the issue of compensation for damage to possessions caused by damp and mould. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response in line with its compensation policy which would have been appropriate.
The landlord’s stage1 complaint response of 21 June 2024 advised that condensation was causing mould to grow. It signposted the resident to its website for advice on how to manage the issue. However, the resident had raised concerns that external cladding had contributed to the issue and there is no evidence that the landlord provided a response. There is also no evidence that it considered whether the failed window seals had contributed to the problem. It therefore did not follow its damp policy to give advice in a sensitive manner.
On 2 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to advise that the mould was spreading and was evident in the kitchen cupboards and drawers. They said it was also coming up through the flooring. In the same email they expressed their dissatisfaction that the landlord had not provided a response on the question of compensation for damage to her belongings including carpets and rugs.
On 10 July 2024 the landlord appropriately offered to inspect the property. However, the resident declined to provide access until it had satisfactorily responded to their outstanding issues.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 19 July 2024 provided details of how the resident could make a claim on its insurance. While this was positive it came late in the process.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of damp and mould were in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. However, it failed to consider whether the cladding and/or window seals might be contributing to the issue. This meant it failed to address steps the resident might take to combat the condensation in a sensitive way. It failed to provide a timely response to the resident’s request for compensation.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The resident’s medical letter dated 21 February 2023, referred to above, was submitted to the landlord and the local authority by email on 28 February 2023. The letter asked the landlord to take the resident’s daughter’s health and the presence of damp and mould into account when assessing their request to move. In their email to the landlord the resident also asked to be rehoused on the grounds of overcrowding. They also attached additional evidence from professionals in support of their request to be rehoused.
On 21 March 2023 the resident also emailed the landlord to provide medical evidence that they had leukaemia.
In its email to the landlord dated 30 August 2023 the local authority confirmed that the highest priority its medical advisor could award for medical reasons was band 2. The landlord confirmed that it had appropriately carried out a medical assessment on 21 March 2023 and its advisor had awarded band 3.
On 7 September 2023 a solicitor wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf to request that it move the family from band 3 to band 1 on medical grounds. The landlord replied on 12 September 2023 to say it had spoken to the resident on 30 August to advise that it could not reassess the banding without new evidence which the resident had said they would provide. We have not been provided with ‘live’ evidence of its discussion with the resident which is a record keeping failure.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 December 2023 to request to be moved “as soon as possible” due to medical issues.
On 16 January 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say its medical assessor had confirmed the property was “unsuitable” and had recommended the banding be changed to band 2. It confirmed it had updated the local authority’s system to say that the family required a ground floor 3 bedroom property. It is unclear what prompted the review however, it is noted that the landlord’s medical advisor had awarded the maximum priority it could for medical reasons.
During the landlord’s visit to the resident on 28 February 2024 it discussed the resident’s request to move. In its follow up email to the resident on 1 March 2024 it confirmed that it had asked the local authority to award them band 1 priority. It had been rejected but was being reviewed.
The landlord’s response was appropriately in line with the local authority’s email to the landlord of 30 August 2023 and their Allocations Policy. This is because while the landlord was not able to award band 1 priority it tried to support the resident by making a request to the local authority on their behalf.
It confirmed that the only list it held was for management moves. However, it intended to await the outcome of the local authority’s review to consider next steps. This was because it would use feedback from the local authority to identify what properties may be suitable for the resident. This raised the resident’s expectations that a management move might be possible.
On 26 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it could not consider a management move because they did not apply to medical grounds. While this is correct, it is unclear why it did not say so in its email to the resident on 1 March 2024. Its failure to do so meant its approach to management moves was contradictory, causing distress to the resident by unnecessarily raising her expectations.
On 30 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to ask why her 2 children had to share rooms given their ages and them being of the opposite sex. They asked why that alone was not enough to move them. On 7 June 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to report the spread of the mould and the increased risk to their daughter’s health.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 21 June 2024 confirmed that the landlord had assessed the resident’s application and had assessed them as band 2. The local authority had 100% nomination rights in the resident’s borough therefore it was not able to offer a property in the same borough. It also appropriately signposted the resident to the mutual exchange process. Its response was reasonable.
However, it also suggested that the resident consider other boroughs where it might have more scope to be able to make an offer due to differing nomination rights. While this could be a reasonable approach in some circumstances in their email to the landlord of 21 June 2024 the resident disputed that they had declined to consider moving to a different borough. The evidence shows that the resident had indicated as early as 2022 that they were willing to do so. It is therefore unclear why the landlord thought otherwise and its response caused distress to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 19 July 2024 referred to its offer of a property in a different borough which the resident had declined. The landlord asserted that it had tried to engage in discussions with the resident about other properties but they had not replied. We have not been provided with any ‘live’ evidence regarding these discussions which is a record keeping failure. It has also impacted on our ability to make a determination on this point. It is noted that the landlord offered to resume their discussions however, it is unclear whether the resident responded.
The response advised that it could not consider the resident for a management move in the borough because these were also managed by the local authority under the nominations arrangement. It said it had tried to support the resident by asking the local authority to consider their request but that it was told they did not meet the criteria. It once again appropriately signposted the resident to the mutual exchange process.
It was positive that the landlord tried to engage with the local authority on the resident’s behalf regarding the possibility of a management move. While its reasons for not granting a management move itself were appropriate its response was different to the one it gave on 1 and 26 March 2023. Had it said it could not grant a management move in the resident’s borough at all it would have effectively managed their expectations from the outset.
There was service failure in the way the landlord managed the resident’s expectations in relation to a possible management move. Its failure caused avoidable distress to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £25 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where the failure may not have affected the overall outcome.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about a member of staff.

The landlord visited the resident on 28 February 2024 to discuss their housing situation. After the visit the resident emailed the landlord to set out their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the manager that attended. They questioned his “attitude” towards the repair issues with the lifts. He advised the longest they were out of use was 48 hours but they had a letter which said otherwise. They felt he was “not interested” in the mould issues they experienced and was passing “passing the buck” to the local authority regarding their request for a move.
On 1 March 2024 the manager emailed the resident to clarify the position with regards to their request to move as set out above. He clarified his comments were general comment about lifts and “how the landlord operates.” He said they could not recall suggesting the resident clean the mould themselves but “may have made a comment” about cleaning any mould growth around the window. He apologised if he had caused upset as this was not his intention. He also clarified why he was waiting for a response from the local authority regarding the move, as set out above.
In an email dated 3 June 2024 the resident advised that during the visit on 28 February 2024 the manager gave them a decoration voucher. They said they could not use it because they were not able to do the work themselves. In any event the shop would not validate it because they could not show a current tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 21 June 2024 confirmed that although the manager was not directly responsible for its repairs function he used his discretion to offer the voucher as a goodwill gesture. It appropriately clarified that the offer was made over and above its day to day repair responsibilities. However it could have taken the opportunity to offer to support the resident with validating the voucher with the shop, should they wish to use it, because they did have a valid tenancy agreement. It also confirmed that the manager’s response regarding the resident’s request to move as appropriate.
The response said it had contacted the manager’s line manager to discuss the complaint and requested they provide a response. It is unclear whether they had spoken directly to their member of staff to discuss all the resident’s concerns which would have been appropriate in the circumstances.
There is also no evidence that the manager made a ‘live’ file note of his visit to the resident which is a record keeping failure. Had they done so the landlord would have had an audit trail which it could have relied on in the event of a dispute about events.
The resident’s response, also dated 21 June 2024, set out their ongoing dissatisfaction to other elements of their conversation with the manager during the visit. This included that the manager had said the lifts broke down because the block was overcrowded and used by “inconsiderate” residents. They said he also blamed the mould on them being overcrowded.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 19 July 2024 referred to the outcome of a review of the manager’s handling of the case. Once again, there was no evidence that it discussed the complaint with the manager directly. This resulted in its response being broad in nature which failed to provide a response to all the key elements of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaint responses suggested it had not carried out a full investigation of the complaint. This was inappropriate because the resident could not be confident that it had fully considered all the issues they had raised.
The landlord’s failure amounts to service failure because it may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was a failure of service of short duration.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for non-damp and mould repairs.

Mice infestation.

The landlord’s file note shows that on 14 December 2023 the resident called to report he had seen a mouse and found droppings in the lounge and kitchen. There is no evidence that the landlord responded which was inappropriate. This caused inconvenience to the resident who chased in his email to the landlord of 19 December 2023 about several matters.
On 3 January 2024 the landlord inspected the property and concluded that proofing works should be carried out in the kitchen to “further control the infestation.” It advised that a thorough inspection be carried out including removal of the kitchen units.
The landlord attended again on 19 January 2024 to remove the kitchen plinth. There was no evidence of droppings and the resident advised they had not seen any mice for a “long time”. The resident was advised to monitor the situation and report back if the problem reoccurred.
It undertook a third visit on 22 January 2024. On this occasion a “couple” of droppings were seen under the kitchen units. However, the resident reported that sightings were “infrequent” and were only in the kitchen. Extra control points were placed under the kitchen units to aid the monitoring process.
A final visit carried out on 8 February 2024 noted that there was no evidence of rodent activity.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 2 July 2024 she said the landlord had left the boxes in place but had not been back to check them. In its email to the resident of 10 July 2024 the landlord offered to check the situation with the mice during its survey however, the resident declined to proceed with the appointment.
While it was positive that the landlord attended the property there is no evidence that it undertook the recommended proofing works in line with its Tenancy Management Policy. However, it is acknowledged that by 8 February 2024 there was no evidence of mice and that the landlord undertook works set out as being the resident’s responsibility by carrying out treatments.

Other repairs.

During March 2024 the landlord raised separate works orders for a window and plastering repair. The works were then merged under one works order. Its operative attended at the end of March however, they arrived outside of the designated time slot and the resident declined access because it was not practical.
On 2 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to advise he had received a text with a new appointment which he could not attend. The landlord called and left a voicemail on the same day to advise that it aimed to carry out works by “mid-April.” The resident emailed on 7 April 2024 to say they were not available and asked why the jobs were merged.
On 15 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord again to query why the repairs were merged. They expressed concerns about the landlord carrying out a “bodge job.”
On 16 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had merged the 2 repair jobs relating to blown plaster and issues with windows not locking and/or safety latches not working. It said this was usual practice to reduce costs and minimise disruption to residents. It assured the resident that the job was allocated to an operative who could carry out all works. Its explanation was reasonable.
The landlord said it was aware the resident had called regarding a repair booked in for that day which they had not consented to. Its notes showed it had left a voicemail for the resident but that the job was now cancelled. It would not be rebooked until the resident was satisfied with its response regarding the merging of jobs. It apologised for any inconvenience and said it would ensure residents were informed where merges happened in future.
The resident’s reply to the landlord on the same day said they felt it was trying to save money and that residents would want jobs done “properly” regardless of how many appointments were needed.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 21 June 2024 confirmed that the job that had originally been booked for mid April was moved to 17 April 2024. Due to the job only being cancelled the day before the operative did not see the cancellation in time and attended the property anyway. It apologised for the inconvenience. The works order was updated that day to note the job was cancelled “until further notice.”
Its complaint response appropriately acknowledged its failures with regards to communication. It also appropriately identified what it would do differently to prevent a recurrence. It offered £100 compensation to try to put things right. Its response was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
During its email to the resident on 10 July 2024 the landlord offered to complete works to the windows and plastering. In their reply the resident said there were other repairs which also needed to be resolved. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 July 2024 to offer to carry out a survey to ensure it had captured all necessary repairs, including any pest proofing works. The resident declined to give access because they were dissatisfied with its response.
Therefore, we consider that while the landlord’s handling of the repairs could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord appropriately used its discretion to open a stage 1 complaint following the resident’s email of 16 April 2024 setting out their dissatisfaction about the merging of the repair jobs.
The resident contacted us on 17 April 2024 to express their dissatisfaction around the handling of the non–damp and mould repairs.
The landlord tried to phone the resident on 18 April 2024 to scope out the complaint definition. As it could not reach them resident it sent an email and said the relevant team would make contact within 10 working days. However, it failed to do so, contacting the resident on 14 May 2024 which was 17 working days later. The purpose of that email was to clarify the outcomes of the complaint. The resident replied on the same day to set out the issues to be included in their complaint.
Following their contact with us on 17 April 2024 we wrote to the landlord on 7 June 2024 to request that it provide its stage 1 response by 28 June 2024. Following our intervention it provided its response on 21 June 2024. While this was within the timescale set by us, it was 46 working days after the landlord first acknowledged the complaint and was therefore 36 working days out of time.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appropriately acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation to try to put things right.
Also on 21 June 2024 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2. On 2 July 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to set out the complaint definition. It appropriately provided its complaint response on 19 July 2024 within time.
The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that at each stage of the complaints process complaint handlers must consider all relevant information and evidence carefully.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 21 June 2024 contained inaccurate information. The number of lift call outs was too low as set out above. It also referred to the right hand lift being out of service for 2 weeks in August 2023. However, the evidence shows it was out for 2 weeks in January 2024 and again in June 2024. It also referred to both lifts being out for a short time on 12 April when they had also been out at the same time, albeit for a short duration, on 11 April 2024.
This caused time and trouble to the resident who emailed the landlord, also on 21 June 2024, to say its response was inaccurate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 19 July 2024 appropriately acknowledged its error at stage 1 and awarded £50 compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
The landlord offered appropriate compensation for its complaint handling failures in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. Therefore, we consider that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy review.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about a member of staff.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its response to the resident’s request for non-damp and mould repairs which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £325 compensation comprised of:
  1. £150 for the distress caused by its failures in its handling of lift repairs.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. £25 for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  4. £50 for the distress caused by its failure in its response to the resident’s complaint about a member of staff.
3. Contact the resident to discuss their needs regarding assistance to evacuate in the event of an emergency or complete lift failure. It should write to the resident to confirm the outcome. If appropriate it should also write a PEEP in consultation with the resident which should also be confirmed to them in writing.
4. If the resident has not already made a claim on its insurance the landlord should contact them to enquire if they need any support to do so.
5. If the resident has not already moved the landlord should contact them to review the situation with regards to the possibility of moving to a neighbouring borough. It should set out the outcome in writing.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident:
1. £100 offered in its stage 1 response for its failures in its response to non-damp and mould repairs if it has not already done so.
2. £50 offered at stage 1 and £50 offered at stage 2 for its complaint handling failures if it has not already done so.
The landlord should consider writing a communication strategy to be used in the event of lift failures.