Clarion Housing Association Limited (202401269)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401269

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 January 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of recurring damp and mould and associated repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She occupies the 1-bedroom, ground floor flat with her 2 children, the oldest of whom is asthmatic.
In October 2021, the landlord arranged a specialist damp and mould inspection. This was following reports from the resident of a widespread, recurrent damp and mould problem. She also made a formal complaint via her MP around the same time. Records show that the specialist diagnosed rising damp and recommended a range of works, including renewal of the damp proof course. These works were, according to the available repair logs, carried out in the spring of 2022. During this time, the resident and her children were temporarily rehoused for several weeks.
In October 2023, the resident reported that damp and mould was again affecting the bedroom and storage cupboard. After 2 inspections in November 2023, the landlord raised several works to improve the ventilation in the flat. It also instructed for mould treatment to be applied to affected areas in the bedroom.
On 6 March 2024, the resident complained that:
1. The repairs undertaken in 2022 and her temporary accommodation were poorly organised and led to her being away from the home for longer than planned. This caused her stress and inconvenience in having to move to different hotels and recover food costs.
2. Damp and mould had returned within a short period of moving back in.
3. No repairs had been completed since the surveyor’s inspection in 2023, including to a “crumbling” ceiling containing asbestos.
4. Her children’s health was at risk and her mental health was being affected. She also said her belongings had been damaged by mould.

The resident asked the landlord to move her family immediately to somewhere that was free from mould and larger.

In the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 17 May 2024, it said:
1. It had kept the resident updated about the progress of repairs in 2022 but acknowledged she had been inconvenienced by organisational problems when her family were temporarily rehoused.
2. It had not resolved the present damp and mould problem within its prescribed timescales. However, it said the asbestos removal was outstanding because the resident did not want the “upheaval” of moving out for the work to be done.
3. The resident could claim for her damaged personal belongings under its or her own insurance policy and explained what information was needed.

The landlord apologised, provided an update on any outstanding work, and offered to continue to monitor the humidity levels in the flat. It also awarded compensation of £500, which included £100 for the distress and inconvenience while temporarily rehoused in 2022. It said, however, it was unable to move her permanently and signposted her to the local authority to apply to be rehoused.

The resident escalated her complaint in late May 2024. She did so because she disagreed with some of the landlord’s explanations, such as why the asbestos removal was outstanding. The resident said she was not seeking compensation and wanted to be permanently moved.
In its stage 2 response from 3 June 2024, the landlord indicated that there were no further service failings identified from its initial response. It explained that this was because it had:
1. Kept the resident updated about the progress of works and had offered an alternative solution to being temporarily rehoused for the asbestos removal.
2. Provided correct information and advice about the options available for rehousing.

The landlord offered no further remedies but confirmed it would continue to monitor humidity levels over a 12-week period through technology it had recently installed.

After the complaints process ended, the landlord offered to move the resident’s family on a short stay to one of its vacant properties. It confirmed it would provide further details so the resident could consider this option further. However, the landlord advised that, due to an administrative failing, there was a delay in contacting her. The resident advised that she has not responded to the landlord and has heard nothing further about the monitoring of the humidity levels.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she is unhappy with the actions the landlord has taken to address the damp and mould problem. The resident said her family’s health and belongings have been damaged. She asks to be moved permanently to one of the landlord’s properties or for it to support her with her application through the local authority.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident advised that she has been experiencing damp and mould in her property for several years. The Ombudsman does not doubt her account. The available records support that the property has been affected by damp and mould since early 2017. As set out in the background, the resident complained in late 2021 and completed the landlord’s 2-stage process in March 2022. This acknowledged delays and poor communication and gave details of how to refer her concerns to this Service. As was her right, the resident did not pursue the matter further. The resident made a new complaint, in March 2024, which was almost 2 years after the landlord had completed repairs to address the rising damp.
There are time limits on what the Ombudsman may investigate. This is because our decisions are based on evidence and, with time, this may no longer be available, or recollections of events may not be entirely reliable. This investigation will therefore be focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a recurrence of damp and mould in October 2023. Any reference to matters predating this are for context only.
The resident advised that the outcome she is seeking is to be permanently moved to a larger, damp free property. The remedies that the Ombudsman make are aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been, as far as reasonably possible, had the failing not occurred. It is not, therefore, within the Ombudsman’s powers to order the landlord to permanently rehouse someone as this would not put them in the same position. Where we determine a failing, we may order the landlord takes a specific action that is aimed at putting things right for the resident. This can include an apology, carrying out a repair, or providing compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused.
It is understood that the resident believes the repairs the landlord has made or proposed to make will not resolve the damp and mould in her home. The resident’s concerns are understandable, given the history of the problem. The Ombudsman is not, however, able to comment on the technical appropriateness of the landlord’s diagnosis of the cause of the damp and mould. The focus of this investigation is, therefore, on the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions and whether these are supported by evidence, such as reports from technical experts.
In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident advised that her current living situation is impacting her family’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. In personal injury claims, the parties will appoint independent medical experts to provide insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. Therefore, consideration will be given in this investigation to the distress and inconvenience that any failings on the landlord’s part have caused.

Damp and mould repairs

In February 2023 the landlord implemented a ‘Leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy’ and process. This was in response to the Ombudsman’s 2021 Spotlight report on damp and mould, which recommends that landlords have a separate policy to address such problems. The damp and mould policy sets out the landlord’s commitment to:
1. Establish the causes.
2. Carry out effective repairs.
3. Keep residents informed and provide advice to reduce condensation.
4. Adhere to its legal and contractual obligations to keep the property in good condition.
The resident reported on 6 October 2023 that damp and mould was affecting her children’s bedroom and storage cupboard. A priority case was raised on the landlord’s repair system because of the vulnerabilities in the household. This meant the landlord aimed, under its damp and mould process, to attend within 7 days. An initial inspection took place on 3 November 2023, around 28 days after it became aware of the issues. The landlord exceeded its published timescales by around 21 days. It has not explained the reason for the delay, nor is any explanation apparent from the available records. Therefore, the landlord’s response did not meet its complaints policy standards, and the Ombudsman’s Complaint’s Handling Code (the Code), both of which encourage a culture of transparency and learning.
The operative recommended a surveyor’s inspection because there were multiple areas of damp. The surveyor’s report dated 20 November 2023, recorded that they identified no structural causes for the damp. They indicated that the cause was due to condensation/poor ventilation and raised works to address the problem, which included:
1. Overhauling the bathroom fan.
2. Adding a humidity fan in the kitchen.
3. Installing an airbrick.
4. Treating the mould on the bedroom walls, ceiling, and window.
5. Removal of an asbestos ceiling.

The surveyor also noted that the resident was advised to keep windows open and not to dry washing indoors.

As set out in our spotlight report, the causes of damp and mould can be complex and can require multiple investigations to identify and resolve. Sometimes there are several causes, including those relating to general day-to-day living, such as washing and drying clothes. The report encourages landlords not to take too a “simplistic” view or to blame tenants where living circumstances are found to be the cause of damp and mould.
Based on the evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord followed its damp and mould policy to establish a cause of the problem. It also gave advice to the resident about practical changes she could make to reduce condensation. Importantly, however, the landlord sought to improve ventilation in the home. This was appropriate given the landlord was aware that the property was overcrowded and there was limited space available, which are factors that can cause or contribute to excess condensation.
When the resident complained in early March 2024, she said that no works had been done following the surveyor’s inspection. The landlord advised in its stage 1 response from May 2024 that the bathroom repair had been completed within its 28-day timescale. This is supported by the evidence. The landlord, however, acknowledged that it had not completed some repairs within its published timescales. This was appropriate as the available records show that it exceeded its repair timescales on all but 1 repair. It was also the case that most of the works raised were still outstanding at the time of the landlord’s initial complaint response.
While the landlord took responsibility for the overall delay in completing repairs, it only directly accepted responsibility for the work to install an airbrick. This, it said, could not go ahead because the work did not meet fire-safety regulations. The landlord, however, advised that the delays in renewing the kitchen fan and removing asbestos was attributable to the resident. The evidence provided does not fully support these explanations. In fact, the records indicate that the kitchen fan was delayed because the landlord failed to raise a works order following an inspection on 15 December 2023. It is unclear if this is due to a record keeping failing or a shortfall in the quality of the complaint response. Either way, it is a failing that the landlord did not take accountability for the extent of its errors in the handling of the repairs. This was a missed opportunity to attempt to resolve the complaint.
As for the asbestos works, the available records did not cover the actions of the landlord to progress these. They did not also include any discussions or communications between the landlord and resident about the need to be temporarily rehoused. We have therefore been unable to establish a timeline of what happened. This is a failing. The lack of evidence also means that the landlord cannot demonstrate it took all reasonable steps to progress the works prior to the resident making a complaint.
The spotlight report recommended that landlords look for interim solutions to improve the lives of residents, such as mould treatment. It took the landlord around 68 days longer than its published timescales to complete mould treatment in the bedroom. However, the available records indicate that the landlord was not solely responsible for this. The treatment was originally booked for 7 December 2023, which was within the landlord’s repair timescale. However, the appointment was rearranged several times to accommodate the resident’s schedule. The Ombudsman cannot hold the landlord responsible for delays that are beyond its control, as was the case here.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 25 May 2024, the kitchen fan had not yet been installed. In its stage 2 response from late June 2024, the landlord did not provide any explanations or updates on the kitchen fan renewal. Available records, however, suggest it was fitted on 21 June 2023. This means the landlord exceeded its timescale by over 190 days. The landlord failed to acknowledge this delay. It has therefore not taken any steps to remedy the impact on the resident or sought to learn why this significant delay occurred.
The resident also complained that only a section of the mould in the bedroom had been treated and that there were untreated areas in the living room and storage cupboard. In the final response, the landlord said it had raised a new works order to complete further treatments after an inspection by its surveyor on 3 June 2024. It did not directly respond to the resident’s concern that the mould treatment was incomplete. However, it concluded that there were no service failings overall.
The repair logs provided state when works were closed as completed but do not confirm what the contractor did at the appointments. This is not in line with recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019. This highlighted the importance of landlord’s keeping “clear, accurate and easily accessible records” of repairs which should include “details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates”. In addition, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, states that “the 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”.
The resident complained that the landlord had not offered appropriate solutions to meet her household needs for the asbestos removal. It advised in the final response that it had given the resident options to remain at home or move out on a temporary basis, which she had declined. The landlord advised it was exploring other solutions and would update her again in early July 2024.
It is clear, from the available evidence, that the landlord was seeking ways to accommodate the resident’s needs and preferences. While it is accepted that this would have added time, there is no evidence, that this Service has seen, that the landlord was proactively seeking to resolve the situation before June 2024. This lack of action earlier on contributed to delays. The landlord has not acknowledged any failings in this respect and has therefore not taken sufficient action to put things right, in the Ombudsman’s view.
It was apparent from the resident’s complaint that she wanted to be moved because she believed the conditions were affecting her family’s health. The landlord said in response that having outstanding repairs did not meet the criteria of its Management Transfer Policy. Its explanation is in line with the landlord’s policy, which states it may consider in “very exceptional circumstances” a management transfer in damp and mould cases. This is only in cases where a property is deemed unsafe or uninhabitable and the repairs cannot be resolved in a reasonable time (usually more than 1 year) while the tenant is temporarily rehoused. There is no evidence, that this Service has seen, that the landlord’s technical specialists have deemed the property unsafe or uninhabitable. Therefore, while the reasons the resident wishes to move are understood, in the circumstances, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
Section 7.3. of the Code requires that “[a]ny remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.” One of the main reasons the landlord said it had not identified any further service failure was because it was in contact with the resident about the repairs. This included that it had installed technology in her home on 3 June 2024 to monitor humidity levels over a 12-week period. However, there is no evidence, that this Service has seen, that the landlord was proactively engaging with the resident. The Ombudsman does accept that this is partly due to an administrative error on the landlord’s part, which led to an email explaining a possible solution for the asbestos works not being sent. While the landlord has taken some appropriate action in contacting the resident again in October 2024, it has not done enough to demonstrate its commitment to meet its obligations to keep the property in good repair.
The landlord has taken some appropriate actions in an attempt to remedy the resident’s complaint. However, these are not proportionate to put right the extent of its failings, not all of which have been acknowledged by the landlord. Because of this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration and orders the landlord to take specific actions, including paying compensation above its original offer of £400. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy commits to responding to complaints within the timescales set out in the Code. At both stages of its 2-stage process it acknowledges a complaint within 5 working days of it being received. It also aims to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If more time is needed, the landlord will contact the resident and agree on a revised timescale.
At both stages, the landlord gave the incorrect dates for when the resident’s complaint was received. For example, the customer service team acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 March 2024, the same day she sent it. However, the formal acknowledgment of the complaint said it had been received on 22 April 2024. This was clearly an error and the fact it was repeated at stage 2 suggests that it may be a wider issue as opposed to a one off typographical error.
The stage 1 response took around 35 working days longer to issue than the required timescales. While the landlord did contact the resident to advise its response would be delayed on 15 May 2024, it had already by that time missed the deadline.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not meet its published timescales overall, however, it did not acknowledge any specific complaint handling failings. This was inappropriate and a missed opportunity to put things right. As such, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failing and orders the landlord to take actions to remedy the impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to her concerns about a recurring damp and mould problem and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence showing it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident apologising for the further failings identified in this report where it has not met its published timescales.
2. Pay £650 compensation, comprising of:
  1. £600 for the overall delays in the damp and mould repairs (in place of the £400 originally offered).
  2. £50 for the delays and errors in the complaint responses.
3. Explain the outcome of its monitoring of the humidity levels and any proposed further works.
4. Provide an update on the offer to temporarily rehouse the resident and, if appropriate, provide an alternative solution if the original property is no longer available.

Recommendation

Though not prescribed, the landlord may wish to consider taking learning from its handling of this case to improve the quality and timeliness of its repair services and complaints responses.