Clarion Housing Association Limited (202401797)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401797

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 February 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began in August 2023. He lives in a 2-bedroom bungalow with his children. The landlord has vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
The resident called the landlord on 10 April 2024 to make a complaint. This followed on from a surveyor having inspected the property on 2 April 2024. The resident said:
1. The landlord was doing nothing to alleviate damp and mould in the property. He wanted compensation of £3,000 for his damaged personal possessions, including a new carpet which he purchased because the previous one was saturated due to the damp.
2. He believed the damp proof course (DPC) had failed and there was both rising and penetrating damp.
3. The property was not fit for human habitation and was empty for 2 years prior to his moving to it. He wanted to be moved to another property in the same area, as his son attended a special educational needs (SEN) school.
4. He wanted a call back from the surveyor and a copy of the survey report sent to him.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 May 2024 after the resident contacted the surveyor by email. It made an offer of £400 compensation, which included £50 for complaints handling. The landlord said:
1. It accepted there were areas where it had failed to follow its policy and resolve matters within its timescales. It apologised for this as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. It understood there were “outstanding works to be completed to the windows, mortar in the wall, French drain installation and extractor fan installation”. It said measures had been put in place to “ensure this is seen through to completion”.
3. The resident had concerns about the positive input ventilation (PIV) suggested by the surveyor. These related to the costs of running the PIV, and the resident said he would only consider installing it if the landlord covered the cost. The landlord said it would refer these concerns to the relevant area manager.
4. The resident had raised concerns over subsidence occurring to the property. It confirmed a work order had been raised for an inspection to take place.
5. It understood the resident wished to be moved from the property due to the issues he was facing. It did not have a property list and advised him to contact the local authority and register on its housing list. It also suggested a mutual exchange as an alternative option.
6. It provided its insurance details should the resident wish to make a claim for the damaged belongings.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 24 May 2024 and requested to escalate the complaint. He said that the repair works proposed by the landlord would not resolve the issues, and the damp and mould were affecting both his and his children’s health.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 June 2024. It said:
1. The previous tenancy at the property had ended on 21 May 2023. The resident moved in 3 months later, so it was only void for this period (and not for 2 years as the resident believed).
2. It had scheduled works for a number of other issues. This did not include repointing, as the resident refused this due to concerns over subsidence.
3. A further inspection had taken place on 20 June 2024. The presence of damp was measured with a protimeter. The report from this inspection:
  1. Confirmed there was cavity insulation in the walls. It noted “no signs of any rising damp, high moisture levels or water penetration” and “no signs of condensation or mould in the property”. The vents on the windows were noted to be in working order, allowing sufficient air flow.
  2. Found no signs of structural issues with the property. It noted that the resident had raised concerns, but concluded there were “no obvious issues that would indicate any concerns with the property”.
  3. Proposed the installation of a Vericon cube to measure the humidity of the property, as well as installing a “French drain to the front of the property to reduce the ground levels at the corner of the building”.
4. While the resident had raised concerns that the condition of the property was affecting his family’s health, it was unable to respond to issues of liability, especially concerning health, within the complaints process. It directed the resident to pursue a public liability claim against it if he wanted to, and provided details of how to do this.
5. It increased its total offer of compensation to £900.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident called the landlord on 12 August 2024 to express his unhappiness with its response. He said there was a smell of damp in the property and the moisture levels were high. He added that the conditions were making his children ill, and that he felt he was being kept in the property until he gave up his tenancy.
The landlord informed the resident on 12 August 2024 that it would keep the device to measure humidity in place for longer. It also asked him to provide the correspondence from his GP in respect of the health issues he had mentioned.
The resident and landlord exchanged a series of emails between 4 October 2024 and 15 October 2024. The landlord noted that the resident disputed the humidity levels identified by it, as he had measured with his own hygrometer. He also explained that he was not living at the property but staying with family as he considered the property was not safe. The landlord disagreed that there was a safety issue and said no further repairs were being undertaken.
The landlord spoke to the resident again on 18 October 2024. It said that his benefits might be capped if he was “not making use of the property deemed safe”. It advised him to seek evidence from his GP and to consider legal advice.
The resident has informed this Service that the landlord confirmed following its inspection that several repairs needed to be undertaken. However, he said it only treated the mould in the kitchen and that the mould remained in the rest of the property. He told us he wanted the landlord to be held accountable, and for it to compensate him for the damage caused to his personal possessions and for the medical and psychological problems he faced. He also wanted the landlord to rehouse him in a suitable property which was fit for habitation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has mentioned that his health, and that of his children, has been impacted by the damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns regarding his family’s health. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The Ombudsman’s role

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with these principles.

The landlord’s obligations

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating. It says that the landlord will carry out repairs for which it is responsible.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that its response time is 24 hours for emergency repairs which present an immediate danger to the resident. It aims to compete routine repairs within 28 days.
The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould (LCDM) policy states the landlord adopts a targeted approach to dealing with these issues. It will:
1. Provide well-maintained homes free from hazards for residents.
2. Communicate regularly with residents regarding any actions it plans to take.
3. Diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner.
4. Reduce the number of preventable condensation related jobs by managing initial repairs.
5. Train staff to diagnose potential causes of LCDM so it can advise residents and provide solutions.
The landlord’s LCDM policy sets out that where a property is void or subject to a mutual exchange, it will identify and remedy any leaks or issues causing condensation, damp and mould prior to re-letting it. The policy says that the landlord will provide clear and accessible information on its website to raise awareness of the causes of condensation, damp and mould, including what residents can do to manage the issue (such as via ventilation, heating, and controlling the build-up of moisture). In circumstances where there is no issue with the property itself causing the condensation which led to damp and mould, the landlord will work with residents “to take appropriate measures to resolve the issues”.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will consider compensation under certain circumstances, including a failure in its service. In calculating any compensation, it will “consider the extent, severity, and impact of the failure” and “consider any vulnerabilities or individual circumstances”.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions” by it, or those acting on its behalf, which affect a resident.
The landlord’s complaints process comprises 2 stages. At stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days, and aim to send a written response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If it needs more than 10 days, it will write to the resident to explain this, and any extension will not exceed 10 working days. If the complaint is escalated to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and send a written response within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If it needs longer, it will write to explain the reasons for this and respond within a further 20 working days.

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

The landlord’s repair records show that the resident initially contacted it about damp and mould on 23 February 2024. Prior to this he had raised other repairs, but none of these related to damp and mould. The repair records show the resident informed the landlord that there was black mould and damp in the bathroom window and wall, both bedrooms, and the lounge. He noted that the carpet in the main bedroom was affected, as was the skirting which was damp. The landlord was also made aware that the resident had 2 young children living with him and that he was concerned about the health impact of the damp and mould on them.
The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a work order for a mould wash and inspection. It did not raise the repair as an emergency. However, it set a target date of 7 days for it to attend. While it is appreciated the issue would have been distressing for the resident, the repair would not have met the criteria to be considered an emergency repair. In the circumstances, the landlord’s approach in reducing the 28-day timeframe to deal with the matter from the timescales for routine repairs was appropriate. Its decision to arrange an inspection as well as carrying out a mould wash was reasonable, proactive, and in line with its LCDM policy.
The landlord’s repair records show that it did not complete the mould wash until 4 March 2024. This was 1 working day outside the target timeframe it had set. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this slight delay, but there would have been no significant additional impact on the resident as a result. The landlord’s repair records show that a follow–up job was raised for 1 April 2024. This was an appropriate course of action to ensure that the damp and mould issue had been resolved following the initial repair, in keeping with the landlord’s LCDM policy.
The resident also raised the issue of there being no cavity wall insulation in the property on 27 February 2024. While a task was initially set up by the landlord, this job was later cancelled on 28 February 2024. No explanation was provided as to why the landlord cancelled this job, and there is no indication that it communicated this to the resident. The landlord’s repair records show that it then arranged for a surveyor to attend the property. This was appropriate given the concerns raised by the resident.
Following the surveyor attending the property, the resident called the landlord on 10 April 2024 to say that he remained unhappy with the surveyor’s visit and that nothing appeared to have been done to resolve the issues he had raised. The landlord’s notes at the time show that the surveyor confirmed during the inspection that the damp proof course in the walls of the property had not failed. This was disputed by the resident, who requested to be considered for a decant or a relocation as he believed the property was not fit for human habitation. The resident noted that some of his personal belongings, including a carpet he fitted, were damaged by the damp. He also raised concerns that the property had been empty for a prolonged time before he moved in, and asked for a copy of the surveyor’s report.
Given the resident’s concerns, the landlord contacted the surveyor about the matter. Although this was appropriate, the surveyor did not respond to the landlord or the resident until 18 April 2024, some 6 days later. This was despite the resident having called in about the matter on several occasions in the intervening period, and the landlord having noted the resident’s contact with it on 10 April 2024 to be a complaint. While the response from the surveyor was after 6 days, a copy of the surveyor’s inspection report had still not sent to the resident at the time, despite his request for it. This was a failing by the landlord.
Despite the surveyor having initially taken several days to reply back to the resident, the surveyor and the resident then exchanged a number of emails about the resident’s concerns. Among these, the resident raised issues which he believed the surveyor missed during the inspection. These related to the brickwork above the back door and cracks in the brickwork, which the resident thought was evidence of subsidence. The resident also raised concerns about an electrical socket in the kitchen, for which a work order was raised and an electrician attended the next day. In addition to contacting the resident, the surveyor emailed the landlord on 18 April 2024 confirming that there were no health and safety risks and that they were in contact with the resident via email. The surveyor said that although the resident believed there was rising damp behind the kitchen base units, the damp was as a result of “poor circulation of air in the void behind base units and washing machine”. The surveyor also confirmed their opinion that a decant was not required.
The landlord’s contemporaneous notes show that the surveyor discussed the option of a PIV system with the resident as a means of dealing with the condensation, which the surveyor believed led to the damp and mould. The resident replied to the surveyor explaining his reservations about the ventilation system. He was concerned that it would remove some of the heat in the property, as well as costing money to run which he could not afford. The resident also said he was uncertain the PIV system would totally remove the mould in the property, and rather, he felt it would allow mould spores to be distributed around the property making the problem worse. Finally, the resident raised concerns with the inspection undertaken, questioning the moisture readings and the surveyor’s claim that the property had cavity wall insulation.
With regard to the resident’s request for a copy of the survey report, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided this to him. This would have set out the reasoning behind the landlord’s view on the issues the resident raised. However, the landlord did not do this. By way of explanation, the landlord has said that a full inspection report was not always produced following every visit to the property. This was a failing by it. If it did not have a copy of the report, it should have made this clear to the resident, which it did not do. Furthermore, if there was no report available to share, the landlord could have demonstrated transparency by explaining its decision making with reference to its contemporaneous records (for example, quoting the surveyor’s notes or any relevant correspondence).
Given the concerns raised by the resident over the ventilation system and the damp, the surveyor said a “thorough” inspection would be undertaken on 30 April 2024. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take. However, from its records it does not appear that this inspection took place, although no reason was provided for this. The surveyor also continued to respond to the resident’s concerns over the PIV system, acknowledging that while it was effective, if the resident did not want to have this, he should let the landlord know. It was reasonable for the landlord to allow the resident to make an informed choice regarding the treatment options to the property.
The landlord undertook an inspection on 20 June 2024. This was in respect of both the damp and mould, and the resident’s other concerns about the cavity wall insultation, possible subsidence and high humidity. The resulting report confirmed that property did have cavity wall insulation. In terms of damp and mould and condensation, the report noted no evidence of these, apart from a stain to the bathroom ceiling due to condensation from the shower. The report also confirmed that moisture readings were taken in various areas of the property, including both bedrooms and the lounge. The readings – which at each point covered the floor, the wall and the timber – were all noted to be at an acceptable level not needing further investigation, with 1 exception. The area which did have a moisture reading indicating moderate damp was one where the landlord had recently carried out work (to the gable end). The report confirmed that the works carried out would “remove the risk of bridging”. The landlord’s investigations therefore supported its position, and provided assurance that the works and information supplied to the resident to date had been appropriate.
The inspection report from June 2024 confirmed the landlord could find no “issues or building defects with the property and no signs of any rising damp, high moisture levels or water penetration”. It added that despite the resident raising concerns about repairs and structural issues, the landlord had no concerns about the property and did not consider that it presented a risk to the resident. The report made 2 recommendations. These related to installing a French drain, which would reduce the ground levels at the corner of the building, and installing a Vericon cube to measure the humidity, as the resident had expressed concerns about high levels of humidity in the property. The recommendations showed that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord has confirmed that, following the end of its internal complaints process, it installed a device to measure the humidity levels at the property over a week. At the time, the resident was staying with family. This may have impacted the humidity levels recorded. Nevertheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to follow up on the action it had committed to taking.
This Service acknowledges that the resident’s concerns about the issues with the property are such that he has not been staying in the property. It is also noted that the parties have differing views as to the extent and seriousness of the issues, including damp and mould in the property, with the landlord stating that it believes there are no structural issues, and the property is fit for habitation. The Ombudsman’s role is not to make findings in relation to disputed technical matters, but instead to assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s response to repair issues, taking into account its legal obligations, its policies and procedures, and good practice. Ultimately, when the landlord received reports of damp and mould from the resident, it took reasonable steps to investigate and remedy the reported issues. In the absence of any conclusive evidence that the property was uninhabitable, its actions were also proportionate.
The resident also reported damage to personal possessions. The Ombudsman has not sought to determine whether the landlord is liable for the resident’s losses. Insurers and/or the courts have authority to determine whether the landlord has been negligent and is liable for losses such as damaged property/belongings. However, the Ombudsman has assessed the response by the landlord once it was informed of the matter. In this case, the landlord provided its insurer’s details for the resident to consider pursuing a claim. This was an appropriate and solution-focused course of action.
From the information provided to this Service, it is evident that the landlord did not always update the resident regularly. As a result, he spent time chasing it for updates and asking for a copy of the survey inspection report. The landlord later confirmed that inspection reports were not always produced after each visit, although one was produced in June 2024. However, it initially omitted to respond promptly and with clarity on this point. The Ombudsman finds its communication failings exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on the resident.
After considering all the circumstances of this case, we find it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its delays and poor communication and apologise to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy does not include specific guidance regarding amounts of compensation that it may pay, but states that it will “consider the extent, severity, and impact of the failure”. The landlord offered £350 for its service failures at stage 1, which was increased to £850 at stage 2, including an amount of £500 to take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The total redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaints where there was a failure that had a significant impact on a resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 10 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 April 2024, within the 5-working-day timescale in its complaint policy. The acknowledgement issued to the resident said that the landlord would provide its response within 10 working days unless an extension was required. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 24 May 2024, after 26 working days. This was outside of the timeframe contained in the complaints policy. Although the landlord had been in contact with the resident, there was no evidence it informed him that it needed an extension to provide its stage 1 response. This was unsatisfactory.
Following the resident escalating his complaint to stage 2 on 24 May 2024, the landlord failed to acknowledge the request until 5 June 2024, after 7 working days. This was again outside the 5-working-day timescale contained in its complaints policy. The landlord’s acknowledgement apologised for the delay in the case being allocated and it provided the resident with a response target deadline of 28 June 2024. The landlord went on to issue its stage 2 response on 26 June 2024, within the timescales it provided to the resident and in keeping with those set out in its complaints policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response noted that part of the resident’s complaint was his request for the cost of the PIV to be covered by it. However, the stage 2 response did not directly address this point. This was despite it having committed to referring the resident’s request to the relevant member of staff in its stage 1 response. Although the surveyor and the resident did speak about the matter in their email correspondence, the landlord ought to have responded to the matter in the formal response. This was a failing by it.
With regard to compensation, the landlord made an award of £50 at stage 1 for the delay in its complaints handling. This was appropriate and reflected the level of failure at that point. It did not increase the award at stage 2, although it did apologise for its delay in acknowledging the stage 2 escalation request, which was appropriate for the 2 additional days it took. However, the unchanged stage 2 award was not proportionate to the landlord’s multiple failings, including not addressing the issue of the PIV costs in its stage 2 response. For this reason, a finding of service failure has been made. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide any details of the awards it will make in the event of service failure in complaint handling. The Ombudsman has therefore made an increased award of £100 in relation to the matter, which is in keeping with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a minor failure and the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge this and/or fully put it right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of 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 complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £100 for the failures in its complaints handling. If the landlord has already made the payment of £50 offered at stage 1 and stage 2, it should deduct this from the amount of £100.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the amount of £850, if it has not already done so, which it offered at stage 2 in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The landlord should contact the resident to determine if he has any further concerns following the end of its internal complaints process in June 2024. If he raises any such concerns, it should respond to these in accordance with its policies and procedures.