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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202405437)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405437

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 October 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs.
  2. This Service will also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since April 2016. The resident occupies the property with her 2 children. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. In September 2023, the resident reported damp and mould inside the property. She said defects in the external brickwork and render of the property were the cause of the issue. The landlord inspected and found the external wall was in disrepair. It arranged works to take place but cancelled these because it was not able to make contact with the resident. In November 2023 the landlord inspected again. It concluded the external gas metre should be relocated before works to the external wall could begin.
  3. On 17 April 2024 the resident complained that no works had taken place and there had been no communication on the issues from the landlord. In its stage 1 response it acknowledged there had been delays and it had not communicated appropriately about the issues. It said it would attend on 29 May 2024 to complete the external work. After this it would attend to rectify the internal damp and mould. It offered £350 in recognition of the delay and her inconvenience.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. On 16 May 2024 she escalated the complaint to stage 2. She said the compensation did not reflect the extent and impact of the landlord’s delay, or her time and trouble in chasing the landlord. She also reported an impact on her health, electrical faults in the property, and pest infestation. She requested the landlord offer her an alternative property.
  5. On 24 July 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It acknowledged it had inspected the property on numerous occasions but had not progressed the repairs. It said it had agreed to decant her while repairs were carried out but had subsequently decided to offer her a management transfer and was looking for a suitable property for her. It apologised and offered an additional £450 for service failures and inconvenience.
  6. In August 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to this Service. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer and handling of the management transfer. In October 2024 the landlord offered the resident a suitable property which she accepted.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has stated the property conditions had an impact on her and her family’s health. This Service is not able to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions or inaction, and the impact on the health of the resident. Nor can it calculate or award damages. This Service is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. This Service can consider how the landlord responded to the health matters raised by the resident at the time of her complaint. Where a failure on the landlord’s part is identified, this Service will consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
  2. When the resident contacted this Service in May 2024, she complained the landlord had not progressed her transfer to alternative accommodation. However, this issue had not been subject to a formal complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The transfer issue can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs.

  1. The landlord’s repair’s policy states it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. It also has a leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy and a repairs policy which states it will decant residents where extensive works are required.
  2. The evidence shows the cause of the internal damp and mould was defects to the external render, damp proof course, and brickwork. The records show the landlord inspected these in September 2023. It specified works to the external wall which would take 3 and a half days. It said it needed to carry out an asbestos check before the work could begin. The landlord’s repairs record show it cancelled the works because it could not contact the resident to arrange the asbestos check. The landlord has not provided evidence of its attempts to contact her. Closing the works order was not a reasonable approach in the circumstances. This Service considers it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made a number of attempts using different methods such as email, telephone, or letter. If it was still unsuccessful it could have then referred to its ‘no access for contractors’ policy.
  3. In November 2023 the landlord inspected again. (The records do not make clear what prompted the reinspection). It again concluded it needed to carry out works to the external wall. It informed the resident the gas metre, box, and pipework would need to be disconnected and removed for the works to take place. The repairs log provided shows the landlord arranged an internal mould wash in the interim. This was appropriate and in line with recommendations contained in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould. When the landlord’s operative attended the resident declined the works stating the landlord should carry out the external wall repairs first. The landlord does not appear to have discussed the resident’s position with her. Given the landlord is aware that mould is a category 1 hazard as outlined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System( HHSRS), this Service considers it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted her to explain the purpose, benefits and need for the mould wash.
  4. In relation to the works required to the external wall, the evidence shows that after its November visit the landlord was uncertain which team should be responsible for the disconnection/ removal of the gas equipment. This Service finds there was a lack of ownership of the issue, so no decision was made, and no action was taken. The landlord only began to consider the issue again in April 2024 when the resident made her stage 1 complaint about its lack of urgency on the issues. This Service finds the landlord unreasonably delayed in deciding its approach to the gas works. This caused delay and lacked customer focus.
  5. On 15 May 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged there had been a significant delay. It apologised that despite a number of visits to the property it had not resolved the issues. It also acknowledged it had not communicated with her appropriately. It offered £350 compensation in recognition of the issues. It said it would attend and complete the external works on 29 May 2024.
  6. This Service has considered the amount of compensation offered. Given the works had been outstanding for 7 months (allowing for 28 days set out in its repairs policy), this Service considers this amount did not go far enough. The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out it will award an amount of between £250 and £700 where there has been ‘failure over a considerable period of time, failure to address repairs, and/or having to chase the landlord necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident’. This Service considers the circumstances sit within the higher end of the compensation bracket and considers an amount of £650 would have been more appropriate.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and compensation offer and escalated her complaint to stage 2. She stated:
    1. She and her children had experienced chest infections because of the mould.
    2. There was an infestation of flies and bugs caused by the mould.
    3. Electrical sockets in the kitchen and living room were unsafe because of the damp.
    4. There was thick mould in the understairs cupboard.
    5. Internal plaster was falling of the wall.
    6. It had not communicated with her about an issue identified with the roof.
    7. The landlord should move her to an alternative property.
  8. As part of its stage 2 complaint investigation the landlord re-inspected the property. At this stage it identified structural damage to the property and internal disrepair issues. It said the combined internal and external works needed would be extensive therefore it would decant her. In relation to the issues reported in the escalation request the landlord arranged contractors to attend to the repairs. This Service finds the landlord acted in a timely and appropriate manner in this regard. The landlord carried out a safety inspection of the electrics. The resident declined the services offered by pest control and declined a further internal mould wash. She stated these would not cure the issues if the external works had not been completed. Again, the landlord appears not to have discussed the resident’s position with her. While it is important the landlord respect the wishes and feelings of its residents, it must carefully balance these with its repairing obligations and responsibilities.
  9. On 2 July 2024 the landlord discussed the case internally. It then agreed a management transfer for the resident due to the complex repairs needed at the property. The landlord’s decision to offer alternative accommodation was an appropriate course of action.
  10. On 24 July 2024 the landlord provided its final complaint response. It apologised for the issues and offered an additional £450 in compensation for inconvenience. It said it was working to identify a suitable property to offer her. It did not respond to the resident’s reports of the impact on her health. This was unreasonable. It is acknowledged that shortly after receiving the information about her health the landlord decided it would offer an alternative property, but it still should have discussed the matter with her to capture the precise details and if necessary, carry out a risk assessment.
  11. Taking everything into account, this Service finds that between September 2023 and May 2024 the landlord unreasonably delayed in progressing works that were needed. It attempted to put things right and made an offer of compensation, but this Service finds the compensation offered did not reflect the extent of the failings. It closed the September repair on the grounds it could not contact her but had no plan to follow it up. When it re-raised the works, it failed to progress the removal of the gas metre resulting in further drift and delay for 7 months. The customer contact records show the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates. She was distressed during telephone calls with the landlord and was inconvenienced by the landlord’s approach. The landlord offered interim measures such as mould washes and pest control services, which was appropriate and in line with its policy. However, when these were declined it failed to offer reassurance or explain the benefits in carrying out this work. The landlord is encouraged to review its approach when residents decline works offered in relation to category 1 hazards. It should also be clear about areas of responsibility when it needs to relocate an external gas meter. Recommendations are made below. It also did not respond or carry out the risk assessment as set out in its damp and mould procedure when she informed it the property condition was impacting her health. This Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs. An order for additional compensation is made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a complaint handling policy and procedure. This sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints and complaint escalation requests within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. In this case the resident made a stage 1 complaint on 17 April 2024. This meant the landlord’s response was due no later than 1 May 2024. The landlord provided its response on 15 May 2024. This was 10 days past its due date. This timescale did not comply with its procedure or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code). There is no evidence the landlord agreed this timescale with the resident. However, within its complaint response it did apologise which was appropriate.
  3. On 16 May 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord should have acknowledged this by no later than 23 May 2024. It did not acknowledge her escalation request until 30 May 2024. This timescale was unreasonable. Additionally, the records show the resident had to chase the landlord up for its response.
  4. The landlord’s final response was due by no later than 14 June 2024, but it did not provide it until 24 July 2024. This was 6 weeks past its due date (allowing for 20 working days), and just under 10 weeks from the day it received the escalation request.
  5. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to apologise within its complaint response and seek to put things right. However, it did not do this. This was unreasonable.
  6. This Service finds the landlord’s complaint handling at both stages did not comply with timescales set out in its procedure or the complaint handling code. It did not acknowledge the escalation in a timely manner, and the overall length of time taken by the landlord was unsatisfactory. This caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order for compensation is made below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs
  2. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the issues.
    2. Pay £1200 in compensation broken down as:
      1. £1100 for the impact of the delays, distress and inconvenience caused.(This is inclusive of the £800 already offered.)
      2. £100 for the delay and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
      3. The Ombudsman’s position is that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. This applies regardless of whether the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to do this. Therefore, the compensation should be paid directly to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider its approach when a resident declines works offered in relation to category 1 hazards.
  2. The landlord should develop a protocol for dealing with relocation of external utilities and pipework.