Clarion Housing Association Limited (202416573)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her 2 young children. One child has asthma. She has raised issues with her heating and hot water, and damp and mould since 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Heating and hot water repairs.
   2. Leaks, damp and mould.
   3. A pest infestation.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of heating and hot water repairs.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.
   4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of heating and hot water repairs

4. The resident experienced a significant amount of time without hot water and heating. The landlord was unclear regarding whether the repairs were its responsibility or her energy service company (ESCO). It has now confirmed that pipes and radiators are its responsibility, but the heating system is that of the ESCO. The confusion led to delays in repairs and resulted in the landlord carrying out repairs it was not contracted to do. However, it has now clarified its position, and it paid substantial compensation for its failings.

The landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould

5. The resident experienced a number of leaks in 2023. The landlord did not repair one of the leaks for several months. It acknowledged this in its stage 1 response and offered compensation. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that she had damp and mould for a substantial period of time.

The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation

6. The resident reported a silverfish infestation. The landlord could not address this immediately due to ongoing damp. However, it treated the infestation in reasonable time.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

7. The complaints responses were outside of the timescales of the landlord’s repairs policy. However, the landlord apologised and provided reasonable compensation for the significant delay.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The Ombudsman is aware that there was confusion regarding who was responsible for the heating. We have seen an email from the ESCO dated 28 December 2023, that they were not responsible for the repair. This subsequently led to the landlord completing the repairs, although it later identified that it should not have done so. We note that the resident was without heating and hot water for a significant period of time, and that this would have impacted on the resident. Whilst we understand the repair was not the responsibility of the landlord, we consider its communication and lack of understanding of its responsibility at the time, contributed to repairs delays.
9. We have not seen evidence that the resident raised the heating as a repair with the landlord between 6 February 2024 and 9 July 2024. We understand she had ongoing issues during this period. However, the landlord’s records indicate that the heating was working when it left the appointment on 6 February 2024. We therefore consider it likely that the landlord was unaware of the ongoing heating issues, and it was reasonable it took no action during this time.
10. On 9 July 2024, the landlord received a call to say the heating was not working. It said it attended on 10 July 2024. Based on its repairs policy timescales, the landlord treated this repair as an emergency and attended within 24 hours, which was reasonable. It noted there was no access. We have not seen evidence that the landlord attempted to contact the resident on that day, regarding the no access. However, on 15 July 2024 the landlord noted that “contact had been made”. This suggests the landlord was trying to get contact with the resident, to raise a new appointment. We would encourage the landlord to keep sufficient records of its contact attempts.
11. The landlord attended on 15 July 2024. By bleeding the radiators, it was able to restore the heating. Whilst the landlord is not responsible for the heating system, it does have responsibility for the pipe work and radiators. As such it took reasonable action to restore the heating.
12. On 24 July 2024, the landlord advised that ongoing heating issues were the responsibility of the ESCO. We recognise that this was frustrating for the resident, as both parties were placing responsibility on each other. Whilst we consider that the landlord provided the correct information on this date, we consider its actions and communication until then had been misleading, and likely to have resulted in confusion for the resident.
13. In the initial stage 1 response, dated 26 January 2024, the landlord offered £605 compensation in total. This included payments for having no heating and a payment for no hot water. Had the landlord been aware it was not responsible for the heating and hot water repairs; it is unlikely it would have paid compensation. However, given that the miscommunication is likely to have led to delays in restoring the heating, and frustration for the resident, we consider it appropriate that the landlord pay compensation. We note the landlord offered a further £150 for this in its second stage 1 response.
14. The landlord has now clarified its position. It has also signposted the resident to a third-party organisation who may be able to support if there is an ongoing dispute regarding the ESCO’s responsibilities. We consider that the compensation paid was sufficient to address the failings, in line with our remedies guidance where the matter has had a substantial impact on the resident. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of heating and hot water repairs.

15. We note the landlord’s second stage 1 response lists several leaks, all in 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It says it will respond to routine repairs within 28 days. One of the reported leaks was due to a leaking wash basin. From the repairs records this leak was first identified on 19 June 2023. We note the landlord recorded a no access appointment on 28 June 2023. There was no further action until it raised a new repairs job on 2 August 2023. We consider it is the resident’s responsibility to provide access to a repair. However, we would also expect a landlord to make reasonable attempts to contact the resident to rearrange the repair. We have not seen it did this.
16. On 7 August 2023, the landlord attended, and it noted again that the leak was due to the wash basin. The landlord did not raise follow on works at that time, and it did not complete the repair until 19 December 2023. This was 151 days after it was first repaired. This is significantly over the 28 days for routine repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy. We consider the delay in repairing the leak to be unreasonable. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay.
17. We note that when the resident first reported the leak, the landlord noted it needed to inspect for mould. On 30 June 2023, the resident made the landlord aware there was a child with asthma in the property. The landlord’s damp and mould policy does not give timescales of when it will inspect a property. The repairs policy says it will attend to routine appointments within 28 days. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted any mould inspection within this time.
18. The landlord did not address the residents concerns regarding the vulnerability in the property. Mould is considered a risk under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS notes that people with Asthma have an increased risk regarding mould. As such we expect a landlord to respond to any risk concerns when mould is reported. We consider it a failing that the landlord did not do this.
19. On 25 January 2024, the landlord noted that the complaint was about the heating and mould works. The landlord did not address the mould works in its stage 1 response. This is not inline with our code which says we expect landlord’s to address all complaint points in its responses. This was a further missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns.
20. We have not seen evidence of further reports regarding the damp and mould until 10 July 2024, when the landlord’s repairs records say that a surveyor had recorded there was damp and mould. It attended an appointment on 17 July 2024. However, the records do not mention the damp and mould. The appointment refers to needing a new bath panel and to renew some boxing in the bathroom. When investigating the complaint, the landlord contacted the person who attended that appointment. On 1 October 2024, they advised that there was no damp visible. We consider this to be insufficient in demonstrating that the landlord was investigating damp and mould, and that it was taking sufficient action to satisfy itself that there was no damp and mould present.
21. In the second stage 1 response the landlord said it had arranged an appointment for 1 November 2024 for damp and mould. However, the appointment notes for that date refer to a bathroom leak and a replacement bath panel. We note the resident continued to raise damp and mould after her stage 1 response, and the first record that action was taken was on 25 November 2024. This was 525 days after it was first reported. This is significantly outside the timescales of any repairs timeframe, as per the landlord’s policy.  It is unclear if this appointment resolved the damp and mould issue in full.
22. The landlord’s second stage 1 response gave a comprehensive timeline of leaks in the property. However, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns regarding damp and mould, or her concerns that the damp and mould was impacting on her asthmatic child. The stage 2 response was after the damp and mould works had begun. However, it did not provide an update or identify that the damp and mould complaint had not been addressed. The resident has advised us the mould has now been treated. However, the landlord has not provided adequate evidence to demonstrate that it addressed the damp and mould since it was first raised in 2023. We consider this is likely to have caused significant frustration for the resident. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 response offered £250 for the delays in resolving the leaks. We consider this to be reasonable for the failings identified in repairing the leaks. However, we have made an additional compensation award for the failure to address the damp and mould.
24. When considering the compensation, we have reviewed our remedies guidance. We have taken into consideration the length of time the matter went unaddressed and the impact this had on the resident. We have also considered any mitigating circumstances, such as no access appointments, and periods of time where the resident was not reporting new issues. We consider £600 to be appropriate.

25. During her call with the landlord on 13 September 2024 the resident said there was a silverfish infestation. The landlord said that it needed to resolve issues with damp before treating the infestation. This was reasonable as silverfish would likely return if there were damp conditions.
26. On 30 October 2024 notes from pest control found the infestation to be low. However they said they had treated any areas in which silverfish were found. We have not seen evidence that the resident raised the infestation after that date.
27. The landlord responded appropriately to the infestations. As such there was no maladministration.

28. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It says it will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. This aligns with our complaint handling code. The landlord responded to the first stage 1 complaint in 34 working days. This is outside of its timescales as per the complaints policy.
29. When the resident raised a new complaint on 22 July 2024, it included matters that the landlord had addressed under the first stage 1 complaint. The landlord issued its second stage 1 complaint in 62 working days, which was considerably outside the timescales of its compensation policy. The landlord compensated £100 for this delay in its stage 1 response, which we consider to be reasonable.
30. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge escalation requests in 5 working days and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of that. The landlord issued the stage 2 response in 30 working days. This is outside the landlord’s timescales. However, we do not consider the delay of 10 working days to have been of significant impact.
31. We have noted earlier in the report that the landlord did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint in its responses. As we have already made a finding on this in the report, we will not make a further finding here. However, we would encourage the landlord to ensure it addresses the resident’s full complaint in its responses.
32. As the landlord has acknowledged the delays, apologised and compensated for these, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

33. The landlord caused delays due to being unaware of its responsibilities for a heating system. The landlord should ensure that residents are clear on who is responsible for which repairs in their home, so they can raise the repair with the right people as soon as possible.
34. The landlord had a number of opportunities to address the resident’s concerns regarding damp and mould. However, it focussed on a related repair. We would encourage the landlord to be clear with the resident on what issue has been raised and address all concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. We have found the landlord’s record keeping to be good overall. However, records of appointments with the resident, and communication about missed or no-access appointments, could be improved by including more detail.

Communication

36. The landlord appears to have communicated with the resident when she contacted them. However, it failed to follow up on appointments. It should ensure there is ownership of repairs and that the resident is kept updated until a repairs completion.