Clarion Housing Association Limited (202346187)

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat in a converted house. The resident has autism. The resident is being represented by his sister in this complaint. For ease of reference, the resident and his sister will both be referred to as “the resident” in this report. The resident reported damp and mould in his property in December 2022. He also reported repair issues with his windows in October 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to damp and mould and window repairs at the property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was a service failure in the landlord’s response to damp and mould and window repairs at the property.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord arranging a survey and completing the necessary works to resolve the damp and mould and window issues. The landlord also failed to appropriately consider the resident’s vulnerabilities before carrying out repairs. It also delayed paying the resident the monetary settlement it offered as part of the disrepair claim.
5. There were delays in the landlord providing its responses at stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process.

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.

6. The resident raised in his complaint that damp, and mould had been an issue at his property for more than 10 years. We do not doubt the resident’s comments about the length of time the issue has been ongoing for. However, our scheme states we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated they were aware of the damp and mould issue from over 10 years ago. However, we have seen no evidence the matter exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure at that time. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s handling of damp and mould dating back 10 years. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and window repairs 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint in October 2023.
7. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould in December 2022 by carrying out a mould wash during the same month. This was within its repairs policy timescale of 28 calendar days for routine repairs. The landlord’s contractor also carried out further mould washes at the property and replaced a kitchen unit damaged from damp and mould between February and August 2023. It was positive that the landlord carried out mould washes. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow its damp and mould policy and also carry out an inspection to identify the cause of the damp and mould.
8. In October 2023, the resident raised further concerns about the damp and mould and explained it was a re-occurring issue. He also raised concerns about the condition of the windows. The resident also raised concerns that the damp and mould impacted his health and resulted in him getting asthma. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for the resident. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
9. There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s concerns about the damp and mould and window issues and it failed to effectively communicate with the resident and keep him updated. The landlord’s contractor did not visit the resident’s property until 21 December 2023, which was outside the landlord’s routine repairs timescale. As part of the visit the landlord’s contractor carried out a partial inspection of the windows and flooring. It said the resident refused a further mould treatment and refused to allow its contractor to take photographs of the windows. The resident’s sister has told us they refused a further mould wash as the chemicals from the mould wash was impacting the resident’s health and they made the landlord aware of this. We recognise the resident had a reasonable reason to decline the mould wash. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities before carrying out any mould treatment or repairs. However, it failed to do this.
10. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in it stage 1 complaint response to recognise the inconvenience of treating the damp and mould. This amount was not sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the outstanding damp and mould. It also explained it would arrange for its area supervisor to carry out an inspection and draw up an action plan to resolve the damp and mould. The landlord failed to do this, and the resident submitted a legal disrepair claim against the landlord due to the works remaining outstanding.
11. In March and April 2024, surveyor inspections were carried out as part of the disrepair claim. Shortly after a schedule of works was created which recommended repairs to the windows and works to the bedroom, hallway, kitchen, bathroom, living room and front and rear elevation to resolve the damp and mould. The landlord’s legal team also offered a monetary settlement in May 2024 of £2,825.74. Following this, the resident suggested  a counteroffer which was not accepted by the landlord.
12. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that the legal disrepair claim was still ongoing and the works were in the process of being completed. The resident stayed at his sister’s house whilst the works were carried out. The landlord confirmed all the works referenced on the schedule were completed at the end of year 2024. The resident also told us the works had been completed. However, he said they were completed in January 2025, and he moved back to the property in March 2025.
13. The landlord told us that the monetary settlement of £2,825.74 offered as part of the disrepair claim was still outstanding. It explained it held off paying the settlement due to the complaint being with the Ombudsman and wanted to avoid double payment of compensation. This was unreasonable and it resulted in the payment being outstanding for around 1 year and 5 months. We would take into account any settlements already paid when calculating compensation and we would not increase an offer the landlord made if we find it to be reasonable.
14. It is positive that the landlord offered a reasonable settlement prior to the resident bringing his complaint to us. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in paying the settlement. This amount is in addition to £50 the landlord offered in it stage 1 complaint response for the inconvenience of treating the damp and mould. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.
15. The landlord should also pay the resident its previous offer of £2,825.74. The monetary settlement offered by the landlord is reasonable to recognise its errors in responding to the damp and mould and window repairs at the resident’s property.

16. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. It’s interim complaints policy explains it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 20 working days and a stage 2 complaint response within 40 working days. These timescales were not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint handling Code (the Code). However, the landlord’s recent complaints policy includes the same timescales referenced in the Code. The Code states a stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint response will be provided within 20 working days.

17. The resident submitted his initial complaint to the landlord on 30 October 2023. Following this, the landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 10 January 2024. The complaint response was late and outside the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the 20 working days referenced in its complaints policy.
18. On 21 January 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint. We contacted the landlord on 28 August 2024 and asked it to provide its stage 2 complaint response by 4 September 2024. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 24 September 2024. Overall, it took the landlord approximately 8 months to provide its response. This would have caused significant inconvenience for the resident, as he had to wait to receive his stage 2 complaint response before he could progress his complaint with us.
19. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that there were delays in it providing its initial response and offered the resident £50 compensation. However, it did not recognise the considerable delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by this. The compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above.

Learning

20. The landlord could have paid the resident the monetary settlement it offered the resident as part of the disrepair claim, as we consider settlements and compensation related to the complaint when investigating our cases and we would not increase a settlement if we consider it to be reasonable.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

22. There was very limited communication from the landlord to the resident when he initially reported the damp and mould in his property and failure to consider his vulnerabilities. There was also no explanation for the delays in resolving the repairs and responding to the resident’s complaint.