Clarion Housing Association Limited (202341323)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her partner and 2 young children. She raised concerns that the damp and mould in her property was causing damage to her personal belongings and caused the loss of her pet parrot. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this and the level of compensation it offered her.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. Damage to personal belongings.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. The complaint about reports of damp and mould is outside our jurisdiction.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to personal belongings.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

5. We do not investigate complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case the matter concerning damp and mould was not escalated to stage 2. Therefore, we have decided not to investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Reports of damage to personal belongings

6. The landlord accepted its handling of damp and mould was not reasonable and it had not awarded compensation for loss of belongings in line with its compensation policy due to this. At stage 2 it appropriately offered proportionate compensation to put things right.

Handling of the complaint

7. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling and offered proportionate compensation to put things right.

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.

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 resident raised concerns about the damp and mould affecting her belongings. The landlord responded and assessed its handling of the reports of damp and mould at stage 1. When the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint, she only referred to her concerns about compensation and her damaged belongings. The landlord responded to this point only at stage 2. As such the issue concerning reports of damp and mould has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We do not investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

What we have not investigated

9. The resident told us that the damp and mould in her property has impacted the health of everyone in the household. 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.
10. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience issues with damp and mould. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement.

What we have considered

11. The landlord’s compensation policy states it can award compensation when its service failure causes damage to belongings and it is not reasonable to expect the resident’s contents insurance to cover the loss. It further states it may not offer compensation for claims that should be covered by a home contents insurance policy. This includes damage to belongings due to leaks.
12. The landlord also has a factsheet on making an insurance claim. This applies when a resident does not have contents insurance or has suffered an injury and wishes to pursue a public liability claim against it. The landlord will refer the claim to its public liability insurer who will deal with the matter on a legal liability basis.
13. Following a damp and mould inspection in February 2024, the landlord raised remedial work orders. This included render works scheduled for March 2024 which were rescheduled to a subcontractor. In April 2024, the resident raised a query about the loss of her pet and household items due to the damp and mould. The landlord treated this as a complaint.
14. The landlord appropriately apologised at stage 1 for the loss of the resident’s belongings and pet. It advised that its complaints policy did not cover losses related to personal belongings. However, compensation only applied to instances where service failure had been identified. It failed to link this to its initial finding that in its handling of the damp and mould, it had identified a service failure and offered a remedy to put things right. This was a missed opportunity for it to show it was taking her concerns seriously and to apply its compensation policy.
15. However, within this response the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to making a claim on her home contents insurance. It also provided her with information on how to contact its insurance department if she believed it was liable for her personal losses. It said its liability insurer would handle the claim; however, it could not confirm that the claim would be successful. This was in line with its policy and demonstrated the different options available to the resident to progress a claim. It also fairly managed her expectations by explaining it would not comment on the success of any claim.
16. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 and confirmed she did not have home insurance. At stage 2 the landlord accepted it had failed to consider the damage to her belongings in its stage 1 compensation calculation. To remedy this, it offered a further £1,000. However, it did not explain to the resident how it reached this figure, which it should have done. It has told us that it applied a discretionary approach considering the age, condition and depreciated value of the items as well as requesting evidence of ownership from her. While we have not seen evidence of any receipts for the purpose of calculating losses, the landlord’s approach was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
17. Our remedies guidance states financial compensation can be for actual quantifiable loss or other financial redress. We conclude the amount offered was a reasonable amount in recognition of the loss of belongings under the circumstances. As a result, we find the landlord’s response offered reasonable redress to the failings identified.

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable from April 2024 was in use at the time. This sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which aligns with the Code.
19. The landlord took 11 working days to acknowledge the complaint at stage 1. It took a further 14 working days to issue its stage 1 response. This was not in accordance with the Code or its policy’s prescribed timescale of 15 working days to both acknowledge and respond at stage 1.
20. At stage 2, the landlord took 16 working days to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and took 9 working days to issue its response. While, its acknowledgement was delayed, it did issue its response within the prescribed 25 working days in accordance with the Code and its policy.
21. The landlord also recognised it had not responded to the resident’s request to consider compensation for her loss of belongings. It appropriately remedied this by responding to this at stage 2.
22. Considering these failings, it was appropriate for the landlord in both responses, toapologise and offer compensation to put this right. We consider its final offer of £100 compensation to be fair.It is broadly in line with our remedies guidance and what we would have ordered for similar failings.

Learning

23. The landlord should refer to its compensation policy when it has accepted it made failings and residents raise damage to or loss of items due to that failing.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord’s record keeping was good, and we have not identified any concerns.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication with the resident was good, and we have not identified any concerns.