Clarion Housing Association Limited (202404059)

Background

1. Prior to moving to the property the resident lived in a refuge after fleeing domestic violence. At sign up she advised the landlord that she lived with mental health vulnerabilities and had difficulty managing her affairs. She had then requested a support officer contact her and raised issues with damp and mould as well as a missing smoke and carbon monoxide (CO) alarm.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s
   1. Request for contact from a tenancy sustainment officer.
   2. Reports of no smoke alarm or CO alarm.
   3. Reports of damp and mould.
   4. Reports of unannounced visits.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for contact from a tenancy sustainment officer.
   2. Reports of no smoke alarm or CO alarm.
   3. Reports of unannounced visits.
5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
6. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the request for tenancy support

7. The landlord did not provide timely support to the resident when requested, which caused her distress and inconvenience.

The handling of the reports of no smoke or CO alarm

8. The landlord was unable to demonstrate that the alarms were in place when the resident began her tenancy as required by legislation and its own policies. It also provided incorrect information on the topic in its stage 2 complaint response.

The handling of unannounced visits

9. The landlord’s contractors conducted several unannounced visits to the resident’s property which she found upsetting.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord failed to raise new matters as a stage 1 complaint, which removed the resident’s ability to escalate the issues.

The handling of the damp and mould

11. The landlord acted to remove the mould and examine underlying issues within the timescales required by its policy.

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.

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.

12. When the resident signed up to the property on 28 September 2023, the landlord completed its sign up document. In the document it recorded that the resident had mental health vulnerabilities and difficulties managing her affairs. Specifically, it wrote that she would “need help from tenancy support when it comes to forms and other needs”.
13. The landlord’s vulnerability policy states that it will make referrals to external support services and its own internal tenancy sustainment services where appropriate. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have made the referrals. There is no evidence this happened.
14. On 2 October 2023, the resident emailed the staff member she had dealt with at sign up and advised that the resettlement officer had not contacted her. She said, “if you could prompt them, I would be really grateful”. Again, the landlord did not offer the support or show it made the referral. This was unreasonable and a failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and the actions required by its vulnerabilities policy.
15. The resident told us that when she left the refuge, she was very stressed. She advisedshe was unaware that she had a water bill at the new tenancy and had to sign up with the supplier, which resulted in her getting into debt. She had specifically mentioned at sign up that she required assistance with forms. The landlord’s failure to arrange support when requested was unfair and caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
16. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it had made the referral to the support team “just before Christmas 2023”.There is no evidence of the referral in the information provided to this investigation. It also said the support worker had contacted the resident in early January 2024. However, the resident indicated the call took place in mid-January 2024. There is also no record of the call in the landlord’s evidence, which is a further indication of poor record keeping.
17. It was 3 months between the resident requesting support and someone contacting her. In the circumstances of the case this timeframe was significant and unreasonable. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for support likely left her feeling that the challenges she was facing were not a priority for it. This would have been especially difficult for her given her vulnerabilities.
18. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered £300 compensation but did not indicate how it apportioned the compensation across the 3 complaint points it investigated. We have therefore assumed £100 for each.
19. Considering that the resident had just left a refuge and had been open about her mental health vulnerabilities we have made an additional award of £200 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for support. This award is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident, and the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings we identified.

20. The landlord has provided a document to show that one of its contractors had confirmed a smoke alarm and CO alarm were in place on 26 June 2023. There is also a gas safety record from 29 June 2023, which indicates both were present. However, this was 3 months prior to the resident moving in.
21. The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (amendment) Regulations 2022 requires landlord’s to ensure that smoke and CO alarms are in place and are in proper working order the day the tenancy begins. This responsibility is reiterated in the landlord’s CO alarm policy. However, there is no record to show that any checks were undertaken on either alarm on 28 September 2023, when the resident signed the tenancy agreement.
22. On 2 October 2023, a gas engineer visited to conduct a “void gas service”, which would have been to uncap the meter. During the visit they noted that a new CO alarm was required. A visit took place on 4 October 2023 to install the CO alarm but the operative was unable to gain access.
23. The resident called the landlord again on 6 October 2023 to advise that she needed a new CO alarm. The CO alarm policy requires the landlord to replace a defective CO alarm (and by extension a missing alarm) in line with its emergency repair timescales, which is 24 hours.
24. During a visit on 22 December 2023, the resident again informed the landlord that she had no CO alarm and that her smoke alarm was not working. This shows the landlord had failed to install a new CO alarm in line with the 24 hour timescale required by its policy.
25. The landlord installed the new smoke alarm on 27 December 2023. It is not clear when the CO alarm was replaced, which is a further indication of poor record keeping. A gas safety inspection confirmed it was present on 4 January 2024.
26. Of further concern were the statements made in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. In the response it said that a CO alarm was not a legal requirement and that neither a smoke or CO alarm was part of its lettable standard. These statements were wrong on both counts and show concerning levels of awareness on important safety points.
27. We have made an additional award of £100 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

What we have not looked at

28. This investigation is focused on events up until the landlord issued its final response on 21 March 2024. We are aware that the resident has continued to experience damp and mould and that the landlord has conducted further works and repairs to the property. If she is dissatisfied with these works and the ongoing issues she can make a further complaint to the landlord.
29. As part of our investigation, we have formally notified the landlord that the resident continues to experience damp and mould in the property and that this should be investigated in line with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025

What we have looked at

30. The landlord was made aware that damp, mould and condensation was affecting the resident’s property on 18 December 2023. It visited the property on 2 January 2024 and conducted a mould wash to all affected areas. As part of the inspection, it assessed the ventilation in the property and identified issues with the extraction in the bathroom and kitchen as well as issues with the windows. It replaced the bathroom extractor fan on 9 January 2024 and adjusted the windows on 5 February 2024.
31. The landlord’s response to the damp and mould and subsequent actions, up until the point where it provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2024, were appropriate and in line with its repairs policy.

32. Landlords must give residents 24-hours notice before entry. The landlord’s repairs policy indicates that it uses a text service for appointment arrival updates.
33. The resident told the landlord on 5 February 2024 that she had several unannounced visits from unknown male operatives. She said the visits had caused her to have a panic attack and led to significant stress.
34. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised and confirmed it had told its contractors to ensure that all future visits to the resident’s property must be announced.
35. The landlord’s actions were appropriate. However, it was aware the resident was a survivor of domestic abuse and it should have recorded this on its system and tailored its service according to the needs of the resident from the start of the tenancy. Had it done so it could have avoided the negative impacts the visits had on the resident.
36. We have made an award of £150 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

37. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
38. The landlord provided its stage 1 response within the timeframes required by its policy and the Code.
39. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 January 2024, which the landlord acknowledged on 31 January 2024. It said it would provide a response within 20 working days (28 February 2024). The response was provided on 21 March 2024, 18 days outside the required timeframe.
40. The landlord did not notify the resident of any delay or provide an explanation as to why the response was late. This was a failure to comply with its policy and the Code.
41. After escalating her complaint the resident raised additional concerns about the unannounced visits that she had not included at stage 1. Under the Code, landlords must log a new complaint in such circumstances. However, the landlord failed to do so, which was inappropriate. Instead, it addressed the additional concerns within its stage 2 response. By doing this, the landlord denied the resident the opportunity for these issues to go through the full 2-stage complaints process if unresolved.
42. As part of its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered £50 for the delay. We have made a further award of £50, for the additional failures identified. This award is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident, and the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings we identified.

Learning

43. The landlord should ensure that any new issues arising after the stage 1 complaint response, which are unrelated to the matters already investigated, are logged as a separate complaint. This will ensure any new issues can progress through both stages of the complaints process if required.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. We identified shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping surrounding call records and contractor visits. Also, the resident provided us with key pieces of information, rather than the landlord. The landlord should endeavour to keep records of all correspondence it has with residents.

Communication

45. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent, with important emails regarding support going unanswered. Had it communicated appropriately with the resident, it might have avoided some of the distress caused to her during her complaint.