Clarion Housing Association Limited (201910195)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910195

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 December 2021

Amended on 30 March 2022

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

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to her roof.
2. repairs to address damp and mould.
3. repairs to address cracking.
4. her associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Since February 2013 the resident has lived with her children at the property, a three-bedroom house owned and managed by the landlord. The following sequence of events is taken mainly from the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s responses and the facts appear largely undisputed.
The resident has said her roof began leaking in 2017 causing damage, damp and mould internally. She said when it rained water leaked down the walls causing her family’s health and living conditions to be seriously impacted. The repair history provided by the landlord shows the resident reported leaks, damp/mould and cracks to the interior of the property regularly throughout 2019. Each report was responded to by the landlord within its 28 day service response time (although the action taken is not clear).
Whatever action was taken, however, failed to resolve the problem. The resident has explained that despite the landlord confirming she needed a new roof it had told her there would be no funding for this until 2025, with 2022 as the “best case scenario.” It said it would address the resulting internal damage to the property once the repairs were resolved. [The landlord’s repair record shows there was some remedial replastering in August/September 2019.]
The resident appears to have complained about the potential delay of the roof replacement. On 22 November 2019 the landlord responded saying that having exhausted all interim repairs, it had brought forward the roof replacement works to start in early January 2020. When this did not happen, on 13 January 2020 the resident requested an escalation of her complaint to Stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process but received no response. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord escalated the complaint for review. [The landlord operates a two stage complaints process: a Stage 1 investigation within 10 working days followed by a Stage 2 peer review within 20 working days. This can be requested by a resident if the landlord fails to resolve the complaint at Stage 1 to their satisfaction.]
In February 2020, the landed contacted the resident in and explained that that works were delayed due to un-armoured overhead cables, which meant scaffolding could not be erected.
This was then repeated in its Stage 2 complaint response dated the 13 March 2020. Before it explained that that the roof replacement now had a proposed start date of 19 March 2020. In recognition of the delayed start date the landlord paid her £50 compensation. It said her request that damp and mould be addressed would need investigating once the roof had been replaced and it had alerted its repairs service to attend and inspect the property once the roof works were complete.
Work to the roof started in March 2020, but as a result of the need to re-strip the roof on two subsequent occasions the work took until 29 July 2020 to complete. The landlord’s records indicate that a subsequent inspection confirmed no further roof leaks were present at that point. The resident has said that despite being told internal repairs would then be undertaken she constantly had to chase the landlord for information about this.
Meanwhile, the landlord’s repair records show the resident had also reported cracking to the walls in January/March 2019. Following a structural engineer’s assessment in early 2020 – which resulted in an insurance claim by the landlord for subsidence, later repudiated – the resident reported worsening cracks around the property. In August/September 2020 the landlord’s technical inspection officer contacted the resident and visited the property. He has said that during his visit it was agreed roof works had improved the situation internally, but that issues of cracking around the property and staining from previous roof damage and mould had worsened as a result of cold weather. He agreed to instruct its structural engineers to reassess and report back, noting the resident was prepared to await the structural engineer’s report and subsequent insurance claim from the landlord.
On 28 September 2020 the structural engineer attended. [The Ombudsman has not seen his report.] The resident said the engineer found there to be considerable subsidence – causing cracks in every room and externally – that should have been dealt with a year ago; the bathroom and toilet door would not shut; and there was damp and mould throughout the house. The resident said the engineer found the damp proof course had perished and said the kitchen and bedroom windows were blown; and a kitchen window lintel broken. She reported that extensive damp throughout the house had damaged her belongings which had had to be thrown away, and that damp and mould in the kitchen meant she was unable to fully use it.
The resident has said the landlord told her a loss adjuster would visit to begin the process of assessing the cracks. But despite her constantly chasing this through October 2020, she was told on 2 November 2020 that no job request had been raised for the work. She asked a manager for an update and was told that the second subsidence insurance claim process was taking longer than anticipated.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 6 November 2020 about its lack of action to repair the property and make it habitable following the roof replacement and problems associated with continuing damp and mould. She complained of continuing leaks, cracking from subsidence, and that damp and mould were making the property uninhabitable and affecting her family’s health. She chased a response on 17 December 2020 and again on 20 January 2021, with the Ombudsman then intervening to ask that the landlord respond. The resident has said she received no response from the landlord other than on 3 February 2021 [not seen by the Ombudsman] to say the matter was with its insurers. The resident has said she contacted Environmental Health which advised her to not use the rooms affected by damp and mould, which she said was not possible. She also contacted the Ombudsman and after this Service’s intervention, the landlord registered the matter as a formal complaint on 9 April 2021.
Stage 1 complaint: The landlord’s records summarised the resident’s complaint as concerns with its lack of action to repair the property and make it habitable. In particular, the complaint concerned lack of action to address leaks from her roof; damp and mould caused by the leak was impacting her family’s health; blown windows; subsidence causing internal damage; and a lack of communication from the landlord, including a response to her attempts to make a complaint. It noted that by way of outcome she wanted her roof repaired, the damp and mould treated, and compensation.
Stage 1 complaint response: On 29 April 2021 the landlord replied. In summary it said:
1. It accepted that despite the resident having previously formally complained on 6 November 2020, 17 December 2020 and 20 January 2021 it had failed to address the complaint, for which it apologised.
2. The issues with the property had become complex and protracted, arising initially from a subsidence claim later repudiated; involving complex repairs that failed to resolve the issue; a major planned roof replacement which was delayed four months as a result of issues with the works; and a second subsidence claim due to further cracking involving structural engineers and its insurance team.
3. The roof replacement delays and the fact it had been replaced three times constituted service failure for which it apologised.
4. It had previously followed the subsidence claim process/structural engineers report via its insurance team with respect to the first claim and been told the claim had been repudiated by loss adjusters and the claim closed.
5. With respect to the landlord’s second insurance claim, after the 28 September 2020 engineer’s visit, this was taking longer than anticipated. Its technical inspection officer had left her a message to that effect and spoken with her father who said she was more concerned with resolving the mould rather than awaiting the insurance outcome of the subsidence issue. Its officer did not consider that the subsidence currently necessitated a decant.
6. Its technical inspection officer had been contacted by its call centre on 17 September, 21 October and 2 November 2020 asking for updates for the resident which he had provided in order to be relayed to the resident. It apologised for the lack of communication from its contact centre which was a service failure for which it apologised.
7. Regarding the mould and damp, contractors had been instructed, had contacted her on 23 April 2021 and would contact her again after 30 April 2021 to schedule the work. It noted more intrusive future work might be required following the insurance claim in order to rectify underlying faults.
8. In recognition of the issues experienced it offered the resident £1265 compensation, comprising £50 for time taken to resolve complaint; £200 for inconvenience; £200 for failure to follow process; £200 repeat visits to resolve the issues; £200 for having to constantly chase by phone and email; £200 for misdirected information given; £200 serious failures over a considerable period of time to address repairs; and £15 for missed appointments. [This appears to have been with respect to the awaited visit from the loss adjuster.]
In May 2021 arrangements were made to decant the resident to a hotel on 28 June 2021 for a period of 4-6 weeks. The decant was subsequently extended to 8 September 2021.
Stage 2 complaint request: Meanwhile the resident had emailed the landlord on 20 May 2021 requesting a review of her complaint. [The Ombudsman has not seen this email.] During a telephone conversation with the landlord on 15 June 2021 to discuss this, the resident raised queries as follows:
1. it had taken six operatives to visit, and all had taken a different view on what the issue was.
2. she was told scaffolding was needed but it was not then erected.
3. despite being told loft insulation had been replaced, this was not the case.
4. roof timbers had not been replaced despite being damp and mouldy.
5. contractors had only visited to address mould in her son’s bedroom and bathroom but nowhere else.
6. bathroom window replacement was not frosted.
7. its technical inspection officer said her father had said her complaint was centred on resolving only the mould as mould/damp was just one aspect, and the need to address the subsidence and other issues remained.
She repeated her complaint on 24 June 2021 and requested written confirmation of the outstanding work to be undertaken on the property. When this was not forthcoming, on 12 July 2021 she again requested an escalation of her complaint for review. In particular, she wanted resolution of the following issues:
1. Subsidence – despite being told on three occasions previously (in September 2019, January and April 2021) that monitoring equipment would be installed, it had not been.
2. Damp and mould – work to address this in her bathroom and son’s bedroom did not resolve the damp/mould throughout the house, leaving her unable to fully use the kitchen and having to dispose of damaged belongings. The damp proof course was perished and needed replacing.
3. There was an unresolved continual leak in an internal hallway wall.
4. Potentially dangerous electrical issues persisted.
5. Confirmation that the broken window lintel had been fully repaired and reported that the repair had resulted in concrete being poured into a drain, blocking it.
6. The resident explained that the damp and mould had impacted hers and her son’s health, and that she was currently decanted and would not return until all work was completed and the property was fit for habitation.
7. She requested a schedule of the works to be completed.
Stage 2 complaint response: On 12 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of its Stage 2 review of her complaint. In summary, it explained that:
1. Damp and mould / kitchen repairs – While works were being undertaken and the resident was decanted, it would instruct its surveyor to inspect for mould throughout the downstairs and fully inspect the kitchen to assess repairs needed. Any work identified, including to address mould, would be undertaken during the decant.
2. Contractors had so far only addressed the mould in her son’s room, bathroom and toilet as these were the priority remedial works agreed with her father, but that the other areas would now be addressed.
3. Bathroom window – During the decant it would replace the bathroom window with frosted glass ( – as this had only previously been replaced with standard unfrosted glazing).
4. Subsidence – This was still being investigated by its insurers and it would update in due course.
5. Loft insulation – it was not aware of an issue with this and the loft insulation currently present was adequate.
6. Attendance of six operatives – An inspection had been necessary to address her complaint that the roof was still leaking, and the group comprised three staff members, one contractor, the resident and her father. This was to ensure the new roof was watertight and fitted to manufacturer’s guidelines.
7. Scaffolding – This was still to be put up to access to external brickwork as part of the current works.
8. Disputed conversation with her father – It accepted her father had never said the subsidence (or any other issues raised) were not a concern and should not be addressed. But the view that mould and damp was the current central concern was the result of “everyone’s frustration that the likelihood of the subsidence claim happening anytime soon was remote and…. can sometimes take years.”
9. Damaged items – It advised she put in a claim through her home contents insurance unless she considered the landlord had been negligent, in which case it explained how she could make a claim to its insurers.
10. Leak in upstairs wall – It undertook to check any pipework in the area to identify any repair required.
11. Electrical issues – It undertook to carry out a full electrical check of the property and repair any issues found.
12. Broken lintel – It confirmed a new lintel had been installed but would arrange for the blocked drain to be cleared.
13. It awarded her £50 compensation for its delayed Stage 2 review response.
By September 2021 the landlord’s insurance claim for subsidence remained ongoing, its surveyors had completed their investigations, installed monitoring equipment and awaited further information from the loss adjuster. A damp survey had also been completed and surveyors were due to agree the scope and cost of works with contractors. Meanwhile, it appears the resident’s decant was extended to the end of September 2021 while contractors addressed the non-insured repairs.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman has not been provided with full details of the landlord’s repair records or its communication with the resident. That said, the essential facts of the case do not appear to be disputed and so the Ombudsman has based its determination on the information provided. Taking each aspect of the complaint in turn the Ombudsman finds as follows:
Roof repair/replacement: It is not disputed the resident’s property suffered several roof leaks which repairs failed to resolve, eventually necessitating a roof replacement. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the fact that a new roof was required was due to a failure on the part of the landlord. There is also a suggestion from the resident’s account that the landlord brought forward the planned works, which indicates the landlord was responding appropriately to the urgency of the situation.
While the landlord provided an explanation to the resident in February 2020 about the delay in the start date and subsequently agreed on a new date in March 2020, which was adhered to. It should still be noted that the resident had been patient while the landlord explored other avenues to fix the roof, despite reporting that leaks had seriously impacted her living conditions, and the month delay in communicating that there was a delay to works starting, would have caused further unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family.
The resident’s frustration was then further exacerbated when the replacement works became protracted with the roof having to be re–laid three times, taking until the end of July 2020 to complete. The details and reason for this is not entirely clear, but the landlord was responsible to the resident for the work of its contractors and the Ombudsman does not consider the £50 compensation it paid in its complaint response for the delayed start date fully recognised the overall impact on the resident and her family – both of considerable disruption and disappointment – in the time taken to complete the roof replacement.
Damp and mould: The delay discussed above also had a knock-on effect to the time taken to address the resulting damp and mould. The evidence provided does not make clear the extent to which the problems with the roof were the cause of damp and mould in the property as there is also an indication of issues with a damp course. But it is apparent from the resident’s description of leaks following heavy rainfall, that it was likely a considerable contributory factor. The Ombudsman does not consider it unreasonable for the landlord to want to await the completion of the roof replacement before undertaking work to address the damp and mould; and the resident appears to have agreed to this.
But despite the roof replacement being completed in July 2020, despite the structural engineer’s findings in September 2020, and despite the resident’s subsequent chasing of the landlord for updates and a response to her repeatedly raised complaint, it failed to update her on action to resolve the issues or to respond to her complaint. Indeed, the evidence does not show any significant action was taken to address the damp and mould and make good the resulting damage to the property until April 2021, with the actual repairs being undertaken from June – September 2021. That was a substantial time of over a year for the resident and her family to wait for this to be done, all the while living in deteriorating and less than ideal conditions.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s request for updates appears due to a failure by the landlord’s call centre to relay updates from its technical inspection officer back to the resident. That breakdown in communication was a service failure which caused the resident obvious and understandable frustration and annoyance. This was then further compounded by the landlord’s failure to respond to her formal complaints about the issue, for which it has provided no explanation. The evidence indicates that during this time the landlord was seeking to investigate and resolve the subsidence issue through its insurers. Nevertheless, this ought to have proved no obstacle to it responding in the interim to the issue of damp and mould and seeking to improve the resident’s living conditions while a decision on the subsidence was reached.
Indeed, this is what eventually happened, as ‘non-insured’ repairs were undertaken from June – September 2021, while the insurance claim was still pending. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was a significant delay, of which the stress and inconvenience on the resident and her family was eventually sufficiently recognised by the landlord in its offer of £1200 compensation.
Cracking (subsidence): The landlord was clearly not responsible for the fact of the subsidence, but once cracks were reported it was responsible for ensuring these and any underlying issue was addressed. The evidence the Ombudsman has seen indicates that it did so by responding to the initial reports of cracks with a claim for subsidence. In light of the repudiation of this first claim it was not unreasonable for the landlord to not look to pursue an underlying cause at that point. But it was still responsible for making good any damage to the property. The resident has said that the structural engineer in September 2020 noted damage which ought to have been addressed the previous year. The Ombudsman can only base its findings on the available evidence, and it has been provided with no evidence to verify either if this was said or to what any such comment was specifically related. It does note, however, that in September 2020 it was not considered that the cracking necessitated a decant, so concludes from this that the cracking in 2019 was not so severe as to render the property potentially unsafe or not fit for habitation.
Notwithstanding this, the evidence does show that when the resident had reported a worsening of the situation in 2020 the landlord had responded appropriately by obtaining the further structural engineer’s assessment and submitting its further claim for subsidence. That was an appropriate response by the landlord, and it was reasonable that the resident indicate she was willing to await the outcome before repairs were addressed.
However, that being the case, it was imperative that the landlord keep the resident updated on developments so as to reassure her that all necessary action was being taken to address the subsidence and resolve the cracking in the property. The Ombudsman finds that it failed to do so. The visit from a loss adjuster failed to materialise and after repeated chasing by the resident the landlord acknowledged its failure to raise a request for this. Similarly, despite the resident apparently being told monitoring equipment would be installed, this was not done until a year later (September 2021).
Meanwhile, the resident and her family were experiencing understandable concern and inconvenience of living in a property with potential structural issues (for example, bathroom and toilet doors not closing, broken kitchen lintel). The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to progress its investigation of the subsidence issue as promptly as it ought to have, bearing in mind the worsening of the situation and the duration of time since the resident has first reported the cracking. This delay and the lack of information and updates from the landlord understandably undermined the resident’s confidence that matters were being progressed sufficiently quickly.
Complaint handling: Threaded throughout this case is the evident frustration and exasperation of the resident at the fact that the landlord repeatedly failed to respond to her complaints. Her November 2019 complaint about the delayed start of the roof replacement was not escalated by the landlord until the Ombudsman intervened, eliciting a response in March 2020, some four months later. Her later complaint in November 2020, which by then concerned additional matters including worsening damp/mould and the cracking, was not responded to. This was despite the resident chasing a response in December 2020, and the Ombudsman on her behalf in January 2021.
Indeed, it was only following the Ombudsman’s further intervention in April 2021 that the landlord provided its Stage 1 response, some five months after the resident had first submitted the complaint. These service failures were then compounded by the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with its Stage 2 review until after her chasing a response both in June and July 2021. The Ombudsman notes its final response in August 2021 came 12 weeks after the resident had first requested it. That delay was considerably beyond the landlord’s 20 working day service standard for such a response.
All in all, therefore, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s oversight of its complaints procedure was poor. It failed to ensure the resident was provided with responses within the timeframes she was entitled to expect and its failure to do so necessitated the involvement of the resident and the intervention of this Service to an unreasonable degree. The delay, time and trouble suffered by the resident in pursuit of her complaint was not only considerably inconvenient and frustrating for the resident but, in the Ombudsman’s view, will also have given her little confidence her complaints were being treated as seriously as they deserved to be.
Aside from the delays, the Ombudsman notes the resident also raised during the course of her complaints her claim that her personal belongings had been damaged as a result of the leaks, damp and mould, and that various items had had to be replaced (first raised by her in September 2020). She also made repeated reference to the detrimental impact of the mould and damp on her family’s health (first raised in November 2020). Although the landlord eventually, and appropriately, advised the resident in its final Stage 2 response in August 2021 as to how to make an insurance claim (either through her own or its insurance) for her damaged belongings, this was relatively late in the day and ought to have been explained sooner.
With respect to any alleged impact on the resident’s family’s health, the Ombudsman has seen no attempt by the landlord in its complaint responses or otherwise to advise the resident as to how to pursue a personal injury claim for this; if that was something she wished to do. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s failure to advise the resident on the appropriate course of action for such a claim was an oversight which lacked appropriate customer focus.
On the issue of compensation more generally, the Ombudsman has already explained where it considers the landlord has failed to provide adequate recognition of its service failures. In doing so it has taken account of the landlord’s compensation payment totalling £1315 made in in its April and August 2021 Stage 1 and 2 responses. It is difficult to know precisely what individual service failures were being recognised in this award as the landlord failed to specify this in anything other than general terms. The Ombudsman has presumed that the payments totalling £1200 – excluding the payments for delayed complaint handling/resolution and a missed appointment – were in the main related to the landlord’s response to the damp and mould as that had become the focus of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman considers those payments, taken together, provided the resident with the necessary tangible recognition to which she was entitled for its individual service failures.
Beyond the issue of compensation, other than its apparent failure to answer the resident’s query concerning the damp roof timbers and her repeated request for a schedule of works, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s final Stage 2 response was an appropriate attempt to comprehensively answer the outstanding issues as highlighted by the resident following its Stage 1 response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s roof.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the repairs to address damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to address cracking at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Although there is no evidence that service failure by the landlord caused the repeated leaks of the resident’s roof, when its plans to replace the roof became delayed it failed to update the resident and keep her informed, and its subsequently protracted replacement works caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience.
Following the roof replacement, the landlord failed to act with due urgency and take all reasonable steps to address the damp and mould in the property, causing the resident and her family significant hardship and inconvenience, for which it has now provided appropriate redress.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of worsening cracks at the property became delayed following the second structural engineer’s assessment, resulting in worry and inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord repeatedly failed to respond to the resident’s complaints and requests for escalation, resulting in considerable time, trouble and frustration for her.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the total additional sum of £1100 in compensation to the resident as follows:
1. Roof repair/replacement: £350. [This is in addition to the £50 already paid for the delayed start date.]
2. Cracks (subsidence): £350.
3. Complaint handling: To make the resident a payment of £400 compensation. [This is in addition to the £50 payment for the time taken to resolve the complaint; and the £50 for its delayed Stage 2 response (August 2021)]
In addition, and if not already done so, the landlord is ordered to respond to the resident within four weeks to the remaining aspects of the resident’s complaint (and provide the Ombudsman with a copy):
1. Roof timbers – The resident explained in her complaint her concern that the roof replacement had not included the replacement of roof timbers which she considered to be damp and mouldy. The landlord should provide the resident with a written explanation of the outcome of its consideration of this issue, i.e., did it consider replacement necessary and if not, why not.
2. Schedule of works: This was requested by the resident in the course of her complaint. The landlord should provide the resident with a written schedule of all outstanding remaining repairs to the property, together with dates for completion.
3. Personal injury claim: With regard to the resident’s claim that her and her family’s health has been detrimentally impacted by the damp and mould, the landlord should advise the resident how she can make a personal injury claim, if that is something she wishes to pursue, and the nature of the evidence required.

Recommendations

Damp and mould: If not already done so, to make the resident the payment of £1200 previously offered for the identified failures in its handling of this aspect of the complaint.