Clarion Housing Association Limited (202010222)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010222

Clarion Housing Association Limited

3 September 2021

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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports concerning damp and mould at the property.
2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is owned and managed by the landlord. The property is a three bedroom maisonette. The resident lives at the property with his wife, daughter and granddaughter.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that its repairing responsibilities and those of the resident are set out on its website. The landlord’s website says that its responsibilities for condensation and mould are: conducting surveys, cleaning affected areas with fungicidal wash, clearing blocked air vents, cleaning or replacing filters and duct systems in ventilation and installing extractor fans as needed. The resident’s responsibility is preventing and dealing with condensation and mould.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy also says that appointments for non-emergency repairs will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that after carrying out repairs it will leave the decoration as close as possible to how it was before the landlord carried out the work. If this is not possible the landlord may be able to help by giving the resident a decoration allowance. If the resident is elderly the landlord may be able to decorate.
The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one the landlord aims to resolve complaints within 10 working days. At stage two it aims to resolve complaints within 20 working days. If it is unable to resolve complaints within the time frames the landlord will aim to keep the resident informed, explain the reasons why it is unable to resolve the complaint and provide a timescale of what’s involved to resolve the complaint and approximately how long the complaint will take.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it wouldn’t normally compensate for personal belongings as this would be covered under residents’ contents insurance. The policy also says that, where requested, compensation payments will be paid to residents if repairs are not carried out within the agreed time limits. A standard payment of £10 for the first day over the time limit will be paid, plus £2 per day for each further day the repair(s) remain outstanding subject to a maximum of £50.00.
The landlord’s compensation policy also says that it may be appropriate to offer compensation where a resident has incurred unnecessary inconvenience, and that when compensation is offered the landlord will consider household vulnerabilities.
On 20 October 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and reported mould in three rooms at the property. The landlord inspected the property on 12 November 2020. On 17 November 2020 a further inspection was carried out by the landlord. An internal email sent later that day between members of the landlord’s staff says that it was arranging for “mould wash to the affected areas (living room / small front bedroom and rear bedroom)” and for its heating contractors to check the radiators “are adequately throughout the property”.
On 18 November 2020 the landlord’s heating contractors attended the property and the contractor’s engineer advised the resident that the upstairs radiators were too small. The contractor’s notes state that the engineer did not carry out a heat loss survey and the statement that the radiators were too small “was done on judgement”.
The landlord applied the mould wash to the affected areas of the property on 30 November 2020 and 3 December 2020. During the second visit the landlord also stripped wallpaper in one bedroom and identified that further works were required to renew a section of plaster. The resident says that the landlord also recommended that he buy a dehumidifier.
On 29 November 2020 the heating contractors carried out a heat loss calculation at the property and calculated that all the radiators at the property were adequately sized apart from the one in the dining room.
On 3 December 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its response to his reports of mould at the property.
On 18 December 2020, following contact from this Service, the landlord confirmed to this Service that it had logged a formal complaint from the resident about the outstanding delay in carrying out the works at the property.
On 18 December 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident about his complaint. The resident informed the landlord that:
1. During the inspection on 17 November 2020 the landlord had advised him that the radiators were too small and needed replacing, the boarding below the windows needed to be replaced and the wall in the bedroom needed to be knocked down as it was hollow and contained water.
2. That on the landlord’s instructions he had bought a dehumidifier for £120.
3. That he wanted to be decanted whilst the work was completed at the property.
4. That he understood that the heating contractors would be attending the property on 13 January 2021 to replace the radiators, that a carpenter would be attending the property on 20 January 2021 to carry out the work to the boarding under the windows and on 26 January 2021 to knock the wall down in the bedroom.
On 28 December 2020 the landlord ‘s roofer attended the property, carried out a water test and confirmed that there was no water penetration into the property from the walkway.
The heating contactors attended the property on 13 January 2021 to replace the dining room radiator. The resident refused to allow them to replace the radiator as he wanted all the upstairs radiators replaced.
On 28 January 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident’s complaint. In its complaint response the landlord:
1. Apologised for the time taken to carry out the mould wash.
2. Explained that it had not recommended works to the boarding below the windows. The landlord said that the areas under the windows would be prone to condensation. However, this was something that needed to be managed by the resident and there were no works required to these areas or further action needed.
3. Explained that following the mould wash on 3 December 2020 the landlord’s operative had determined that the plaster needed to be hacked off and re-plastered in a small area. The landlord apologised if its operative had given the impression that the wall was hollow and needed to be removed.
4. Confirmed that it would be attending the property on 26 January 2021 to carry out the relevant plaster repairs to the walls and there was no need for the resident and his family to be decanted whilst this work was carried out.
5. Explained that the heating contractors had carried out a heat loss survey to ensure the radiators were the correct size for the rooms. The heat loss survey indicated that only one radiator needed upgrading. The landlord noted that the resident had informed the heating contractors when they attended the property on 13 January 2021 that he did not want the radiator replaced.
6. Maintained that its operative had simply advised the resident “that dehumidifiers work to reduce condensation build up and that he has one himself which was very effective, he at no point told you to buy this, it was only a recommendation.” However, the landlord agreed as a good will gesture to reimburse the resident for the cost of the dehumidifier and asked him to provide a receipt.
7. Acknowledged that the delays encountered in completing the repairs fell short of the service that the landlord aims to provide and service failures were identified.
8. Apologised for any distress or inconvenience caused and offered £200 compensation.
On 28 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord asking to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident said that:
1. During the visit on 17 November 2020 the landlord had informed him that two of the radiators should be relocated to different walls and that the boarding below the windows was not providing enough insulation and would need to be remedied.
2. That during his visit on 23 November 2011 the heating contractor informed him that all the radiators except for the bathroom and living room were inadequate. However, when the heating contractors arrived at the property on 13 January 2021, they were only going to replace one radiator and as this wasn’t what he had previously been told he had refused the works.
3. There were delays to completing the mould wash and remedial plastering works.
4. The landlord’s operative had attended the property on 26 January 2021. The resident said that the operative had informed him that an area of the wall had high moisture content, which he believed was coming from the above walkway. The resident also maintained that the landlord’s operative told him that he would be submitting a report outlining his concerns with the walkway and that the repairs couldn’t be completed in full until this issue has been addressed.
5. He was concerned that following completion of the works he would be expected to carry out the redecoration. As an elderly resident he thought the landlord should redecorate after the works were completed and he repeated his request to be decanted whilst works were carried out.
6. To resolve the complaint, he wished to be compensated for clothing damaged by mould and for him and his wife to be permanently moved to a one bedroom property and his daughter and granddaughter to a two bedroom property.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord sent the resident an email acknowledging his request to escalate the complaint and explaining that due to higher than usual numbers, there had been a delay in dealing with his request.
On 24 February 2021 the landlord sent a further email to the resident saying that it would aim to provide its stage two complaint response within the next 20 working days (by 24 March 2021). The landlord also said that for any claim for compensation for damaged possessions standard practice would be for the resident to make a claim on his home contents insurance. However, the landlord provided the resident with details of its insurer if he wished to pursue a claim against the landlord.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response. In its stage two response the landlord:
1. Explained that its member of staff who had inspected the property on 17 November 2020 had seen no evidence of water penetration into the property from the walkway and no work order concerning that had been raised. The member of staff had also confirmed that the walls in the property were not hollow but were of breezeblock construction with a plaster finish.
2. Explained that its roofer had carried out a water test to the walkway to confirm that there was no water penetration from there.
3. Confirmed that the heat loss calculation survey identified that only the dining room radiator was undersized, and all the others in the property should heat the rooms adequately to the national temperatures.
4. Repeated its explanation from its stage one response that the external walls/boards under the large windows would be prone to condensation but that this in itself was not a problem with adequate heating and ventilation. The landlord provided a link to its leaflet on managing condensation and mould and confirmed that there were no works required to these areas and no further action needed.
5. Explained that the exposed brick walls would need to be dried out and re-plastered where required. The landlord planned to attend the property on 17 March 2021, to check on the drying out of the brickwork and would replaster. Once this was done there would be no further work required at the property and given the level of required works there was therefore no need to decant the resident.
6. Explained that rehousing the resident and his family would be a matter that would need to be assessed by the local authority. The landlord provided the resident with contact details of where he could find more information on finding alternative social housing.
7. Explained that redecoration was the resident’s responsibility. It understood that the resident was elderly but noted that his daughter was also living in the property. The landlord’s handyman service was not operating at present and therefore it was unable to offer assistance with redecorating.
8. Repeated the information about claiming for damaged possessions through insurers it had provided to the resident on 24 February 2021 (see paragraph 21)
9. Explained that as the situation had still not been fully resolved the landlord had reviewed the level of compensation offered. The landlord offered total compensation of £473.94, made up of £100 for the time taken to resolve the complaint, £50 for the repair being resolved outside its service level (maximum award), £100 for inconvenience, £100 for household vulnerabilities and £123.94 reimbursement of cost of the dehumidifier.
The landlord’s stage two response was its final response to the complaint, confirming that its internal complaints procedure had been exhausted.
During the course of this investigation both the resident and the landlord have confirmed to this Service that the replastering works have been completed

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning damp and mould at the property

In reaching a decision about a resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
There is some dispute between the resident and the landlord as to what works were required to the property:
1. The resident maintains that he was informed by the landlord in November 2020 that the repairs at the property couldn’t be completed in full until the issue with water penetration from the walkway had been resolved. There is no record of what was said to the resident regarding the walkway however, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its roofer who, having carried out a water test confirmed that there was no water penetration into the property from the walkway.
2. The resident also maintains that the radiators in the rooms with the mould should be replaced, rather than just the radiator in the dining room. It is not for this Service to comment on what radiators needed to be replaced at the property, nor is this Service qualified to do so. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of the heat loss survey in deciding which radiators needed to be replaced.
3. The resident also maintains that work is required to the boarding under the windows. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its examination of the areas in reaching a decision about what, if any, works were required. Mould is often caused by condensation which can be prevented by good management by a resident rather than being due to structural issues for which a landlord would be responsible for repairing. The landlord was entitled to conclude from its inspection that this mould could be controlled by good management by the resident. The landlord’s website says that managing condensation is the resident’s responsibility and, having concluded that the areas would be prone to condensation, it was appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident that no works were required to address this.
The landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with the provisions of its compensation policy (see paragraph 7 above) in informing the resident that a claim for damaged possessions should be made to the resident’s insurers.
The landlord referred the resident to the local authority in response to his request that his family be rehoused. This was a reasonable response as decisions concerning priority banding and bidding on available properties are managed by local authorities.
The landlord informed the resident that redecorating after the repairs was his responsibility. It is noted that the resident’s tenancy agreement says that if the resident is elderly the landlord may be able to decorate. However, the landlord did not have an obligation under the tenancy agreement to redecorate and in exercising its discretion as to whether to do so it acted reasonably in taking into account that the resident’s daughter was also living at the property.
It is not disputed that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property as:
1. It took 44 days to carry out the mould wash.
2. The remedial works had still not been completed by the time the landlord’s final response to the complaint was issued, five months after the resident had reported the damp and mould.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was therefore inappropriate as its policy says that repairs appointments will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.

When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging, and apologising for, the delays in carrying out the mould wash and repairs.
The landlord put things right by arranging to complete the replastering works at the property.
The landlord acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focused approach in refunding the resident the cost of the dehumidifier, even though it was under no obligation to do so.
The landlord also offered compensation of £250 made up as follows: £50 for the repair being resolved outside its service level (maximum award), £100 for inconvenience and £100 for household vulnerabilities. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above) as:
1. The £50 repair compensation was the maximum amount set out in the landlord’s compensation policy for repairs.
2. The landlord had considered the resident’s household vulnerabilities and offered a further £100 compensation to take this into account.
3. The landlord’s compensation policy uses the ranges of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for calculating discretionary awards. The £100 compensation for inconvenience was within the range of awards set out for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. Examples could include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. The impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience.
The compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident in incurring inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out the mould wash and repairs.
The combination of the landlord’s apology, works carried out and compensation awarded represented appropriate redress for the service failures identified in the way it responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, it was fair in its assessment of the service failure and took steps to put things right.
However. the landlord has not provided any details to the resident about whether it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint and the Ombudsman has made a recommendation that the landlord review its staff training, policies and procedures to ensure similar failings do not occur in the future.
During the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that he does not consider that the landlord has explained to him why the only radiator it wished to replace is the only double radiator at the property and is downstairs, despite the mould being upstairs. The resident says that he has not seen a copy of the heating contractors’ heat loss survey and the Ombudsman has made a recommendation that the landlord provide the resident with a copy of the heat loss survey and contact him to arrange the replacement of the dining room radiator.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord received the resident’s stage one complaint on 3 December 2020. However, it did not provide its stage one complaint response until 28 January 2021, 21 working days later and 11 working days outside the 10 working days timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints procedure (see paragraph 6 above). The landlord’s stage two complaint response was issued 33 working days after the resident’s request to escalate the complaint and 13 working days after the 20 working days timescale set out in the complaints procedure (although the landlord did contact the resident to explain this delay).
In its final response to the complaint the landlord apologised for the delay in handling the complaint and offered £100 compensation.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint was reasonable, and that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident as:
1. It apologised for its delay in handling the complaint.
2. Its delay in handling the complaint did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint and was not of significant duration.
3. £100 is within the range of remedies set out in the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant which was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports concerning damp and mould at the property.
2. Complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in completing the mould wash and repairs. However, it has acknowledged and apologised for these service failures and awarded proportionate compensation.
The landlord’s complaints handling demonstrated inappropriate delays. However, it apologised for this service failure and awarded proportionate compensation.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its staff training, policies and procedures to ensure similar failings in carrying out works in response to reports of mould and damp do not occur in the future.
The landlord to provide the resident with a copy of the heat loss survey carried out at the property by its heating contractor and to contact the resident to arrange replacement of the dining room radiator.