Clarion Housing Association Limited (202017611)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017611

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 June 2023

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 response to the resident’s:
1. Report of damp and mould in the property on becoming the tenant.
2. Concerns regarding an electrical inspection.
3. Request for a copy of the tenancy agreement for the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The resident became the tenant of the property by way of a mutual exchange on 1 March 2021.
The property is a three bedroom bungalow.

Summary of events

In early 2021 the resident contacted this Service to request assistance in raising a complaint to the landlord. The resident set out that his complaint was about:
1. The condition of the property at the start of his tenancy. He stated that the property had damp and mould, the toilets were dirty and the flooring in the bathrooms was soiled. He confirmed that he had provided photographs to the landlord demonstrating the condition of the property. He noted that the landlord inspected the property prior to the mutual exchange, as he was unable to view it due to Covid-19 restrictions, and the only issue identified was the garden.
2. Despite an electrical test on 1 March 2021 he had identified unsafe electrics in the kitchen; loose wiring at the oven port. He stated that the test also did not include checks of the bedroom or living room. He confirmed that, despite him requesting a second test be completed, the landlord had refused.
3. A surveyor visited the property in April 2021 and advised that he apply for a grant towards the costs he had incurred in remedying the issues in the property. He confirmed that despite making enquiries with the landlord it had not responded.
4. The landlord had failed to provide him with a copy of the property’s tenancy agreement and report following the mutual exchange inspection despite multiple requests.
5. He had attempted to raise a complaint with the landlord however it had not responded.
6. The property still had “signs of mould that [he had not] been able to remove”.
The resident set out that in order to resolve the complaint he would like:
1. Compensation from the landlord in recognition of the “hundreds of pounds [he] had to pay out to make the house habitable and safe”.
2. A copy of the tenancy agreement and the mutual exchange inspection report.
On 30 August 2021 this Service wrote to the landlord providing details of the resident’s complaint. We asked the landlord to respond under its complaint procedure if it had not already done so.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its stage one complaint response would be delayed as it was still seeking information in order to respond.
On 24 September 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to acknowledge that it was still investigating the complaint. Within his correspondence he reiterated the details of the complaint, adding that a contractor had recently attended the property to re-attach a drainpipe which was “probably contributing to the mould”. The resident noted that during the appointment the damp and mould problem was not investigated.
On 28 September 2021 the landlord’s records document that it left a voice message with the resident confirming that it would email a copy of the mutual exchange inspection report over later that day. The landlord also asked the resident to confirm if it had received a copy of the tenancy agreement which it had emailed in May 2021. The landlord’s records confirm that the mutual exchange report was emailed to the resident later that day.
On 8 October 2021 the landlord again wrote to the resident to confirm that its stage one response would be delayed due to ongoing investigations.
On 19 October 2021 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had received the resident’s complaint via this Service on 4 September 2021.
2. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint.
3. In respect of the mutual exchange:
  1. It did not arrange property viewings for incoming tenants as part of the process.
  2. On accepting a mutual exchange a tenant accepts “the property as it is left”.
  3. The inspection was completed on 11 December 2020 by the Neighbourhood Response Officer (NRO). It was noted that there “was no evidence of damp and mould and that no visit would be required by a surveyor”.
  4. The “correct procedure” was followed for the resident’s mutual exchange.
4. A copy of the tenancy agreement was sent to the resident on 12 May 2021 following an enquiry.
5. It had failed to provide the resident with a copy of the report following the mutual exchange inspection following his “numerous requests”. It confirmed that this was a “service failure”. It therefore apologised for any inconvenience the delay may have caused the resident.
6. In respect of the electrical test:
  1. Its records highlighted that the electrical test undertaken on 1 March was “completed correctly”. It noted that the operative was onsite for 80 minutes where they checked the four circuits inside the property.
  2. The oven port had previously been grouted so after removal there was a slight gap showing around the edge, “but this was deemed safe”.
  3. The test should have been completed prior to the mutual exchange taking place.
  4. Another test was not required to prove the electrics in the property were safe.
1. In respect of a decoration grant:
  1. A Technical Inspection Officer (TIO) inspected the property on 16 April 2021 in response to the “mutual exchange issues” the resident had reported. It confirmed that during the visit the TIO advised that the resident “would be recommended for a decorating grant to cover the money [he] had spent on the property”. It set out that it was sorry that vouchers were not then provided.
  2. Vouchers were hand-delivered to the resident on 17 September 2021. The Ombudsman understands that he was awarded a voucher to the sum of £75.
1. In respect of repairs to the property:
  1. It received the resident’s photographs on 1 March 2021.
  2. Once the resident’s customer account was verified “the necessary repairs” were raised. It confirmed that this included an emergency repair for the cooker on 4 March 2021 and a repair to the kitchen cupboards on 18 March 2021.
  3. No repairs were raised by the TIO following the inspection in April 2021.
  4. Its repairs system showed no jobs had been raised to address damp or mould at the property.
1. Feedback had been given to the business areas which would be used to “address gaps in [its] process”.
2. It would like to award the resident £400 compensation “in recognition of the issues that were involved with [the] complaint”. It confirmed that this comprised £50 for time taken to resolve the complaint and a £350 discretionary payment.

On the same day the resident escalated the complaint. In summary he said:
1. While the mutual exchange inspection did not identify mould, the photographs which he had provided showed mould “all around the property”. He stated that the landlord therefore needed to accept the inspection was not completed correctly “at all”.
2. A surveyor visited the property “after [he had] moved in” in response to the damp and mould he had reported.
3. The operative who had completed the electrical test was in the property for “around 40 minutes”. He confirmed that they never entered the bedrooms or the living room, yet the certificate reported that 80% of the sockets were checked. He did not believe that the test had been completed properly and therefore repeated his request for a new test to be completed.
4. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint and the amount of money he had spent to make the property “safe and liveable”.
On 1 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm its understanding of the complaint. Within its correspondence it noted that it had attempted to speak with the resident earlier that day about the complaint however had not been successful.
On 23 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise that its stage two complaint response would be delayed as it was still gathering information in order to respond.
On 2 December 2021 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in its response.
2. It was sorry that there was damp present in the property after the resident moved in.
3. The NRO who completed the mutual exchange inspection no longer worked for it so it was unable to discuss the detail of the case with them. It noted however that issues may only be discovered after the previous tenant had left a property and taken all their belongings. It also noted that there was a gap between the inspection and the resident moving in, during which the issue may have developed. It confirmed that it had reminded team members to be “extra vigilant during mutual exchange inspections”.
4. The TIO who visited the property did so in response to the resident’s reports of damp in the property. It confirmed that following the visit no jobs were raised to deal with any damp and mould issues. It noted that the previous tenants had not reported any damp and mould during their tenancy.
5. Following the resident’s escalation request, it had requested another electrical test on the property which was undertaken on 15 November 2021 – no further details given. It set out that it was sorry that the resident was unhappy with the first test and the response given at stage one of its complaints procedure.
6. It had reviewed the compensation awarded at stage one of the complaints procedure and considered that it was “fair, reasonable and in line with [its] policy”. It confirmed that it was however able to award an additional £25 compensation for the delay in responding at stage two of its complaint procedure.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer his complaint to this Service if he was unhappy with its response.
On 6 December 2021 the resident referred the complaint to this Service for adjudication. Within his referral the resident noted that:
1. He had not received a copy of the certificate following the second electrical test.
2. He had not received a copy of the tenancy agreement for the property.
3. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord refused to accept that the property did have damp during the mutual exchange inspection.
4. The compensation was unsatisfactory.
5. The property continued to experience mould.
6. He had written to the landlord outlining the above points.
On 14 and 25 January 2022 the resident wrote to this Service to provide updates. The resident advised that the property had recently been inspected where it was identified that the patio doors were faulty, there was a problem with the roof tiles, and insulation was not fitted properly which was causing damp. The resident confirmed that he was still waiting for the damp to be resolved, and also noted that he had still not received a copy of the certificate following the second electrical test or a copy of the tenancy agreement.
On 21 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that it had conducted a review of his complaint. In summary the landlord said:
1. Neither its stage one or two responses set out what steps it had taken to address the damp reported by the resident.
2. The inspection in April 2021 did not identify evidence of damp, however decoration vouchers were offered as a goodwill gesture.
3. In August 2021 the resident reported an issue with the guttering at the front of the property and a repair was undertaken on 8 September 2021.
4. In November 2021 the resident reported a further issue with the guttering and water penetrating into the living room. It confirmed that this was inspected by a surveyor on 23 December 2021 who noted “some small mould spots”. It stated that in response it fitted tile vents to the roof and topped up the loft insulation. It confirmed that it had also raised a work order for a mould wash which would be completed by the end of April 2022.
5. It had included a copy of the certificate following the electrical check undertaken on 15 November 2021 which confirmed that the property was safe.
6. It would like to offer the resident an additional £200 compensation “whilst [it believed] that [it had] responded to [the resident’s] concerns about mould and the electric check in reasonable timescales, [it] did not provided [him] with a clear explanation or reassurance and explain what steps had been taken”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property on becoming the tenant

The report following the mutual exchange inspection, dated 11 December 2020, records that no damp was identified. The repair records for the property from the previous tenancy documents one report of suspected damp in August 2019 which was addressed by application of stain block. No further reports of damp or mould were recorded thereafter. The photos provided by the resident on becoming the tenant show areas of mould within the property. The Ombudsman notes that the photos were taken approximately three and a half months after the inspection.
The landlord and resident have different positions on when the damp developed in the property. Based on the available evidence the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the inspection failed to identify damp in the property in December 2020 or that the damp only developed during the period after the inspection. This is because there is insufficient evidence to reach such a conclusion. In determining this case the Ombudsman must therefore consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 1 March 2021.
On 20 March 2019 The Homes (Fitness of Human Habitation) Act 2018 came into force with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to make sure that its properties are safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm. The Government’s guidance for tenants sets out that “damp and mould growth” must be considered. On receipt of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property the landlord was obliged to investigate and make good any issues identified.
An internal email by the landlord dated 8 October 2021 confirms that it received the resident’s photographs sent on 1 March 2021 documenting mould in the property. The Ombudsman understands from the records that, in response, the landlord arranged an inspection which took place on 16 April 2021. While it was appropriate that the landlord arranged an inspection, to satisfy itself of the condition of the property and whether there was an issue which required its attention, it is unsatisfactory that the inspection was 34 working days after the resident’s report. This was a protracted period of time and will have resulted in frustration and uncertainty to the resident. The landlord has confirmed that no report is available documenting the inspection. This is concerning as a landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records to document how it is meeting its repairing obligations. It has also limited the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the quality of the landlord’s decision making following the inspection, and therefore whether its course of action was reasonable or not; which was its position that no further action was needed at that time. The landlord’s poor record keeping will be taken into account in the overall finding for this aspect of the complaint.
Following receipt of the resident’s complaint in summer 2021, via this Service, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged a further survey of the property. This is because the resident reported within the complaint that the property continued to have signs of mould that he had been unable to address, and therefore this would have enabled the landlord to assess the situation and to determine if its conclusions following the inspection in April 2021 were correct. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord.
The records document that on 23 December 2021 the landlord did inspect the property for damp and mould following a report from the resident regarding water penetrating into the living room in mid-November 2021. An undated email by the inspecting officer set out that “the mould was not too bad, just a few small areas… I believed it was related to disturbed insulation in the loft… I suspected that the loft was under ventilated and had condensation issues – hence my [work] order… I also raised the patio doors, these didn’t seal well but the main problem was I didn’t feel they were properly secure”. It is unsatisfactory that it took a further report from the resident in order for the landlord to take proactive action to explore the issue.
Following the inspection the landlord raised a work order to reseal doors and windows, renew patio doors, install tile vents to roof, top up insulation and apply a mould treatment. From the landlord’s repair records the Ombudsman understands that this work was completed between January and April 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord acted upon the recommendations following the inspection, however the timescale for completing all the works was protracted, a period of four months. The Ombudsman is not clear from the records why the repair timescale was protracted. Following completion of these works, the landlord’s repair records do not document further damp or mould reports from the resident.
In September 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a £75 decoration voucher in recognition that he undertook work to address damp and mould in the property on becoming the tenant. While it was appropriate that the landlord did offer a decoration voucher, to acknowledge that it had delayed in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould dated March 2021, it is not clear how the landlord determined that £75 was an appropriate amount. This is because the Ombudsman has not identified any records detailing a calculation or assessment of the works undertaken by the resident to support that a reasonable award was made. Further no explanation was provided to the resident detailing the sum.
The evidence shows that the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the report following the mutual exchange inspection in September 2021, after repeated requests. This was approximately six months after the resident made the request. This is unsatisfactory, as no explanation was provided to the resident to explain the delay in providing the report. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the report will have to have been redacted in order to remove the previous tenant’s personal details, this should not have resulted in a six month delay.
In responding to the complaint the landlord awarded a total of £350 compensation. The landlord set out that the compensation was in “recognition of the issues involved with the complaint”. The landlord does not expand further detailing the “issues involved”, however the Ombudsman notes from its complaint responses that it did not identify any specific shortfalls in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, other than a delay in providing a copy of the mutual exchange report.
As set out in the proceeding paragraphs the Ombudsman has identified shortfalls in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from March 2021. This included delay in responding to the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould, failure to evidence and document its findings from the inspection in April 2021, failure to inspect the property on receipt of the complaint in summer 2021, in addition to the protracted timeframe for completing the works identified following the inspection in December 2021. Therefore the Ombudsman considers that a further sum of compensation is due to reflect these shortfalls and missed opportunities, in addition to the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble and uncertainty the resident would have experienced as a result.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding an electrical inspection

The landlord acknowledged in responding to the complaint that the electrical test should have taken place prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy start date, rather than on the first day of his tenancy. The Ombudsman notes however that the landlord’s mutual exchange policy, in place at the time of the complaint, sets out that it “will usually” conduct an electrical inspection check on or after the day of the mutual exchange.
In response to the resident’s concerns that the electrical test undertaken on 1 March 2021 was not completed to a satisfactory standard, the landlord agreed as part of its stage two complaint resolution, to complete the test again. In the Ombudsman’s view this was an appropriate course of action in order to alleviate the resident’s concerns, particularly in light of the issue he had raised in relation to the cooker port.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord should have agreed for a retest as part of its stage one complaint resolution. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to decline to offer a retest at that time as the information that it held in respect of the first test confirmed that the electrical installations were safe, and therefore it was able to provide a reassurance to the resident that the property was safe.
From review of the evidence the Ombudsman understands that the resident was provided with a copy of the electrical retest certificate in March 2022. This was approximately four months after the test was completed. This is unsatisfactory, given that the retest was undertaken as a “put right” action to resolve the complaint and to reassure him that the property was safe. While the certificate was outstanding the resident will have felt uncertainty. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s failure has however been put right via its offer of compensation for “issues involved in the complaint”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a copy of the tenancy agreement for the property

The evidence shows that the landlord emailed the resident with a copy of the tenancy agreement for the property on 21 April 2021 and 12 May 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was unsatisfactory that the resident was not provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement on becoming the tenant of the property in March 2021. This is because the landlord should ensure that a resident has the necessary documents in order to carry out their tenancy in line with the terms of the tenancy on becoming the tenant. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s failure has however been put right via its offer of compensation for “issues involved in the complaint”.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman notes that the resident reports that he attempted to make a complaint to the landlord prior to contacting this Service for assistance. While the resident’s position is noted, we have not seen any evidence to this effect. In determining this aspect of the complaint the Ombudsman will therefore focus on the landlord’s response to notification of the complaint via this Service.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that:
1. A stage one response should be provided within 10 working days, and should not exceed a further 10 days without good reasons. If an extension beyond 20 working days is required this should be agreed by both parties.
2. A stage two response should be provided within 20 working days, and should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reasons. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required this should be agreed by both parties.
The chronology of the case shows that the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses were provided outside of the timescales prescribed by the Ombudsman’s Code; being provided approximately 32 days after each request.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged its service failure, apologised and awarded £50 compensation at stage one and £25 compensation at stage two. As the landlord acknowledged a service failure it was appropriate that it apologised, to demonstrate that it recognised the impact on the resident. It was also appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy, as the policy sets out that it may award discretionary compensation where a resident has experienced “unnecessary inconvenience”.
While it was appropriate that the landlord awarded compensation for delays at both stage one and stage two of its complaint procedure, it is not clear why its award at stage two was less that its award at stage one, especially where its compensation policy sets out that it will award a minimum of £50 for “failure to meet service standards”.
In responding to the complaint the landlord also acknowledged that it had delayed in providing the resident with decoration vouchers. The landlord’s apology was appropriate to the service failure identified.
In responding to the complaint at both stage one and two it was unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to directly respond to the resident’s report that the damp and mould persisted in the property, and what steps it would take to investigate and put things right. This is unsatisfactory, as the purpose of a complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage to ensure that things are put right as soon as possible where it is found that something has gone wrong. In not doing so it was a missed opportunity to provide the resident with a resolution to the damp at an earlier time.
In reviewing the complaint in March 2022 (after it had issued its final response in December 2021) the landlord found that “neither its stage one or two responses set out what steps it had taken to address the damp reported by the resident” and therefore awarded £200 compensation. While it was appropriate that the landlord has since recognised the shortcomings in its handling of the complaint and awarded appropriate compensation in recognition of its failure and the uncertainty the resident would have experienced while the damp issue remained outstanding, it does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because the landlord should have recognised its shortcomings as part of the complaint investigation, including to demonstrate a thorough investigation of the issues raised at that time. As it failed to do so, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in respect of the landlord’s overall complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property on becoming the tenant.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the following:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding an electrical inspection.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a copy of the tenancy agreement for the property.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property on becoming the tenant

While the landlord did take steps to resolve the damp and mould reported by the resident, as it did complete repairs, the service it provided in doing so was unsatisfactory. This is because the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s first report of damp was delayed, it missed an opportunity to inspect the property following receipt of the resident’s complaint highlighting ongoing damp and mould in addition to taking an unreasonable amount of time to complete the repairs following the inspection in December 2021. The landlord also failed to demonstrate through its records whether its decision making following the inspection in April 2021 was reasonable or not. Further the landlord failed to demonstrate the value of the decoration voucher offer was proportionate. The landlord has not acknowledged these failings and the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding an electrical inspection

While the landlord delayed in providing the resident with a copy of the certificate following the electrical retest it has since put things right through its offer of compensation for issues involved in the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a copy of the tenancy agreement for the property

While the landlord delayed in providing the resident with a copy of the tenancy agreement for the property it has since put things right through its offer of compensation for issues involved in the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In responding to the complaint at both stage one and two it was unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to directly respond to the resident’s report that the damp and mould persisted in the property, and what steps it would take to investigate and put things right. While the landlord has since recognised its shortcomings, following its review of the complaint, and awarded appropriate compensation in recognition of its failure it does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because the landlord should have recognised its shortcomings as part of the complaint investigation, including to demonstrate a thorough investigation of the issues raised.
It is unclear why the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage two, for delays in complaint handling, was less that its offer of compensation at stage one, for delays.

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident from its Chief Executive for the repairs service it provided.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £1325 compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination. This comprises the £625 which the landlord awarded itself in addition to:
1. £600 in recognition of distress and inconvenience and uncertainty the resident would have experienced as a result of the repairs service which the landlord provided.
2. £100 for failures in complaint handling.

Recommendations

In light of the Ombudsman’s comments on the landlord’s record keeping the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management to ensure that it has appropriate systems and procedures in place to maintain accurate records in order to demonstrate how it is meeting is obligations as a responsible landlord. The landlord should also complete a self-assessment against the report recommendations to enable it to embed the good practice highlighted.
When awarding compensation the landlord should clearly set out what the award is in recognition of so that the resident is clear what service failure is being remedied.