Clarion Housing Association Limited (202116549)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116549

Clarion Housing Association Limited

6 September 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

  1. The landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the toilet, bathroom extractor fan and a leak in the bathroom which resulted in damp and mould.
    2. The associated complaint

Background

  1. The residents, two housemates were assured tenants of the landlord.
  2. On 12 August 2020, the residents submitted a complaint to the landlord. The residents explained that they would like to complain about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet and extractor fan.
  3. On 17 November 2020, the residents contacted the landlord and explained that there was a leak located in the bathroom which had caused black mould. The residents asked for their complaint to be escalated to level 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. However, at this point, the landlord had not yet issued its stage 1 complaint response.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the residents on 11 February 2021. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in resolving the repair to the toilet and apologised. It confirmed that the toilet was repaired in November 2020. The landlord explained that it replaced the extractor fan in July 2020. Then following a further report that the extractor fan was lacking power, it attended to inspect the fan in September 2020. The extractor fan was repaired to full operating power in February 2021. The landlord also explained that it attended the property on 18 January 2021 to complete a mould treatment. The landlord offered the residents £266.64 to recognise the delays in resolving the repairs and for its delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response.
  5. On 14 February 2021, the residents requested for their complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. The landlord has confirmed it initially failed to log the escalation request correctly and did not log the escalation until 26 April 2021, which is when the landlord received contact from the Ombudsman chasing a response.
  6. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 2 July 2021. The landlord apologised for the delay in repairing the toilet. It also confirmed that it attended to a leak in the bathroom in November 2020. The landlord also stated that the extractor fan system was left in full working order in February 2021. The landlord stated a mould treatment was completed on 18 January 2021, 17 February 2021 and on 24 June 2021. It also explained that it had requested a specialist cleaning company to attend the property to deep clean the carpet. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £645 to recognise the delays completing the repairs and providing its complaint response. The compensation also included reimbursement costs for the dehumidifier which the residents purchased.
  7. The residents remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted their complaint to the Ombudsman. They stated that their desired outcome was to receive compensation for the extra electricity they used to run the dehumidifier for 3 months. They also requested compensation for the extra water used to manually flush the toilet for 4 months. In addition, the residents would like a deduction in rent for the period the repairs in the bathroom were outstanding and compensation for their phone bills for calls to the landlord and distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet, bathroom extractor fan and a leak in the bathroom resulting in damp and mould.

  1. The residents have mentioned as part of their complaint that the damp and mould at the property impacted their health. This service does not doubt the residents’ comments about their injuries. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on the residents’ health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant risk to health. This service can consider the general risk as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about their injuries.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be responded to within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs will be responded to within 28 days. The tenancy agreement also states that the landlord agrees to keep the systems for supplying water, heating, and electricity, and for getting rid of waste and water in working order.
  3. The residents have raised as part of their complaint that there were delays to the landlord repairing the toilet which would not flush and the extractor fan which was not working. They have also stated that there were delays to the landlord responding to the leak in the bathroom and the damp and mould. The residents first reported the repair issue with the toilet in June 2020 and then the repair issue with the extractor fan was reported to the landlord in July 2020. The leak in the bathroom and the damp and mould was reported to the landlord in November 2020.
  4. The landlord attended the residents’ property on multiple occasions between July and November 2020 to attempt to repair the toilet. After multiple visits, the toilet was repaired in November 2020. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord had to order a part to repair the toilet and it is acknowledged that this would have contributed to the delay in repairing the toilet. However, the overall length of time it took the landlord to repair the toilet was unreasonable and not compliant with the landlord’s repair timescales referenced in its repairs policy. The residents were left with a toilet which they could not flush for around four months. The residents have stated that they had to pour bowls of water into the toilet to manually flush it, which increased their water usage. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been a difficult situation for the residents to deal with.
  5. The landlord also attended the residents’ property to repair the bathroom extractor fan. The landlord’s contactor attended on 10 July 2020 to inspect the fan and attempt to repair it. The contractor was unable to repair the fan, therefore a replacement fan/ventilation unit had to be ordered. The Ombudsman recognises that there would be a delay whilst the landlord waited for the replacement fan to arrive. The extractor fan was replaced on 27 July 2020. The Ombudsman believes the length of time it took the landlord to replace the extractor fan was reasonable.
  6.  Following the installation of the new extractor fan, the residents reported in August 2020 that the fan was not ventilating well and not powerful. The landlord’s contractor attended the residents’ property in September 2020 to inspect the fan. Initially, the contractor was unable to identify the issue with the fan. Therefore, the landlord had to contact the manufacturer of the replacement fan to identify the issue. The manufacturer advised the landlord that the filters needed to be cleared and informed it how to do this. The extractor fan was left in full working order in February 2021. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord initially was unable to identify the problem with the extractor fan and believes it was reasonable for it to contact the manufacturer of the fan for advice. However, the Ombudsman believes the landlord should have contacted the manufacturer sooner than it did, as the residents were left with poor ventilation for several months which was unreasonable.
  7. The residents explained that they had to purchase a dehumidifier and air purifier to use whilst the extractor fan was not working, due to the poor ventilation in the bathroom. The residents stated as part of their complaint to the landlord, that they would like compensation for the increased electricity usage they had incurred due to using the dehumidifier and air purifier. The Ombudsman believes the landlord should comply with this request, (subject to the residents providing evidence of their increased costs) as the residents had poor ventilation for several months due to the extractor fan not working.
  8. Shortly after the residents reported the leak and damp and mould in the bathroom, the landlord’s contractor attended the residents’ property to inspect and repair the issues. The landlord repaired the leak 3 days after the issue was reported. The landlord appropriately responded to the issue with the leak. However, the landlord could have attended to the damp and mould more quickly than it did, particularly, as damp and mould can pose a significant risk to health. The landlord treated the mould and carried out a mould wash on 18 January 2021. It also carried out further mould washes in February and June 2021 which resolved the issue. In addition, the landlord deep cleaned the carpet in hallway to remove the mould from the carpet, this was completed in July 2021. The Ombudsman believes that the landlord should have responded sooner to the damp and mould. However, the landlord did acknowledge the delay during its complaints process and offered the residents compensation to recognise the delay.
  9. The residents have mentioned as part of their complaint that they would like a deduction in rent for the period the repairs were outstanding. The Ombudsman acknowledges it must have been difficult for the residents having multiple repairs outstanding for several months in the bathroom. However, in this instance, as the residents were still able to use the bathroom during the period the repairs were outstanding, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to refund part of the residents’ rent.
  10. The landlord did acknowledge in its stage two complaint response that there were delays in repairing the toilet and extractor fan and resolving the damp and mould. The landlord offered the residents compensation of £495 to recognise the delay and inconvenience in completing the repairs. The compensation was also to recognise the delay in resolving the damp and mould. The Ombudsman believes in this instance, the landlord should pay the residents additional compensation for any increased water usage they would have incurred due to flushing the toilet manually. It should also pay the residents’ compensation for any increased electricity usage they experienced due to using the dehumidifier and air purifier for several months. The compensation should cover the period the repairs were outstanding.
  11. The additional compensation is appropriate to recognise the additional water and electricity costs the residents incurred due to the delayed repairs. The compensation is also compliant with the landlord’s complaints policy which states that the landlord will consider additional costs that were incurred directly and solely by a resident because a failure of service. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our service’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. In this case, although the delayed repairs would possibly have caused the residents to incur additional water and electricity costs, there was no permanent impact as the repairs were eventually resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states that a stage 1 complaint response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days.
  2. At the time the landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses in February 2021 and July 2021, the landlord did not have any complaint response timescales referenced in its complaints policy. However, a recent check of the landlord’s website shows that it has now updated its complaints policy with the complaint response timescales which are in line with the code.
  3. The residents first submitted their complaint to the landlord on 12 August 2020. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 February 2021. This response was sent approximately six months after the resident submitted his complaint to the landlord. The response time was significantly late and not compliant with the code.
  4. On 14 February 2021, the residents requested their complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the complaints process. It took nearly 5 months for the landlord to provide its stage 2 response, which was provided on 2 July 2021. The delay would have caused significant inconvenience for the residents, as they were delayed in progressing their complaint to the Ombudsman because they needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  5. The landlord acknowledged and apologised in its stage 2 response for its delay in providing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses to the residents. It also acknowledged that it initially failed to log the residents’ request for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord offered the residents a total of £150 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the delays. However, in this instance, the compensation offered by the landlord did not proportionately reflect the considerable delay the residents experienced. Therefore, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. Given the significant delay in the landlord providing its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses and its initial failure to log the residents’ escalation request. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the residents an additional £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is in addition to the £150 compensation the landlord already offered in its stage 2 complaint for its complaint handling errors. It is also compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance referenced above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet, bathroom extractor fan, leak in the bathroom and damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to reimburse the residents for their increased water and electric usage between June 2020 and November 2020 upon receiving a copy of the residents’ water and electric bills. The residents should provide the landlord with a copy of their water and electric bills covering the period of June 2020 to November 2020 and for the same period for the previous year which would be June to November 2019. This will enable the landlord to identify any increased usage during the period when the repairs were ongoing.
  2. The landlord should comply with these orders within eight weeks of the date of this report.
  3. The landlord is ordered to pay the residents an additional £150 compensation for errors in its complaint handling. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer made in its stage one and two responses of £645 in compensation if it has not already done so.