Clarion Housing Association Limited (202206079)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206079

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 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:
1. The resident’s report of damp and mould.
2. The resident’s request for compensation for her personal belongings that were affected by the damp and mould.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord with an assured shorthold tenancy dated July 2019. The property is a ground floor two-bedroom flat.

Summary of events

The repair log shows the resident reported a leaking external down pipe at the rear of the property and a leaking bathroom tap on 24 September 2020. This was evidenced as completed on 16 October 2020.
The repair log shows that the resident reported damp and mould in her property on 30 October 2020. The notes advise the contractor to inspect water damage to the walls and provide any follow-on works. It is evidenced that the walls in the front room were treated on 23 November 2020.
The repair log shows on 15 October 2021, a year later, the resident reported damp and mould throughout her property. A works order was raised the same day saying: “Please assess mould within flat, tenant said she has had mould washes and they do not work.”
An inspection was carried out on 8 November 2021, with the case notes saying that:
1. the property needed:
  1. a three-stage mould treatment
  2. anti mould paint in the kitchen, bathroom, living room and second bedroom
2. the surveyor said that there was an issue with the ventilation in the flat noting “lots of condensation” and that “it felt really damp”
3. the tenant was advised to open vents on the windows for a few days to see if that helped.
On 22 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase the follow-on works in relation to the inspection of 8 November 2021.
A works order was raised on 6 January 2022, to assess that all the heaters in the property were working correctly. In addition, to check that the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans were working.
An inspection was carried out on 14 January 2022. The inspection notes say that “the hall storage heater was not on, however the resident said it was not used as it had been faulty in the past. The living room storage heater used the “daytime” supply, and the small bedroom had an electric heater connected to an “off peak” supply. The kitchen fan was working, however, it needed to be cleaned and the bathroom fan did not work.
On 27 January 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint saying she had complained numerous times in relation to the mould that was in her property and that she was still waiting for a surveyor’s inspection. She said that her belongings were “ruined,” and the situation was affecting her mental health.
The landlord contacted the resident on 31 January 2022, requesting more details. The resident responded the same day saying that:
1. her complaint was not being taken seriously
2. she had had to throw away various items of furniture and sentimental items which had cost her money to replace
3. she had to replace the carpet in her daughter’s bedroom as it was wet and mouldy
4. the situation had affected her mental health
5. she requested to be moved to another ground floor property and be compensated for the items listed above.
It was confirmed by both the resident and the landlord that an inspection of the property was carried out on 10 February 2022, whereby damp meter readings were taken. There were no specific readings provided, however it had been evidenced that the surveyor noted “higher” readings in some areas of the flat than others.
The landlord responded at stage one on 10 February 2022, saying that:
1. it apologised for the delay in responding
2. it reviewed the complaint and referred the matters to a surveyor. It explained the surveyor contacted the resident on 2 February 2022 and agreed to an inspection on 10 February 2022
3. it identified a delay in the referral being sent to the surveyor and offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience this had caused. The landlord confirmed the surveyor would determine any works that were required
4. it left a message for the resident on 10 February 2022 explaining the above and would wait until the resident had confirmed acceptance of the compensation before making the payment.
On 17 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord saying that someone visited her on 10 February to inspect the property. They advised that a “three step deep clean” would be carried out. The resident said she was unhappy with this as she had already had deep cleans carried out and wanted a damp survey carried out instead. She was not satisfied with the £50 compensation offered to her and requested the landlord consider moving her to another property.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord responded to the resident saying that her complaint was closed, and the compensation payment was being processed. Furthermore, its re-housing requests were managed by the local authority.
On 28 February 2022, various works orders were raised which included:
1. renewing the extractor fan
2. raking out and repointing the brickwork
3. renewing the airbricks with PVC replacements
4. refixing the soffits.
The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two on 11 March 2022, saying that:
1. a surveyor had not visited to inspect the mould issue, as the landlord advised in its stage one response
2. she was unhappy that the mould was persistent, and she had to replace her belongings as a result
3. the issue had not been resolved.
An internal email dated 5 April 2022, explained that some brickwork required repointing in relation to bedroom two. It was the opinion of the surveyor that this was the entry point for the water, causing the mould. He said he advised the resident that the landlord would initially repoint all areas required and see “if it made a difference.” In addition, it would carry out a three-stage mould treatment and raise work orders for two humidistat fans to be replaced. The landlord said it was “happy to get a damp survey carried out,” however it wanted to wait to see if the repairs raised would resolve the problem.
The repair log shows that on 13 April 2022, all the taps in the property were changed, a mould wash and stain block was applied to the affected areas and the bathroom ceiling was painted. In addition, all the plumbing was checked for leaks and the guttering and external areas were checked for any other issues.
The landlord sent its final response dated 22 April 2022, saying that:
1. its records show that the resident was visited by a surveyor on 10 February 2022. The surveyor inspected the property with a protimeter to identify the cause of the damp and mould growth
2. the inspection identified that the brickwork required re-pointing, which could have been a cause of the damp and a high reading on the protimeter in certain locations
3. the landlord said it would be in contact with the resident within two weeks to schedule an appointment for the work to take place
4. it also noted during the inspection that “condensation” was also a possible source of the mould in the property and an order was raised to treat any areas where mould was present
5. the landlord confirmed that advice was provided to the resident on managing condensation by ensuring the property was heated and ventilated adequately. Also, it noted that she was drying clothes indoors which could significantly increase the humidity within a property and create condensation
6. furthermore, it raised an order to install two humidistat fans which would help to control humidity levels. It said that the fans were installed in February 2022
7. if the works did not resolve the problem, it would arrange a specialist damp survey of the property
8. although, it sought to resolve the issues appropriately, it did not think that it had kept the resident well informed on the actions it was taking, resulting in a poor customer experience. Therefore, it awarded £100 compensation.
The same day the resident responded saying that although some of her concerns were addressed, the “whole job was not finished.” She did not think the £100 compensation was sufficient to replace her belongings.
The landlord responded to the resident on 25 April 2022, saying that her stage two complaint was closed and directed her to this service.
A works order was raised on 25 April 2022, in relation to repointing the areas of external brickwork where needed. This was evidenced as completed on 27 April 2022.
On the 5 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord saying she was “still living in a mould infested property”. The landlord responded the same day directing the resident to this service.
On 24 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord asking when it was going to “sort this mould problem out”. The landlord responded the same day directing the resident to this service.
This service contacted the landlord following the resident’s complaint of a leak at the property and associated mould growth, requesting it provide her with a response.
On 26 July 2022, the landlord explained to this service that it had experienced a cyber-attack and therefore it may not be able to provide a formal response with the normal timeframe.
On 18 August 2022, the landlord sent its stage one response to the resident in relation to the leak in the property, and the damage to her personal belongings from the leak and damp and mould. It said that:
1. although the leak had been repaired and the mould treated, the resident was worried the mould would return in the cooler weather. In addition, that the mould was all over her personal belongings and the resident would like compensation
2. it apologised for the delay in providing a response, explaining that the landlord was experiencing issues with its IT systems
3. it confirmed that the leak and the damp and mould were addressed under its previous stage one response. Following an inspection by its surveyor on 10 February 2022, actions were put in place to resolve the issues. It said the resident confirmed in her email on 17 August 2022 that the leak had been repaired and the landlord had taken action to treat the damp and mould in the property
4. in relation to the resident’s personal belongings, the landlord said it did not compensate for this within the complaints process. Therefore, the resident should make an insurance claim in relation to her personal property. It explained standard practice would be for the resident to go through her home contents insurance provider. However, she could pursue a claim through its insurance if she wanted to
5. it explained that if the resident remained dissatisfied, she could raise a stage two complaint within 20 working days.
In response to our enquiries in relation to the resident’s reports of a leak, which was a leaking downpipe and leaking bathroom tap, the landlord sent internal emails on 14 and 23 November 2022 saying that:
1. a leak was not confirmed at the property and the main issue appeared to be mould growth linked to condensation. The landlord had agreed to undertake some work to see if that would resolve the problem
2. it should arrange a follow up inspection to confirm if the works resolved the mould issue. If not, to instruct a damp specialist. In addition, unless the property required major works, the landlord would not normally move the resident to alternative accommodation. However, this would depend on the outcome of the inspection
3. it listed the works that were carried out:
  1. replaced all the taps
  2. mould washed, treated, and painted the areas that were affected with mould
  3. repointed small areas on the external wall (where needed)
  4. re-sealed small areas on the external wall’s damp proof course joint seal
  5. overhauled the vents in property
  6. re-fixed the soffit
  7. installed new fans in the kitchen and bathroom
  8. installed new heaters.
The landlord explained to this service that the resident made further complaints of mould in her property on 17 February 2023, and it visited on 20 February 2023 to address the issue. It says there has been no further reports since then.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repair policy says non-emergency repairs appointments will be arranged at a time that suits the resident and will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out award values of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. Where there is considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant, awards values of £250 to £700 are set. Awards of £700 and above where there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant are set.
The compensation policy says when assessing compensation, the landlord would consider:
1. who was responsible for the issue
2. the length of time it took to resolve the problem
3. additional costs that were incurred directly and solely by the resident because of a failure of service
4. relevant proof provided to support a compensation claim.
The policy highlights that it would not normally compensate for personal belongings as this would be covered under a resident’s contents insurance.
Under the Housing Health and Safety rating system, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure its properties are free from hazards, such as damp and mould. It outlines preventative measures for mitigating any such hazard, including:
1. Properly installed rainwater goods, including gutters and rainwater pipes capable of removing rainwater from the roof and carrying it away from the property into proper means of disposal.
2. There should be sufficient and appropriate means of ventilation to deal with moisture generated by normal domestic activities, without the need to open windows. Opening windows can result in heat loss.
3. There should be provisions for the removal of moisture-laden air. For example, extraction during cooking or bathing, either by mechanical means, or passive stack ventilation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak and damp and mould.

The resident reported a leaking external downpipe and bathroom tap on 24 September 2020; this was repaired 22 days later. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy to carry out non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The resident again reported damp and mould in her property on 30 October 2020, with the landlord addressing the issue 24 days later. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair policy to carryout non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The resident raised a third report of mould a year later in October 2021, regarding damp and mould in her property, highlighting that previous mould washes had been carried out and did not work. Following this, an inspection was carried out by the landlord in November 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out this inspection to assess the mould problem.
Nevertheless, despite the resident highlighting that previous mould washes did not work, it only recommended another mould treatment be carried out. This was not reasonable given the continued issues raised by the resident in relation to the mould growth and the fact the landlord would have been aware that the mould washes were not addressing the problem. This caused the resident frustration and did not demonstrate that the landlord was considering the resident’s views or taking her complaint seriously.
The resident chased an update to the inspection 2 weeks later, and there is no evidence to suggest that a response was provided. This was not appropriate and caused frustration for the resident in pursuing the issue.
It was not until January 2022 that the landlord raised a works order to assess the heating in the property and the extraction fans. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate other causes of the mould problem, it was not appropriate that it took the landlord 60 days from its inspection to raise any works orders to do so. This delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience and prolonged the issue being resolved.
A further two inspections were carried out on 14 January 2022 and 10 February 2022. In total, five inspections were carried out between October 2020 and February 2022 in relation to the mould reported by the resident. Each identified repair issues with the property which could have been contributing factors to the damp and mould. It has been evidenced that repair works had been carried out to try and address the mould problem which was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repair obligations.
This Service’s spotlight report outlines that landlords should take a pro-active, zero tolerance approach to damp and mould, ensuring that their responses to damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Therefore, it was not appropriate that the landlord did not instruct a damp specialist to investigate the cause of the reoccurring problem.
The resident requested that a specialist damp survey be carried out at the property in February 2022 and on 5 April 2022, the landlord said in its internal emails that it was happy to instruct for a damp survey to be carried out. However, to date there is no evidence to suggest that this was ever done. This was not appropriate, especially given that the resident had complained of further mould issues twice in May 2022 and as recently as February of this year.
In addition to this, internal emails of 14 and 23 November 2022 agreed that a follow up inspection would be carried out and if the problem remained, the landlord would instruct a damp specialist. There is no evidence to suggest any monitoring of the mould took place which is not appropriate.
There were also delays in carrying out the works identified during the inspection of 10 February 2022, whereby it was identified the brickwork needed repointing. This work was not raised until 25 April 2022, 75 days later. This was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The damp readings showing higher levels than other areas in the flat and the required works to the brick work all evidenced that there were structural disrepair issues causing at least some of the damp. The landlord should not have made assumptions regarding condensation and investigated the cause sooner. The spotlight report on damp and mould says landlord’s should avoid blame and assuming that the cause of condensation is tenants “lifestyle”. Otherwise the response is unlikely to be effective or timely.
This Service understands that resolving damp and mould issues can be complex and take time. It is clear that the landlord had carried out works to try and resolve the problem. However, when these works were not successful and the resident continued to complain, the landlord advised the resident to contact this service as her complaint was closed. This was not appropriate and caused the resident distress. She said on several occasion that the situation was affecting her mental health and had damaged her belongings.
In summary, the landlord initially responded promptly to the resident’s report of a leak and damp and mould in her property. However,
1. there was a delay of 60 days before it actioned any follow up from its inspection of November 2021. This was despite the resident chasing the matter.
2. The resident had advised the landlord that the situation was affecting her mental health on several occasions and highlighted that mould washes were not resolving the problem. Despite this, the landlord recommended a further mould treatment.
3. The landlord inspected the property on 8 November 2021 identifying issues of disrepair. However, it was not until five months later, on 13 April that the necessary works were completed. The issue was ongoing over a considerable period of time, causing the resident distress and frustration.
Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, taking into account the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as other relevant factors, such as vulnerabilities. This service’s remedies guidance does not set out minimum or maximum compensation levels, rather it provides some guidance on the suggested ranges of compensation levels.
Therefore, the Ombudsman will award compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order will include a rent related element based on a refund of around 15% for the 22 week delay period. The delay period being November 2021 to April 2022. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund.
As a result, a total of £654.64 has been awarded to reflect the impact on the resident. This equates to 15% of the weekly rent (£107.45) at 22 weeks and £300 in recognition for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the mould issue.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for her personal belongings that were affected by the damp and mould.

When considering whether the landlord has made an appropriate offer of compensation, the Ombudsman looks at what is fair in all the circumstances of the case, taking into account the landlord’s policies and procedures.
The resident had requested compensation for damage to her personal belongings caused by the damp and mould. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it does not normally compensate for personal belongings as this would be covered under its customers contents insurance. However, in this case, the landlord advised the resident in August 2022, that she could claim from its insurance for her personal belongings. The landlord acted in line with its policy by advising the resident that it did not compensate for personal belongings as detailed in its compensation policy.
It was fair and reasonable of the landlord to encourage her to claim from its own insurance should she wish. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for her personal belongings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak and damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for her personal belongings that were affected by the damp and mould.

Reasons

There was a delay of five months from the landlord’s inspection to carrying out the necessary works. Furthermore, it has failed to instruct a damp specialist given the reoccurring damp and mould problem.
The landlord acted in line with its compensation policy and encouraged the resident to make a claim via its insurance.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £654.64 made up of:
  1. £356.64 for a rent related element refund
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak and damp and mould.
2. The landlord to review the handling of reports of damp and mould and consider whether it would be appropriate to review or introduce a policy in relation to how it responds to reports of damp and mould. The landlord to refer to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould for further detail and recommendations.

Recommendation

The landlord to make contact with the resident to assist with making a claim from its own policy should she wish.