Clarion Housing Association Limited (202207945)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207945

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of damp and mould within the resident’s home.
2. Decanting the resident into temporary accommodation.
3. Reports of pigeons nesting and defecating on the property.
4. Reports of a neighbour’s overgrown garden.
5. The resident’s concerns regarding an external boundary wall.
6. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The assured shorthold tenancy agreement started on 18 March 2019. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident is registered blind and has mobility problems. The landlord has this information recorded on its system.

Scope of investigation

The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted his health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
The resident said members of the landlord’s staff discriminated against him during the decant because of his disabilities. We may not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal, or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and to the corresponding complaint handling.
This Service is bound by the rules of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 41 (a) states we may not consider a complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion is made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 March 2022, responding to the resident’s complaint about damp and mould. As such, this Service will adjudicate up to 31 March 2022 regarding that specific matter. Additionally, the resident made complaints about his decant into temporary accommodation, an overgrown garden, the condition of an external wall, and pest control. This Service cannot evidence that the landlord addressed these issues within a formal complaint response, despite several escalation requests from the resident over a period of months. Due to this complaint handling failure, we will investigate the resident’s complaints regarding the aforementioned issues as part of this report. The landlord has not objected to this.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not investigate matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon. Therefore, the issues relating to the resident’s complaint about damp and mould prior to 27 May 2021 will not be considered in this investigation. They have already been investigated in case 202014623. Details of this case may be used in this report for background information only.
On 7 August 2023, the resident contacted this Service to explain the property was inspected on 3 August 2023 and the landlord found the lower walls to be damp. We cannot consider this recent development as part of this complaint. The landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond within its complaint procedure. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way the landlord handled the problem.

Landlord obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
In determining whether a property is unfit for human habitation under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the key question is whether a property is “not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition” because of various factors, which include repairs, freedom from damp, and ventilation.
The landlord’s repair policy says complex repairs would be completed through the responsive repairs service. Major component replacements are not responsive repairs, and these items should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes.
The landlord’s tenancy management policy states, “Where we receive complaints of overgrown or untidy gardens or become aware of them, we will encourage residents to try and resolve the problem themselves first, but we will take action to make sure the garden is improved.”
The landlord’s responsibilities regarding pests are to eradicate any infestations and pests in communal areas and take measures to prevent problems from the build-up of pigeon droppings.
The complaint policy provided to this Service (dated March 2020) states the landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. No timescales are referenced.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer compensation from £50 to £250 for instances of service failure where there has been some impact to the resident. Awards of £250 to £700 may be offered if there has been considerable failure but no permanent impact to the resident. Awards more than £700 will be appropriate where there has been a significant or long-term effect on the resident.

Summary of events

In January 2021, the landlord received reports of damp within the resident’s property. Following an investigation, the landlord determined the damp was caused by problems with the guttering. It said it had arranged for scaffolding to be erected, the guttering to be repaired, and a mould wash and stain-block to be carried out internally. Within its final response dated 27 May 2021, it explained no further works were recommended for the brickwork as its inspection did not identify water penetration via this area.
The landlord’s notes explain the internal ‘making good’ was delayed because the resident flagged additional water ingress into the property. A surveyor attended on 9 June 2021. The surveyor said:
1. An area of blown plaster was identified in the bedroom requiring a repair.
2. Two small areas in the hallway and one small area of the lounge showed signs of damp.
3. Moisture readings were taken to the rest of the walls and no moisture was identified.
4. External works were required including repointing, a replacement collar on the communal stack and repositioning of the guttering.
5. The surveyor asked for the works to be booked in as soon as possible.
On 16 June 2021, the resident made a formal complaint about the outstanding works required to his property and the lack of response from the landlord. He also said pigeons were defecating around the entrance to the property and over the railings which he used.
The resident followed up on his complaint on 29 August 2021. He said that within the previous complaint response in May 2021, works were agreed. However, these works did not take place and the damp and mould problem worsened. The resident was concerned about the impact to his health.
The resident raised a further complaint on 17 September 2021. He said:
1. The landlord made an appointment for an operative to attend without discussing it first. The resident only received a text message notifying him of the date.
2. The visit was cancelled as the guttering needed to be fixed before the internal walls could be repaired.
3. Although the visit was cancelled, the operative still turned up. It was not the first time the same operative attended to do the internal works and it had been reported previously that the guttering needed fixing first.
4. The scaffolding had been up for almost 5 months, yet no work had taken place.
5. The landlord was not responding to his emails.
The landlord replied on 22 September 2021 and said that the guttering was inspected in July 2021 and no defects were found. It asked if the water ingress into the property was still occurring. If so, a further inspection would be needed.
The resident replied to the landlord the next day. He asked why he was not informed about the guttering inspection or told the results. He also questioned why the scaffolding was still up. He asked for his complaint to be escalated and explained part of his complaint was about the landlord’s complaint handling and communication. He reiterated that he was still experiencing damp and mould within the property.
An internal email from the landlord states that despite the resident going through the complaints process, the issues with damp in the property remained unresolved and scaffolding was still up. Internal notes reference there were no open repair requests, and the guttering was recorded as clear.
On 29 October 2021, the resident arranged for his property to be inspected by a third party. The third party produced a report which identified dampness to the entrance hall wall, the living room partition wall to the hallway and the bedroom partition wall to the bathroom and back wall. It said the damp proof course was defective and provided a repair quote.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 November 2021. It said:
1. It was responding to the complaint regarding repairs to the internal walls, scaffolding and lack of communication.
2. The resident told it the neighbour’s guttering was broken, causing a build-up of sewerage water outside of his property, including pigeon faeces. The external walls were damp with mould/moss growth, and this was causing damage to the internal walls.
3. The gutters and downpipes were cleared on 8 July 2021.
4. A job to carry out a mould wash and stain block was raised on 31 August 2021 to take place on 16 September 2021. A further job was booked in for 4 November 2021, however there was no access on this date. This work was booked in for 29 November 2021.
5. The scaffolding was removed on 28 September 2021.
6. It identified repeat contact by the resident, a delay responding to the complaint and delays completing the repairs. £200 compensation was awarded.
On 22 November and 29 November 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response and outlined his concerns. He said a mould wash and stain block were not a long-term solution. He provided a copy of the independent report he obtained outlining the issues within the property.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord sent an email internally containing its peer review observations. In summary it said:
1. It had the option of arranging a specialist damp survey, however based on a surveyor’s visit to the property in June 2021, it did not think this was required at the time. It agreed to attend the property again to assess whether a specialist damp survey was required.
2. During a visit in November 2021, the landlord’s operative highlighted an exposed wall area that was wet. The operative should have reported this to the landlord.
3. The upcoming visit would be an opportunity to review and address the resident’s concerns over the brickwork and longevity of the repairs, as well as a post-work inspection to ensure the correct steps had been taken.
4. There had been water ingress at the property for over 3 years due to different issues; downpipe repairs, brickwork seals, washing machine faults and guttering. It was likely there had been different guttering faults that were picked up at different stages rather than unresolved singular repairs.
5. It noted the resident had instructed their own builder who alleged rising damp/specialist damp treatment was needed, however any follow-on repairs should be considered by the landlord and sub-contracted to a specialist if necessary.
On 7 January 2022, the landlord arranged for a pest specialist to inspect the property for a communal pigeon issue and provide recommendations. The landlord received the pest control survey on 25 January 2022. The same day, the landlord raised an internal request for the cost of the recommended actions to be approved.
The landlord made an appointment to survey the property on 24 January 2022. The resident explained he waited in all day, and no-one contacted him or attended.
The resident’s property was inspected by the landlord on 26 January 2022. The surveyor said:
1. A specialist damp contractor was needed to complete a full report with recommendations. In the meantime, all works should be put on hold pending diagnosis from the specialist.
2. A referral would be made for the heating system to be inspected for any leaks.
3. The rear patio, lack of drainage and retaining wall would be referred to the asset team for future installation of a French drain to the rear and a replacement boundary/retaining wall. This fell outside of the repairs and maintenance remit.
A specialist damp survey took place on 7 February 2022. High damp readings were found to walls in the living room, hallway, bedroom, kitchen, and the bathroom, in addition to the floor tiles. The expert said the elevated moisture readings were caused by:
1. Rising damp due to the absence of an effective damp proof course to the affected walls.
2. Moisture ingress via defective rainwater goods to external walls.
3. Moisture ingress via defective plinth to the external walls.
4. Porous plaster absorbing moisture from damp brickwork and from humid air within the property.
5. Accumulated debris within the blocked-up fireplace may also be a contributory factor.
6. The potential breakdown of any damp proof membrane that may or may not exist.
7. Condensation.
The damp specialist made several recommendations to remedy the issues identified above, including a scope of works and a repair quote.
The heating system was inspected on 9 February 2022. No leaks were found.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in responding to his complaint. It said it was waiting for the survey results from the surveyor, however this was delayed as the surveyor was unwell. The specialist damp survey was issued to the landlord on 24 February 2022.
The landlord held an internal meeting on 28 February 2022 to discuss the recommendations and scope of work contained within the damp survey. It raised a request for repairs to the communal stack. It also appointed an independent chartered surveyor to consult (referred to as the building consultant forthwith) and asked it to appoint another specialist damp contractor to provide a second opinion.
The landlord referred to an interim complaint response letter dated 4 March 2022. A copy of this has not been provided to this Service.
On 8 March 2022, the landlord approved the cost for the works recommended within the pest control survey from January 2022.
A joint site visit took place in early March with the resident, landlord and building consultant. Following this, the building consultant arranged for a damp expert to complete salt tests. The customer visit form said rising damp was confirmed to external walls, the party wall, internal walls, and flooring throughout. In addition, the lack of drainage to the rear of the property was contributing to this. The landlord appointed the building consultant to manage the repairs and it was noted that the landlord’s surveyor would oversee the works.
Due to the extent of works required, the resident needed to move into temporary accommodation. A decant assessment took place on 14 March 2022. The resident explained that as he was registered blind, he needed to be moved to a familiar area. The landlord recorded the resident’s preferences and explained it would arrange for the removal and storage of his belongings.
The landlord told the decant team on 28 March 2022 that the property had severe damp and mould and the conditions were not acceptable for anyone to be living in. As such, an immediate decant was requested.
Records indicate several calls took place between the decant team and the resident. He accepted a serviced apartment on 29 March 2022.
On 30 March 2022, the landlord said pigeon proofing works were booked in for 4 April 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 March 2022. It said:
1. The resident first reported damp within the property in July 2019. Unfortunately, work done to remedy this did not resolve the problem.
2. It identified significant communication failures and delays addressing the resident’s repair concerns through to resolution. It apologised for this.
3. It recognised an inspection appointment was missed on 24 January 2022.
4. There was evidence of rising damp to all external walls within the property, spreading through the concrete floor and internal walls. A lack of drainage was identified to the rear of the property and ineffective drainage to the side.
5. Scaffolding would be erected on 4 April 2022 and repairs would start 2 days later.
6. The resident was temporarily moved to a serviced apartment which was booked until 22 June 2022. Going forward, the landlord’s surveyor would keep him updated. The landlord confirmed it would be responsible for making good the internal decorations following the substantive works to remedy the damp.
7. Pest control works were booked in for 4 April 2022.
8. It aimed to resolve complaints efficiently whilst learning from them to improve services and prevent complaints arising in the future. All customer solutions staff members are provided with complaints refresher training at least twice a year. Feedback from this complaint would be used in training.
9. It reflected on the previous stage 2 response issued on 27 May 2021 and summarised the compensation previously awarded.
10. It offered £800 compensation to recognise service failures regarding repairs, complaint handling and the landlord’s communication with the resident between 27 May 2021 to 31 March 2022. It also offered £15 compensation for the missed appointment and £500 towards the costs incurred by the resident for a dehumidifier, air purifier, and internal decoration.
11. The total sum of compensation awarded (including amounts paid as part of the previous complaint) was £2165.
The resident contacted this Service on 7 April 2022. He said he had not received a schedule of works with timescales for the repairs and the landlord had not addressed his claim regarding belongings damaged from mould.
On 21 June 2022, the landlord was advised by a third-party organisation that the resident’s temporary accommodation booking could not be extended because the property was fully booked. The organisation had found another property walking distance away.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2022 to say he had been given half an hour to check out with all his belongings. Due to his disabilities, he needed help moving his things.
The resident made a formal complaint on 23 June 2022. He said:
1. Around 10am he was told he must move out of the decant property.
2. He contacted customer services many times but did not get a response until 2:30pm. Customer services offered to book a taxi to transport him and his belongings to the new temporary apartment.
3. The resident arranged and paid for assistance with packing and moving. Although the landlord agreed to reimburse him, he found the situation extremely stressful, inconvenient, and exhausting.
4. He was concerned the new apartment was only booked for 10 days. He said this was not long enough as work on his home would not be finished within 10 days.
The resident followed up on his complaint on 29 June 2022. He said he was asked to pack up his belongings and move again. He asked for an urgent call to discuss this. On 1 July 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint. He said:
1. The landlord agreed to arrange a taxi to take him to the new apartment and book parking, but this was not done.
2. He faced difficulty accessing the property as the landlord did not arrive at the agreed time.
3. Upon entry to the property, he did a deep clean as it had an unbearable smell.
4. There was no mobile phone signal within the property, which was a concern as he was vulnerable.
5. The way the decant was managed was not appropriate. The resident said he should not have had to keep reminding the landlord that he was registered blind and had a nerve condition affecting his mobility. He had been put in compromising and stressful situations which affected his health.
The landlord replied on 4 July 2022. It said it was impacted by IT issues and his complaint would be logged as soon as the system was restored. It said it did request a taxi and parking, and it was sorry these were not booked. It confirmed parking was now added to the booking and it would reimburse the cost of the taxi. It explained it provided the resident with a telephone number for the landlord, to call 1 hour before arrival to arrange a meet and greet at the apartment. It highlighted that the landlord said the resident placed sheets over the balcony, which was not permitted, and several immediate neighbours reported the smell of cannabis coming from the non-smoking apartment. It also confirmed Wi-Fi was available at the property.
The resident explained he used his own sheets to cover the balcony for privacy and confirmed he does not smoke. He said he burned incense to rid the property of its bad smell. He added there was no remote control or signal for the TV and no iron. He said he no longer wanted to stay in the apartment.
On 29 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and this Service to advise he still had not heard from the landlord to address his concerns. Again, he asked for this to be escalated as a complaint. He said that since moving to the apartment, he had experienced discrimination. He asked to be moved to the temporary accommodation he was previously in. He explained:
1. There was no iron or cleaning appliances.
2. No cleaners attended the apartment.
3. There was no air-conditioning.
4. The refrigerator barely worked and had to be defrosted twice.
5. The landlord of the apartment left him with two self-assembly fans.
6. The kitchen was not fully furnished.
7. He was accused of smoking.
The landlord responded on 4 August 2022 and agreed to check availability at the other property. It arranged for an iron to be provided, raised the issue of a potentially faulty fridge, and provided guidance on how the resident could set up Wi-Fi calling on his phone. It explained not all temporary accommodation bookings include a cleaning service and the kitchen equipment provided on commercial rentals may vary. The resident was dissatisfied with this and said at the very start, it was agreed he would be decanted to a fully furnished property with a cleaning service. He again asked for this to be treated as a formal complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 August 2022. He said his decant was going to be over soon, but he had not received a response to his previous email about ground maintenance, garden overgrowth and pest control. He asked for this to be forwarded to the complaints department.
The landlord called the resident on 17 and 18 August 2022 and followed up with an email. It agreed to move the resident to his preferred accommodation from 26 August 2022 until 16 September 2022. In the meantime, it addressed his concerns in the current property by arranging a clean, providing kitchenware and an iron.
On 6 September 2022, the resident was told he could return to his home on 16 September 2022. He was invited to meet with the surveyor and inspect the property on 9 September 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 September 2022 asking for his email to be forwarded to the complaints team and pest control urgently. He explained he had made the landlord aware of the pigeons many times. He said the pigeon waste was continuing to build up and was extremely toxic. He chased this again on 27 September 2022 and 11 October 2022.
The landlord’s pest control contractor attended on 18 October 2022 to carry out pigeon proofing works. The resident said further works took place on 31 October 2022, yet the pigeon faeces had not been cleaned.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 January 2023. He explained that the damp works had been completed, however the landlord still had not cleared up the pigeon faeces. He explained the pigeon’s nest had since moved to the front of the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 February 2023 to explain that his neighbour had pigeon spikes installed and so the pigeons had moved to his side of the building. He requested spikes to be installed and for the pigeon faeces to be cleaned. The landlord instructed its pest contractor to attend and provide a quote. The resident called the landlord twice for an update. On 28 February 2023, the landlord approved the quote for pigeon works. An order for additional works was raised on 1 March 2023.
On 3 March 2023, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property to follow up on the damp and mould works. During the inspection, it was confirmed no rising damp was present, however there were some areas with above normal moisture levels. The surveyor said it was being caused by a combination of water ingress and cold bridging; not rising damp. It agreed to remedy the secondary issues identified within 6 weeks.
The landlord’s records state works were not completed within 6 weeks due to the lack of resident availability.
The landlord’s internal emails show the pest control contractors had difficulty gaining access to another property to access the roof of the building and complete the works. As of 24 April 2023, the landlord was still trying to arrange access.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 May 2023. It apologised for the delay in dealing with the pigeons and awarded £200 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident contacted this Service on 7 August 2023. He said the damp issues have been reoccurring and he had been unable to set up his flat with basic furniture. He explained he was living out of boxes and the situation was stressful and impacting his health.
On 16 August 2023, the resident emailed this Service. He confirmed pigeons had stopped defecating on his property overall, but no work had been done to the neighbour’s garden or the back wall. Additionally, he said the damp issue remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers 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’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s home

The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Additionally, we expect landlords to ensure there is effective internal communication between different teams and departments. Based on the information provided to this Service, the Ombudsman finds the landlord did not follow best practice in this case.
The landlord acknowledged a damp and mould survey took place in September 2015, where rising damp was identified, and recommendations were made to remedy this. Additionally, the repair log for the property shows many reports of damp over the years. It is concerning the landlord has not evidenced the outcome from its previous investigations into the substantive issue or what actions were taken as a result. This is a significant omission. As similar issues had been reported during the resident’s occupation of the property and during the property history, it should have put the landlord on notice that the damp reported again on 27 May 2021 (following the resident’s previous complaint) required active management. While this report does not assess the historical incidents of damp, it provides context that the landlord’s records should have put it on notice of potentially ongoing issues within the property. The new complaint relating to damp and mould should have been treated with the appropriate urgency, having known the history of the property. Furthermore, evidence shows the landlord had to request a copy of the survey from 2015 from the damp and mould specialist instructed. It is a significant omission and a record keeping failure that the landlord did not have this report on its system. This meant the surveyor that attended in June 2021 was not aware of the historical rising damp issue at the property. This contributed to delays identifying and resolving the substantive issue. The Ombudsman finds the landlord should have had adequate records in place to enable it to make informed decisions around the level of risk posed by a property with a significant history of damp.
The Ombudsman appreciates it can be difficult to identify the reason why a property is damp, and it is often caused by a combination of things. This is why investigations must be managed effectively and handled with a sense of urgency, to identify and resolve the problem as soon as possible. Within this case, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously early-on, proactively managed the investigations or completed a comprehensive survey at the earliest opportunity. The inspection from June 2022 identified areas of damp, yet this Service has seen no record of the moisture readings or the specific location the readings were taken. It is a concern that the landlord has not provided photos or a report from this inspection. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an email containing comments from the landlord’s surveyor does not go far enough.
On 10 June 2021, the surveyor asked for repair works to be booked in, including internal repairs to the plaster and external works to reposition the gutter, repair the communal stack and areas of repointing/refilling. The landlord has not evidenced that it updated the resident on what actions it would take after the inspection, nor did it respond to the resident’s email dated 16 June 2021 when he chased for a response. The landlord’s repair record does not evidence all the repairs requested, and there is no evidence of follow up appointments to check the repairs were successful. Considering the property history and the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to schedule a follow up appointment to ensure an effective and lasting repair had been completed.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked for its records relating to the damp and mould in the resident’s property, such as a copy of the resident’s reports of this, repair logs, copies of any surveys or inspection reports, feedback from employees or contractors, an explanation of any work carried out, confirmation that the issue has now been resolved and completion dates for any repairs. Some of this information has been provided but this does not evidence the landlord’s decision making at the time. For example, the work order history supplied shows various work orders relating to damp and mould. It is not clear what actions were taken following each appointment or why some work orders were cancelled, with unreasonable delays in-between recorded actions. It is of concern that the landlord has not evidenced active management of the repairs between 27 May 2021 and 26 January 2022. This, combined with the observations above, is a record keeping failure.
There is little evidence that the landlord gave the resident’s concerns the appropriate attention in the circumstances. The resident contacted it multiple times regarding the damp problem between June 2021 and November 2021, but no actions were taken to further investigate or remedy the damp issue. As such, the landlord missed opportunities to proactively deal with the resident’s concerns. The stage 1 response letter dated 19 November 2021 failed to acknowledge or address the ongoing problem within the resident’s home. The Ombudsman recognises the considerable detriment caused to the resident here.
As part of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 22 November 2021, he sent the landlord a copy of an independent report he had arranged showing the property was impacted by rising damp. Upon receipt of this, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord acted with a sense of urgency returning to the property. The surveyor missed the appointment made for 24 January 2022, and inspected the property on 26 January 2022. The Ombudsman would expect to see an assessment of risk at this point, to see what impact the damp was having on the resident and what adjustments or support could have been offered. However, there is no evidence this occurred.
A specialist was booked in for 7 February 2022.Rising damp was confirmed and major works were recommended. Due to the costs involved, a second opinion was sought. Again, this Service has seen no evidence of a risk assessment. On 28 March 2022, the landlord said internally, “The property has severe damp and mould which will be affecting [the resident’s] health and the conditions are not acceptable for anyone to be living in”. While it was not unreasonable for the landlord to appoint a building consultant to obtain a second opinion, it is of particular concern that the landlord neglected to assess the property at the earliest opportunity to evaluate habitability. There is no evidence to suggest that the hazard of damp or mould, and the impact upon the resident was appropriately addressed. The lack of a risk assessment and exploring options with the resident early on indicates a lack of regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities. The delay in deciding to decant meant the resident spent another winter in a damp and mouldy environment. This further added to the distress and inconvenience caused to him.
The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout this case. The resident was not updated regularly and spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates. Further, there were delays responding to emails and the landlord has not evidenced that it returned all calls. The resident was left unsupported even when he made it clear his living conditions were impacting his wellbeing. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on a vulnerable resident. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
This report considers the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 27 May 2021 to 31 March 2022, as explained in paragraph 7. The landlord recognised in its peer review (stage 2 response) the significant delays in addressing the resident’s repair concerns through to resolution and the significant failures and delays within its communication. It acted appropriately by explaining its recent actions and decision making and managed the resident’s expectations in relation to the next steps. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to give the resident a fixed point of contact for updates on the progress of the works while he was moved into temporary accommodation. However, we should have seen this approach much sooner.
The landlord offered compensation of £815, plus £500 contribution towards the resident’s cost of a dehumidifier, air purifier and his personal decorating costs. Although the offer of compensation was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, it was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman therefore finds that whilst the landlord has sought to resolve the resident’s complaint by offering compensation, its offer was not fully proportionate to the cumulative circumstances and the impact on a vulnerable resident.
Overall, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled reports of damp and mould within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and failed to communicate effectively. There were delays progressing repairs and a lack of active repair management. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide an appropriate level of service which had a detrimental impact on the resident. This demonstrates a failing to put things right and learn from outcomes. Additionally, the landlord failed to assess the risk and have due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities. Taken altogether, this constitutes severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of decanting the resident into temporary accommodation.

The delay in deciding to decant has been referenced in paragraph 75.
The landlord initially handled the decant itself well. It explored the resident’s needs in line with his personal circumstances and evidenced regular calls to the resident to manage his expectations, answer his questions and provide support.
However, it was unacceptable for the resident to be hastily moved to different properties with little notice. The resident was given no time to prepare for the moves and was left unsupported by the landlord. The resident is registered blind and had difficulty arranging for the packing and moving of his personal belongings in addition to problems locating the apartments. From the resident’s description, one of the properties was not wholly compatible with his needs and lacked a fully furnished kitchen and a cleaning service. The evidence available shows the resident’s situation would have been avoidable with sufficient planning, communication and oversight between the different departments involved. The disruption was due to poor planning and poor communications between the landlord’s housing services, decant team, repair team and its contractors. The landlord had already acknowledged its failings at stage 2 but has then further compounded these by failing to effectively manage the decant. Therefore, the Ombudsman concludes the landlord was responsible for preventable disruption, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord informed the resident on 4 July 2022 that it was experiencing IT issues. It promised his complaint about the decant would be logged with a complaint handler once the IT system was restored. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show this happened. This understandably caused much frustration to the resident. This Service is aware the landlord shut down most of its IT services following a cyber incident on 17 June 2022. When the resident contacted Clarion on several occasions to escalate his complaint, the landlord should have been transparent about the scale of the cyber incident and the impact on its service provision. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to actively manage the resident’s expectations and signpost him to its website to access updates on the situation.
The Ombudsman recognises that during the cyber-incident, the landlord attempted to address the resident’s concerns and put things right. It acted reasonably by investigating the resident’s concerns about the accommodation and delivering solutions where it was able to, such as providing an iron, arranging for cleaning, checking oven trays and pans were provided and reporting issues with the fridge to the property manager. It reimbursed the resident for his moving expenses and agreed to his request to relocate him to the serviced apartment he preferred for the remainder of the decant. Nonetheless, the landlord neglected to assess its own failings in the way the decant was handled and the impact on the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of reports of pigeons nesting and defecating on the property

The landlord has an obligation to remedy any category one hazards in its properties under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Domestic hygiene, pests, and refuse is one of the defined hazards, and therefore, the landlord was obliged to consider whether the pigeons nesting, and consequent mess, amounted to a hazard that it needed to remedy. The landlord is also responsible for treating pests that are deemed a statutory nuisance in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
It is not possible for the Ombudsman to decide whether a category one hazard or a statutory nuisance existed in the property because of the pigeons nesting. This would be for the local authority to assess as it is responsible for acting in relation to the HHSRS and Environmental Protection Act. There is no evidence to suggest that the local authority carried out any such assessment or engaged with the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord would be expected to consider whether it had any obligation to stop the pigeons nesting and to remove the pigeon faeces.
The landlord’s policy states its responsibilities regarding pests are to eradicate any infestations and pests in communal areas and take measures to prevent problems from the build-up of pigeon faeces. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a pest survey with a specialist and follow the specialist’s recommendations. The Ombudsman notes there was a delay of 6 months in arranging the initial survey and a further delay approving the works. This contributed to the distress and frustration experienced by the resident.
The stage 2 response says the pigeon proofing works were booked in for 4 April 2022. However, a screen shot from the pest contractor indicates the appointment was rescheduled on various occasions due to parking issues and rain. The contractor’s report states proofing works took place on 18 October 2022. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to show the landlord kept the resident updated, despite the resident sending several emails expressing concerns and chasing for action. This is a communication failing and further added to the impact on the resident. Additionally, the landlord did not identify that cleaning of the pigeon faeces was not referred to within the contractor’s report. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to identify and resolve this.
Following the installation of spikes, the resident contacted the landlord repeatedly about his concerns regarding the pigeon faeces that had not been cleaned away. He also reported the pigeons had moved and were now nesting on his side of the property. At this point, the Ombudsman finds the landlord acted appropriately by referring to pest experts to complete an updated survey and for swiftly accepting its recommendations.
From the evidence available, there were unavoidable delays progressing the works as the pest contractors had difficulty gaining access to the roof via another property. Again, the landlord has provided no evidence to show the resident was kept updated throughout this time.
Within its letter dated 12 May 2023, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation to apologise for the delay dealing with the roosting pigeons. Considering the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the delays over a significant period and the poor communication, the Ombudsman concludes the compensation offered by the landlord falls below what we would expect, as per our remedies guidance. Overall, this amounts to service failure.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a neighbour’s overgrown garden

The Ombudsman has not been provided with sufficient information to investigate this aspect of the complaint. From the evidence available, it is unclear if the resident’s neighbour has the same landlord or if the landlord followed its policy. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to clarify its position with the resident at the earliest opportunity or to demonstrate its actions in addressing the resident’s concerns. An order has been made for the landlord to confirm its position with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding an external boundary wall

The landlord said the retaining wall was referred to the asset team to consider its replacement. The notes from the inspection report from 26 January 2022 evidences the resident was informed of this. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident was told the potential timeframes involved or how frequently he could expect to receive updates. The Ombudsman finds the landlord acted in line with its repair policy, as major component replacements are not considered responsive repairs and should be referred if replacement is required. Nonetheless, an essential part of any major component replacement is communication, so that residents are kept informed. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident or manage his expectations here, resulting in the resident chasing for updates and feeling ignored. This amounts to service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days, with no more than a further extension of 10 working days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days, with a further extension of 10 working days if required. These time frames should not be exceeded without good reason.
The resident made a complaint on 27 May 2021 and followed up on 16 June 2021. The stage 1 response was issued on 19 November 2021, 25 weeks later. This compounded the detriment to the resident and made him feel his experience of living in a property with damp for a prolonged time was minimised by the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the stage one response was inadequate and did not take full ownership of the problems experienced by the resident. As such, the landlord did not treat the matter with an appropriate level of regard. The landlord did not demonstrate that it investigated all the resident’s complaint points, nor did it consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 22 November 2021. The landlord’s response was issued on 31 March 2022, 19 weeks later. The complaint was kept open for an excessive period. At stage 2, the landlord demonstrated that it investigated the resident’s complaint points concerning its response to damp and mould and pest control. It acted reasonably by explaining what evidence it considered and the reason for its position so the resident could understand its decision making. It apologised for its failings and outlined the next steps. It admitted its shortcomings and said feedback from this complaint would be used in training to improve service delivery. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience to improve its future repairs service.
Following the stage 2 response, the resident provided evidence of further complaints made to the landlord regarding the handling of his decant, pest control, a neighbour’s overgrown garden and concerns over an external wall. Despite making formal complaints and requesting complaint escalation on numerous occasions, the landlord failed to record complaints or address the resident’s concerns through its formal complaint procedure. This is a serious complaint handling failure and goes against the dispute resolution principals. The landlord has a duty as a member landlord to record and respond to all complaints in line with the Code. Its failure to do so meant the landlord missed opportunities to remedy the resident’s concerns, address and resolve the wider aspects of the resident’s complaint, show empathy, and improve the landlord tenant relationship. This had a significant impact on the resident as he kept chasing for responses and was left feeling frustrated and ignored. It also prevented the resident from accessing this Service and contributed to delays resolving the resident’s concerns.
It is concerning that this Service has seen no evidence to demonstrate whether the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns of staff conduct. The Ombudsman would expect to see records of an internal investigation into this, and enquiries made with the staff member(s) involved. Responding to complaints about staff conduct allows landlords to provide their version of events, apologise if deemed appropriate and clarify any misunderstanding. Early complaint resolution is more effective in cases of complaints about staff conduct where the recollection of events can change over time, and therefore make an investigation more difficult. Therefore, it was a failure that the landlord did not seek to obtain details of the staff behaviour complained of and investigate accordingly at the earliest point.
Overall, the Ombudsman concludes there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. The complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool in resolving the resident’s concerns but instead compounded the detriment caused. Due to the cumulative failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, the length of time this occurred for, and the level of detriment experienced by the resident, this constitutes maladministration. As such, appropriate orders are made below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of decanting the resident into temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of pigeons nesting and defecating on the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of a neighbour’s overgrown garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding an external boundary wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled reports of damp and mould within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and communication failures were identified throughout. There were delays progressing repairs and a lack of active repair management, despite the landlord being aware of the severity of the damp. There was a failure to provide clear actions and timescales. Additionally, it failed to assess the level of risk presented to a vulnerable resident. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings, but its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
The resident was moved between different temporary accommodations with little notice, support, or consideration of his vulnerabilities.
The Ombudsman identified avoidable delays and communication failings in relation to the pest control.
The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident or manage his expectations regarding the external boundary wall.
The landlord has not confirmed its position regarding the neighbour’s garden to the resident.
The landlord did not follow its complaint policy or act in line with the Code. It failed to record several complaints when requested, despite many escalation requests from the resident. It failed to consider all the resident’s concerns or learn from its mistakes.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2000 in addition to the sum previously offered by the landlord. This is comprised of:
  1. £1000 to reflect the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. £500 for the complaint handling failures.
  3. £350 for the time and trouble experienced by the resident.
  4. £150 for the record keeping failures.
3. Reimburse the resident for the report he had commissioned if it has not yet done so. The resident must provide a receipt or invoice for this.
4. Write to the resident confirming its intentions with the neighbour’s garden and the external wall.
5. Write to the resident confirming its position regarding the resident’s assertion that his belongings were damaged by damp and mould and provide suitable options for resolution.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report and self-assess against the 26 recommendations contained within.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman is aware further damp readings have been recorded. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord agrees an action plan with the resident, setting out any works required and timescales for completion. It should also assess the impact upon the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The Ombudsman is aware the landlord currently has an interim complaints policy in force following the cyber-attack. The timescales within are not in line with the Code. The landlord is recommended to bring its complaint policy in line with the Code as soon as possible. It should update this Service regarding its intentions.
The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.