Clarion Housing Association Limited (202220946)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220946

Clarion Housing Association Limited

3 May 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident initially reported damp in her property on 27 December 2021. A damp and mould survey took place on 1 March 2022 and recommended installing a positive input ventilation system to control the level of condensation. The resident subsequently chased updates on several occasions between 24 March 2022 and 16 June 2022. Additional surveys were completed on 26 July 2022 and 21 September 2022.
  3. On 24 August 2022 the resident raised a complaint as the work recommended in the survey completed on 26 July 2022 had not been completed, and despite contacting the landlord on six occasions she had not received any further correspondence. She also thought the landlord had used a recent cyber attack as an excuse for the delays, despite the fact the issue had been ongoing since January 2022.
  4. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint on 22 December 2022, it acknowledged service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports, due to a delay in completing the required works to resolve the damp and mould. It said that following three surveys, a positive input ventilation system was installed on 7 November 2022 and follow-on electrical works were completed on 22 November 2022 and 13 December 2022. The landlord offered £665 compensation comprised of £600 for the inconvenience and disruptions caused by the delays in the repairs and its poor communication, £15 for a missed appointment and £50 for the delayed complaint response.
  5. Following the completion of the complaints process, the landlord reviewed the complaint on 9 February 2023 and offered an additional £135 compensation in light of the length of time taken to complete the repairs.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the time taken to resolve the damp and mould. She also said a contractor had attended on 10 January 2023, despite having advised the landlord she had COVID.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s website states that in relation to condensation and mould, the landlord is responsible for conducting surveys, cleaning effected areas and installing extractor fans as needed. It also states the landlord is responsible for repairs to kitchen units. Therefore, when the resident reported damp and mould in the property, which had caused damage to her kitchen units, the landlord was obliged to assess whether it was responsible for any repairs to resolve the issue.
  2. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that there were significant delays in actioning the recommendations made in the March 2022 survey, and offered compensation for its failings. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses 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.
  3. The contractor identified in the damp and mould survey on 1 March 2022 that a positive input ventilation system could be installed to control the level of condensation if the damp and mould recurred within the property. The resident persistently chased the outcome of the survey between March 2022 and July 2022, without receiving any meaningful updates from the landlord. It was reasonable that the ventilation system was not initially installed, as the contractor stated it was required if there was a recurrence of the mould rather than immediately. However, the landlord would be expected to manage the resident’s expectations, which it failed to do. As a result, the resident incurred significant time and effort pursuing the repairs and likely experienced distress due to the lack of progress to the repairs.
  4. A further contractor attended the property on 26 July 2022 and recommended installing an extractor fan in the kitchen and ventilation tiles on the roof. However, no works were subsequently carried out, and an additional survey was completed on 7 September 2022, which again recommended a positive input ventilation system and stated that roof vents were not required. It is unclear why the landlord deemed a further survey was required, despite the fact that two contractors had already made recommendations which had not been completed. The repeated surveys will understandably have caused increased inconvenience to the resident, and she will likely have been frustrated that none of the surveys facilitated repair works being actioned.
  5. It was unreasonable that despite three surveys taking place, no appointments were scheduled until 6 October 2022, seven months after the initial survey. In the stage one response, the landlord incorrectly advised that the works were completed on 6 October 2022; however, the appointment was not attended, thus demonstrating that the landlord had not properly monitored the progress of the repairs, despite significant delays already occurring. On 7 November 2022 a positive ventilation unit was installed, but additional electrical works were required, which were completed on 13 December 2022. The scope of the works changed as the landlord advised the electrical works were required to comply with recent law changes, and it was appropriate that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations regarding why further works were required. Although the landlord completed the follow-on works within a reasonable timeframe, the overall time taken to complete the works was excessive, and caused significant inconvenience to the resident.
  6. A post-inspection was completed on 9 February 2023, in which the resident confirmed the condition had improved since the works had been completed and there were no further signs of condensation. Follow-on works were raised to clean a mould stain to some sealant in the bedroom and to renew the kitchen unit back board. It would have been appropriate for the post-inspection to take place at an earlier date in order to identify the follow-on works sooner, particularly as repair issues with the kitchen units were identified in the March 2022 survey. However, the landlord had attempted to schedule an appointment on 10 January 2023, which was cancelled by the resident as she had COVID-19. Whilst it was entirely reasonable for the landlord to cancel the appointment for this reason, this caused an unavoidable delay which was outside of the landlord’s control. It is of concern that the resident reported the contractor attended the property despite her cancelling the appointment, as it demonstrates poor internal communication regarding repair works and would have caused the resident inconvenience.
  7. The landlord failed to take steps to mitigate the impacts of the damp and mould on the resident in the interim, despite the significant delays in completing the required repairs and the resident raising specific concerns regarding the impact on her. On 3 May 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she had to keep her cooking equipment in a box due to the condition of the kitchen unit caused by mould, which would have caused inconvenience, and there is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to provide alternative solutions. Furthermore, the resident advised the landlord on 27 December 2021 that she had purchased a dehumidifier and asked to be reimbursed for this, but there is no evidence that the landlord addressed her request. As the issue was not raised in the resident’s formal complaint through the landlord’s complaint process, it is unclear whether it has since been resolved. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident regarding her request to be reimbursed for the dehumidifier and assess whether further compensation is appropriate if the issue remains outstanding.
  8. Overall, there were significant delays in completing the necessary repairs and there was a consistent lack of communication from the landlord. The landlord offered a total of £750 for its failings. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure has adversely affected the resident. As a result, the compensation offered by the landlord exceeded the remedy recommended by this Service, so the landlord has offered reasonable redress for issues raised in the complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s interim complaint policy from 17 June 2022 states that it will respond to stage one complaints within 20 working days and stage two complaints within 40 working days.
  2. In the landlord’s stage one response, it stated that the resident had raised a complaint on 25 August 2022. However, the landlord’s internal records show that the resident requested to raise a complaint on 20 July 2022, but the landlord failed to take actions in line with its complaint policy at this stage. As a result, there was a delay in resolving the resident’s complaint.
  3. The landlord exceeded its complaint response timeframe at stage one as it took 37 days to issue its response. It advised that the response was delayed as it had experienced IT issues due to a cyber security incident. It is important to note that the incident was outside of the landlord’s control, so it was not responsible for the full extent of the delays. It is unclear when the resident escalated her complaint, but the stage two response was issued within 40 working days of the stage one response, so it complied with the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy are not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaints handling. In line with the Code, landlords are expected to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints procedure to bring it into line with the Code.

In line with this Service’s remedies guidance awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where there was a service failure by the landlord over a short duration. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord acknowledged the delays in issuing its stage one response and offered £50 compensation. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge that it did not address the resident’s complaint raised on 20 July 2022, so further compensation is warranted as she experienced additional time and trouble pursuing the complaint. As a result, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £50 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation due to the further complaint handling failures identified in this report. Proof of the payment should be provided to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident regarding her request to be reimbursed for the dehumidifier, and assess whether further compensation is appropriate if the issue remains outstanding.
  2. The landlord should review the timescales in its complaints procedure to ensure it is compliant with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.