Clarion Housing Association Limited (202232285)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232285

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 January 2025

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould.
2. reports of responsive window, immersion heater, and trickle vent repairs.
3. concerns about cleaning of communal areas.
4. concerns about communication.
5. associated complaint.

Background

The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy of the property from the landlord, which started on 24 October 2020 and ended when he moved out in May 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat, which the resident occupied with his wife and their 6-year-old son. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that both himself and his wife have a mental health condition and his wife has an autoimmune disorder. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident or the household.
The resident first reported damp and mould on a wall and inside a cupboard in the main bedroom to the landlord in December 2021. In November 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the damp and mould had returned. The landlord inspected the property on 29 November 2022 and found a number of repair issues, which it said could be the cause of the damp and mould.
On 23 January 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that he was not happy with the delays in the landlord completing the repairs which it had identified. He said the issues had been ongoing for 2 years without resolution. On 31 March 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, in which it said:
1. It had failed to book the necessary follow-on works, following an inspection of the property in November 2022. This had caused a delay in the landlord completing the repairs.
2. It acknowledged there had been an overlap between its leaks, condensation, damp, and mould team and the day-to-day repairs team. This had resulted in the landlord giving the resident inconsistent information on the repairs it needed to complete. This caused further delays.
3. It had not taken necessary action in addressing the damp and mould following the resident’s report in December 2021.
4. It had not completed the necessary repairs to the external wall, satellite dish relocation, or internal plastering within its repair timescales.
5. It had not investigated the damp and mould within its timescales.
6. With regards to the resident’s personal belongings, which he said the damp and mould had damaged, the landlord referred the resident to his own home contents insurance. It also explained, if the resident preferred, he could pursue a claim via the landlord’s insurance. It provided details of the information he would need to make a claim, and the contact details of its insurance provider.
7. In recognition of the failures identified, the landlord apologised for the delays in completing the repairs, and in its response to the resident’s complaint. It awarded £1,050 total compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £600 for inconvenience caused
  2. £50 for delays in responding to the complaint
  3. £50 for delays in inspecting the damp and mould
  4. £50 for failures in relation to the satellite dish location
  5. £100 for delays in completing internal repairs
  6. £100 for delays in completing external repairs
On 31 March 2023 the resident informed the landlord that he was not satisfied with its complaint response. He asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He asked the landlord to add the following issues to his complaint:
1. The landlord had not contacted him to discuss his complaint, despite him asking it to on several occasions.
2. He was not happy with the maintenance and cleanliness of the building.
3. The property, including the windows, was poorly insulated and there was no heating in the kitchen.
4. The boiler thermostat was up against the door, while the thermostat said, ‘do not cover’.
5. The landlord’s operative had told the resident not to sleep in the bedroom because of the mould. On the same date, another landlord representative informed the resident this was incorrect. The resident said this had confused him and had impacted on his and his wife’s mental health.
6. The landlord had not replaced the trickle vents which had been recommended by the surveyor in November 2022.
7. He had not had hot water for a period of 2 weeks.
8. There had been poor communication from the landlord during the complaint procedure.
9. There had been delays in the complaint procedure.
10. The compensation offered was not enough. The resident asked the landlord to increase this to one year’s rent.
On 14 July 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It referred to the following issues, which it said it had addressed in its stage 1 response and awarded compensation for:
1. poor communication
2. conflicting information
3. surveyors attending but no repairs taking place
4. damp and mould in the property
With regards to the additional issues referred to in the resident’s escalation, the landlord said:
1. Maintenance and cleaning – there was a caretaker in place whose job it was to regularly clean, sweep, and mop the communal floors. It had not received any reports from other residents about the standard of cleanliness in the building. It also said that post-inspections had not identified any areas of concern. The landlord concluded that the cleaning was of an acceptable standard.
2. Gap in the window/insulation/lack of heating in the kitchen – it had found 2 repairs relating to window repairs from 2022. It was unable to access detailed completion information relating to these repairs due to its systems not working following a cyber-attack. Its operative had reported the repair on 7 January 2022, which the landlord completed on 8 April 2022. It apologised for the delay and acknowledged this was a service failure. The landlord said, to its knowledge, there had never been a storage heater in the kitchen of the property, which was common in kitchens.
3. The boiler thermostat installation – it had checked the immersion element (not the thermostat) and found this to be installed correctly. Although this was close to the cupboard door, this would not impact the correct operation. The notice stating ‘do not cover’ generally referred to the hot water tank covers.
4. The trickle vents – it had raised a job to replace the trickle vent on 6 December 2022 following the surveyor’s attendance. There was a ‘no access’ attendance on 20 December 2022, which it rearranged for 30 December 2022. At this attendance, the landlord checked the trickle vents and noted that the vents required cleaning to be fully operational. The operative suggested the landlord should check these again at a future visit. Due to delays with subsequent repairs, it did not complete this follow-up action. The landlord apologised for the service failure and said it would award compensation in recognition of this.
5. No hot water for 2 weeks – the resident reported this on 24 March 2023 and the landlord attended on the same date. The landlord fitted a temporary supply for the water heater, so that the resident had hot water for the weekend. The operative returned on 27 March 2023 to complete the repair. It found there was no electrical supply to the immersion heater and an electrician was needed. The landlord said that it completed the works within its repair timescale. However, it said there had been a service failure because its contractor, who had attended on 14 March 2023, had not reported back to the landlord that an electrician was required until 1 April 2023. This resulted in the resident not having access to hot water for a 2-week period. The landlord apologised and said it would award compensation to recognise this.
6. Complaint handling – The landlord acknowledged that it had not called the resident when it should have done during the stage 1 complaint process. It apologised for this and said it had awarded compensation as recognition. It also acknowledged there had been a delay in providing its stage 2 response, which it said was, in part, due to the number of issues which had not formed part of the stage 1. It apologised for this and said it would include compensation for this delay.
7. In recognition of the identified failures, the landlord awarded an additional £435 total compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £300 for delay to the window repair, the trickle vent, and poor communication at stage 1
  2. £35 for no hot water for 2 weeks (at the rate of £5 per day after the initial 7 days)
  3. £100 for the delay at stage 2
In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident said the bedroom was still damp when he moved out in May 2023. He said he and his family had been sleeping in the lounge. This was because the damp was still in the main bedroom and his son’s bedroom was too cold. He said that living in the poor conditions had affected his and his wife’s mental well-being. He had also been worried about the impact on their physical health of the damp and mould. He said he would like the landlord to consider increasing its compensation to the equivalent of one year’s rent.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted upon the health and well-being of him and his family. While the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, we cannot make firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, determine liability for them, or award damages for these. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way a court or insurer might. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that their health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the family experienced because of any service failure by the landlord. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy states it will diagnose the cause of damp and mould and deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of the problem. When a report of damp and mould is made, the landlord will aim to inspect the property within 7 or 28 days. This is dependent upon any known vulnerabilities or the severity of the reported issues.
Following inspection, the landlord says it will inform the resident of the findings, which would include:
1. identifying the cause of the issues
2. recommending effective solutions
3. details of all remedial works
4. estimated timescales to complete the works
The resident first reported damp on the main bedroom wall and in the bedroom cupboard on 8 December 2021. The landlord attended on 30 December 2021 to inspect and raised follow-on works to inspect the brickwork for signs of a water leak. The records indicate that the landlord completed the inspection of the brickwork on 20 January 2022. The landlord then attended on 11 February 2022 and applied a sealant to the external brickwork. The operative told the resident that it was unable to seal the brickwork behind the bedroom cupboard due to access issues and the landlord would need to arrange access with the neighbour for this. We would consider the landlord’s attendance for this issue to be appropriate because it was consistent with its policy.
On 21 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord for an update and asked why the landlord had marked the external repairs as complete. He explained that he was expecting the landlord to make further arrangements to complete the external works but had not heard anything. There was no requirement for the resident to give further notice to the landlord of the repair. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to its policy in respect of keeping the resident informed. Further to this we have not seen any evidence to show that the landlord returned to complete the external work, which was not appropriate.
In April 2022 the landlord completed the internal damp and mould works to the property, which included a mould wash to the ceiling, wall and cupboard in the bedroom. It also removed the blown plaster in the bathroom and stain blocked the affected area. It therefore took the landlord approximately 5 months to complete these works. There is no available evidence upon which we could determine that this delay was reasonable.
On 24 November 2022 the resident reported black mould had returned on the walls and inside a cupboard in his bedroom. He informed the landlord that he cleaned the area on a regular basis but the mould came back. He said the damp and mould had destroyed some personal belongings, which he had stored in the bedroom cupboard.
The landlord conducted an inspection on 29 November 2022 and identified the following issues:
1. plaster had blown above sections of the skirting board due to water leaking from outside of the building
2. polystyrene had been applied to the walls inside the bedroom cupboard and painted over during the void process
3. approximately 6 feet of plaster in the corner of the room had blown
4. the trickle vent in the window was defective
5. the door strip had come away from the cupboard door
The landlord said it had inspected the external wall and the rain gutters were operating freely. It had noted there were approximately 6 satellite dishes installed on the external wall, in the same area where the water leaking into the resident’s property was located. The landlord told the resident this may be a cause of the water leaks, and it would arrange to have the satellite dishes removed and the holes filled.
The landlord raised the following repairs with the following appointment dates:
1. remove affected plaster in bedroom and replaster – 16 December 2022
2. replace trickle vent and door strip – 20 December 2022
3. assess and repair black mould on walls and in the bedroom cupboard – 16 December 2022
The landlord attended on 16 December 2022 as arranged. It is not clear from the records what action the landlord took on this date. However, the resident contacted the landlord on the same date asking it to call him back urgently because its operative had informed him that it was not safe to sleep in the bedroom. The resident said the landlord later informed him this was not accurate. However, this contradictory information left the resident confused and not knowing who to believe or whether it was safe for him to sleep in the bedroom. It is understandable that the resident felt this way and that this was the reason why he did not use his bedroom again.
On 20 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the works were still outstanding and he had not received an update from the landlord since the middle of December 2022. This was not reasonable because there was no requirement for the resident to give further notice to the landlord of the repair.
The landlord rescheduled the internal repairs to 3 February 2023 and the external repairs to 15 February 2023.
On 3 February 2023 the landlord attended to complete the internal repairs. However, the operative informed the resident that it did not want to complete the internal repairs before the landlord had completed the external repairs, to ensure this resolved the water leaks. The landlord moved the date for the internal repairs to 27 February 2023.
On 15 February 2023, the landlord completed the external repairs, which included pointing to the external brickwork and applying a clear water sealant. This was approximately 3 months after the resident reported the damp and mould had returned in November 2022. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy, as it did not follow the original timescale it gave to complete the still-outstanding internal repairs in December 2022, as required by the policy.
The landlord informed the resident that, following further inspection of the satellite dishes, it was not concerned about the installation of the existing fixings. However, it confirmed it was planning to send out a communication to each resident to identify which satellite dish belonged to which resident and discuss permissions. We would consider this to be a reasonable approach. However, considering this had been identified as a possible cause of the water leaks in November 2022, and the resident had raised this with the landlord in January 2023, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord dealing with this issue.
On 27 February 2022, the landlord removed the blown plaster from the affected areas. It had to remove more plaster than expected. The landlord informed the resident that the area would need drying out before it was replastered. The landlord arranged a follow-on appointment for 17 March 2023, when it completed all the internal repairs. This was approximately 4 months after the resident reported the damp and mould had returned. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy after it originally told him it would complete the repairs in December 2022.
A landlord is obliged, in accordance with s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Once the landlord was on notice that there was damp and mould affecting the property, and the resident had raised concerns about the impact on his and his family’s health, it should have decided whether it needed to complete a health and safety assessment. It should have also considered whether it should provide dehumidifiers to address the moisture and humidity levels in the property, or whether it should offer a temporary move as per its policy, which permits this for complex cases with intrusive repairs or health risks. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this, which was a failure.
In summary, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in that it:
1. delayed in completing the internal repairs
2. delayed in completing the external repairs
3. did not consider if a temporary move was required
4. did not consider whether dehumidifiers were required
5. delayed in follow-on actions required for the satellite dishes
The Ombudsman would consider these failures to amount to maladministration.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the failures and the inconvenience caused and offered £900 compensation.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £100 and £600 when there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. In this case, the delays in completing the repairs resulted in the resident and his wife sleeping in the lounge while he was waiting for the landlord to complete the repairs.
The landlord’s offer of £900 is more than the amount typically awarded by the Ombudsman for the failings identified. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and accordingly, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which resolves the complaint.

Responsive repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe or complete a temporary repair. It may then require follow-on works to complete the repair. It aims to respond to non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of responsive repairs, including:
1. repair to the windows
2. repair to the immersion heater
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of these repairs (below) separately for clarity.
We have also considered the landlord’s response to the repair of the trickle vent within this section of the report. This is because, although the landlord raised this as part of the damp and mould works, the landlord responded to this issue in its stage 2 complaint response and awarded compensation jointly for delays associated with the trickle vent and the window repair.

Windows

The resident first raised concerns about the windows in the property around 29 November 2021 when he reported a draught coming from the balcony door. The landlord attended on 2 December 2021 to fit a rubber seal. It also replaced the handle on the kitchen window. On 17 December 2021 the resident informed the landlord that the repair to the window had failed within a few days and it no longer locked. The landlord returned on 6 January 2022 and completed the repair. Although the landlord had to return to complete the repair, its response on this occasion was appropriate because it completed the repair within its repair timescales.
The landlord’s records indicate that its operative logged the reglazing repair to the windows on 7 January 2022 following attendance at the address for another issue. This was a non-emergency repair, which the landlord’s policy says it will complete within 28 days.
The records show that the landlord replaced the glazing in 2 windows on 20 January 2022. However, the landlord had to reattend to re-seal one of the re-glazed windows which was still allowing a draught. The landlord therefore completed the repair on 8 April 2022. This was 92 days after the landlord became aware of the repair. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repair policy.
On 24 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and informed it that the window in his son’s bedroom was still not closing properly, which was making the room cold. The records indicate that the landlord attended on 7 April 2022 to assess the bedroom and kitchen windows. The records show that it fitted a draught excluder to the bedroom window. The resident did not feel that this repair was enough and he wanted the landlord to replace the window. He said the landlord had previously informed him that it may consider replacing his son’s bedroom window in April, if it had the budget to do so.
The landlord’s repair policy states that major component replacement, which would include windows, are not responsive repairs. It will deliver these through its planned works programmes. However, landlords are expected to carry out window replacements outside such major works programmes if it is necessary to do so based on the condition of that particular property and to ensure the property is in a safe and habitable condition.
As stated above, we can see that the landlord inspected the window in April 2022 and fitted a draught excluder, which was reasonable. However, there is no evidence that the landlord revisited its decision on replacement of the window again, despite the resident raising this on several occasions, which it should have done.
In its complaint response the landlord said it had checked the windows at void stage and not needed to raise any repairs. However, the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in it completing repairs to the windows and awarded compensation in recognition.

Immersion heater

The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2023 informing it that the wall socket for the immersion heater in the kitchen needed replacing. He referred to the landlord’s contractor informing him it was dangerous at a previous repair appointment. The resident said he had been without hot water for 3 weeks as a result.
The landlord logged this as an emergency repair and attended on the same date. It completed a temporary fix so that the resident had access to hot water over the weekend. The landlord returned on 27 March 2023 to complete the repair, however it could not do so because it found there was no electrical supply to the immersion heater and an electrician was required. The landlord’s records indicate that it completed the repair on 27 March 2023. This was appropriate because it was consistent with the landlord’s repair policy.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it had dealt with the repair within its timescales. However, it accepted there had been an overall delay which had caused the resident to be without hot water for 2 weeks. It said this was due to its contractor not informing it that an electrician was required when it had attended to a previous repair to the storage heater on 14 March 2023. The landlord said that the contractor had not informed it of this until 1 April 2023. Having considered the evidence, this was incorrect because we have seen an email that the contractor sent to the landlord on 14 March 2023 to inform it that an electrician was required. Therefore, had the landlord acted on this, it could have completed the repair sooner, which would have reduced the time the resident was without hot water.
We can see that the landlord’s initial response to the repair was appropriate and consistent with its repair timescales. However, there was an overall delay in it completing this repair, due to its own inaction, which resulted in the resident not having hot water for a period of 2 weeks. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its complaint response and offered compensation of £35 in recognition of the days without hot water (at the rate of £5 per day after the initial 7 days). This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.

Trickle vent

The landlord identified that the trickle vent in the bedroom window was defective at its inspection on 29 November 2022. The landlord attended on 20 December 2022 to complete this repair but there was no access. It rearranged the repair for 30 December 2022. At this visit, the landlord said it could open and close the trickle vents but they required cleaning to be fully operational. It said it would check these again at a future visit.
In its complaint response, the landlord said that it did not follow up on this action as it should have. It apologised for the service failure and awarded compensation in recognition.
In summary, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s responsive repairs in that it:
1. delayed in completing the repairs to the windows
2. delayed in completing the repairs to the immersion heater
3. delayed in completing works to the trickle vents
The Ombudsman would usually consider these failures to amount to maladministration if they were not put right by the landlord.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the failures. It apologised and awarded £335 compensation.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £100 and £600 when there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. In this case, the delays in completing the repairs resulted in the resident not having access to hot water for approximately 2 weeks.
The landlord’s offer of £335 is typical of the amount awarded by the Ombudsman for the failings identified. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and made an offer of redress to the resident which resolves the complaint.

Cleaning of communal areas

The landlord has not provided a copy of the landlord’s communal cleaning policy. However, where the landlord is responsible for communal cleaning, the Ombudsman would expect this to be completed regularly and to a satisfactory standard.
The resident first raised his concerns regarding the communal cleaning in December 2021. The landlord confirmed to the resident that it had referred his concerns to its environmental team.
We can see that someone from this team went to the resident’s address on 17 January 2022 to discuss his concerns. The landlord has not provided a record of this visit. However, the resident later informed the landlord that this person told him the floor was dirtier than normal because of works to the elevator, which were taking place at the time. The resident did not agree with this and reported back to the landlord that he felt this person was not taking his concerns seriously.
The landlord updated the resident on 24 January 2022 to say that it had spoken to its cleaning team who had assured it they were cleaning the floors as they should. The landlord said it would inspect the building the following week and specifically the floor on the resident’s landing for cleanliness. We have not seen any record of this inspection or the landlord’s findings. There is also no record of the landlord providing the resident with an update following this inspection. This was not appropriate and a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The resident raised this issue again in his stage 2 escalation request on 31 March 2023. In its complaint response the landlord said it had spoken to its caretaking team who had confirmed there was a caretaker in place whose job it was to clean, sweep and mop the communal floors. It said it had not received any reports from other residents and that its post-inspections had not identified any areas of concern. It concluded that the cleaning was of an acceptable standard.
Due to lack of adequate records, we are unable to assess whether the landlord’s response was reasonable or not. However, because the landlord did not provide an update to the resident in January 2022, this meant that he did not receive a response to his concerns until his stage 2 response in July 2023. This was not appropriate and we have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for this delay.

Communication with the resident

The resident has informed this service that communication with the landlord was a problem from when he first reported the damp and mould and throughout his complaint. He said he had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and responses to his concerns about the issues he had raised. The resident said that the lack of information, particularly during the periods of delay, made him feel frustrated and that his concerns were not being listened to.
It is clear from the evidence available that the resident had an unnecessary level of involvement in the repair process, which left him feeling unsupported. This was mainly evident before he made his complaint. For example, the resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2022 requesting an update on his damp and mould report because he had not heard anything since his previous call on 16 December 2022. The landlord called him back on 17 January 2022 but this was only after further contact from the resident. When he received the call, he said that it was from someone who did not know anything about his case, which added to his frustration.
Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of the delays to residents
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
The landlord did not do this in this case, which was a failure. We can see that communication and updates improved after the resident made his initial complaint. However, the resident should not have had to submit a complaint in order to receive meaningful engagement from the landlord.
There were also times when the landlord gave the resident conflicting information from different teams. For example, in December 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it was not safe to sleep in his bedroom, due to the damp and mould, which it later said was not true. This left the resident feeling frustrated and meant that he did not know who to believe or whether to trust what the landlord was telling him.
The landlord acknowledged its failures with poor communication in its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised and awarded £600 compensation in recognition for the inconvenience caused.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there is evidence of a service failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Although we are unable to identify how much of the amount awarded for inconvenience was for poor communication, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer of £600 is more than we would award for the failings identified. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and made an offer of redress to the resident which resolves the complaint.

Complaint handling

The Housing 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 timeframes should not be exceeded without good reason.
The resident made his initial complaint on 23 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same date and said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.13 of the Code at the time of the resident’s complaint state that landlords can extend the timeframe for providing responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint process. In such cases, landlords should provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received.
The resident contacted the landlord approximately 6 times during March 2023 chasing a response to his complaint. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord provided an explanation as to why the complaint response was delayed, or that it provided the resident with a clear timeframe when he would receive the response. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the Code.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 31 March 2023, which was 50 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the Code.
We have noted that the calculation of compensation in the landlord’s stage 1 response was incorrect. The total amount should have been £950 and not £1,050. In the interest of fairness, and to ensure that the resident is not put in a worse position, we have taken the total amount awarded by the landlord at stage 1 to be £1,050.
The resident escalated his complaint on 31 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 3 April 2023 and said it would provide a response within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord approximately 5 times between 3 April 2023 and the end of June 2023 requesting an update on his complaint. We can see that the landlord spoke to the resident on 16 May 2023 and emailed him on 2 June 2023 and 16 June 2023 to provide him with an update on his complaint. However, there is no evidence that the landlord explained the reason for the delay in it responding, or that it provided a clear timeframe when the resident would receive the response. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the Code.
Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 10 July 2023 requesting that it provide the resident with a response to his complaint by 31 July 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 July 2023, which was 71 working days after the resident’s escalation. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the Code.
Overall, there were failures by the landlord in its complaint handling as follows:
1. it delayed in providing the response at stage 1
2. it delayed in providing the response at stage 2
3. it failed to communicate effectively with the resident throughout both stages of the complaint process
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It was clear from the resident’s emails that he was frustrated with the lack of communication from the landlord. This resulted in him having to contact the Ombudsman for help, which he should not have to do. We consider the landlord’s failures in its complaint handling to amount to maladministration.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £100 and £600 when there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. In this case, the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint prevented him from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that he could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s offer of redress, which included an apology and acknowledgement of the failures in its complaint handling. It offered compensation of £150 (£50 at stage 1 and £100 at stage 2) in recognition of these failures. While the landlord’s response was positive, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this redress does not fully recognise the impact on the resident because of the landlord’s failures, as identified in this report. We have therefore made an order that the landlord increase its compensation to £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of responsive window, immersion heater, and trickle vent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about cleaning of communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of communication with the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with a full apology for it poor communication when dealing with repairs and the errors identified in its complaint handling.
2. pay the resident £50 compensation in addition to that offered via the complaint procedure (£1,485) (£1,535 in total).
  1. The additional compensation is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Conduct a full review of its complaint handling in this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take to prevent similar failures occurring in the future. The landlord must share the review with the Ombudsman.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.