Clarion Housing Association Limited (202301285)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301285

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 October 2024

 

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s report of damp and mould in her kitchen and her subsequent request for a cooker hood.
    2. The resident’s request for the landlord to replace storage heaters with electric heaters.
    3. The resident’s report of broken communal gates.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat owned by the landlord.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord in December 2022. She said she reported a broken communal gate in June 2022 and the landlord had not yet fixed it. She asked the landlord to replace her storage heaters due to the cost-of-living crisis. She also asked it to install a hood for her oven to reduce condensation and mould on her kitchen walls.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 31 January 2023. It said there was a delay receiving the required part to fix the communal gate, however its contractors had since installed the part on 11 and 12 January 2023. It also inspected the carpark gate at the same time and found it to be in working order. It recognised nearby bushes affected the sensor and confirmed it trimmed them on 30 January 2023. It rejected the resident’s request for an oven hood as she had an extractor fan in the kitchen and agreed to inspect the storage heaters. It offered £250 compensation to the resident.
  4. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint on 31 January 2023. She explained the extractor fan in the kitchen was not stopping the mould and the car park gate repair was outstanding.
  5. On 11 April 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It maintained its position in its initial complaint response. It confirmed it had scheduled plastering works for 10 May 2023 following the resident’s report of damp and mould. It awarded a further £150 compensation, resulting in a total compensation award of £400.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied following the landlord’s final complaint response. She said the communal gate stopped working again and she found it difficult and stressful dealing with the landlord considering her vulnerability. She referred the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the stress of the matter impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of a resident. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. This matter is better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim.
  2. The resident told this Service she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of a bathroom repair and missed repair appointments. Additionally, we understand there were new issues with the communal gates that occurred after the landlord had issued its final complaint response, such as an incident of vandalism in February 2024. These matters did not form part of the resident’s complaint in December 2022. Therefore, we cannot investigate them within this case. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond under its internal complaint procedure, as per paragraph 42.a of the Scheme. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.

Damp, mould and a request for a cooker hood.

  1. Following a resident’s report of damp and mould within a property, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach 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 teams and departments and to ensure 1 team or individual has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints/reports relating to damp and mould are resolved, including follow up or aftercare.
  3. The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy explain that it will diagnose the cause of the above and deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of the problem, not just the symptoms. Additionally, where necessary, it will conduct any repairs, remedial works, or improvements to rectify any problems.
  4. Records show the landlord considered the resident’s request for a cooker hood by discussing it with a surveyor. It is appropriate for a landlord to rely on the opinion of its suitably qualified staff. In the circumstances, considering the resident’s kitchen already had extraction and a surveyor did not deem a cooker hood necessary, the Ombudsman finds it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to refuse her request.
  5. From the limited information provided to this Service, the resident made the landlord aware of mould in the kitchen December 2022. It is a concern that the landlord has not evidenced an inspection to establish the cause. Nonetheless, the resident explained the landlord gave her a booklet and encouraged her to ventilate the property. Further, the landlord’s records show it arranged a mould wash. At stage 2, it also evidenced that it had scheduled plastering work in the kitchen, apologised to the resident and offered £100 compensation for the time taken to resolve and the inconvenience caused.
  6. Our remedies guidance explains that awards of £100 may be appropriate where there has been maladministration which adversely affects a resident but has no permanent impact. After considering all the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman determines that the redress offered by the landlord was reasonable and proportionate to reflect the delays dealing with the matter.

Storage heaters

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents.
  2. Following the resident’s request for the landlord to replace the storage heaters, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for its contractors to inspect them. On 23 February 2023, records show contractors reported them to be in good working order.
  3. As referenced above, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff and contractors. As such, its decision not to replace the storage heaters was reasonable. Nonetheless, as the resident mentioned the cost-of-living crisis, the Ombudsman finds it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to its website where it offers various resources for support. The landlord should recognise this as a learning point for future cases.

 Broken communal gates

  1. Where a landlord admits failings, 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. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states it must complete communal repairs within 28 days. However, mechanical and electrical maintenance is excluded from the responsive repair service. Specialist contractors maintain installations.
  3. The landlord does not dispute that there was a failure in service in repairing the communal gates, citing repeat visits, delays receiving parts, and the need for it to trim back vegetation. At stage 1, it was appropriate for the landlord to explain the reasons for the delays to the resident and to check for an update with its mechanical and engineering team, before setting out its position in its final complaint response.
  4. Evidence shows that following the stage 1 complaint, the resident contacted her Member of Parliament (MP) about ongoing issues with a communal gate. The landlord corresponded directly with the MP regarding the matter on 29 March 2023, explaining that a new motor was required and depending on the availability of parts, the repair should start on 31 March 2023. While an MP would normally share updates with their constituent, in the circumstances, the Ombudsman is minded that the landlord ought to have included this information within its stage 2 response as it was relevant to the complaint.
  5. At stage 1, the landlord offered the resident £200 for the delay in addressing the requested gate repairs. The landlord’s records show the resident continued to report issues after it had issued its stage 1 response and chased for updates. While the landlord’s records show it was regularly consulting with its specialist contractors to reach a solution, in the Ombudsman’s view, its communications with the resident fell short during this time. Evidence demonstrates the resident had already expressed concern about the communal gate and security of her home on several occasions, and the landlord was aware of reports of anti-social behaviour in the area. Therefore, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to give concise and regular updates to the resident about the repair, and compensation for the delay completing the repair between stage 1 and 2. Its failure to do so means the landlord did not act fairly or put things right. This constitutes a service failure.

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The resident initially complained on 12 December 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 31 January2023 – 33 working days later. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 the same day. It issued its stage 2 response 49 working days later, on 11 April 2023. The Code serves to illustrate that the landlord kept the resident’s complaint open for longer than appropriate.
  3. The evidence provided to this Service shows the landlord stayed connected with the resident about her complaint and apologised for the delays. The landlord’s actions here demonstrate it took the complaint seriously and managed her expectations. This is what the Ombudsman would expect in the circumstances.
  4. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. The Ombudsman requires a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint responses to improve its future complaint handling and repairs provision.
  5. The landlord recognised its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered £50 at stage 1 and an additional £50 at stage 2. Considering the extent of the delay and the impact on the resident, the Ombudsman considers the redress offered to be fair and in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
    1. The resident’s report of damp and mould in her kitchen and her subsequent request for a cooker hood.
    2. The associated complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the landlord to replace storage heaters with electric heaters.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of broken communal gates.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of broken communal gates. This sum includes the £200 offered within the landlord’s complaint response.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the resident the £100 it previously offered to recognise the delays for the mould work, if not already paid.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the resident the £100 it previously offered for its complaint handling failures, if not already paid.
  3. We made a reasonable redress finding on the basis the landlord pays the above compensation to the resident to reflect genuine elements of service failure.
  4. The resident told this Service she is autistic. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities she may have and update its internal records accordingly (subject to any data protection requirements).