Clarion Housing Association Limited (202301923)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301923

Clarion Housing Association Limited

7 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of damp and mould.
2. Response to window repairs.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy on a fixed term for 5 years. She moved into the two-bedroom ground floor flat in May 2022 and lives with her 3 children.
The landlord has stated there are no vulnerabilities recorded but, within the evidence provided to this Service, the resident has told the landlord on several occasions that her children have asthma.

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In the resident’s correspondence, she refers to the impact the ongoing issue of damp and mould has had on her children’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.
It is noted that the resident asked the landlord to replace her belongings that were damaged by the mould. In the landlord’s follow up letter dated 7 February 2024, it apologised for not providing the correct information regarding an insurance claim. The landlord told the resident what information she needed to provide in order for a claim to be processed. The landlord must be given the opportunity to address this matter through its own policies, therefore the Ombudsman will not make a determination on this aspect of the complaint.

Summary of events

As part of the investigation, this Service asked the landlord to provide information regarding the resident’s reports of damp and mould and window issues. According to the repair history, a repair was raised to inspect and measure glazing on 5 October 2022. It states the job ended on 31 October 2022, but no further information was provided. It is unclear if this was in connection with damp and mould.
The repair history confirms a job for damp and mould was raised on 11 November 2022. The landlord confirmed the appointment for 24 November 2022 was a no access visit and this was rescheduled to 1 December 2022.
On 28 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord via a webchat. She referred to constant mould in the property. She said the bathroom ceiling was black. She also said the children’s bedroom ceiling was dripping on to their things and the blinds and curtains were covered in mould. The landlord confirmed the rescheduled appointment on 1 December 2022, however the resident said she could not wait that long. She was told that if a cancellation became available, she would be contacted.
At the same time as the webchat, the resident had called the landlord. She said the damp and mould was in the children’s bedroom and “all over the property”. She said she could not use the bathroom. She became upset and told the landlord she could not cope anymore. It agreed to try and pull the appointment forward due to the worry from the resident.
On 29 November 2022, the resident submitted a complaint. She said she had received a poor service in relation to mould in the property. She said there was mould in her children’s bedroom, and it was on the furniture and furnishings, namely the curtains, blinds, and wardrobe. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 29 November 2022.
On 1 December 2022, the landlord inspected the property. The repair history confirms works were raised on 6 December 2022; however, no other detail has been provided as to what this entailed. The landlord identified there was no extractor fan or passive vents in the bathroom. It noted the property was overcrowded which could contribute to higher levels of humidity and moisture that could encourage mould growth.
On 15 December 2022, the landlord was scheduled to measure the bathroom for the possible installation of passive vents/window vents or to install an extractor fan. The landlord missed this appointment.
The landlord attended on 22 December 2022 and a damp and mould inspection report was completed. This confirmed there was no extractor fan fitted and the external aspect of the property was in good condition. A mould wash was completed, and stain block was applied to the affected areas. A further appointment was raised to measure up for passive vents to be installed in the bedrooms.
On 10 January 2023, the landlord’s notes confirm an extension was needed on the complaint response time. A new date of 12 January 2023 was suggested by the landlord.
The landlord attended the property on 16 January 2023 to measure up for the vents in the bedroom. The offer was declined by the resident who told the landlord the room was cold enough already.
On 18 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident. It apologised for the delay, citing a cyber-attack as the cause. The response confirmed the following:
1. Damp was reported on 2 November 2022. An inspection was arranged for 24 November 2022 but was rescheduled to 1 December 2022 due to a no access visit.
2. There was no extractor fan or passive vents in the bathroom.
3. The property was overcrowded, and this could be contributing to the moisture levels and mould growth.
4. It had missed an appointment on 15 December 2022 to measure the bathroom for passive vents.
5. An inspection on 22 December 2022 confirmed condensation was the cause of the mould. A mould wash was completed, and a stain block was applied to the affected areas. It was confirmed there was no extractor fan fitted, and a further appointment was arranged to measure up for vents in the bedroom.
6. During an inspection on 16 January 2023, the passive vents in the bedroom were offered but declined by the resident.
7. An extractor fan was not needed in the bathroom, but the room would benefit from a mould wash and stain block. The resident was asked to contact the landlord to arrange an appointment.
8. On 16 January 2023, the landlord inspected the bubble gasket on the window as draughts had been reported. No draughts were found, and the window was found to be in full working order.
9. The landlord upheld the complaint. It acknowledged the delays in the investigations for the damp and mould in the property. This was due to a missed appointment and a failure to monitor follow on work. It offered £215 compensation for the following:

i. £50 for the complaint being outside of the service level agreement.

ii. £15 for one missed appointment.

iii. £150 discretionary compensation for failure to follow process, repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem, consideration of household vulnerabilities, inconvenience and degree of disruption caused.

On 19 January 2023, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. She said she would not accept the window and that it had been damaged by staff. She said the landlord had removed a window with a vent in it and replaced it with a window without a vent. She said she had since found out that was illegal. She said 4 surveys had been done, all for the same thing. The resident confirmed she had denied the offer of the vent as it was already too cold in the back rooms, and she did not want to make the situation worse. She highlighted there was no response to her request for the replacement of carpet and a wardrobe. She said she would not accept the compensation due to an ongoing complaint regarding her rent.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint escalation on 19 January 2023. It confirmed a response would be sent within 20 working days.
On 2 February 2023, the resident engaged with the landlord via a webchat. She said the bathroom was covered in mould, around the bath and ceiling. She asked for an appointment for a mould wash and paint in the bedroom, confirming that it had been done before but was back within a week. The landlord asked if it was the same bedroom that had been done in December. The resident confirmed it was. She said the ceiling had been painted and that was fine, but she believed the window area may have been missed. She confirmed the bathroom had not been painted. The landlord confirmed an appointment for 15 February 2023 for both the bathroom and bedroom.
The landlord attended on 15 February 2023. Follow on work was requested which included:
1. Bathroom taps upgrade.
2. Cracked tiles around the bath and broken bath panel.
3. Electrical fans installed to bathroom and kitchen.
4. Surveyor to inspect as mould is getting under the carpet into the wooden floor.
5. Wash down ceiling once confirmed as safe by health and safety.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident with an update on the complaint. It advised the investigation was ongoing and it would liaise again shortly regarding the remaining works.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 March 2023. She said it had not removed the mould from the property and asbestos had also not been removed. She informed the landlord her son was ill again, and she was taking the medical records to her solicitor. The landlord confirmed her email had been sent to the relevant team to respond. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident.
The landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident on 11 April 2023. It confirmed the reason for the initial complaint, and for the escalation request. The landlord said the following:
1. The window damage had been caused due to difficulty in removing the beading which had been glued in place. It had searched for replacement beading but could not find any. The landlord had viewed photographs of the windows and considered the post inspection works. It confirmed the window was fully functional with minor aesthetic damage to the beading therefore it would not be doing any further work to the window.
2. There was no requirement for a window to have a vent. The room was suitably ventilated with an airbrick therefore replacing the window to include a vent would not be necessary.
3. It was identified that a bathroom extractor fan was needed. It was originally scheduled for the landlord to inspect the property on 27 March 2023 prior to fitting the fan but was rescheduled to 4 April 2023 due to no access. The work was scheduled for 3 May 2023.
4. An inspection on 9 February 2023 identified some damp and mould issues. The work proposed included the install of the bathroom fan, completion of minor mould treatment (scheduled for 17 April 2023), silicone work and the fitting of the new bath panel (scheduled for 14 April 2023).
5. In recognition of the service failures identified, an additional £150 was awarded to the resident. This was made up of:

i. £100 discretionary payment for time taken to resolve, inconvenience, failure to follow procedure, repeat visits, customer needing to chase.

ii. £50 for the delay in the stage 2 complaint response.

Following the receipt of the final complaint response, the resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2023. She highlighted the issue regarding the asbestos had not been addressed, nor had the compensation for the damage to the furniture. She told the landlord she was referring her complaint to the Ombudsman. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord.
On 16 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord again. She confirmed she was still waiting for the flooring in the children’s bedroom to be done. She said the landlord had attended to silicone around the bath but had siliconed over mouldy silicone. She told the landlord she paid someone to do this again. Although the landlord was to complete a mould wash, this was refused due to the ongoing issue with the asbestos. She also confirmed she had got someone else to replace the bath panel and would be claiming compensation.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 8 September 2023. She said the issue had affected her children’s health and it had impacted her financially. As a resolution, the resident asked for more compensation, a move and for the landlord to inspect the property and carry out the work.
There is evidence to confirm these matters continued after the final complaint response with the resident contacting the landlord on several occasions through to October 2023.

Post complaint process

Following contact from this Service, the landlord sent a follow up letter to the resident on 7 February 2024. It stated the following:
1. It had reviewed the actions taken since the closure of the peer review on 11 April 2023.
2. An inspection on 11 December 2023 confirmed no mould was found, but there were outstanding repairs to the bathroom and bedroom. These included a new bathroom light, plastering of the bathroom ceiling and the fitting of a new trickle vent.
3. The bathroom light was fitted on 2 January 2024, and the trickle vent installation was rescheduled at the resident’s request to 21 February 2024.
4. The resident had hired a private contractor to plaster the bathroom.
5. The landlord apologised for the delay in the inspection taking place. It acknowledged it should have engaged with a surveyor sooner for a more holistic review of the property.
6. It identified the resident had not been given the details regarding an insurance claim. It advised that if she wished to claim against the landlord, she would need to provide information for the claim to be submitted. The landlord provided this information and the instructions on how she could make a claim.
7. In recognition of the service failures identified, it offered the resident a further £400. This was for the following:

i. £50 for failing to provide insurance details during the complaint process.

ii. £350 for the delay in arranging the inspection and any inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s interim complaint policy states a complaint must be acknowledged and logged at stage one within 10 working days of receipt. The landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. If a peer review is requested, the landlord will log and acknowledge requests in 10 working days and aims to respond within 40 working days. If at any stage the landlord is unable to meet a deadline, it will communicate with the resident and provide a date by which a response can be expected.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines examples of when discretionary compensation can be awarded to residents. The policy includes award bands ranging from £50 to £700 and states compensation payments will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
The landlord’s repairs policy states:
1. It is responsible for conducting surveys linked to condensation and mould. It is responsible for cleaning affected areas with fungicidal wash and installing extractor fans as needed.
2. Emergency repairs where there is immediate danger to the resident or public, or where it would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident, will be attended within 24 hours to make safe.
3. Non-emergency repairs will be appointed within 28 calendar days of the report.
The objectives within the landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy are to:
1. Provide well maintained homes, free from hazards.
2. Diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely manner and to carry out work where necessary to minimise damage to structure, fixtures and fittings.
3. Reduce the number of preventable condensation related jobs by managing initial repairs and ensuring access to remedy reported repairs in line with relevant policies and tenancy obligations.
4. Provide advice on how to treat mould growth where this is found.
5. Where condensation is the cause of damp and mould, it will work with residents on how to take appropriate measure to resolve the issues.
6. Where homes are overcrowded, the landlord will work with residents to explore solutions which may include moving to a more suitable home if this is available and appropriate.

Response to reports of damp and mould

Following the report of damp and mould, the landlord raised an appointment for 24 November 2022. According to the repair history and complaint response, this was the first report of the issue. The repair was not deemed as an emergency; therefore, the landlord responded appropriately and appointed the repair within 28 calendar days as set out in the repairs policy. The appointment was recorded as a no access.
The appointment was rearranged for 5 working days later. When the resident became distressed and stated she could not wait that long, the landlord tried to bring the appointment forward, albeit unsuccessfully. It confirmed that if an appointment became available, she would be contacted. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
The inspection on 1 December 2022 highlighted the lack of extractor fan or passive vents in the bathroom. The landlord noted the property was overcrowded which could be impacting on the humidity levels and could be encouraging mould growth. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this or provided any support or advice to the resident. As the landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will work with residents to explore solutions for overcrowding, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s lack of action unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that follow-on work was arranged for 6 December 2022. There is no further information regarding this. It is expected that the landlord can monitor progress against any follow-on work proposed. The lack of information to confirm what this work involved raises concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping and ability to monitor repairs through to completion. The lack of evidence also makes it difficult for this Service to determine if the landlord acted in line with its repair responsibilities.
A second inspection on 15 December 2022 to measure and take photographs for the possible installation of passive vents or an extractor fan in the bathroom was missed. This was acknowledged in the stage 1 complaint response when the landlord offered appropriate compensation in line with its compensation policy. The appointment was rearranged to 22 December 2022.
This inspection confirmed condensation was the cause of the mould. The landlord took appropriate action by inspecting the external condition of the property, of which no issues were found. It completed a mould wash and stain block to the affected areas and as a recommendation to help the airflow, the landlord raised an appointment to measure up for passive vents in the bedrooms. There is no evidence to confirm if the passive vents were installed in the bathroom.
A third inspection was arranged for 16 January 2023 which the Ombudsman finds reasonable considering the festive break. The landlord measured for vents in the bedroom, but the resident declined the offer, stating the bedroom was too cold already and she did not want to make the situation worse. While this is noted, there is no evidence of the landlord explaining how the vents would benefit the situation, or further exploratory work to determine why the room was cold. As the landlord is responsible for providing advice and talking through solutions, the lack of evidence that it did so is unreasonable and does not show the landlord was being proactive in trying to resolve the problem. The landlord confirmed the extractor fan was not needed in the bathroom.
While the landlord made a recommendation for the bathroom to have mould resistant paint applied, in its stage 1 complaint response, it passed the responsibility to arrange this on to the resident. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable. As the landlord is responsible for this work, it would have been appropriate for it to arrange this appointment. It could then have been amended to suit the resident’s availability if needed.
The resident reported further issues with mould in the bathroom on 2 February 2023. While she asked for an appointment for a mould wash and paint of the bedroom, she informed the landlord that previous attempts had not worked and the mould was returning within a week.
A further inspection was completed on 15 February 2023. During this inspection, the landlord recommended the installation of an extractor fan in the bathroom and kitchen. This was a change in decision from the previous month when it was confirmed a fan was not needed. This raises concern regarding the landlord’s decision making on when such a component is required and may highlight inconsistencies in its ability to reliably diagnose and address repairs.
Four months after the original report, in March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm the mould had still not been removed from the property. There is no evidence of any contact with the resident after this until the final complaint response was issued a month later. As the landlord had been told about the children’s health, the Ombudsman finds the lack of contact and urgency around this issue unreasonable. A further inspection in March 2023 concluded that an extractor fan was required, and this was subsequently installed in May 2023, 5 months after the landlord first inspected the property in December 2022 (when it was decided it was not needed).
After receiving the final complaint response, the resident continued to chase the landlord for the completion of work. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it is responsible for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely manner and for carrying out work where necessary. It aims to reduce the number of condensation related jobs by managing repairs. The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that the resident had to continually chase the landlord for updates.
The landlord has confirmed that after an inspection in December 2023, no mould was found, however outstanding repairs in the bathroom and bedroom were identified, with these being completed in February 2024
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould. Although it attended the property within a reasonable timeframe when first put on notice of the damp, there were inconsistencies in decision making regarding possible solutions, for instance the installation of an extractor fan. The landlord completed mould wash and stain blocks, but there is no evidence to confirm any other work was completed until several months later. The property was inspected 6 times in total and the outstanding remedial work was completed in February 2024 which was after the landlord completed a review of the case.
It is acknowledged that the landlord identified its own service failures at both stages of the complaint process and in the follow on letter 10 months later. It identified that it failed to follow its own processes, completed repeated visits to resolve the problem, and failed to consider the household vulnerabilities. It also recognised the degree of disruption to the resident.
The landlord however failed to follow the dispute resolution principles in full by not demonstrating how it would learn from the mistakes it had made. While the total compensation offer of £615 is at the level the Ombudsman would expect, the finding of maladministration is still appropriate given the lack of lessons learned, the apparent continued failings beyond the end of the complaints process and that most of this compensation was not awarded until the landlord’s recent review 10 months after the end of the complaints process.

Response to window repairs

According to the evidence provided, the landlord first inspected draughts from windows during an inspection on 16 January 2023. The landlord concluded the window was in full working order and no draughts were found.
It was during the complaint escalation that the resident told the landlord a window had been damaged by a staff member. The Ombudsman has not received any additional information other than what has been provided in the final complaint response. Therefore, we can only assess the resulting response from the landlord and whether it was reasonable under the circumstances.
The landlord confirmed the beading to the window had been damaged. It confirmed it had looked for a replacement but could not find any. It had viewed photographs and had considered the post inspection work. The landlord confirmed that as the window was fully functional with only minor aesthetic damage, it would not replace the window or carry out any further work.
For a landlord to replace such a component, there must be a justified reason. Cosmetic damage is not justification for the window to be replaced. The landlord has taken appropriate action in ensuring the window is working as expected and no faults were found. The repair history confirms no further repairs have been raised in relation to the windows. This Service finds this a reasonable and appropriate response.
The Ombudsman does not find any maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the window repairs. It demonstrated it looked for replacement beading but could not source any. It inspected the window which was confirmed to be in full working order with no reason to replace it. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon the professional opinion of its staff and contractors.

Associated complaint

The resident submitted a complaint on 29 November 2022. The landlord responded appropriately and in line with the complaints policy by acknowledging it the same day.
The landlord’s internal notes confirm a request for an extension was granted on the stage 1 response, however, there is no evidence of this being communicated with the resident. By not providing this update, the landlord has failed to follow its own complaint policy.
The stage 1 response was provided on 18 January 2023, 33 workings days from when it was submitted and outside of the timescale stipulated in the complaint policy. The response confirmed the timeline of events from when the mould was reported, and the actions taken by the landlord. The landlord took the opportunity to identify and acknowledge its own service failures and offered compensation to address these. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable approach from the landlord. This was in line with its compensation policy and the reason for the compensation was clearly explained to the resident.
On receipt of the escalation request, the landlord acknowledged this the same day and confirmed when a response could be expected. This was in line with the complaint policy and set clear expectations for the resident.
The landlord’s final complaint response was sent on 11 April 2023, 57 working days after it was received, and in excess of the policy timescale. It is noted that the landlord emailed the resident on 10 March 2023 with an update on the complaint, but there was no indication in the email that the response would be delayed. As the landlord did not communicate this delay to the resident, it has failed to follow its own policy. The landlord however utilised the complaint process to identify its own service failure and offered £100 complaint handling compensation in line with its compensation policy. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord offered reasonable redress for these failings.
The landlord’s response confirmed the action it had taken in respect of the issues raised by the resident. It did not however cover all the issues raised in the escalation request. For example, the landlord noted in the response that as a resolution, the resident wanted the carpet and wardrobe to be replaced, but it did not refer to this in the response. It was also silent on an asbestos concern that the resident had raised. The landlord has therefore failed to respond to all issues. This led to the resident investing more time and effort in contacting the landlord for a response.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. While it complied with its policy in terms of acknowledging receipt of the complaints at both stages, it failed to meet the timescale at each stage. The communication with resident around these missed deadlines was inconsistent and raised concern over the landlord’s complaint handling. The stage 1 and 2 responses referred to the actions taken, however failed to provide the resident with information on the insurance aspect of the complaint. The landlord used the complaint process to identify and acknowledge its own service failures and offered compensation as redress of these. It did not however take the opportunity to demonstrate how it would learn from these service failures in future cases.
It is noted that the landlord reviewed the actions taken since the final response was sent. While the level of compensation is at a level that the Ombudsman would suggest, it is a concern the issue regarding the insurance claim and the additional compensation has only recently been made and appears to have required the involvement of the Ombudsman. Given the landlord did not use its complaints process to identify this and offer reasonable redress and the lengthy period since the final complaint response was issued, a finding of service failure is appropriate.
The Ombudsman has not made an order for the landlord to improve its complaint handling as we did so in January 2024 under case reference 202212372 and the landlord has complied with that order, including the creation of a Quality Assurance team.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord inspected the property 6 times in relation to the damp and mould which led to inconvenience for the resident. It demonstrated inconsistency in decision making and ways of working when acting on possible solutions to the problem. There are concerns regarding the record keeping and the ability of the landlord to track the repairs through to completion which led to lengthy delays in the full scope of work being completed despite the resident’s concerns about her children’s vulnerability. The landlord made a proportionate offer of compensation, but this was made well after the end of the complaints process, and it did not demonstrate it had learned sufficient lessons from the complaint.
The landlord demonstrated it looked for replacement beading but could not source any. It inspected the window which was confirmed to be in full working order with no reason to replace it.
The landlord missed the completion deadline at both stages of its complaints process, and these were not consistently communicated to the resident. The landlord did not address all the issues raised within the complaint, and failed to take the opportunity to address how it would learn from the mistakes made.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified with this report.
2. Provide this Service with evidence to confirm that the full amount of £765 compensation has been paid to the resident.
3. Post-inspect works to the property and communicate the outcome of this to the resident and this Service, providing a schedule of works (with timescales) if any further works are needed.
4. Confirm to this Service and the resident if the flooring in the bedroom has been inspected and any action it intends to take as a result.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its handling of this case and provide an explanation of how it will ensure in future that:
1. it diagnoses and conducts works to combat damp and mould within appropriate timescales;
2. it has systems in place so that it post-inspects damp related works to check they have been successful.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

Given the concerns regarding overcrowding, the landlord should liaise with the resident to provide advice and support needed to look for alternative accommodation.