Clarion Housing Association Limited (202302137)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302137

Clarion Housing Association Limited

14 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. Handling of repairs at the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has lived at the property since 2009. She has an assured non-shorthold weekly tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat which has a basement underneath the property. The resident lives with her adult daughter who was 19 at the time of the complaint. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy states as follows:
1. It acknowledges that living with leaks, condensation, damp and mould can have serious health implications for residents and can cause damage to properties.
2. It will diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. It will carry out appropriate works to minimise damage to the structure, fixtures and fittings of the property.
3. Where particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issues are identified, it will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment which may result in a range of actions to support the resident.
4. For very complex cases, especially where more intrusive building work is required and/or there is a health risk, it may require residents to move out of the property either on a temporary or permanent basis. It will consider the individual circumstances of the resident and will act in accordance with its Decant Policy. Once the works are complete and before the resident returns, all appropriate checks will be carried out at the property.
5. It will carry out any repairs that are required in accordance with its Repairs and Maintenance Policy. Cases relating to leaks condensation, damp and mould will be specifically tracked and managed.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states as follows:
1. An emergency repair is one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. An emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair, should be completed at this visit. Further repairs may subsequently be required.
2. Non-emergency repairs are at the next available appointment that suits the resident and will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s access for contractors policy states as follows:
1. Failure to provide access on two or more occasions, will be classed as ‘no access’.
2. The landlord will not pursue access if it is disproportionate to do so, for example, where there is no health & safety or asset risk.
3. Cases of no access will be reviewed by a dedicated staff member and those presenting a health and safety risk (e.g. water leak or damp) will be identified.
4. If there is sufficient evidence of two no access attempts, proportionate action must be taken.
5. The landlord’s tenancy agreements require residents to allow it and its contractors access to the property to carry out inspections and/or works at the agreed appointment time.
The landlord’s decant policy states as follows:
1. A temporary decant enables work on the property to be carried out with the intention of returning the resident to it at the earliest opportunity.
2. Where a tenant has been temporarily decanted they will remain liable for the rent and service charge at their principal property, with no rent due on the temporary accommodation.
3. The landlord can provide financial assistance to a tenant by way of a discretionary disturbance payment.
4. It will provide regular updates and agree the frequency of the updates with the resident to keep them informed.
The landlord’s website contains further information in respect of temporary decants as follows:
1. If a resident incurs any costs because of being decanted, they should keep receipts as the landlord may be able to refund the money.
2. It can help with the cost and inconvenience of living temporarily with family or friends.
3. It will try to find the resident accommodation that provides meals. If this is not possible, we will consider meeting reasonable costs to cover meals up to maximum of £15 per adult, per day.
The landlord’s interim complaints policy (from June 2022) states as follows:
1. At stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within 10 working days. It aims to respond within 20 working days of the complaint being logged.
2. At stage 2 “peer review” it will acknowledge the request within 10 working days and aims to respond within 40 working days.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould is a potential hazard that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.

Summary of events

From July 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that her flooring was “dropping” and that there was damp and mould in the hallway and her daughter’s bedroom. The landlord arranged for holes in an external drain to be filled in September 2020 which it believed to be the cause of the damp and mould. The resident advised that this had not resolved the issue and the flooring was still lifting.
On 6 November 2020 a contractor attended the resident’s property and advised the landlord that some of the bathroom floorboards were coming up and that the kitchen floor was not level. The landlord noted internally that another flat in the block had had a similar issue and it had found that the pipework was “sweating” within the insulation. The landlord raised a job on 4 December 2020 to lift sections of the flooring to inspect underneath. A note on its repairs log stated that this was done on 9 December 2020 and no works were found to be required.
On 11 December 2020 a contractor attended and noted that the damp and mould may be caused by the drain. The landlord subsequently delivered a dehumidifier to the resident on 18 December 2020.
On 6 January 2021 the landlord requested a quote for the complete removal of the flooring, bathroom and kitchen and remedial works. It noted that the resident would need to be decanted during the works and advised the resident of this.
On 19 March 2021 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the commencement of the works and stated she was “living out of suitcases and boxes”. The landlord advised on 23 March 2021 that it discussed her case weekly and it would update her in respect of the decant. It stated on 12 April 2021 that its contractor required further photographs of the flooring to be able to provide a full quote for the works.
On 29 April 2021 the landlord raised a job to repair the kitchen worktop which had been damaged by a boiler leak. This was booked for 25 May 2021.
On 24 May 2021 the landlord arranged a decant from 14 June 2021 for 15 working days for the resident, her daughter (who was 17 at the time) and a pet cat. It noted internally that the resident’s furniture needed to be put into storage. The resident requested that the appointment for the kitchen worktop the following day be rearranged. The landlord did so to 18 June 2021.
The landlord noted in June 2021 that the works to be carried out during the decant were as follows:
1. Removal of the complete floor. Locate and rectify the cause believed to be weeping pipework and reinstate.
2. Remove the kitchen and bathroom.
On 18 June 2021 a contractor attended in respect of the kitchen worktop however no access could be gained to the property.
The landlord noted internally on 1 July 2021 that the temporary accommodation (a hotel) would need to be extended until 4 July 2021 and some additional works had been identified which could be undertaken once the resident was back at the property. That same day the resident called the landlord for an update and it advised that she could move back into the property from 4 July 2021.
On 6 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and asked what works had been carried out. She advised she had not returned to live at the property and was staying with her sister. The landlord spoke to the resident on 8 July 2021 and advised that she could return to the property. The landlord noted that the resident was “fuming” and stated that the walls in the property, especially her daughter’s room were covered in black mould.
On 13 July 2021 a contractor reattended following the failed appointment of 18 June 2021 in respect of the kitchen worktop. The landlord’s repairs log is not clear if this went ahead but stated that the resident was waiting for a surveyor.
The landlord’s surveyor carried out a post inspection at the property on 4 August 2021 and advised the resident that there was no reason why she could not return. It noted there were some repairs outstanding which were unrelated to the decanted works.
On 12 August 2021 the landlord raised a job for retiling in the bathroom, a chip in the bath, re-plastering by the front door and in the bedroom, and garden paving. It is not clear if the works to the bathroom or plastering works were carried out however the garden works were completed on 29 September 2021.
On 15 December 2021 the landlord’s surveyor carried out another inspection at the property with the resident present. The surveyor reiterated that the resident could return to live at the property.
On 28 February 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the back board of a kitchen cabinet was mouldy and the window sealant in bedroom two was mouldy and damaged. The landlord advised that an appointment had been arranged for 11 March 2022. It appears from the landlord’s repairs log that this was rescheduled and went ahead on 16 March 2022.
On 18 March 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the wall in the second bedroom had been plastered but was turning black with mould. A contractor attended on 6 April 2022 but noted that there was no access to the property and no key in the keysafe. The landlord rearranged the appointment for 12 April 2022 however no access could be gained on that occasion.
There was a gap in correspondence until 31 August 2022 when the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated that she had been decanted in June 2021 but the works were still incomplete and her and her daughter were “sofa surfing”. She added that the landlord had lost the keys to the property and had not responded to her about this.
On 24 October 2022 the landlord noted internally that the resident was a member of its staff and did not want to return to the property as she wished to be moved. It is not clear if the resident had said as such or if this was an assumption by the landlord.
The date is not clear but in early November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that it communication should be better in respect of the decant. She reiterated that the keys to her property had gone missing. She stated that the landlord had accused her of abandoning the property and she had almost lost her tenancy as a result. She asked for a senior member of staff to take ownership of managing the matters.
The landlord contacted its surveyor about the outstanding works on 7 November 2022. The surveyor advised the landlord that the works (it is not clear which) had been completed and it would address the “other issues” with the resident when it inspected the property.
On 23 November 2022 the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the property and noted as follows:
1. There were no signs of damp or mould in the property.
2. It would request another CCTV inspection of the drainage to make sure there were no leaks.
3. The basement under the property had been checked. Security screens needed to be fitted on the windows and doorway in the basement as it was “being used as drug den”.
4. The fire team should check the fire stopping, as the ceiling in the basement under the resident’s property was damaged.
The landlord contacted the resident that same day and advised that its surveyor had inspected the property and it was in a suitable condition, with no concerns raised. The surveyor had identified that there were a few minor repairs required however this would not affect the resident moving back into the property.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 29 November 2022 and stated as follows:
1. The works had been completed on 5 July 2021 and it had advised the resident that she could move back into the property. The resident had declined and so a surveyor had carried out an inspection on 4 August 2021. It was confirmed that all works related to the decant had been completed, namely “removal of floor to locate and rectify as the cause of issue was believed to be linked to weeping pipework”.
2. Some repairs (related to the basement ceiling) were separate from the decant works. This has been raised but did not impact the resident moving back into the property.
3. A further inspection was carried out on 15 December 2021 and it was again confirmed that there were no issues with the property and that the resident could return.
4. As part of investigating the complaint, the landlord had explained as above to the resident however she had insisted that there were still works outstanding. It had therefore arranged another inspection to investigate the resident’s concerns on 18 November 2022, during which its surveyor had been unable to identify any signs of damp and mould in the property.
5. It had completed a CCTV survey of the drains in 2021 and no leaks had been found. Due to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in her daughter’s bedroom it had arranged a further CCTV survey for 12 December 2022.
6. It apologised for the delay in responding at stage 1 and offered £100 compensation in respect of the delay.
On 16 December 2022 the resident escalated her complaint and stated as follows:
1. A contractor had inspected the damp and had stated that it was not rising damp and mentioned the way the resident lived and nothing further had been done.
2. The landlord had only taken her complaint seriously after she had sent it to the CEO.
3. Works to the floor and damp had been completed in June 2021.
4. The flooring and damp had damaged some of her furniture and possessions.
5. Following the decant she had found the property was in a “state/poor standard” and no post inspection had been carried out. The outstanding issues related to:
  1. Doors were not closing and doorframes were not fixed in place.
  2. Skirting boards were damaged and missing.
  3. There were holes and falling plaster.
  4. The hallway cupboard was damp and smelt mouldy.
  5. The kitchen worktop was damaged.
  6. The kitchen unit doors did not close properly and backing to the kitchen cupboards was missing.
  7. The rising damp in her daughter’s room was still present.
6. The only works which had been completed was the replacement flooring.
7. None of the additional works had been attempted until March/April 2022.
8. The front and rear door keys were misplaced by the landlord which she reported several times with no reply. Without a front door key she could only enter the property via the back door.
9. She could not recall any CCTV inspection having been carried out to the drains. She requested a copy of the full report.
10. She made a subject access request in respect of all reports and complaints sent relating to the floors, damp and mould and all other repairs relating to the decant from 2020.
11. She had not had any update or communication from a call she made on 8 December regarding the drain works.
On 10 Janaury 2023 the landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 31 January 2023 (the response was incorrectly dated as 2022) and stated as follows:
1. Its surveyor had arranged for another CCTV survey of the waste stack on 12 December 2022. This had not been able to go ahead as there was no access to the property. This had been re-booked for 25 January 2023.
2. The resident could have moved back to the property on 5 July 2021 as all that remained were minor issues that would not require a further decant
3. It had arranged for outstanding works to be actioned on 4 October 2022. A contractor attended but could not gain access so this was rearranged for 17 October 2022 when again there was no access. This job had been closed down as per its process.
4. There had not been any service failures and the stage 1 response was fair, reasonable and accurate.
5. It acknowledged that there had been a delay in responding at stage 2 and offered £50 compensation in respect of this. This was in addition to the £100 offered for the delayed stage 1 response.
On 21 June 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. Rising damp had been ongoing since 2009. She suspected that the drain and pipework had never been investigated.
2. There was a large void below her property with poor structure and dangerous chemicals. The landlord had removed most of the dangerous chemicals where the kitchen floor fell through during renewal.
3. Her daughter’s room had been treated for mould and painted however the paint would turn black and fall off.
4. Damp and mould had damaged furniture and flooring and replacing them had been costly.
5. There were leaks in the kitchen.
6. The matters had affected her and her daughter’s health including asthma, stress, high blood pressure, thyroid and heart issues. Her daughter had allergies and ongoing tonsillitis.
7. Staying with friends and family has been stressful and costly.
8. The landlord had lost her keys to my property in March/April 2022.
9. She requested the landlord take the following action:
  1. Carry out a drain inspection to resolve the rising damp.
  2. Rectify the floor and areas of damp.
  3. Replace the lost front door key or change the lock.
  4. Investigate the structure of the void below the properly as the kitchen floor was beginning to sink/move.
  5. Investigate an infestation in her daughter’s room.
  6. Investigate a large puddle.
  7. Provide compensation.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

On 13 July 2023 the resident advised this Service that she was “at a real low” due to not having had a bed to sleep in for a couple of years. She stated that living out of suitcases and boxes was affecting her and that she had constant back and neck pains. She advised this Service on 26 July 2023 that it had been over 2 years since being decanted and the repairs had not been completed. She stated that the landlord had accused her of abandoning the property and had asked her to move back in or sign a termination of tenancy.
On 13 September 2023 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. The landlord had taken 6-7 months to provide a replacement key and this was for the backdoor only.
2. She had been to the property in November 2022 and found incomplete works.
3. In May 2023 the landlord changed her back door locks. It had not responded to her about this.
4. The landlord had not given her the code to access the key safe and she could not allow entry for a condition survey or a boiler check.
5. The landlord was harassing her for refusing access.
On 27 September 2023 the resident advised this Service that she had attended the property with an operative on 22 September 2023 in respect of the key. On entering the property, she found that someone had opened her daughter’s post about a scheduled operation and had put it in a rubbish bag. She stated that damp had returned in the bedroom.
On 9 October 2023 the storage company contacted the resident about her possessions. The resident advised that the works had not been completed and she could not return to the property. The landlord noted internally on 11 October 2023 that it had checked the property for damp and mould and none had been found. It noted there was no reason for the resident to not return to the property. The landlord discussed internally how it could move forward and agreed for a member of staff to attend the property, inspect it and discuss matters with the resident. The landlord attended the property on 20 October 2023 and noted that the resident had removed the keys and was not present so it could not gain entry. The landlord contacted the resident to rearrange this visit. It noted on 14 November 2023 that the resident was not engaging after several attempts to try to arrange a visit at the property. The landlord noted that unannounced visits would be the next step to try to contact the resident.
The landlord carried out an unannounced visit at the property on 23 November 2023 and noted that there were no signs of anyone living there. It noted that the resident had informed it of a bereavement on 14 November 2023 which may be impacting her communication. It noted that it would try to contact her again via email to arrange a visit and that if it did not hear from her by 7 December 2023, it would assume she did not want to return back to the property.
On 7 December 2023 the landlord noted internally that it had heard from the resident who has stated as follows:
1. The drain had been identified as a concern in 2021. She had not received the drain report despite requesting it many times.
2. The damp had been ongoing for 14 years.
3. The landlord had had access to the property when it changed the locks.
4. The property needed decorating and treating for mould.
5. There was no flooring, mattresses or cooker.
6. A member of landlord’s staff had illegally opened her daughter’s post.
On 2 February 2024 the resident advised this Service that she had met the landlord and surveyor at the property on 25 January 2024. She advised that it had been concluded that rising damp from the floor was present. This had caused damage to her carpet and furniture. This Service has not seen this information from the surveyor.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It must be noted that this Service is not a reactive service and as such this investigation only considers the matters investigated by the landlord during its internal complaints procedure which concluded in January 2023. The resident subsequently reported further matters to the landlord and this Service. The following matters raised after the completion of the internal complaints procedure do not form part of this investigation as the landlord has not had the opportunity to address them via its internal complaints process. If the resident wished to pursue these aspects she is advised to raise them via the landlord’s complaints procedure:
1. A letter addressed to her daughter having been opened.
2. Leaks in the kitchen.
3. An infestation.
4. A puddle.
5. Interior decoration.
6. The lack of a cooker or mattresses.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. This Service does however have the discretion to consider events which occurred earlier in time. In this case the complaint was made in August 2022, however consideration has been given to events since 2021 (when the decant was found to be required) as they are linked to the complaint.
It is noted that the resident has stated that the landlord’s actions in respect of the repairs impacted her health and that of her daughter. It is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the actions or inactions of the landlord and the resident of her daughter’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice if she considers that her or her daughter’s health had been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord.

Handling of repairs at the property

The Housing Ombudsman produced a Spotlight report in 2021 to highlight the issue of damp and mould. This set out that landlords should adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould and be proactive in identifying potential issues with a property. This Service recommended that landlords should consider whether they require a policy to address damp and mould. It is noted that the landlord now has such a policy although this was not published until February 2023, after this complaint.
Given the issues identified with the flooring and damp and mould in 2020 it was appropriate for the landlord to temporarily decant the resident during these works. It is noted however that the landlord deemed a temporary decant necessary on 6 January 2021, however it did not decant the resident until 14 June 2021, over 5 months later. It is noted that the landlord’s decant policy does not provide a timescale from identifying the requirement for a temporary decant to the landlord arranging this, however this Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord having explained this delay to the resident.
In addition, this Service has not seen evidence of any acknowledgment from the landlord of the impact this delay had on the resident, who described “living out of suitcases”. This delay of over 5 months was not reasonable and meant that the resident was left living in a property in a poor condition. Whilst it is accepted that temporary decants can take time to arrange, the landlord should have kept the resident informed of the situation, the reason for the delay and the steps it was taking to try to minimise the impact of this on her.
During the temporary decant period, other repairs were arranged such as repairing the kitchen worktop which had been damaged from a boiler leak. This appointment did not go ahead due to a lack of access at the property. The landlord was aware that it had temporarily decanted the resident however it arranged the appointment despite knowing the resident would not be at the property to provide access. This was not appropriate and demonstrated a lack of record keeping or effective communication between the landlord and its contractors.
Following the decant works having been completed between 14 June 2021 and 4 July 2021, the landlord advised the resident that she could return to the property. It is not clear what this assurance was based on as the landlord’s surveyor did not carry out a post inspection at the property until 4 August 2021, one month later. Given the resident’s concerns about the property, the landlord reasonably arranged for another surveyor inspection to take place with the resident present (on 15 December 2021). It was reiterated on that occasion that the property was suitable for the resident to return to. Despite this, the resident advised this Service that she felt unable to return to the property and that staying with friends and family impacted her financially and caused her health issues. The landlord’s policy on temporary decants is clear that such a decant is commenced with the intention of returning the resident to the property at the earliest opportunity. Although there was a delay in the surveyor confirming the property as suitable, once this had been confirmed, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its expert and expect the resident to return to the property.
The landlord subsequently arranged another surveyors inspection for November 2022. This found outstanding actions to be undertaken at the property, namely a CCTV inspection of the drainage, the installation of security screens in the basement and for the fire stopping to be checked due to damage to the basement ceiling under the resident’s property. Despite the surveyor identifying these works, the landlord advised the resident that its surveyor had raised no concerns about the property. There is no evidence that the landlord shared the drug use issues with the resident, which would have been reasonable given her concerns about the property and reluctance to return. This lack of transparency was also mirrored in the landlord’s complaint responses which only contained parts of the surveyors findings, namely that no damp and mould had been found and that a CCTV inspection had been arranged.
Once the temporary decant period had ended, the landlord arranged subsequent contractor appointments in respect of other repairs around March and April 2022. These appointments did not go ahead due to no access at the property. Given the content of the resident’s complaints it should have been apparent to the landlord that the resident was not living at the address. It therefore should have taken steps to have spoken to the resident about how it could gain access and what further action it would take in respect of this (it being a condition of her tenancy). This was particularly concerning as one of the outstanding repairs was in respect of checking fire stopping, a potential health and safety issue. As per the landlord’s policy on no access, a staff member should have been assigned to the matter, however there is no evidence the landlord followed its policy in doing so. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord took further action to try to resolve the outstanding repairs until the resident submitted her complaint in August 2022.
It is noted that the resident advised the landlord that it had lost her door key following the decant, which restricted her access to the property. It is noted that the landlord did not respond to this aspect of her complaint. As this was related to the failed contractor appointments and the resident’s ability to be present for such appointments, this is something the landlord should have addressed and taken steps to put right, however there is no evidence that it did so.
The lack of entry to the property did not absolve the landlord of its repair responsibilities. Despite this, the landlord was not proactive in taking steps to gain entry to the property and instead it closed the jobs down without the repairs being carried out. This resulted in the property remaining unoccupied with evidence of both its state declining and the basement being misused (as outlined by the surveyor).
It is noted that by the time the stage 2 response was issued (January 2023) both the spotlight report on damp and mould (2021) and a Housing Ombudsman Special Report on the landlord had been published (October 2022). Despite both of these setting out learning for the landlord in how it responds to reports of damp and mould, the landlord has not demonstrated such learning in how it responded in this case. The special report identified that the landlord had a reoccurring pattern of not actively managing such cases and recording that it had been unable to gain access to carry out inspections or repairs. This case has identified similar failings which demonstrates a lack of learning from the landlord.
It is noted that within the complaint responses the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the damage caused to her possessions which she advised had been due to the issues with the flooring and mould (the works she was decanted for). This was not appropriate as the Housing Ombudsman dispute resolution principles state that each aspect of complaint should be responded to. Given the resident’s concern about damaged items, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have advised her on how to make an insurance claim in respect of this. There is no evidence that it did so.
In summary, it was reasonable for the landlord to temporarily decant the resident in order to carry out the required works. This decant however was unreasonably delayed by the landlord with no explanation provided to the resident who did not know when she would be moving out of the property. When the landlord completed the works the resident had been decanted for it advised her that she could return to the property without a post inspection having been carried out by an surveyor. This was not reasonable. Following this however the suitability of the property was confirmed by 2 further inspections, with the first of these inspections taking place within a month of the landlord’s confirming the property was fit for the resident’s return. At this point it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to return to the property. The resident however chose not to return despite the landlord having confirmed that the property was suitable. The Housing Ombudsman spotlight report on damp and mould suggests that landlords should be open about the progress of works. Given that the resident had raised concerns about the quality of the works and the condition of the property, the landlord could have done more to reassure her. In addition the landlord there is no evidence that the landlord provided the information the resident had requested (a copy of the CCTV surveyor report). This is another recommendation of the spotlight report which the landlord failed to follow.
This Service is unable to make a binding decision as to whether the works identified and then completed by the landlord fully resolved the damp and mould issues reported by the resident. However, it is clear that the landlord delayed in identifying and completing works, left further works unresolved following its confirmation that the property was fit to return to and communicated poorly throughout. It also failed to provide the resident with relevant information upon request. In all the circumstances, a determination of maladministration has been identified, with compensation awarded to reflect the impact of the landlord’s failures had on the resident over a protracted period. In line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance, where there were a number of failures which adversely impacted a resident, compensation of £700 has been ordered. This amount acknowledges that the resident was caused distress as a result of failures of the landlord over a period of time.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s interim complaints policy from June 2022, is the current complaints policy on its public facing website. Despite a recommendation by this Service following the Special Report (in October 2022), for the landlord to amend its complaints policy to be compliant with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code), this has not been actioned. The landlord’s complaints policy remains non-compliant with the Code. The Code is clear that at stage 1 landlord’s should respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy of 20 and 40 working days respectively is not appropriate in light of the Code or the feedback it has received from this Service in respect of amending its policy.
The landlord took 64 working days to respond at stage 1 and 30 working days to respond at stage 2. Both of these delays were unreasonable and although some compensation was offered in respect of the delays, no explanation was provided nor was any learning identified by the landlord to prevent this in the future. The landlord’s delays at both stages of the complaints process caused frustration to the resident and delayed her being able to refer her case to this Service. In addition the landlord did not address all of the issues raised within the complaint. It did not address her requests for the CCTV survey report, her reports that there was still black mould or the issue with the keys. This failure to provide information reasonably requested by the resident caused her frustration and confusion.
When things go wrong, this Service expects landlord’s to take steps to put things right and learn from mistakes. In this case, whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation the £100 offered at stage 1 and £50 for the delay at stage 2 were not sufficient to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident for the significant delay. This was not reasonable and amounts to a service failure.
In addition to the £150 compensation offered by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling failures, this Service has ordered an additional £100 compensation. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a resident has been caused distress and frustration due to the landlord’s failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord unreasonably delayed the temporarily decent. It subsequently advised the resident that she could return to the property without a post inspection having been carried out by an surveyor. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in respect of her damaged possessions. The landlord did not ensure repairs were carried out in a reasonable timeframe or in line with its repairs policy. It relied on having no access at the property for the repairs not having been completed and was not proactive in managing the repairs.
The landlord’s complaints policy is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code, despite this having been brought to the landlord’s attention to action previously. The landlord did not respond in a reasonable time at stage 1 or 2. In addition it did not address all of the aspects of complaint. Although it offered compensation, this was not sufficient to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £950 compensation as follows:
  1. £700 to acknowledge the impact to the resident of the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property.
  2. £150 compensation offered during the internal complaints procedure for complaint handling failures if this has not already been paid.
  3. An additional £100 to acknowledge the complaint handling failures.
3. Share with the resident any relevant information that it has from the various surveys it has undertaken, including the survey form January 2024.
4. The landlord is to ensure that its published complaints policy accords with the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord undertake staff training on handling no access appointments where works in respect of damp and mould or health and safety concerns are involved.