Clarion Housing Association Limited (202305675)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305675

Clarion Housing Association Limited

8 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 reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Work required to windows.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping with respect to the issues.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom house.
  2. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident. The resident told the landlord his wife has asthma. He informed this Service he has sleep apnoea.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about damp and mould in the property and the condition of the windows.
  4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 12 July 2023. It stated that a surveyor inspected the property on 12 July 2023. They raised a follow-up inspection of the roof and loft to ensure there were no other factors causing the damp and mould. On 24 July 2023, it would remove and replace any rotting timber around the windows and doors, replace the sealant, and complete a mould wash of all affected areas. It offered £400 compensation to the resident.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 6 October 2023, the landlord confirmed it completed the works at stage 1 and identified no damp in the loft. It deemed the windows to be in serviceable condition. It added the windows to its provisional programme of works for replacement in the 2025/2026 fiscal year. It offered the resident an additional£50 compensation for the delay responding to the complaint.
  6. The landlord reviewed the complaint again and offered the resident an additional £400 compensation on 4 January 2024. This resulted in a total compensation offer of £850.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said several surveyors told him the windows needed replacing and he had been waiting a long time for this to happen. He referred the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

  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.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident was concerned about the impact the living conditions had on the occupants of the property. 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 he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of a subject access request (SAR) and asbestos issues in the property. These matters did not form part of the resident’s complaint. 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. We cannot consider complaints about the landlord’s handling of a SAR as it is not within our jurisdiction. This would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property

  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 one 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 responsive repairs policy sets out that it should complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. From time to time, repairs will need completing outside of this timescale due to material shortages or unforeseen circumstances. The landlord will monitor these cases and aim to keep the resident updated regularly.
  4. Following the resident’ formal complaint, the landlord said the resident reported a rotten windowsill and a loss of heat on 10 December 2021, which it attended on 4 January 2022. Its operatives noted the windows required further investigation regarding heat loss, damp, and mould. The operatives advised the landlord to refer the matter to a surveyor.
  5. The resident said a surveyor attended around May 2022 and informed him the windows would be replaced. The landlord has not provided evidence from this period. Comments from a webchat submitted by the landlord shows the resident chased it for an update on 3 November 2022, but still provide no clarity about whether its surveyors had recommended the replacement of the windows.
  6. The landlord explained that the resident reported further problems with damp, mould, and condensation on 20 December 2023, which it inspected on 16 January 2023. It has, however, not provided evidence of the resident’s report from this time or records from the inspection.
  7. Neither party disputes that following an initial inspection in January 2022, the landlord failed to progress repairs within its agreed service level or keep the resident updated. This understandably caused the resident concern and frustration, as he explained within his complaint.
  8. Following an inspection on 12 July 2023, the landlord confirmed it completed the repairs it promised at stage 1 within a reasonable period. It also inspected the loft to check if there were other issues contributing to the damp and mould. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  9. From the limited information provided, it is evident the landlord did not update the resident regularly and he spent time chasing for updates and attempting to drive the repairs forward. The Ombudsman finds the communication failings exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the resident.
  10. After considering all the circumstances of this case, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its delays and poor communication and apologise to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy does not include specific amounts but states that it will, “consider the extent, severity, and impact of the failure.” Once the landlord was advised that the resident initially complained in January 2022 and not January 2023 (as initially informed by this Service), it acted appropriately by reviewing its final complaint response. It checked its records and recognised the resident initially reported issues in December 2021. It offered an additional £400 compensation to recognise the delays addressing the matter. The Ombudsman is minded it was appropriate for the landlord to reconsider its position and increase its compensation offer.
  11. The £800 compensation offered by the landlord for the delays and poor communication was proportionate to the nature and scale of the works. It is surmised that around £400 of the £800 awarded was for the damp and mould (although the landlord has not been explicit in its calculations) which we consider appropriate. It offered additional redress for its delay confirming its position with the windows, which has been addressed below. The landlord also offered £50 for the delay responding to the complaint. The total redress was in-line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for complaints where there was a failure that had a significant impact on a resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident.
  12. Nonetheless, in view of the record keeping failures identified and the overall impact this had on our investigation, the Ombudsman has considered this as a separate complaint element and assessed the landlord’s action in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of work required to windows

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that major component replacements are not responsive repairs, and these items should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes.
  2. Window replacements are major works and not something a landlord can usually undertake on an immediate basis. Landlords have a specific budget each fiscal year. Having a defined annual schedule for major works allows it to use its budget effectively by identifying in advance which properties require upgrades and managing the works accordingly.
  3. The Ombudsman finds it reasonable that following the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged for its repairs team to assess the current condition of the windows on 19 September 2023. The landlord’s internal records show an operative reported, “the remaining aluminium framed windows should be replaced, along with those that have already been done.” The landlord then followed its policy by referring the matter to its planned investment team.
  4. Following this, the planned investment team completed a stock condition survey on 3 October 2023. The surveyor reported that the landlord should renew the windows within the next 24 months, and although serviceable, they were around 30 years old. This would allow for the window replacement works to be conducted alongside other planned work identified at the property.
  5. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord told the resident that if any issues or significant changes arise with his windows while waiting for a replacement, he should contact the repairs team. This is what the Ombudsman would expect in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord has not provided a copy of the stock condition survey or window assessment to this Service, which has impacted our understanding of its decision making. However, it has provided emails and excerpts from the surveyors that attended the property. While the full reports have not been shared, the information the landlord provided demonstrates its position.
  7. The landlord has relied on the findings of its planned investment team. A landlord is entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly its decision to add the window replacements to its provisional programme of works for 2025/2026 was reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £400 for “outstanding window repairs, damp and mould”. Following its final complaint response, it offered a further £400 to the resident for, “delays in addressing window issues relating to damp and mould”. The landlord has not provided a full breakdown of its redress calculation. However, in view of the circumstances and evidence available, the Ombudsman concludes the total redress awarded is reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.

Record keeping

  1. The landlord failed to provide reports from any inspections, full records of communication with the resident, or a repair history for the property. Nor has it provided evidence or an explanation as to the cause of damp and mould. Further, its internal emails show its complaint handler had to frequently chase other members of staff for information during its investigation, rather than evidence being readily accessible. The Ombudsman finds this contributed to the delays experienced by the resident.
  2. It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This will enable it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. It cannot thoroughly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records, and this could result in unfairness to the resident. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with adequate information to enable us to fully investigate the matter referred to us. It failed to do so in this case.
  3. The Ombudsman conducted a special investigation into this landlord, published in October 2022. Within our report, we identified a theme of poor record keeping across several complaints. Inaccurate or incomplete records not only hamper the landlord’s initial response to service requests, such as reports of damp and mould, but can also lead to poor complaint responses. Complaint officers rely on timely and accurate records when responding to complaints – including technical issues concerning property conditions. Therefore, the quality of record keeping directly impacts the quality of complaint responses.
  4. Within our special report, we recommended that the landlord review its record keeping and communications. The landlord accepted our recommendation. It is a concern that in this case, the Ombudsman has identified failures in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
  5. Considering the above, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident for the impact the landlord’s record keeping has had on the fair and thorough investigation into his complaint. This constitutes a finding of service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme:
    1. The landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint about work required to windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping with respect to the issues.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation. This reflects the impact the landlord’s record keeping failures had on the resident.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities he and the members of the household may have and update its internal records accordingly (subject to any data protection requirements).

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the resident the £850 it previously offered, if not already paid. This compensation recognised genuine elements of service failure. The Ombudsman has made a reasonable redress finding on the basis the landlord pays this to the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident directly to address his recent reports of damp and mould in the bathroom, living room, and bedroom that he told this Service about in July 2024.
  3. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord provides a more detailed redress   breakdown when awarding compensation in future complaints with more than 1 substantive issue.