Clarion Housing Association Limited (202333655)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333655

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 February 2026

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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. Reports of boiler repairs.
3. Request for a kitchen renewal.
4. Concerns about its handling of asbestos removal.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 4-bedroom house, since 2007. The resident has previously experienced domestic violence and has mental health vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord. The resident’s son who also resides at the property, has physical and mental health vulnerabilities that the landlord is also aware of.
For context, the landlord was subject to a cyber-security incident in June 2022. This created significant disruption to its IT systems and impacted the delivery of services to its residents at the time.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 June 2022. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had “neglected [repairs] for years” in her property. The outstanding repairs included the bathroom light and extractor fan, damp and mould in the kitchen, cracks in the exterior and interior walls at the rear of the property, the gutters at the rear of the property, and no heating or hot water.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 October 2022. It said:
1. It had identified some service failures in its handling of the repairs and complaint and apologised to the resident.
1. In relation to the outstanding repairs:
  1. It had conducted a property inspection on 14 July 2022, which highlighted the outstanding works required.
  2. It had completed the bathroom light repair on 9 August 2022.
  3. It had scheduled external repairs for 21 October 2022 and internal repairs for 24 October 2022.
2. It offered the resident a total of £450 compensation. It explained that £350 of its offer was in relation to “the repairs, including damp and mould”, and £100 for its complaint handling delays.
The resident responded to the landlord on 17 October 2022. She declined its offer of compensation and said that she was unhappy with the following issues:
1. The damp in the property had caused damage to her personal possessions and was also causing respiratory issues.
1. She had been given 2 job numbers for over 10 repairs. She felt that this did not make sense.
2. She still had no heating in the property.
3. The landlord had attended 4 years ago to measure up for a kitchen replacement (as she had no kitchen in the property). However, the works remained outstanding.
4. The landlord had ignored her repeated requests for an investigation into her safety concerns about the removal of asbestos in the kitchen.
5. The landlord had not fully investigated its handling of the bathroom light repair.
6. In relation to broken waste pipes and blockages (resulting in faeces covering the garden under the decking), she was left without a toilet and water for over a week.
7. The landlord had not offered her family the appropriate support after being subject to years of domestic abuse by her ex-partner.
On 24 February 2023, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. She said she was unhappy that following a recent repair, the landlord had “fly-tipped” some materials in the lane to the rear of the property.
The landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 10 March 2023. It said:
1. All repairs highlighted during an inspection at the property had been completed on 19 December 2022, apart from a soil pipe repair.
1. It had been unable to complete the damp related repairs in the kitchen due to lack of access. It had emailed the resident on several occasions, but she did not respond until 18 January 2023. The repairs were completed within target timescales, on 1 February 2023.
2. It had not considered a permanent decant previously, as all repairs reported by the resident had been addressed. However, due to the aging of the property, substantial works were now required, and it therefore seemed a “sensible option” to permanently decant the resident. It confirmed that it would offer her a direct let when a suitable property became available. However, as it could not confirm how long this would take, it had arranged for its regional manager to visit on 13 March 2023 to review any additional issues in the property.
3. The resident would need to make a claim for any damaged personal possessions through her contents insurance. It also provided her with details on how to make a claim through its own insurers.
4. If the resident had concerns about how the condition of the property had impacted her son’s health, she would also need to make a claim through its insurers.
5. It had responded to the resident about the “lack of kitchen” previously and had also discussed it further during an appointment at the property on 8 December 2022. It had since used its discretion to allow the resident to choose her new kitchen design.
6. In relation to the boiler repairs, its heating contractor had attended the property on an emergency appointment on 27 June 2022 and repressurised the system. The contractor had attended again on 21 October 2022 and established that a new fan was required. This was installed on 4 November 2022. It acknowledged that during this period, it should have offered the resident an alternative source of heating.
7. Due to the cyber-security incident, it was unable to provide the resident with dates and job numbers connected to the asbestos removal repair. However, the specialist asbestos contractor’s documentation showed that during the works (on 6 September 2018) an air test was undertaken. It said this demonstrated that there was no uncontrolled release of asbestos fibres.
8. In relation to the resident’s concerns about it failing to offer her family appropriate support in relation to domestic abuse, its neighbourhood response officer had been supporting her with a move. It had also addressed her security concerns on 8 December 2022.
9. Following the resident’s report of fly-tipping on 24 February 2023, it had visited the lane behind her property to remove the materials, but there was nothing there.
10. It offered the resident £250 compensation. Of this, £150 was in relation to its handling of the boiler repairs. The additional £100 was in recognition of the complaint handling delays.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 16 March 2023. She said this was because “nothing [had] been resolved”. On 3 April 2023, the resident completed a delegated authority form and asked the landlord to liaise directly with her representative in relation to the outstanding issues and complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 May 2023. It said:
1. It had completed repairs to address the damp and mould in the property on 24 October 2022. It had then inspected the property on 8 December 2022 and confirmed there was no damp and mould present.
1. It accepted that there was an urgent need for the resident to move (due to the outstanding “substantial” repairs), and it was committed to offering her a direct let when a suitable property became available. It encouraged the resident to continue to bid on other homes on the choice-based lettings system in the meantime.
2. The kitchen had been removed by the resident’s partner and was not due to be replaced via its planned works programme until the 2025/26 financial year. In the meantime, it was “not legally required” to put right any damage caused by tenants but accepted that the current arrangement was unsatisfactory for the resident. As such, it had raised a repair to install a sink base unit and top, 2 small base units and a worktop either side of the cooker.
3. It apologised to the resident for its handling of the boiler repair. It said it had also failed to award the appropriate amount of compensation at stage 1.
4. It maintained that it was unable to provide the resident with any further information about the asbestos removal appointment in September 2018.
5. It offered the resident an additional £290 compensation (total £990), calculated as follows:
  1. £140 for the lack of heating and hot water (total of £290).
  2. £100 for its complaint handling (total of £300).
  3. £50 for “contact requirement”, which included “inconvenience and vulnerability”.

Events after the end of the complaints process

The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 14 July 2024 to challenge some aspects of the landlord’s stage 2 response. His main concern was that he felt the landlord’s stance in relation to the damp and mould repairs was contradictory. He asked the landlord to provide a further response before he escalated the issue to our Service for consideration. On 16 October 2024, the landlord issued a stage 2 “addendum”. It confirmed that incorrect information had been included in its stage 2 response and provided an updated version.
Within the stage 2 addendum, the landlord offered the resident an additional £150 for its complaint handling (total £450). It also said it would reimburse the resident for 25% of the weekly rent (as 1 of the rooms was uninhabitable due to the damp) once she had moved out of the property.
The resident’s tenancy ended on 9 April 2024. On 7 May 2024, the landlord paid a compensation payment of £1,605.14 directly into her rent account. This was based on 25% of the daily charge for 383 days between 2022 and 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such, we will not make an assessment of the following issues (but will address any associated complaint handling failures):
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom light. This is because we have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated its handling of the issue, as it did not reference its findings in its stage 1 (10 March 2023) and stage 2 responses.
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of broken waste pipe repairs (referenced in the resident’s email on 17 October 2022). This is because we have seen no evidence that the landlord investigated its handling of the issue, as it did not reference its findings in its stage 1 (10 March 2023) and stage 2 responses.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for domestic abuse support. This is because there is no evidence that the landlord investigated its handling of the issue, as it did not respond to her concerns within its stage 2 response.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its operatives fly-tipping. This is because there is no evidence that the landlord responded to her concerns within its stage 2 response.
Within the resident’s initial request to make a complaint on 8 June 2022, she said that the damp and mould repairs had been ongoing “for years”. The available records indicate that between 2010 and 2022, the resident reported leaks, and damp and mould to the landlord on numerous occasions. The fact that problems were recurring is not disputed, but the evidence suggests that some of the issues were unrelated, and the situation was not continuous. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it did not clarify the period it was considering as part of its investigation. This will be assessed within the complaint handling section of this report. As such, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions from June 2021 onwards. This is in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Scheme, which states that we may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period (usually 12 months from the matter arising). However, as the case involves a high level of communication, it has not been possible to detail and assess every event within this report.
The evidence suggests that the asbestos removal repair occurred in September 2018. However, as the landlord provided a response to this matter within its internal complaints procedure (ICP), we have also considered this element of the complaint within our investigation. It is important to highlight that due to the lack of documentary evidence available, it has been challenging for this Service to assess several aspects of the case.
The resident has described how she feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue has negatively impacted on her family’s physical and mental health. While we do not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with the Scheme. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Leaks, damp and mould

Landlords must assess property conditions using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). While HHSRS does not set minimum standards, it focuses on identifying and minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould fall within its scope as potential health risks. Landlords should be aware of their responsibilities under HHSRS and take appropriate action when hazards are identified. Improvement works are typically the first step, followed by ongoing monitoring to ensure conditions do not deteriorate.
The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould (LCDM) policy states that it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. It states that it will carry out repairs, remedial works, or improvements to rectify any problems.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs reported by residents are divided into 2 categories. Emergency repairs are classified as those that present an immediate danger to the resident, public or property. They will be attended within 24 hours to make safe, with further works potentially required. Non-emergency repairs are appointed by the landlord’s contact centre at the initial point of contact and will be offered within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may not offer compensation payments in certain circumstances, including claims that should be covered by the resident’s home contents insurance policy. This includes damage to belongings due to leaks, flood, or fire. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she is responsible for any contents insurance.
The evidence suggests that the resident was experiencing and reporting issues with leaks, damp and mould within several rooms of the property. This included her son’s bedroom, living room, dining room and kitchen. It is important to note that the landlord’s record keeping, and complaint handling has made it difficult for this Service to determine which specific repairs were directly related to the issues that the resident raised as part of her formal complaint. This will be taken into consideration within the determination of this case.
On 8 June 2021, the landlord raised a repair for a leaking pipe in the kitchen (that it noted during a gas safety check). The records do not indicate how serious the leak was, so we are unable to assess the appropriateness of its response time of 16 calendar days (23 June 2021). There is also no evidence to demonstrate what work was undertaken during this appointment. This is a record keeping failure.
In August 2021, the resident reported that the walls in the property were wet, particularly in the kitchen. The landlord’s repair record indicate it attended on 31 August 2021 and inspected. The operative reported that the property required external plastering. The landlord cleared the guttering in September 2021 and completed replastering in October 2021.
On 17 February 2022, the resident reported various repairs to the landlord via email. In response, the landlord raised the following repairs on 22 February 2022:
1. Job number 99453648 – “Pipes in kitchen are still leaking, black mould in the kitchen, walls crumbling due to leak behind the toilet, damp and mould throughout due to roof and guttering leaking and gate lock is broken.”
1. Job number 99453646 – “Roof is leaking, check gutter is ok as water runs down external wall, causing damp inside.”
The landlord’s repair records show that it attended the property on 28 February 2022 on job number 99453648. This was a timely response. The repair notes stated that there was no leak from the toilet and upon inspection, the area was dry. However, a follow-up appointment was required for 2 operatives to lift the hallway flooring to investigate and repair a different leak. The evidence suggests that the resident specifically requested certain days for an appointment, and as such, the landlord appropriately provided her with a new appointment date of 25 March 2022.
On job number 99453646, the landlord attended the property on 16 March 2022 to investigate the roof leak. This was within 23 calendar days, and therefore in accordance with the timescales outlined in its repairs policy. During the appointment, the landlord identified that scaffolding was required. It subsequently raised a new repair on 22 March 2022 to erect the scaffolding. Although not considered an excessive delay (6 working days), we find the landlord’s lack of urgency unreasonable.
On 25 March 2022, the resident was unwell and requested a new appointment date (for job number 99453648). The repair took place on 25 May 2022, and the landlord renewed the pipe work in the affected area. As the landlord has provided no explanation as to why it took 62 days to reattend the property, we find that it acted unreasonably and at odds with the timescales outlined in its repairs policy. There is also no evidence to show that the landlord addressed the issue of black mould in the property on this work order. This was inappropriate.
The evidence suggests that the scaffolding was erected on 5 May 2022. This was 45 calendar days from the date the landlord raised the job, which we find unreasonable. The same day, the landlord raised a new repair (job number 99517144) to check the roof and gutters for a leak.
On 10 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that “the kitchen walls [were] still crumbling down due to the roof and gutters, and scaffolding had been [erected] at the front of [the property] but it was the back that needed repairing”. The landlord’s repair records suggest that it attended the property the following day (11 May 2022). However, it is not clear what work was undertaken during the appointment, which is a further record keeping failure.
The resident complained to the landlord on 8 June 2022. She confirmed that the kitchen walls continued to be affected by damp and mould, there were cracks in the walls and issues with the gutters at the back of the property.
The landlord inspected the property on 13 July 2022. The surveyor identified a number of repairs. This included removal of decking in the garden (which was rotten and suspected of causing damp on the kitchen walls), replastering, installation of a new bathroom extractor fan and mould treatment. The landlord did not arrange appointments to action the repairs until October 2022.
The landlord’s internal emails indicate that the decking was removed on 25 October 2022. It is unclear if the other damp and mould works were completed. The landlord’s repairs records state that a new work order was required. The operatives reported that ‘the walls at the back of the house… are soaking wet with damp so not feasible to complete [replastering]… the whole back of the property needs to be removed and re-rendered’. The landlord attempted to arrange a further appointment to reinspect in November 2022 and an appointment was booked for 8 December 2022.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 10 March 2023 indicated that the property was inspected for damp and mould on 8 December 2022. It noted that ‘it was confirmed that there was no damp and mould present’. The landlord has provided no evidence to support this finding from the visit in December 2022.
It is implausible that damp and mould was not present in December 2022. The findings on 25 October 2022 suggested a substantial issue to the exterior kitchen wall. The resident reported continuing damp, mould and crumbling walls in the kitchen in January 2023. The landlord’s surveyor who visited on 8 December 2022 acknowledged in an internal email on 13 January 2023 that the property required ‘extensive damp works’. This suggests that the issue remained and the remedial works were outstanding.
The landlord attended the property again on 14 February 2023. It was confirmed that extensive damp repair works were required to the kitchen and dining room/fourth bedroom. Render repairs were also needed to the external walls. The landlord made the decision to decant the resident permanently out of the property.
A HHSRS inspection was completed on 9 November 2023. Its findings in relation to damp and mould confirmed the following: ‘The rear elevation of the property suffers from damp in the kitchen, reception room and rear bedrooms of the property. The external finished floor level in the rear courtyard is higher than the internal floor level. The DPC [damp proof course] to the property has been compromised due to this issue… The gutter to the rear elevation and tenement of the building is blocked. It was raining at the time of the inspection, the runoff from the roof was missing the gutter and cascading down the external wall, again adding to the damp issue within the property. The gutter on the tenement has been installed and is too short, it does not run the whole length of the building… There has been a previous issue with damp in the bathroom. The wall in the bathroom have been battened and boarded previously. This would suggest that an issue with damp has been previously identified and remedial works undertaken in this room. There are no extractor units in the kitchen or bathroom. Installation of new extractor units would help to reduce the risk of dampness and condensation in these rooms.’
The available evidence indicates that the landlord did not complete damp and mould works prior to the resident moving out in April 2024. I acknowledge that the damp problems with the walls and DPC were significant and remedial works were extensive (and required the resident being decanted). However, the inspection in November 2023 makes it clear that there more practicable repairs that the landlord could have actioned while the resident remained in the property. These included installing extractor fans and fixing the guttering (an issue highlighted by the resident in June 2022). In addition, the landlord could have provided the resident with dehumidifiers to improve the damp conditions within the property.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that a 4-bedroom property without the use of a whole room should be compensated at 25% of the resident’s weekly rent. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been unable to use the dining room/fourth bedroom between February 2023 and April 2024 due to the scale of damp and mould in that room. While this compensation is welcomed, it does not acknowledge that damp and mould had been an issue in the property since 2021 and the issues were not limited to the dining room/fourth bedroom. It has also been calculated on the basis that damp and mould works were completed in October 2022 (and the issue reoccurred in February 2023). As noted above, the available evidence suggests significant damp and mould works were not completed in October 2022 and the problems identified in February 2023 were simply a continuation and worsening of the same issues from 2021 and 2022.
It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for extended periods. This not only increases the frustration and discomfort of the resident but can also lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve. Landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner.
Given the unreasonable delays the resident experienced waiting for the landlord to remedy extensive damp in the property, we have ordered a compensation award for the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their property. This has been calculated as £4,349.53 based on 40% of weekly rent for the period 8 June 2022 to 9 April 2024. By the time of the resident’s complaint in June 2022, the landlord had already been given sufficient time to inspect and complete damp and mould works. Although some limited remedial works were completed in the 22 months after, the landlord ultimately left a vulnerable household to live in damp and mould conditions affecting a number of rooms in the property (the child’s bedroom, living room, dining room [which the landlord classed as a fourth bedroom] and the kitchen).
Separately, we have also considered the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. Keeping in mind the household’s vulnerabilities and the length of time living with significant damp and mould, we have awarded compensation for distress and inconvenience of £1,000. It is acknowledged that there are periods where the resident has been compensated at 60% of weekly rent. This is intentional. The resident’s use and enjoyment of the property was significantly impacted by multiple issues between June 2022 and August 2023 that the landlord continually failed to address.
Our investigation has identified significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen renewal and leaks, damp and mould. To improve the service offered to residents, it is essential for landlords to learn from outcomes. I have not identified that the landlord has invested time in self reflection on this complaint. I have therefore ordered that it completes a senior management review into the case to identify additional learning and improvement.
To conclude, we have made a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould. This is because:
1. A range of repair issues remained unresolved for several years.
1. It failed to adhere to the timescales outlined in its repairs policy.
2. It failed to follow the guidance outlined in its LCDM policy.
3. Its record keeping was poor and this resulted in it providing inaccurate information in its complaint response.
4. On occasions, its communication with the resident was lacking.
5. It failed to appropriately identify and apologise to the resident for most of the failings identified in this report.
6. There is considerable disparity between the amount of compensation awarded and the level of redress that we consider is needed to put things right.

Reports of boiler repairs

The landlord’s repair responsibilities are set out on its website. It states that it is responsible for boiler repairs, and that it uses specialist local contractors to undertake these repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that its residents can report repairs via several channels, including email. Within the resident’s email to the landlord (to make a complaint) on 8 June 2022, she said that the property had had no heating or hot water since repairs were undertaken “to the pipes”. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, we have seen no documentary evidence that the landlord was aware that the property had no heating or hot water before this date. We therefore cannot find that the landlord acted unreasonably in this instance.
The landlord responded to the resident on 17 June 2022 and asked her to confirm if the repair was still outstanding. We find that the landlord’s delay of 7 working days to contact the resident about the repair was unreasonable. Also, in normal circumstances we would have expected the landlord to check its own repair records to determine if the repairs were outstanding. However, we accept that around this time, the landlord had been subject to the cyber-security incident which affected its access to its repair records.
The resident responded to the landlord via email on 25 June 2022 and confirmed that the repair was outstanding. The landlord raised a repair 2 calendar days later, on 27 June 2022, and the repair contractor attended the same day. This was in accordance with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy. During the appointment, the evidence suggests that the repair contractor refilled the pressure in the heating system.
The landlord’s stage 1 response (from 14 October 2022) did not reference or explain the outcome of its investigation into the boiler repairs. If it had treated this aspect of the resident’s complaint as a service request (as it had not been previously reported), it should have explained this to her at the acknowledgement stage and confirmed its understanding of the complaint points. As such, on 17 October 2022, the resident told the landlord that the property “still had no heating”. However, we have seen no documentary evidence to suggest that the resident had reported any boiler related repairs to the landlord between 28 June 2022 and 16 October 2022. We are therefore unable to find any failures in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repairs during this period.
On 21 October 2022, the landlord raised a repair for the boiler. This was 4 working days after the date the resident reported that she had no heating or hot water. While not considered an excessive delay, we find that the landlord should have responded to the resident’s reports sooner. This is because it was aware there were household vulnerabilities that potentially could have been worsened by not having heating and hot water.
The repair contractor appropriately attended the same day (on 21 October 2022) and confirmed that a new fan was required. The fan was replaced 10 working days later, on 4 November 2022. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response (on 10 March 2023), it acknowledged that it should have offered the resident an alternative source of heating during this period and as a result, offered her £150 compensation. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it offered the resident an additional £140 for the distress and inconvenience it had caused her.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will make an award of compensation between £50 and £250 for instances where it failed to meet service standards but where the failure had no significant impact. Additionally, it states that it will pay £5 per day for “no heating as a result of an outstanding repair”, after 7 days of the initial report. Taking the full circumstances of the case into account, we find that the landlord’s offer of £290 was sufficient to resolve this complaint satisfactorily. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made.

Kitchen renewal

In accordance with the Decent Homes Standard guidance, the expected lifespan of a kitchen is 30 years, and a kitchen less than 20 years old is considered “reasonably modern”. If a kitchen is damaged before that period and cannot be economically repaired, a renewal may be required at an earlier date. As such, when a resident requests the renewal of a kitchen due to its condition, the landlord would be expected to arrange an inspection of the kitchen to assess whether any damage can be economically repaired, or if the kitchen needs to be renewed.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the resident’s kitchen was in need of renewal. Instead, we can assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a renewal was reasonable based on the evidence available to it, taking into account its policies and good industry practice.
As mentioned earlier, the landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that a non-emergency repair should be completed within 28 days. It also states that it does not categorise major component replacements such as kitchens as responsive repairs but will ensure that it delivers the repair service “in line with the relevant standards and specifications”.
On 21 June 2019, the landlord attended the resident’s property for a “support visit”. During the appointment it found that she did not have a “working kitchen”. Within an internal email (on the same day), the landlord questioned “why on earth is [the kitchen] in such a state”. It responded to advise that the previous resident had “allegedly” taken the kitchen with them in 2007. It said it had concerns about how the lack of kitchen was impacting the resident and appropriately requested for a new one to be installed.
The landlord has provided photographs of the kitchen from June 2019. Although facilities for hot and cold water, refrigeration and cooking are apparent, the kitchen does not appear to have adequate spaces for food preparation or food storage. A lack of suitable storage for food and preparation/worktop space could potentially be a matter and circumstance that gives rise to a hazard under part 16 (food safety) of HHSRS.
The decent homes standard defines a kitchen ‘in poor condition’ when a major repair is required or 3 or more items out of the 6 (cold water drinking supply, hot water, sink, cooking provision, cupboards, worktop) require replacement. The photographs suggest that the kitchen was deficient in terms of 2 of these items (storage and worktops). The landlord’s internal emails indicate that in July 2019 its surveyor agreed that the kitchen should be fully refurbished. Although this does not confirm that the landlord accepted it was in a poor condition, it acknowledged that it did not currently meet its void standard (that is, the standard by which it would let the property to a new tenant).
The landlord completed a quotation for a full kitchen refurbishment in July 2019. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord took further action to install the new kitchen. An internal landlord email on 9 March 2022 indicates that landlord staff had not forgotten about the kitchen: ‘this is the one where all the kitchen is missing’. Still, there is nothing to show that the landlord followed up on this.
There is no evidence to show that the resident chased up the kitchen renewal until October 2022. She explained: I have no kitchen in this house. Not one storage cupboard or worktop. I’ve had [landlord area manager] come to the house 4 years ago to measure up for a kitchen, never to be seen again.
The landlord’s internal email dated 19 January 2023 suggest that the kitchen renewal had been sent to its planned investment team in 2019, but nothing further had happened and it was unclear when the works would be completed.
The landlord inspected the property in February 2023. Its internal email dated 14 February 2023 confirmed that a new kitchen was required. However, improvement works were now complicated by the kitchen also being significantly affected by damp. The landlord called the resident on 14 February 2023 and confirmed that it had decided to permanently decant her out of the property. The landlord met with the resident on 23 February 2023 and completed the decant forms.
Internal landlord emails from April 2023 indicate that it had identified that a move was likely to take some time to arrange. Although it intended to continue working on a move, the landlord noted that environmental health were likely to become involved and it should ‘undertake work to the kitchen in particular to make the property more comfortable while the resident waits to move and to ensure we are compliant with HHSRS’.
The landlord raised a work order to provide ‘basic kitchen provision’. This was noted as a sink base unit, sink top and taps, 2 base units and worktop either side of the cooker. These works were completed on 7 August 2023.
The landlord should have provided the ‘basic kitchen provision’ once the need was identified in June 2019. It is acknowledged that the landlord has suggested that the poor condition of the kitchen (since as early as 2007) is due to the resident’s ex-partner removing it. The landlord is not obligated to put right damage that it did not cause. However, given the passage of time, the vulnerable status of the household and condition of the kitchen, the landlord’s failure to provide basic kitchen facilities (specifically storage and food preparation space) in June 2019 was unreasonable.
Providing basic facilities, as required by HHSRS, should not be progressed as improvements works (i.e. when time and budget allows). Instead, the landlord should have treated the kitchen works in June 2019 as a responsive repair with the aim of completing the works within 28 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that a 4-bedroom property without the use of a kitchen should be compensated at 50% of the resident’s weekly rent. It is not fair to to say that the resident had no use of the kitchen. However, her use and enjoyment of the kitchen was impaired due to the lack of basic facilities.
Depending on the level of service failure and the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their property, the Ombudsman can award compensation based on the resident’s weekly rent rate. Given the unreasonable delays the resident experienced waiting for the landlord to install basic kitchen facilities, a compensation payment has been ordered that reflects the impact and disruption on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the kitchen. This has been calculated as £3,946.14 based on 20% of weekly rent for the period 23 July 2019 to 7 August 2023. The starting date is 28 days after the landlord was aware that the resident required basic kitchen facilities. There were long periods where the level of service provided by the landlord was impacted by Coronavirus restrictions. The UK lockdown periods during 2020 and early 2021 have not been included in the calculations.
Separately, we have also considered the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. We recognise that the impact of a landlord’s actions or inactions cannot simply be remedied by a financial payment, but we order a landlord to make a payment in recognition of that impact and to acknowledge how the resident has been affected. However, our remedies are never intended to be punitive or to act as a deterrent and should not be viewed as a punishment for landlord failings. Instead, they are a means by which the Ombudsman ensures that matters are put right.
Our awards recognise that the emotional impact experienced by an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same emotional impact in response to the same instance of maladministration. The household’s vulnerabilities and the length of time living without basic kitchen facilities justify an increased award to reflect the significant impact they experienced as a result of the landlord’s shortfalls in service.
Although the kitchen was remedied in August 2023, it is concerning that the resident had to wait for the threat of the involvement of environmental health before the landlord took steps to provide basic kitchen facilities to a vulnerable household. Having considered the overall and cumulative adverse affect on the resident, we have awarded £800 for distress and inconvenience.
Taking the full circumstances of the case into account, we have made a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal. This is because:
1. We accept that the landlord was not responsible for the removal of the original kitchen, and we did identify some mitigating circumstances that contributed to the overall delays of the renewal. However, despite being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it took the landlord a total of 4 years and 1 month to install a new kitchen that complied with the obligations outlined in the Decent Homes Standard and HSSRS.
1. Its record keeping was poor.
2. It did not identify or apologise to the resident for the failures highlighted in this report. Consequently, it did not offer her any compensation.

Concerns about the handling of asbestos removal

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) confirms that asbestos can be found in any building built before 2000. It advises that if asbestos materials are in good condition, and in a place where they are unlikely to be disturbed, then they should not cause any harm. It is only when the materials are damaged or disturbed that asbestos can become a concern.
The Ombudsman cannot assess the risk associated with exposure to asbestos. Our investigation has assessed whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures and otherwise behaved reasonably and fairly, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. We consider whether the landlord has acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which are to be fair, to put things right, and to learn from outcomes.
In August 2018, the landlord’s internal emails indicate that it had identified the need to remove the kitchen ceiling due to asbestos. The work form stated that the reinstatement date was ‘TBC following removal’. There is no accompanying asbestos survey, so it is not clear exactly why the decision had been made to remove it. In some instances, undisturbed asbestos can be safely left in place or sealed.
The landlord arranged for asbestos contractors to attend on 6 September 2018 and remove the kitchen ceiling (including the asbestos). This company is a current licensed asbestos contractor. This means it is permitted to complete high risk work with asbestos.
Following the resident’s complaint, the asbestos contractors provided photographs to the landlord in February 2023. These show that the kitchen was clean with no dust visible. The ceiling was also sealed with polythene sheeting. The contractors explained that its records indicated: ‘we removed the textured coated ceiling in the kitchen which has a very small content of chrysotile asbestos. The air test recorded a satisfactory result’.
Chrysotile (white asbestos) is generally considered less hazardous than amphibole fibres like crocidolite (blue asbestos) or amosite (brown asbestos). The contractors method statement confirms that the polythene sheeting was to be erected first, the ceiling removed and any plasterboard then placed directly into an asbestos waste bag. The area was to be thoroughly cleaned and then the polythene sheeting dismantled and disposed of. Upon completion, the site supervisor was expected to carry out a visual inspection to ensure the kitchen was clean and free of any asbestos dust or debris.
The photographs the resident has provided show the kitchen after the ceiling was removed. These show a very different scene to those in the contractors photos. The upstairs floorboards, ceiling beams, electrical wiring and light fittings are exposed. There is no polythene sheeting. The kitchen surfaces and floor are covered in dust. The message accompanying the photos (which appears to be from the resident to her daughter) states: ‘Came back to this mess in the kitchen, dust everywhere. They said they’d cover entire kitchen so no mess, plus the ceiling has asbestos in. It’s blown through the house’.
The landlord has no written record of the works completed by the contractors on 6 September 2018. Neither set of photographs are timestamped, so the order of events is uncertain. Both sets of photos show that the ceiling had been removed. The resident’s photos show dust and debris in the kitchen and the contractors show a clean kitchen with polythene sheeting on the ceiling.
A second contractor visited the property on 6 September 2018. They were from a company accredited for testing and inspecting asbestos. The testing contractor’s record of their visit indicates that they attended between 9pm and 11pm to complete reassurance testing in the kitchen. This type of test is completed after the removal of asbestos to ensure the area is safe for reoccupation.
The limit of detection is the lowest quantity or concentration of a component that can be reliably detected during testing. On this occasion, the level of fibres detected was lower than the limit of detection. The results of the air test showed a level of below 0.01 f/ml (fibres per millilitre), which is considered safe.
The testing contractor also noted the following: ‘Ceiling removed, wooden ceiling beams to remain. Walls painted olive green, with white smear marks throughout. Shelf and washing machine to right side has debris on top and smear marks down edges. Tiled floor had debris near back door, dusty foot prints throughout. Shelves to left side have layer of dust throughout and walls have smear marks throughout, with flaky paint just above top shelf. Layer of dust on cooker top, windows, back door, sink and fridge. Dust and debris cover items under sink, including layer of dust on black tape around waste pipe. Top of walls crumbling throughout. Paint flaking throughout. Black tape section remain on various sections around sink and on window frame above washing [machine]. White smear marks on wall light switches and sockets. Black smear marks on light painted wall with door into hallway. Wall around washing machine peeling plaster. Layer of dust on light hanging from ceiling above washing machine’.
Essentially, this confirms that the kitchen, as the resident’s photographs suggested, had been left with dust and debris throughout. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 September 2018. She explained that the contractors ‘did not put any covers down and kitchen is covered in dust and debris’. The landlord’s internal notes indicate that it was meeting with the contractor on 12 September 2018 and would get it resolved.
The available evidence indicates that the asbestos contractors left the kitchen with dust and debris on the floor and surfaces. It appears that they returned to the property about a week later (after the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s intervention) to erect the polythene sheeting and ensure the kitchen was clean (although it is not clear whether it was the contractors that completed the cleaning). After this second visit, the asbestos contractors took their photographs.
The available evidence shows that the asbestos contractors did not follow the method statement and left the kitchen in an unacceptable state on 6 September 2018. The reassurance testing suggests that the kitchen area was safe for reoccupation (once the floor and surfaces had been thoroughly cleaned). However, the non-compliant and unprofessional workmanship will have caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It is concerning that the landlord was informed of non-compliant asbestos removal works by the resident shortly after the visit and it failed to take any of the following actions:
1. log a complaint;
1. investigate what had happened – interviewing the resident and contractors (both removal and tester);
2. inspect the property before and after the follow up works;
3. consider offering additional testing after the follow up works to reassure the resident that the kitchen was safe;
4. arrange a new appointment for the kitchen ceiling to be replaced;
5. apologise; and
6. compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused.
This is a significant failing in the landlord’s handling of this matter. It is also concerning that the landlord held evidence to support the resident’s version of events and did not properly consider this when responding to her complaint.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that it restored the kitchen ceiling with plasterboard on 17 June 2019. It is unclear why the resident had to wait 9 months for a new ceiling to be installed. The landlord had received a complaint about the removal and should have had systems in place to arrange follow up works to restore the ceiling without the need for the resident to chase this up. This length of delay in reinstalling the ceiling was unreasonable.
The landlord has a ‘duty to manage’ asbestos, as specified by regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. This legislation requires the landlord to take reasonable steps to identify, maintain records of, protect residents to exposure from, and execute a management plan for asbestos.
Although the landlord has shared the risk assessment and method statement, it has failed to provide details of it asbestos management survey, asbestos register and asbestos management plan for the property. Following the works in September 2018, the register and management plan should have been updated.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the asbestos removal and the resident’s complaint about the works in September 2018 is indicative of maladministration. The resident was left to live with dust and debris from the works for about a week. Although the landlord appears to have acted upon receipt of the resident’s complaint, it failed to treat it with the seriousness it deserved, use its formal complaints procedure or complete the ceiling reinstallation within a reasonable time. The landlord’s later investigation also failed to identify that the contractors had failed to follow the method statement despite the evidence being available to confirm this.
It is acknowledged that this episode will have caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s poor response to the complaint exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship. It is ordered that the landlord compensates the resident by £600.
The landlord should also complete a case review in to its handling of this matter. The landlord should ensure its policies and procedures make clear to staff what records should be produced, updated and stored before and after asbestos removal works. It should also formalise an investigation process for asbestos removal complaints to ensure appropriate measures are taken to promptly investigate the circumstances and protect the health and safety of tenants.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) at the time of the complaint said landlords should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It also stated that landlords should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the escalation request. The Code did not become statutory until April 2024.
Following the cyber security incident, the landlord introduced an interim complaints policy on 17 June 2022. It stated that stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Peer reviews (stage 2 complaints) would be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 40 working days. The Ombudsman appreciates the effect a cyber incident can have on an organisation. It is reasonable that an organisation may need to pause its normal processes while it puts plans in place to deal with the effects of a cyber incident.
The resident raised a complaint on 8 June 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 October 2022. This was a response time of 92 working days, and therefore outside of the timescales in the landlord’s interim complaints policy. We have also seen no evidence that the landlord updated the resident about the delays during this period, which was inappropriate. Nevertheless, we find the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation proportionate for this failure alone.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response on 14 October 2022, it was appropriate that it provided the resident with its plan of action to complete the outstanding repairs, and to some extent showed that it was aiming to put things right. However, overall, we find the landlord’s stage 1 response poor. This is because it did not provide a clear explanation of:
1. The outcome of its investigation (for each element of the resident’s complaint).
1. How it had responded to the resident’s reports of repairs in line with its legal and policy obligations.
2. Any failures identified, or where things had specifically gone wrong within its service delivery.
3. The scope of the investigation for the damp and mould repairs. It is therefore unclear how it calculated the £350 compensation.
Although not obligated to do so, it is good practice for landlords to provide a timeline of events within formal complaint responses. This allows them to demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive investigation and considered all the facts within the case.
The resident responded to the landlord on 17 October 2022. She mentioned her dissatisfaction with some of the same issues again (damp and mould, heating and hot water, and bathroom light), as well as raising new complaint issues. It was appropriate, and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy, for it to open a new stage 1 complaint to investigate its handling of the new issues the resident had raised. However, it is concerning that the landlord’s internal notes on 21 October 2022 stated that “none of it related to the [previous] complaint”. This was incorrect and, in this instance, we would have expected the landlord to follow its complaints policy and escalate the previous issues to stage 2 of its complaint process. Its failure to do so caused a further protracted complaints process for the resident and ultimately delayed a satisfactory resolution to the issues she was experiencing.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s new stage 1 complaint on 10 November 2022. This was 19 working days after she had raised the issues, and therefore exceeded the timescales outlined in the landlord’s interim complaints policy. However, it is noted that the landlord set the resident’s expectations that it may not be able to respond within its normal timescales due to the cyber-security incident.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 January 2023. It said it “had noticed that a number of the issues had already been responded to at stage 1, and [it] would not be addressing these issues again”. As explained earlier, if the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, it was obligated to escalate the issues to stage 2 of its complaints process. Also, as mentioned within the scoping section of the report, the landlord failed to escalate 4 elements of the resident’s complaint, which meant she was unable to bring them to this Service for investigation. This was inappropriate and at odds with the Code, which states that landlords must not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have valid reasons to do so. It would have also been helpful for the landlord to provide the resident with a written confirmation of the specific issues it was investigating. Its failure to do so undoubtedly caused the resident confusion.
The landlord issued its second stage 1 response on 10 March 2023. This was 83 working days from the date it acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and an excessive delay. However, the landlord’s offer of £100 in recognition of this delay was reasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 March 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 May 2023. This was 50 working days later, and therefore outside of the timescales in the landlord’s interim complaints policy. It is noted, however, that the landlord updated the resident on 2 occasions during this period and offered her £100 compensation for the delays. We consider this a reasonable offer for this failure alone.
The landlord offered the resident £50 at stage 2 for “contact requirement”, which included “inconvenience and vulnerability”. As the landlord did not specify which element of the resident’s complaint this was in relation to, it made it impracticable for this Service to assess the appropriateness of the offer. While not obliged to do so, it is good practice for landlords to explain to residents how much they have awarded for each investigated complaint point.
The Code states that landlords must use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes to service delivery. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain in its final complaint response what action it had taken to ensure that the failings it had identified would not happen again. In not doing so, the landlord has not evidenced that it learned sufficiently from the complaint.
We appreciate that the resident’s representative asked the landlord to review its stage 2 response. However, the landlord’s interim complaints policy and the Code stipulate that the complaint process should consist of 2 stages only. It therefore would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the representative and refer him to this Service. Nevertheless, the fact that it took 95 calendar days to issue the addendum was inappropriate. We acknowledge that the landlord awarded the resident an additional £150 compensation for the delay. However, we cannot consider this additional amount within our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling as it was issued after the ICP.
As mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord also awarded the resident further compensation in October 2023 (and paid her this in May 2024) in relation to the leaks, damp and mould issue. This amounts to a further complaint handling failure, as we expect landlords to aim to put things right for their residents during their formal complaint process. It is appropriate for landlords to review their actions in light of new information or to reflect the growing impact of a continued issue over time. However, when a landlord increases its offer following our intervention, with the apparent aim of avoiding investigation and/or a more serious finding of failure, this cannot be considered reasonable redress even if the increased award is proportionate.
It is positive to note that the landlord apologised to the resident for its complaint handling delays and made some effort to put things right (by offering £300 compensation). Had it not done so, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made. However, taking all other facts into account, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because it failed to:
1. Adhere to the timescales outlined in its interim complaints policy.
1. Escalate aspects of the resident’s complaint to stage 2 in October 2022.
2. Answer all elements of the resident’s complaint.
3. Appropriately assess its handling of several of the substantive issues.
4. Follow its compensation policy and award an appropriate amount of compensation for the substantive issues, within its ICP.
5. Demonstrate that it had learned from the complaint.
6. Recognise and apologise in its final response for all the failings identified in this report.
To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her the additional compensation that it offered for complaint handling, post ICP. This is considered a proportionate amount and in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its response to the resident’s reports of boiler repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen renewal.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of asbestos removal.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident and representative for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure the apology:
  1. is provided by a staff member of director level or above.
  2. is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
  3. has due regard to our apologies guidance.
1. Pay the resident £11,245.67 in compensation. This is made up as follows:
  1. £4,349.53 for the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their property due to leaks, damp and mould (this amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £1,605.14 [credited to the resident’s rent account in May 2024]).
  2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of leaks, damp and mould (this amount includes the landlord’s previous offers of £350 [from October 2022, unpaid].
  3. £3,946.14 for the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of their kitchen due to a lack of basic facilities.
  4. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the kitchen renewal.
  5. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of asbestos removal.
  6. £550 for its complaint handling (this amount includes the landlord’s previous offers of £100 [from October 2022, unpaid], £100 [credited to the rent account in March 2023], £150 [credited to the rent account in June 2023), £150 [credited to the rent account in October 2023) and £50 [paid directly to the resident in August 2024]).

The landlord may deduct £2,055.14 from the total figure as this reflects compensation awards it has already paid to the resident in relation to the above failings. The remaining compensation award should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears.

Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must complete a senior management review into the case to identify additional learning and improvement. As part of this review, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Assess its handling of the kitchen renewal in this case between 2019 and 2023.
1. Take steps to ensure its policies and procedures provide clear guidance to staff on repairs and remedial work that should be prioritised for immediate action and those that can be referred for planned works at a later date.
2. Assess its handling of leaks, damp and mould issues in this case between 2021 and 2024.
3. Confirm it has taken steps to improve its services so that its responses to reports of damp and mould:
  1. are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue;
  2. treat residents with respect and empathy;
  3. investigate and identify root causes; and
  4. risk assess and prioritise cases with vulnerable residents.
4. Assess its handling of asbestos removal in September 2018.
5. Take steps to ensure its policies and procedures provide clear guidance to staff on what records should be produced, updated and stored before and after asbestos removal works.
6. Assess its handling of the complaint about asbestos removal in September 2018.
7. Take steps to formalise an investigation process for asbestos removal complaints to ensure appropriate measures are taken to promptly investigate the circumstances and protect the health and safety of tenants.

Recommendations

The landlord is to confirm it paid the resident £290 in compensation for its handling of the boiler repairs. The landlord offered this in its stage 2 complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress is dependent on this payment.