Clarion Housing Association Limited (202347247)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom semi-detached house with her son. The resident’s son has autism.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled:
   1. reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs
   2. the resident’s complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled:
   1. reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs
   2. the resident’s complaint

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. For both complaints the landlord recognised its failings and offered suitable redress. The compensation offered aligns with our remedies guidance, and the landlord apologised. The landlord committed to feeding back to the appropriate teams and gave clear information on how to claim for damaged belongings via its insurer.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

5. The resident reported issues with her roof which was causing damp and mould on 17 July 2023. The landlord inspected for damp and mould on 11 September 2023, 56 days later. This missed its 28-day target for routine repairs set out in its repairs policy. This delay caused distress and inconvenience.
6. The landlord planned to carry out internal repairs after inspecting and fixing the roof. It scheduled a roof inspection for 1 September 2023, but the actual inspection did not happen until 19 November 2023, 125 days after the initial report. This added to the resident’s inconvenience.
7. Between 15 December 2023 and 7 February 2024, the landlord made 5 visits to repair the roof. It followed the inspection’s findings and completed follow-up work within policy timescales.
8. After the resident reported ongoing damp on 20 March 2024, the landlord returned on 2 and 25 April 2024 to fix the roof and guttering. These repairs were completed within policy timescales. 
9. From February to April 2024, the landlord carried out 4 mould washes. This was a temporary measure to alleviate the damp and mould within the resident’s home while resolving the roof issue. However, the first mould wash came 7 months after the initial report, which did not meet its damp and mould policy to deal with issues in a timely and effective manner.
10. On 5 June 2024, the landlord inspected again and recommended further internal and roof work. The evidence shows the roof repairs were completed between 6 and 13 June 2024, and internal work was finished by 1 July 2024, both within policy timescales. The landlord also referred the roof for replacement through its planned works programme, in line with its repair policy.
11. The resident reported problems with windows and doors. On 5 September 2023, the landlord assessed the need for a new front door and referred it to its planned team. However, the door was not replaced until 18 June 2024, 287 days later, causing inconvenience. The windows were replaced on 27 March 2024, 204 days after the initial report and 62 days after the landlord agreed they needed replacing. This delay added to the resident’s distress.
12. The landlord’s repair policy requires it to check and record if a household has disabilities or support needs when a repair is reported. It failed to do this, so it did not know the resident’s son had autism or how delays were affecting the family. This caused further distress and inconvenience.
13. The landlord’s communication about repairs did not align with its damp and mould policy. Its policy says it will keep residents informed of any inspections, issues, and the timetabling of works, but it failed to do this. Instead, the resident had to chase updates regularly which further impacted her.
14. The landlord kept good records of repairs. It clearly documented what was reported and the outcomes, which helped during the complaint investigation and highlighted areas for improvement.
15. The landlord offered the resident £1,000 compensation for delays, poor communication, and not following its policies. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where failures had a significant impact. This offer fairly reflects the impact to the resident. The resident asked for compensation for damaged belongings. The landlord explained this should be claimed through its insurance and gave the resident the details. This was fair and followed its compensation policy.
16. The landlord also said it would pass feedback to relevant teams, including concerns about a contractor after an explicit image was found on the chimney. This response was appropriate and followed its complaint and contract management policies. Overall, the landlord’s remedies fairly recognised the impact of its failings.

17. The landlord took 47 working days to send its stage 1 complaint response to the resident, and 25 working days to send its stage 2 complaint response. This was outside of its complaint policy timescales of 10 working days for stage 1 and 20 working days for stage 2. This caused the resident some inconvenience.
18. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling and offered a total of £100 compensation for the time taken to send both responses. This is in line with our remedies guidance which says where there has been a failure which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident a payment of between £50 to £100 can be considered. The compensation offered fairly recognises the impact to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s repair records were clear and showed a good amount of detail. It may be beneficial for the landlord to ensure that linked or repeated issues are easily identified. This would help it identify recurring problems that require a more detailed approach.

Communication

20. There was a lack of proactive communication with the resident about outstanding repairs, despite this being part of its damp and mould policy. This contributed to the resident feeling unsupported during a distressing time. The landlord must look at ways to ensure it takes ownership of communication and not just the repair.