Clarion Housing Association Limited (202403888)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202403888
Clarion Housing Association Limited
21 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
- The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
- The landlord’s handling of various communal repairs.
- The associated complaint handling.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.
Background
- The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the 1st floor of a low-rise block. The resident has both physical and mental health conditions including anxiety, depression, and a muscular disability of the spine. This impacts his mobility.
- The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 13 April 2023. He said that he first reported damp and mould in the property 4 years prior, which it had not yet resolved. He said that he continued to clean mould off of the walls and ceilings, which had damaged his decorations and caused the plaster to crack. He said he had not received the decorating vouchers it had promised him, and he had spent money on cleaning products and running dehumidifiers. He also raised issues with communal repairs, including uneven paving slabs, a broken gate and fence, removal of items without notice, and issues with the communal cleaning.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 October 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said:
- It apologised that it overlooked the reported issues, which occurred due to a cyber security incident in June 2022.
- It inspected the damp and mould in January 2023. It then incorrectly raised works for an electrician to attend instead of a surveyor to agree a scope of works which caused delays. It said it would remind its planning team to check repair details going forward to prevent a recurrence.
- It completed a mould wash in May 2023. It raised works to address the plasterwork, and damaged window handles in June 2023.
- A surveyor inspected the property in June 2023 but found no evidence of damp and mould. It recommended installing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. It attempted to install these in July 2023, but it needed scaffolding to complete the works. It intended to fit the fans on 19 October 2023.
- It was not procedure to offer decorating vouchers following repair works. It said that decorations were the responsibility of its residents. It apologised for any miscommunication regarding this.
- It had no records of removing any items from the communal areas. It confirmed it would have the right to do so, however, if required.
- It was aware of issues with the cleaning of the communal areas which it was looking into. It had met with its cleaning contractors and arranged for the cleaners to complete log sheets to record the cleans. It agreed to credit the cost of the cleaning in the resident’s service charges, which it would arrange as a reduction in the following years’ service charges.
- It would complete repairs to the paving slabs due to the health and safety concerns. It had rearranged this from September 2023 to 19 October 2023 due to staffing availability. It said it was not able to provide updates with the communal repair, but he could make contact if he had any questions.
- It offered a total of £450 compensation. This included £100 for its delayed complaint response and £350 for the delays in installing the extractor fans.
- On 29 November 2023, the resident escalated his complain. He was unhappy that it said it had not found any damp and mould and he said this was because he cleaned the mould himself when it occurred. He said it had still not installed the fans because of issues with missed appointments and incorrectly installing the scaffolding, which had also banged against his kitchen window. He said he wanted to move to another property through a mutual exchange but found it difficult to do so due to the mould. He said some communal repairs remained outstanding including the uneven paving slabs and broken gate.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 22 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said:
- It acknowledged delays in completing the works to install the 2 fans. This was due to confusion around the scaffolding required for the works. It apologised for the lack of communication, the outstanding repairs, and impact it had on his mutual exchange opportunities. It said it had scheduled to install the bathroom fan on 1 February 2024.
- It apologised for not responding to the resident’s concerns with the scaffolding banging against his kitchen window. It confirmed that it routinely inspected scaffolding weekly to ensure it was safe.
- It repaired the paving slabs on 4 December 2023 and apologised for the delays since July 2023. Following his concerns raised on 8 January 2024, about repairing the wrong area, it inspected the correct area on 9 January 2024. It said it had isolated this area due to health and safety concerns and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
- It had cancelled the works to the gate door by mistake as its planners believed this was a duplicate repair job. It apologised for this and confirmed it would repair the gate on 8 February 2024.
- It offered a further £1,250 compensation, in addition to the amount offered in its initial complaint response. £50 was for its delayed complaint response and £1,200 was for the time taken to install the extractor fans.
- The resident escalated his complaint to this Service as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response. He said that the landlord had installed the extractor fan in the bathroom but not in the kitchen. He wanted it to complete the works that it said it would. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 19 August 2024.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident says that the damp and mould had been ongoing since 2019. The residents comments are not disputed, and the serious nature of this matter is acknowledged. The Ombudsman, however, cannot consider complaints which relate to historical events because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore be from 12 months prior to when the resident raised his complaint, which is April 2022.
- The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould affected his health. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about their health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
- The resident is currently experiencing issues which occurred after the complaints process ended. This includes issues with support making a disability grant application, window repairs, and other more recent repairs. In the interest of fairness, we cannot investigate matters that the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond to. The resident may wish to log a new complaint for the landlord to investigate his concerns and have the opportunity to put things right. He may then bring that complaint to the Ombudsman as a new case to investigate if needed.
The landlord’s record keeping
- The landlord’s evidence shows poor record keeping in relation to repairs. Its repair logs show when it raised jobs, the job end date and whether it completed, posted or cancelled the job. However, they do not include additional details. Such as whether operatives could not gain access, if it was able to successfully carry out the repairs, and if so, what the repairs entailed. The records we have been provided with show all jobs marked as ‘completed’ or ‘posted’, irrespective of whether the job had been attended or a repair carried out. We have seen evidence that some jobs were marked as completed when no repairs had been carried out.
- The evidence we have been provided with shows poor record keeping practices by the landlord. Accurate and clear record keeping is a core function of a repairs service. A clear audit trail allows the landlord to ensure that repairs are appropriately managed and that residents are kept updated as to their progress. It also allows that landlord to monitor its own performance, including identifying any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
- The inaccuracy of the landlord’s record keeping means that the Ombudsman is unable to assess what action the landlord took in response to particular reports. Furthermore, there is uncertainty over when certain actions took place. This has, overall, impacted our ability to investigate the resident’s concerns. We have therefore found that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
- The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report states that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.
The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould
- The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy states that it aims to diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. It said it would take steps to increase ventilation within properties to keep damp levels low.
- The landlord has acknowledged that it did not respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Following the resident’s reports in January 2023, it inspected the property on 25 January 2023. While the initial inspection was prompt, there is no evidence to suggest that it then followed up any works until May 2023, when it scheduled a mould wash. The reason for the delay is unknown. However, it would have understandably caused the resident to feel that the landlord was not taking his concerns with the property seriously.
- On 19 May 2023, the landlord arranged the mould wash for 31 May 2023, but it is unclear whether it completed the wash or not. This is due to a lack of detail and clarity within the landlord’s repair records. It also raised works on this date to consider works to install an extractor fan in the bathroom. However, it cancelled this job on 9 June 2023 as it had incorrectly raised this job for an electrician instead of a surveyor. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for these delays during the complaints process. However, it would have understandably still caused frustration for the resident.
- On 12 June 2023, the landlord raised works to complete a survey of the damp and mould, but later cancelled these works. The reason the survey was cancelled is unknown. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that the basis for this decision was recorded, and communicated to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord took such action, and this was a failing
- During a call to discuss the complaint, the resident advised of an inspection on 15 June 2023, but the landlord’s repair records do not reflect this. In an internal email, the landlord later said it had arranged the inspection for 27 June 2023. It noted it had failed to complete this sooner because it had not updated the relevant calendar.
- If the landlord maintained more accurate repair records, this may have helped it to monitor the various inspections and works. This may have prevented the missed appointments that occurred throughout the handling of the damp and mould reports.
- Following the surveyor’s inspection on 27 June 2023, the landlord raised works on 11 July 2023 to install extractor fans in both the kitchen and bathroom to help with ventilation. It noted that it did not identify any other causes of damp and mould within the property. It is unclear why there was a delay of 2 weeks to raise these works. This would have understandably added further delays to the overall time taken to resolve the issues at the property.
- Despite raising the works to install the extractor fans on 11 July 2023, the landlord did not appropriately manage these works. It instead experienced multiple delays in completing this. Within its complaint responses, it acknowledged that it had issues with installing and adjusting the scaffolding which it needed to complete the works to the fans. It also apologised for the missed appointments which occurred when it booked the works with the resident.
- The Ombudsman acknowledges that installing and adjusting scaffolding, and ordering replacement windows are likely to be major works. However, it is evident that at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response, in January 2024, it still had not installed either of the fans. The delay of nearly 7 months since identifying the required works, and a delay of 1 year since the first inspection, was not appropriate. It should have proactively managed the repairs to ensure that it resolved the issues the resident experienced. It is a failing that it has not evidenced that it did so.
- The resident also noted concerns with the safety of the scaffolding which banged against his kitchen window. Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it apologised for not responding to his concerns sooner. It was appropriate for it to outline that it routinely completed weekly inspections to ensure scaffolding remains safe. However, the delay of 2 months for the resident to have a response to his safety concerns was not reasonable. Especially given that the scaffolding remained in place at the time. The landlord has failed to evidence that it considered this specific failing within its overall offer of compensation.
- Due to the poor record keeping, it is unclear when the landlord installed the extractor fan in the bathroom. Within its final complaint response, it said it had booked this for 1 February 2024, but the repair logs do not confirm whether this happened or not. It is evident that it installed the bathroom fan at some point between February 2024 and August 2024. However, owing to the poor record keeping, we have not been able to ascertain whether the landlord completed the installation as it said it would within its complaint responses.
- Although the landlord’s surveyor outlined that it needed to install an extractor fan in both the bathroom and the kitchen, it did not install the fan in the kitchen. The final complaint response only referred to the planned works to the bathroom fan, which would have understandably caused further distress to the resident. Yet its offer of compensation referred to the delays of installing both the bathroom and kitchen fans, which was confusing.
- On 2 August 2024, an internal email confirmed that the landlord still needed to install the kitchen extractor fan. It is unknown whether this work has since been completed. Given that the need for the kitchen extractor fan was identified in June 2023, it is inappropriate that it remained outstanding over a year later in August 2024. It is unclear why the landlord had not raised a works order prior to August 2024. However, that it had not was a failing.
- The landlord was aware of the resident’s physical and mental health vulnerabilities throughout this period. In the resident’s complaint escalation, he expressed concerns with how the damp and mould may impact his breathing difficulties. It completed an inspection on the following day, but the inspection report form stated that there were no disabilities recorded within the household. This is contradictory to both the information given by the resident, and the vulnerability records noted on the tenancy account.
- The failure to accurately record this information at the time of the inspection was poor. It also raises questions over whether the landlord had given due consideration to vulnerabilities within the household. Additionally, whether he required further support, when planning and prioritising the installation of the fans.
- The resident has told this Service that he continually cleaned off damp and mould from the walls, ceilings and windows. He said this meant the landlord could not complete mould washes as he had already removed this. The landlord’s repair records corroborated this, showing that there was no need for a mould wash at various points throughout this period. The final complaint response also acknowledged this occurred.
- It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out its commitment to completing future mould washes promptly, if or when this returned. This may have offered some reassurance to the resident that this responsibility did not fall solely on himself as a tenant.
- This would have been appropriate as a reasonable adjustment too, in line with the landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy. The policy states that it would consider what additional support vulnerable residents may need. It should have outlined the support available given it was aware of the resident’s various vulnerabilities, which may have impacted his ability to clean this himself.
- On multiple occasions, the resident told the landlord that the damp and mould damaged his decorations. He said that he spent money on cleaning products and redecoration of the property. He said it offered decoration vouchers towards the damages, but the landlord disputes this. We have not seen any evidence of any offers from the landlord.
- Nevertheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider options for how it could assess and/or offer redress towards the damages. Especially given the length of time the resident waited for it to install both extractor fans, which would have understandably caused further deterioration to the property.
- Given his concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have signposted the resident to make an insurance claim through its liability insurance. This would have been good practice to ensure that it could independently investigate the resident’s request. It is therefore a failing that it did not do so.
- Due to the property condition, the resident said he struggled to move homes through the mutual exchange process. It was appropriate for the landlord to have apologised for its handling of the damp and mould with both the delays and missed appointments. It acknowledged the impact this had on his ability to complete a mutual exchange.
- In summary, while it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge failings in its response to reports of damp and mould, it is a concern that it failed to follow through with the installation of the extractor fans in a timely manner. It is unclear when it installed the bathroom fan. Additionally, as of August 2024, it still had not installed the kitchen extractor fan. This was over 19 months from the first inspection in January 2023, and over 14 months since it was aware of the required works to both extractor fans. It failed to follow its leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy by not resolving the damp and mould in a timely and effective manner.
- The landlord offered a total of £1,550 compensation to the resident within its complaint responses. This was for the time taken to install the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. It detailed various aspects it considered when reaching this amount. As above, the landlord’s poor record keeping has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to fully assess the landlord’s actions. However, given the outstanding works required, the redress offered by the landlord is not proportionate in the circumstances.
- The continued delays and lack of communication from the landlord would have understandably caused frustration and significant inconvenience to the resident. Especially given his concerns about the ongoing damp and mould impacting his health due to his vulnerabilities. Considering this, the landlord’s actions after the final complaint response fail to demonstrate that it learned lessons from its failings. The landlord should therefore pay a further £400 compensation to the resident. This is an appropriate award in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.
The landlord’s handling of various communal repairs
- The resident raised concerns with multiple communal repairs. The landlord responded appropriately to some of his concerns, such as the standard of the communal cleaning. The resident’s service charge includes a portion for cleaning, and after the resident complained about the standards, the landlord investigated his concerns accordingly.
- The landlord confirmed it had met with its contractors to improve the cleaning standards. Despite the delay in providing its complaint response (assessed separately) it provided appropriate redress by committing to a refund of the resident’s service charges by reducing the following years’ charge amounts. Its response to his concerns was therefore appropriate.
- Similarly, after the resident raised concerns with the removal of items in the communal areas, the landlord investigated this appropriately. It then confirmed that it had not removed any items from the block recently. It was reasonable for it to have managed his expectations as it outlined it was able to remove items in the future if there was a health and safety risk posed.
- Within the resident’s complaint to the landlord, he said that it needed to replace the communal doormat. On 12 April 2023, the landlord recorded this as a repair. It noted the mat was missing and it was a trip hazard. However, it is unclear whether it has replaced the mat or not, as its records show that it had ‘posted’ the job. The notes show the job end date as 4 July 2023, but it does not confirm whether it replaced the mat or not. This is a record keeping failure. As such, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord responded to this matter appropriately.
- The resident’s complaint included concerns with uneven paving slabs in the communal area. Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it said it had repaired the uneven paving slabs in December 2023. However, it acknowledged that following a conversation with the resident on 8 January 2024, it had completed works to the wrong area.
- Between being made aware of the issue within the complaint, in April 2023, and January 2024, the landlord’s repair logs 4 different repair jobs related to the uneven paving slabs. Some of the repairs included reference to the area being “unsafe” and in a “terrible condition”, as well as being a “trip hazard”.
- It is a concern that despite being aware of the poor condition of the paving slabs, the landlord failed to ensure that it repaired the correct area for such a prolonged period. This is especially concerning given that most of the landlord’s internal emails noted a different address to the resident’s own block of flats, but it had not picked this issue up sooner.
- Additionally, the landlord’s neighbourhood management policy states it should inspect communal areas and facilities twice a year, at a minimum. If it did so, it may have noted that the paving slab area was a health and safety concern and escalated this to its repairs team. There is no evidence provided to suggest that it did so, which is a failing.
- As part of the landlord’s complaint resolution, it said it would isolate the uneven paving slabs and complete major works to the correct area. On 13 September 2024, the landlord told this Service that it had completed the works to the paving slabs. However, the resident disputes this and told this Service that the works remain outstanding. Given the resident’s comments, and that we have not received supporting evidence confirming the landlord’s position, we have made an order that the landlord inspects the area. In doing so, the landlord should contact the resident to ask what he believes to be outstanding
- The resident also complained about the landlord’s handling of a broken gate and fence within the communal area in April 2023. Between March 2022 and December 2023, the landlord’s repair records show 6 jobs raised to repair the gate and fence. Due to its poor record keeping, it is unclear what it did in response to most of the repair requests. Within the final complaint response, the landlord said it had scheduled a repair to the gate on 8 February 2024. However, there is no evidence of this within its repair records. It remains unclear as to whether it has now repaired the gate and fence.
- Overall, we have found that the landlord’s poor record keeping impacted its ability to provide an appropriate and timely response to the resident’s reports of communal repairs. While it did acknowledge some failings related to the paving slabs, it did not consider the full impact of the distress and inconvenience that this would have understandably caused to the resident. Additionally, the landlord did not offer any compensation in consideration of its handling of the various communal repairs.
- Considering this, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. The landlord should pay £250 compensation for its handling of the various communal repairs. This is to reflect the repeated effort and inconvenience experienced by the resident in trying to pursue the repairs.
The associated complaint handling
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 123 working days after the resident made his complaint. In line with the landlord’s interim complaints policy at the time, it should have provided its complaint response within 20 working days of logging the complaint. This delay was not appropriate, which the landlord acknowledged within its complaint response.
- Following the resident’s escalation request, the landlord provided its final complaint response within 35 working days. This was in line with the landlord’s interim complaints policy to respond within 40 working days.
- Throughout the complaints process, the landlord maintained contact with the resident periodically. It was appropriate for it to do so, as it would have helped to minimise the resident’s feelings of the complaint not being listened to. However, the overall time taken to respond to the complaint would have understandably still caused distress and inconvenience to him.
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. Within the resident’s complaint, he raised concerns which the landlord did not respond to. He complained about condensation on the communal windows within the block and that he had to replace the communal washing line himself.
- While the landlord referenced these issues within its summary of the resident’s complaint, it failed to provide a formal response within its complaint responses itself. By not doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to investigate these issues and put things right for him. This is a failing, and we have ordered he landlord to provide a response to these matters now.
- The landlord offered a total of £150 compensation to the resident for its delayed complaint responses. However, it did not offer any amounts towards its poor handling of the complaint itself with it seemingly missing a response for part of the complaint. As such, the landlord should pay a further £100 compensation to offer redress for its complaint handling failures. This is in consideration of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various communal repairs.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
Orders
- Within 28 calendar days (4 weeks) of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
- Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples in reference to each complaint point.
- Pay the £1,700 compensation offered within its complaint responses.
- Pay the resident a total of £750 compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident, and not to his rent account. The sum of £750 is comprised of:
- £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of damp and mould.
- £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of various communal repairs.
- £100 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaints handling.
- Provide the resident with details of how to make a liability claim to its insurance team and/or insurers. It should provide this in writing to the resident.
- Confirm its position regarding the resident having to replace the washing line himself. It should provide this in writing to the resident.
- Inspect the paving slab area. In doing so, it should contact the resident to ask what he believes to be outstanding.
- Write to the resident and provide a list of repairs it will complete related to this complaint. If the landlord needs to complete an inspection, it should complete this within 2 weeks of the date of this report. It should clearly communicate the appointment dates to the resident to ensure that no further delays are experienced. This should include a commitment of what arrangements it intends to make to post-inspect the work to ensure it completes this to an acceptable standard. It should provide a specific point of contact who will take responsibility for offering weekly updates. As a minimum, the list of repairs should address the following:
- Kitchen extractor fan.
- Communal gate and fence.
- Condensation on the windows in the communal area.
- Missing doormat in the communal area.
- The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.