Clarion Housing Association Limited (202429668)

Background

1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat. He has long-term physical health conditions that the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Leaks.
   2. Damp and mould.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of leaks

5. There were delays in completing follow–on works after the leaks were repaired. The landlord acknowledged these delays and offered appropriate compensation as part of its complaints process.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

6. The landlord carried out work to remedy the damp and mould issues that had been reported. It did so in line with its relevant policies.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord identified delays in providing its complaint responses at both stages of the complaints process. It apologised and offered appropriate compensation for these.

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.

What we have not considered

8. Additional leaks affecting the property were identified after the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the complaint. These additional leaks meant that other repairs had to be completed and meant the resident was not able to continue living in the property while work was completed to fix them. These events were the subject of a separate complaint to the landlord, and so have not been considered as part of this complaint.

What we have considered

9. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that all routine repairs, including non-emergency leaks, will be completed within 28 days.
10. The resident reported leaks in the bathroom in October and November of 2023. The landlord attended these within the 28 days allowed under its policy, but on some of these visits no leak could be found.
11. A leak in the kitchen was reported on 19 January 2024. The landlord took 2 visits to fix the issue as a gas engineer was needed, but this was still resolved within 28 days.
12. As a result of the leak, significant damage was caused to the resident’s kitchen units. A work order for the replacement of these units was raised in March 2024 with a visit planned for April 2024. However, this was subsequently rearranged for 7 June 2024. This was significantly outside of the 28 days permitted by the landlord’s policy.
13. The replacement of the kitchen units had still not been completed by the time of the stage 2 response and had been rescheduled for 22 October 2024. The landlord took responsibility for these delays in its stage 2 response.
14. The resident advised the landlord that he had been unable to use his kitchen. The landlord said that this was not the case and that both the kitchen and the bathroom remained usable throughout. We have not seen documentary evidence to show whether the rooms remained usable. The landlord had visited the property throughout the period and should have been aware if the room was not usable.
15. The landlord identified that the time taken to complete the repairs was outside of its policy and offered compensation for this delay. The total compensation for delays to repairs was £400. As there were no apparent delays in the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould, it is assumed that this was awarded for the delays to the replacement of the units damaged by the leak.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy does not give payment ranges or bandings, but instead explains that compensation amounts will be decided on an individual basis. The offer of £400 sits within the maladministration range in our remedies guidance. This is appropriate given the 7 month delay the resident experienced and the impact on him.
17. As a result, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.

18. The landlord has a leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy which says it will “diagnose the cause of leaks, condensation, damp and mould and deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of the problem, not just the symptoms”. The repair timescales explained above still apply.
19. The resident first reported concerns about the presence of damp and mould in the property on 23 November 2023. The landlord’s repair records indicate that work was due to resolve this within 7 days. Work appears to have been completed within the 7 days, but it is not clear what was completed at the time. This points to a record keeping failure.
20. A further report of damp and mould was made on 19 January 2024. This appears to be connected to the leak in the kitchen. Following this report, an operative attended on 6 February 2024 and follow on work was completed on 23 February 2024. Mould washes were completed in the kitchen and bedroom. This was within the 28 days the landlord’s policy allows for routine repairs.
21. As part of the damp and mould works needed, a dehumidifier was provided by the landlord to help dry out the areas affected. This cost of running this was paid by the landlord as part of its stage 1 response. This was appropriate, although it is unclear whether the landlord would have covered this cost if the resident had not complained.
22. As part of the work to resolve the damp and mould issues with the property, the landlord completed mould washes, installed extractor fans, repaired multiple leaks, and provided the resident with advice on how to reduce the buildup of condensation in the property. These actions were in line with its policy.

The actions taken by the landlord to resolve the issues with damp and mould were completed in a reasonable time and were done with the aim of resolving the underlying cause of the damp and mould. We therefore find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy says that responses will be provided within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
24. At each stage of its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged that its response had been provided outside of these timescales. At stage 1 it offered £50 for these delays, and at stage 2 it offered £100.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that payments will be made on an individual basis. The £150 offered falls within the range for maladministration in our remedies guidance, and is considered fair given the delays the resident experienced in the complaints process.
26. Based on this we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.