Clarion Housing Association Limited (202432728)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432728

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 June 2025

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.

background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the front door.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to relocate the boiler.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to change the primary name on the tenancy.
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about dumped rubbish.

Background

The resident was a joint assured shorthold tenant of the property, at the time of the complaint. The property was a 3-bedroom flat. The tenancy began in January 2022 and ended in April 2025.
The resident occupied the property with her partner and dependent children. The landlord’s records show there were a number of vulnerabilities within the household. The resident had asthma and experienced severe anxiety. At least one of the resident’s children had asthma. Both of her children were autistic, so had additional needs.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 21 March 2024. The landlord issued the final stage 2 complaint response on 25 November 2024. In summary:
1. The resident:
  1. Said there were various outstanding repairs to the property. This included a leak from the terrace above the property, which had affected the kitchen and the living room, damp, and water ingress in one of the bedrooms, and rising damp in the hallway.
  2. Expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her concerns about the security of the front and back doors.
  3. Said the boiler needed to be moved in the small bedroom, as there was insufficient space to accommodate a single bed for her child.
  4. Asked the landlord to make her the primary point of contact on its tenancy records, to overcome contact issues she had been experiencing with the landlord.
  5. Said the landlord had not addressed an ongoing issue with dumped rubbish on the estate.
2. The landlord:
  1. Set out the action it had taken in relation to the substantive issues within both complaint responses.
  2. Recognised that it had not issued the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses within the published timescales.
  3. Acknowledged there had been delay coordinating work to address rising damp in the hallway.
  4. Partially upheld the complaint about moving the boiler in the small bedroom, after identifying the room did not meet the minimum size criteria.
  5. Said it was unable to change the primary name on the tenancy. But this could be requested when the tenancy came up for review.
  6. Did not clearly state a decision on the remaining complaint points. But it did make a combined offer of compensation which amounted to £1,875, in recognition of the failings it identified up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response. This compensation was broken down as follows:

(1) £500 compensation, in recognition of the property not meeting the needs and size of a 3-bedroom property.

(2) £400 compensation in recognition of its delay to address rising damp in the property.

(3) £300 compensation, in recognition of its delay to repair the front door.

(4) £250 compensation, in recognition of its delay to upgrade the bathroom extractor fan.

(5) £200 compensation, in recognition of its delay to repair the terrace wall.

(6) £175 compensation, for issuing the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses outside of its published timescales.

(7) £50 compensation, under the right to repair.

The resident told us on 16 June 2025 that the landlord’s compensation was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her family. The resident said the landlord should compensate for the financial loss she had incurred, associated with moving to new permanent accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident first reported damp and mould in the upstairs toilet in February 2022, which was not long after the tenancy began. The landlord identified the cause of the issue, which it resolved. However, there were no further reports about mould until 11 January 2023. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s reports about leaks, damp, and mould from January 2023 through to November 2024, when the landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted. For clarify, events that happened outside of this timeframe may be referenced but will not be assessed.
We cannot draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, this investigation may consider the general distress and inconvenience that the situation was likely to have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaks, damp, and mould

According to the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs should be completed within 28 days, as routine repairs.
According to the landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy, the landlord will diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. It will carry out any repairs identified in accordance with the timescales stated in its repairs and maintenance policy. It will keep residents informed of any property inspections, diagnosis, and the timetabling of works. And where there are severe or recurring issues with damp or mould, it may provide dehumidifiers.
The resident made numerous reports about leaks, damp, mould, and condensation between January 2023 and November 2024. It is evident that most of the rooms in the property were affected to some extent over this timeframe.
We accept that it can sometimes take a landlord several attempts to diagnose and fully resolve the cause(s) of leaks, damp, mould, and condensation, in a property. The evidence suggests the landlord carried out various investigations, identified several potential causes, and carried out multiple mould treatments. Our investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the key causes of the damp, mould, and water ingress, identified by the landlord over the timeframe of the complaint.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property in February 2023. The landlord surmised that the water ingress could be coming from the terrace above the property, which would require further investigation. The landlord raised an inspection of the terrace, which is shown as complete on 13 March 2023. However, there were no job notes to confirm that the landlord attended or what it identified. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the terrace was inspected.
The resident raised repeated concerns between April 2023 and March 2024 that the landlord had not inspected the terrace above the property, as a potential cause of the water ingress. The landlord did not provide reassurance to the resident that the terrace had been inspected.
The landlord later identified, when it inspected the terrace in April 2024, that the terrace had lifted and this was causing water ingress into the property. It also identified a blocked drain. The landlord promptly unblocked the drain and sealed the terrace above the property.
The landlord identified at stage 1 that there had been delays carrying out repairs to the terrace, it had failed to follow its processes for addressing the repair, it had needed to carry out repeat visits before the repair was completed, and the resident had needed to chase it repeatedly for updates. This shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for its inaction. It tried to put things right by offering the resident £200 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused, taking into account the vulnerabilities within the household. The landlord’s offer was at the lower end of the range we would have expected, for the failings it identified up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s operative and its heating contractor identified in February 2023 and October 2023 respectively, that there could be a leak on the soil stack. However, there is no evidence that the landlord attempted to check the soil stack until August 2024.
The landlord’s contractor did not identify any cracks in the soil vent pipe when it surveyed the soil vent pipe in August 2024. But questioned whether the area around the soil vent pipe was watertight, which ran though the property. The landlord did not investigate this until October 2024. The landlord’s contractor identified water tracking down the pipe into the property, from the neighbour’s bath and wash hand basin. The landlord promptly carried out a repair to stop the leak. Overall, the landlord did not investigate the soil stack as a potential source of the leak in a timely and proactive manner. And the landlord did not identify this as a failing during its own complaint investigation.
The landlord identified in May 2023 that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen, the bathroom fan needed to be upgraded, and it recommended this be addressed. The resident repeatedly chased the landlord between May 2023 and December 2023 about the bathroom fan upgrade and the kitchen fan installation. The landlord did not communicate clearly with the resident concerning its intentions. The landlord did not upgrade the bathroom extractor fan until March 2024. The landlord did not install a kitchen extractor fan until July 2024. It is unclear why the landlord did not progress these works in a timelier manner.
The landlord accepted at stage 1, there had delays installing the bathroom fan, it had failed to follow its processes for addressing the repair, it had needed to carry out repeat visits before the repair was completed, and the resident had needed to chase it repeatedly for a date when the fan would be installed. This shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for its inaction. It tried to put things right by offering the resident £250 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord’s offer was within the range we would have expected for the failings it identified.
The landlord mentioned in the stage 1 complaint that the kitchen extractor fan was fitted in July 2024. But it did not reflect on length of time it had taken to complete this job. Nor did it offer any redress for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay.
The resident first suggested there may be an issue with rising damp in hallway in September 2023. The landlord did not initially share the resident’s view. But it did instruct its plumber to investigate if there was a leak on the radiators and associated pipework. The landlord was entitled to rely on its own expertise to direct its investigation. The landlord’s plumber inspected the radiators and pipework in a timely manner, although no leaks were identified. The landlord arranged for the drains to be unblocked outside the property in October 2023 as the resident said these were blocked.
The landlord arranged for its plumber to inspect the pipework in the property again in December 2023 after the resident continued to experience damp and mould. The resident told the landlord that its plumber had confirmed there were no leak on the pipes. She said its plumber had explained the issues were being caused by rising damp, as the damp proof course did not meet the regulations. And that its plumber had advised the wall would need to be injected, which would require the radiators to be disconnected.
The landlord responded by raising an inspection for 10 January 2024 to investigate the damp proof course and the rising damp. We were unable to conclude from the available evidence, that the landlord attended this appointment, or if it did, what it identified. The resident repeatedly chased the landlord about its intentions to address the rising damp between January 2024 and May 2024. The landlord did not provide the resident with a clear response over this timeframe.
The landlord initiated a course of action in May 2024 to remove the radiators in the hallway, to remove the plaster from the walls, to inject the walls, to replaster the walls, and to reconnect the radiators. There was some delay in the landlord progressing these works due to the landlord having to investigate new leaks and delays obtaining a quotation of works from its contractor. We noted that the resident was also reluctant to allow the landlord to remove the radiators without confirmation of how long the repair was going to take. The resident chased the landlord several times for a timetable of works, in accordance with its policy. The landlord said on each occasion, it would get a manager to phone her back. But there is no evidence this happened.
The landlord attended to remove the plaster from the walls in August 2024. But upon arrival identified the walls were wet again, so could not complete the job. The landlord raised an appointment for September 2024 to investigate the cause of this. We were unable to verify that this inspection happened. The landlord replastered the walls in November 2024. It is unclear if the landlord ever treated the walls for rising damp, as it had committed.
The landlord accepted at stage 1, there had delays progressing repairs to address the rising damp, it had failed to follow its processes for addressing the repair, it had needed to carry out repeat visits before the repair was completed, and the resident had needed to chase it repeatedly for updates. This shows the landlord was taking responsibility for its inaction. It tried to put things right by offering the resident £400 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused, taking into account the vulnerabilities within the household. The landlord’s offer was within the range we would have expected for the failings it identified up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response.
There is no evidence to suggest the property was unfit for habitation due to leaks, damp, or mould, which would have required it to consider moving the family into temporary accommodation pending works. But we saw little evidence, aside from carrying out mould treatments, that the landlord explored if there was any additional support it might have provided the resident, pending resolution of the substantive issue. This is a concern given the landlord was aware the resident and her children had asthma and other vulnerabilities.
In summary, the landlord did not diagnose and fully resolve the leaks, damp, mould, and condensation in a timely and effective manner. It did not carry out all of the repairs it identified in accordance with the timescales stated in its repairs and maintenance policy. It did not keep the resident adequately informed of property inspections, the diagnosis, and the timetabling of works. And it did not demonstrate that it considered if there was any additional support it could offer the resident pending resolution of the substantive matter.
While the landlord did acknowledge there had been failings in its handling of the substantive issue, it did not identify all of the failings we identified up to issue of the stage 2 complaint response. And the landlord’s overall offer of compensation did not fully address the detriment caused to the resident and her family by those failings.
Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould. This is inclusive of the £850 compensation the landlord previously offered the resident during its own internal complaint process.
Our remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards in this range where there have been failings, which have had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the front door

The landlord phoned the resident on 13 May 2024 to discuss the reasons for the stage 1 complaint. The resident told the landlord during this conversation that the front door would shake upon closing and she did not feel safe.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised an inspection for the front door on 16 May 2024. The landlord’s records are somewhat unclear. But it seems likely the landlord’s operative inspected the door on 31 May 2024. This would have been within the expected timescale under its policy.
The landlord noted in the stage 1 complaint response, that the resident was dissatisfied because its operative had said there was nothing that could be done because the door was all glass, except for changing the glass to plywood. It acknowledged the resident had asked it to investigate this further but no works order had been raised and her concerns were not passed onto a manager. The landlord said it arranged for its operative to reinspect the door in mid-August 2024, when it identified the door was not closing properly. It noted that its operative readjusted the door upon attending, which resolved the matter. We were able to verify from the landlord’s repairs records that it raised a job to reinspect the front door on 12 August 2024 and that its operative attended in a timely manner on 20 August 2024. This shows the landlord was giving the matter the attention it deserved.
The landlord offered an apology at stage 1, for not addressing the resident’s ongoing concern about the front door. And offered £300 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its delay to repair the door, for having to carry out repeat visits, for its repeated failure to reply to the resident, and for the resident having to chase the repair. This compensation was proportionate to the failings identified.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the front door.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to relocate the boiler

The landlord’s website states that residents can apply for aids and adaptations to the property to help them or an immediate family member live a more independent life. To do this, the resident must contact the local authority to arrange an occupational therapist (OT) referral. The local authority will arrange for an OT to attend the property and identify any adaptations required. The landlord will arrange to deliver the works recommended by the OT. The landlord will discuss any funding arrangements with the OT, where major adaptations are recommended. And will work with the OT and the local authority so the adaptations are delivered.
According to the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy, major adaptations are those that cost more than £1,000. However, the landlord will only carry out major adaptations that are reasonable, practical, and are supported by an OT assessment from the local authority.
The resident first reported the boiler needed to be relocated on 23 August 2023. The resident explained that the property had been let to her as 3-bedroom property. But the 3rd bedroom was too small to fit a single bed. The resident said she had no choice but to accept the property, as the landlord had made her a direct offer. She clarified that she did not want to move but was concerned about the impact this was having on her youngest child, who was autistic, and was having to sleep on the sofa. The resident suggested if it were able to remove the boiler and boiler cupboard, this would increase the size of the room to take a single bed. She said it would also address her child’s sensitivity to heat and noise from the boiler.
The landlord’s repairs team told the resident on 26 September 2023 that the resident should contact its housing team if she wanted help moving or contact the local authority OT team who might arrange the work through a disabled facilities grant (DFG). This was in line with the landlord’s aids and adaptations policy. But we would have expected the landlord’s repairs team to have altered its housing team to the resident’s comments that the room was not big enough to take a single bed, so this could be investigated. This was a missed opportunity to assess whether the bedroom met the minimum size requirements, designed to ensure a resident’s comfort and safety.
A local authority OT emailed the landlord on 4 January 2024 recommending the boiler and boiler cupboard be relocated, to make room for a single bed. According to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord sent a member of staff to measure the room following the OT recommendation. In a follow up email on 26 April 2024 the resident suggested the landlord had accepted the room was below the “legal-size requirements” to be a bedroom. We do not seek to dispute the resident’s account. But the landlord’s actions over this timeframe could not be verified from the evidence we have seen.
The landlord took steps to progress the OT recommendation between 23 April 2024 and 30 August 2024. The landlord contacted the OT several times over this timeframe seeking clarify about their recommendation. It also discussed the case internally and arranged for its contractor to determine if the works were feasible and to provide a quotation. This shows the landlord was trying to progress the matter for the resident. But there were obvious gaps in the landlord’s records, which suggests the landlord was not progressing the matter as quickly as it could have.
Ultimately, the landlord established it was possible to move the boiler. But the cost of the works would be significant (over £1,000) and the job was unlikely to be straight forward.
The OT clarified on 30 August 2024 that they had not actually carried out an OT assessment for the family as there was no need for an OT assessment from social care. They confirmed that their original recommendation was based on the housing need of the family, as it was clear the room was not big enough to fit a bed. They suggested the resident would be grateful if the landlord could provide a solution. This was problematic for the landlord, as it would only carry out major adaptations under its aids and adaptation policy that were supported by an OT assessment. And without an OT assessment, it was unlikely the landlord could access any DFG funding.
There is little evidence that the landlord kept the resident proactively updated about the lines of enquiry it was making over this timeframe. The landlord’s communications fell short and resulted in avoidable inconvenience for the resident, who had to repeatedly chase it for updates. There were also occasions when the landlord did not provide the resident with a response, which left the resident unclear of its intentions. For example, the resident chased the landlord for an update on 7 May 2024. The landlord told the resident on 13 May 2024 it would secure an update from the service area. There is no evidence that it fed back to the resident. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 21 August 2024 but there is no evidence it responded.
The landlord told the resident in the stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2024 that her request to relocate the boiler had been declined. It explained this was because moving the boiler would cause damage to other areas of the property, the job was not cost effective, and it was not deemed to be value for money. The landlord said the resident could ask the local authority if they would pay for the work via a DFG. But said the local authority would need to demonstrate the work could be completed without damaging the building. The landlord suggested the resident could also consider moving to a property that was more suitable to her family’s needs via the local authority housing waiting list or find a mutual exchange.
The landlord was not obliged under its aids and adaptations policy to carry out major adaptations that were not reasonable, practical, or supported by an OT assessment. The landlord’s suggestion that the resident pursue the works through the local authority, via a DFG, was in line with its policy. And it was helpful that the landlord advised the resident of her options to progress a rehousing application through the local authority or seek a mutual exchange. But the landlord’s response failed to take into consideration that the OT had determined the bedroom was not big enough to take a single bed. Nor did it consider the impact this was having on the resident’s daughter, which was likely to have been more acute due to their disability.
If there was any doubt as to whether the bedroom met the legal minimum size criteria, it ought to have remeasured the room. If, as the resident had suggested, the landlord had already measured the room and determined that it did not meet the minimum size requirement, it ought to have considered supporting the resident with moving, rather than placing the onus on the resident to find a solution herself.
The landlord did however recognise after the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, that bedroom might not meet the legal minimum size criteria. And took positive action to measure the bedroom on 29 October 2024. The landlord noted upon inspection, that the room did not meet the legal minimum size criteria and that the resident’s child was sleeping in a bed under the stairs. It recommended that the family be rehoused, as the “box room was not suitable”. This shows that the landlord was trying to put things right and was endeavouring to resolve the issue for the resident.
The landlord added that it would need to thoroughly assess the property once the property was vacant regarding any future occupancy. It committed to investigating how the property came to be let as a 3-bedroom property in the first place. It reminded its voids team of the importance of raising concerns about room sizes at the point properties became empty. This shows the landlord had a plan for the future and a willingness to learn from complaint outcomes.
The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint concerning the relocation of the boiler in the stage 2 complaint response on 25 November 2024. It said it was restricted on the alterations it was able to make to accommodate a bigger 3rd bedroom. The landlord tried to put things right by apologising for the inconvenience and stress that had been caused, as a result of the property not meeting the criteria to be a 3-bedroom property. It also made a commitment to move the resident to more suitable accommodation and offered £500 compensation. The landlord’s offer of action was reasonable. But its offer of compensation was not quite proportionate to the failings we identified in our investigation.
The landlord apologised for the further disruption that was likely to be caused by the resident moving. But given the circumstances of the move, it might have considered making a future commitment of practical or financial support. A recommendation is made later in consideration of this.
While outside the scope of this investigation, the landlord did progress the management move with some urgency following issue of the stage 2 complaint response. The resident accepted the tenancy of a new property on 19 March 2025, which resolved the substantive issue.
On balance the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response the resident’s request to relocate the boiler.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £700 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to relocate the boiler. This compensation is inclusive of the £500 compensation the landlord previously offered at stage 2. Our remedies guidance suggested awards in this range where there have been failings that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to change the primary name on the tenancy

The resident told us that she could not understand why the landlord made her partner the “primary” name on the tenancy agreement, as she was the one who applied for the tenancy.
The resident contacted the landlord shortly after the tenancy began, asking it to make her the “primary tenant”. The landlord’s records indicate that it explained this was not possible because the tenancy agreement was a contract. There is no evidence that the resident challenged the landlord’s position at this time.
The tenancy agreement shows both the resident and her partner as joint tenants on the same tenancy agreement. There is no reference to either resident being the “primary tenant”. But we note the resident’s partner was named first on the agreement. Regardless of who was named first, both the resident and her partner had an equal right to occupy the property and were subject to the same rights and obligations. In contractual terms, it would have made no difference who was named first on the tenancy agreement.
But it appears not being named first on the landlord’s computer system may have created some communication challenges for the resident and her partner. The resident told the landlord in May 2024 that said she was frustrated by the landlord sending emails to her partner, in response to contact she had initiated. She explained it was not easy for her partner to take phone calls at work and asked the landlord to reconsider its position on making her the primary tenant on the tenancy agreement and on the online account.
The landlord maintained at both complaint stages that it could not change the primary name on the tenancy. It recognised the underlying reason for the resident’s request was to ensure it was contacting the right resident when responding to housing queries and repairs. It explained that any letters would always be sent in joint names. This was appropriate given the joint tenancy status. It reassured the resident that any communications would be channelled through the contact email address and mobile phone number registered to the property, which both belonged to the resident. The landlord’s response was reasonable and would have ensured, where appropriate, that future communication was channelled via the resident.
The landlord suggested in the stage 1 complaint response that the resident might be able to become the primary tenant when the tenancy was reviewed. But according to an internal communication sent by the landlord the day after it issued the stage 2 complaint response, this information was incorrect. It added, that even if it had been able to agree to this, the tenancy was not due for review until 2026. It was positive that the landlord committed to addressing any misunderstanding that had arisen, directly with the relevant team. But we would have expected the landlord to have contacted the resident to explain it had made an error. There is no evidence it did, which left the resident believing the matter could be addressed at a later point. This was unfair.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to change the primary name on the tenancy.
The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation in recognition of the landlord’s failure to tell the resident it was unable to change the order of the names on the tenancy agreement, after it realised it misadvised her. Our remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there have been errors that the landlord did not appropriately knowledge or put right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about dumped rubbish

The resident told us that she had repeatedly raised concerns about rubbish dumped on the area of land leading up to the doors of the communal bin store. It is understood the resident was particularly concerned about this because she lived next to the bin store.
The landlord explained in the stage 1 complaint response on 6 September 2024 that its environmental team had not been made aware of any issues with bulk rubbish on the estate. But said its neighbourhood team had reported some dumped rubbish to its environmental team, in mid-July 2024, which had been removed. The landlord has provided copies of estate inspection forms, showing that it carried out estate inspections in October 2023 and March 2024. The landlord did not identify any issues with dumped rubbish at the time of these inspections.
However, we cannot agree that the landlord was unaware of the resident’s concerns about dumped rubbish. The resident has provided evidence showing she raised concerns with the landlord about this, as early as November 2023. The resident asked the landlord on 15 November 2023 to write a general letter to all residents about a growing issue with dumped rubbish. The resident also asked the landlord to consider installing signage and / or close circuit television (CCTV) to act as deterrent to non-residents.
The evidence suggests the landlord sent a letter to all residents in December 2023 about dumped rubbish. This was positive and shows the landlord was endeavouring to change behaviours. It is unlikely that the landlord would have considered CCTV as a proportionate course of action basis of a few reports. It might have considered installing signage to encourage its residents to dispose of unwanted rubbish responsibly. But it was reasonable for the landlord to wait and see how residents responded to its letter first.
The resident reported more dumped rubbish to the landlord on 21 December 2023, 27 December 2023, 19 July 2024, and 26 July 2024. She suggested on several occasions over this timeframe that the landlord was not doing enough to address the reoccurring issue with rubbish on the estate. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s communications in a timely manner explaining it had passed the resident’s emails onto the appropriate team. But we have seen limited evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to update her on the action it was taking or was willing to take in response. This was inappropriate and left the resident unclear about the landlord’s intentions. The landlord ought to have recognised this as a failing during its own complaint investigation.
We acknowledge that the issue may have been masked to some extent by the actions of the landlord’s own mobile team, who would routinely remove any accumulations of rubbish, as part of its weekly duties. We do not seek to criticise the landlord for its proactive management of the communal area. But we accept the landlord’s approach was treating the end result, without addressing the root cause.
The landlord acknowledged in the stage 1 complaint response that the resident had a frightening confrontation with a non-resident in July 2024 when trying to photograph someone dumping rubbish. So, it was positive that the landlord committed to considering if there were any preventative measures it was able to take itself, to discourage rubbish dumping on the estate. The landlord’s response would have been better if it had committed to providing the resident with a timescale for providing an outcome.
The landlord told the resident in the stage complaint 1 response, to seek a resolution from the local authority if she believed another resident had paid for a bulk rubbish collection, which had not been collected. It was reasonable to signpost the resident to the local authority to report her concerns about this. But it was unfair to place the sole onus on the resident to report this. We would have expected the landlord to have worked in partnership with the resident and the local authority to resolve this.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about dumped rubbish.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about dumped rubbish. Our remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there has been minor failure that the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged or put right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to relocate the boiler.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to change the primary name on the tenancy.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about dumped rubbish.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the front door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologises, published on our website.
The landlord must pay £1,850 compensation directly to the resident. This compensation is reduced to £500, if the landlord has already paid the £1,350 compensation it previously offered. This compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould. This is inclusive of the £850 compensation the landlord previously offered the resident during its own internal complaint process.
2. £700 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to relocate the boiler. This compensation is inclusive of the £500 compensation the landlord previously offered at stage 2.
3. £100 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings we identified in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about dumped rubbish.
4. £50 compensation in recognition of the landlord’s failure to tell the resident it was unable to change the order of the names on the tenancy agreement, after it realised it misadvised her.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the £525 compensation it previously offered, if it has not already done so, for the failings it identified in its handling of repairs to the front door, for complaint handling, and the right to repair.
The landlord should consider if it is able to offer the resident any financial assistance in relation to her moving expenses.