Clarion Housing Association Limited (202446514)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446514

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 February 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.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. subsidence and cracks.
2. leaks, damp and mould.
3. kitchen cupboard repairs.
4. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house. She has lived in the property since 2018 with her husband and 3 children. The resident explained she has a respiratory condition, her children have allergies, and her husband has a mental health condition.
The resident complained to the landlord on 7 June 2024. She said cracks had appeared inside and outside her property, there were leaks in her bathroom and damp and mould in many rooms. The resident explained that the landlord had contacted its insurer about the cracks. However, she was unhappy that her number had been passed onto the loss adjuster, especially as she had had no update from the landlord since 29 November 2023. Having done her own research into the loss adjuster, she felt their reviews were poor and she did not consent to her details being shared with anyone. She explained she had just replaced the flooring due to the previous leaks, but she would rather be permanently moved instead of temporarily rehoused during the works. The resident added that there were still outstanding repairs relating to cracks, mould and the kitchen cupboards.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 September 2024. It apologised for its delayed response and said:
1. the loss adjuster’s surveyor had not yet authorised the works, despite its maintenance surveyor chasing this for several months. It was sorry for the lack of updates and communication between teams. It was awaiting a response from the resident before the loss adjuster could attend her property.
2. it had not logged the resident’s dissatisfaction as a complaint. Instead, it had incorrectly passed this to the repairs team.
3. during a trial pit excavation to examine the foundations, no roots or groundwater was found. However, a closed-circuit television survey (CCTV) of the drains showed that repairs were required in several sections in the drains. Also 12 months of subsidence monitoring revealed no significant movement. The recommendation was for it to stop monitoring for subsidence and carry out all recommended repairs to the foul and surface water drainage system. Repairs to structural areas with cracking followed by redecoration works were also recommended.
4. it had not raised any jobs for the kitchen repairs or for the black mould in the bathroom. However, it would assign a resident liaison officer to coordinate this.
5. it had experienced some challenges with communication as the resident had asked for this by text or email only. A further delay was caused when a contractor pulled out of the tendering process.
6. it offered £100 compensation in recognition of the resident having to chase, lack of communication, failure to follow its policy and procedures and the inconvenience caused. It offered £50 compensation for its delayed stage 1 complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 October 2024. She explained that no one had updated her about the engineer’s position or the contractor pulling out of the tending process. She felt that landlord had taken too long to progress matters, and that it was untrue that she had not responded to the landlord. The resident said the mould in the bathroom was painted over, and the repairs to the kitchen cupboard doors were not effective or lasting as the problem had returned. She understood the work needed to be done but was not prepared to be temporarily rehoused as it would cause too much disruption. She said the landlord had not addressed this in the stage 1 response. Overall, she felt the landlord was not updating her and its communication with her was poor.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 January 2025. It stated it was a complex repair issue and as such it:
1. was required to monitor subsidence for 12 months as part of its insurance claim. Due to this, the engineers did a site inspection in September 2024, where they specified what work was needed for the subsidence issue.
2. experienced delays due to a cyber attack on its system and then needed to retender for quotes.
3. needed to contact its insurers as the cost of works exceeded its £10,000 policy excess. The insurer’s loss adjuster needed to review the damage. This was delayed as initially the resident did not give permission for the loss adjuster to attend. However, it said the insurer confirmed it would complete work to the kitchen, utility room and external repairs. Therefore, the landlord was awaiting confirmation from the resident of her availability.
4. made an assurance to update the resident every 2 to 3 weeks. It offered further compensation of £150 for time taken, £50 for the resident having to chase it for updates and £50 for its delayed stage 2 response.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 17 February 2025. She felt the landlord’s handling of matters was having a negative impact on her family’s health. The resident has explained that the mould is now affecting every room with an external wall. To put things right, she wants to be permanently rehoused. Additionally, she wants compensation for the distress caused, costs incurred in replacing the flooring 3 times, damage caused to her belongings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that there is a long history of reported issues with subsidence, cracks, leaks and mould. We expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so landlords have a reasonable opportunity to consider issues whilst they are still ‘live’ and while evidence is available, to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from June 2023 up to the stage 2 response.
The resident explained that the landlord’s handling of the issues is impacting her health and that of her family. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.
The resident has advised that she wants to be permanently rehoused. The remedies that we make are aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been, as far as reasonably possible, had the failing not occurred. These include, but are not limited to, ordering a landlord to pay compensation, undertake works, or review and/or update its policies. It is not within our powers to order the landlord to permanently rehouse a resident. Should the resident wish to move, she should discuss this directly with the landlord to establish what options are available to her.

Reports of subsidence and cracks

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house”.
The landlord’s planned investment referrals policy sets out its approach to reactive major works. These would be for works which would normally fall within an asset investment remit but cannot wait for future programming and need to be completed as quickly as possible. Examples of this include structural works and drainage.
The evidence shows that the landlord repaired cracks in the kitchen in June 2022. The landlord completed a structural survey on 29 November 2022, due to more cracks running across the property internally and externally. However, it is not clear from the evidence when these further cracks were reported or what prompted it to complete a structural survey.
The inspection revealed there was possible subsidence movement. It was suspected that it was being caused by tree roots and the drains were potentially leaking leading to soil erosion. The following works were estimated to be below £10,000 and the surveyor recommended:
1. The removal of shrubs and trees.
2. A CCTV survey of the drainage system.
3. Investigation of the soil.
4. Monitoring of cracks for 12 months.
On 5 January 2023, the landlord raised a job for the drain to be cleared and surveyed by CCTV. The landlord raised the job for the CCTV drain survey within a reasonable timeframe, accounting for the Christmas period. However, the evidence suggests the resident declined an attendance on 28 February 2023. The evidence suggests that there were many messages leading up to 28 February 2023. This indicates that some attempts were made to get this booked in sooner, but it is unclear why the resident did not want to allow this survey to go ahead at that time. It appears to have been booked in for March but its not clear if this went ahead as scheduled. However, it was completed in early May 2023. The results of the drain survey and soil analysis came back on 6 June 2023.
The evidence suggests that monitoring equipment was installed in February 2023. The results indicated that there was no subsidence related movement. The contractor provided its overall report on 15 September 2023. It recommended to stop monitoring and complete repairs to the drainage system. It also recommended carrying out cosmetic works to repair the cracks. In November 2023, the contractor provided a schedule of works for the tendering process. The evidence shows that 3 different contractors were approached, but only 2 responded. Both quotes were received by 4 January 2024.
We appreciate the work required was more complex in nature and needed to go through a different process than a standard repair. However, the landlord took approximately 11 months from its inspection results to request quotes. It is noted that during this time it was continuing to monitor cracks and completing the recommended investigations. Overall, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to do this. It demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and committed to following the contractor’s advice.
After the quotes came back, the contractor chased the landlord several times between January 2024 and May 2024. It wanted to know how to proceed as both quotes were above the £10,000 policy excess. The landlord was unable to deal with the matter internally, and it appropriately raised a claim with its insurer on 21 May 2024. It is not clear why there was a 5 month delay in raising this. We note some delay was caused by the landlord not receiving all of the quotes it expected to receive. However, the evidence does not suggest that all of the delay was unavoidable.
Once the landlord’s insurer was involved, it swiftly appointed a loss adjuster to review the damage to the property. The loss adjuster attempted to attend the property, but the resident refused to allow access. It is clear that at this stage communication between the parties had broken down. There is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord kept the resident updated about events after it started the tender process. As a result, she was understandably frustrated at the lack of progress and updates. Had the landlord explained the process and updated the resident accordingly, it would have managed her expectations much better.
The loss adjuster reviewed the damage on 29 October 2024. We acknowledge that during this time the resident was keen to learn the outcome of her complaint before allowing a further inspection. While it is understandable that the landlord wanted to respect her wishes, we would expect to see an attempt to explain how it could manage the repair and complaint side by side. A further delay occurred when the resident informed the landlord, she would grant access on 9 September 2024. However, the landlord did not effectively communicate this with the loss adjuster. This lack of effective communication undoubtably contributed to some of this delay.
The loss adjuster shared its report of its inspection with the insurer on or around 31 October 2024. This report was also shared with the landlord by way of a letter on the same day. This letter detailed the additional information the loss adjuster wanted from the landlord. These were details relating to a crack repair in the kitchen and confirmation that the drainage repairs highlighted in November 2023 had been done. However, internal emails in December 2024, revealed the landlord did not have this letter or report and was unaware that the loss adjuster had conducted its inspection. It is not clear why this was the case, or why the landlord waited until 18 December 2024, to chase the loss adjuster for this. This was not appropriate.
The loss adjuster’s inspection reported that the cause of the damage may have been due to clay shrinkage subsidence and the nearby vegetation. This was the responsibility of the local authority. Therefore, its stance was different to that taken by the contractors who carried out the inspection in November 2022.
The landlord began investigating whether it had completed any drainage repairs since the November 2022 inspection. It identified in mid–January 2025 that the drainage repairs remained outstanding. That the landlord did not realise that this remained outstanding is indicative of poor repairs management. However, we acknowledge that the landlord was a victim to a cyber attack in 2022 and this may have impacted its ability to track and monitor repairs.
Overall, it was positive that the landlord’s response to this complex repair included:
1. arranging an inspection in November 2022 and following the recommendations in that report (crack monitoring, soil and drain investigations).
2. obtaining quotes for the work.
3. referring the matter to its insurer when the quotes exceeded its policy excess.
While the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had failed to keep the resident updated and offered her compensation, we are not persuaded that this went far enough to put things right. The landlord offered a total of £300 over the stage 1 and stage 2 responses for its handling of the repair. This included poor communication, inconvenience caused to the resident by having to chase it, and a failure to follow its policy. The landlord said it would compensate for ‘time taken’ in dealing with her concerns. It is unclear what exactly this relates to. However, given the failings we have identified, we are not persuaded that a total of £300 compensation is proportionate for all of the failings that were identified. Taking into account the circumstances of the complaint, and our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £100. We consider this to be a more proportionate sum to adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the cumulative failings. In particular that the landlord failed to keep the resident updated of progress and the likely timescales in progressing matters further.

Reports of leaks, damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy from January 2024, states it will identify and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. It will ask questions, offer initial advice to residents and inspect the cause of the issue.
The resident reported leaks in the bathroom between 2019 and 2022 which the landlord attended to. The resident also reported mould in January 2022, and the landlord did a mould wash later in the year. It was appropriate for the landlord to treat the mould. However, it is unclear whether any inspections into the cause of the mould were undertaken.
The repairs log indicated that on 4 May 2023, the resident reported a leak from a tap in the sink and that the bath was not level. At the same time, it was noted there was damp and mould under the bath. A note confirms an appointment was made for 26 May 2023. There is no further information to confirm whether this was completed. This is a failing.
Another job was raised for a ‘leaky tap, unlevel sink and bath’ on 10 August 2023. The work to fix the leak was completed on 14 August 2023. On 3 October 2023, the landlord raised another job for a leaky tap in the bathroom. This was recorded as completed on 23 October 2023. The gaps in the record keeping have prevented us from having a clear understanding of what action the landlord took and when. As a result, it is not possible to conclude that the landlord’s response was in accordance with its policy. The resident has informed us that the leak is resolved.
The resident raised the issue of mould again in her complaint on 7 June 2024. She had said that it was affecting all the rooms in the house which had an external wall. She also added that the mould had been in the bathroom persistently. She had resorted to cleaning it regularly. It is not clear whether any reports were made between May 2023 and this date, or if this related to the mould that had been previously identified. However, the landlord’s response which was 3 months later said it would assign a resident liaison officer to the matter. After the stage 1 response, there is no evidence to suggest that the mould was investigated. Nor is there a further update to this in the stage 2 response. This was a significant failing. The landlord was aware of damp and mould in the property and aside from a mould wash in 2022, no further steps were taken to treat or inspect the property. The resident then raised specific concerns about damp and mould in the property and the landlord failed to respond appropriately.
Our 2021 spotlight report on Damp and Mould recommends that landlords should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions”. It also states that it is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. However, in this case, there is no evidence that the landlord attended the property to inspect the damp and mould. The repairs log suggest it may have been an issue since May 2023 when mould was found under the tub. None the less it was alerted to the issue in June 2024 in the complaint. The resident has confirmed that no inspection of the damp and mould has been done.
The resident had previously reported leaks and the landlord should have reasonably been proactive to consider what was causing the mould and inspect the reported areas. By not doing so it missed a vital opportunity to satisfy itself and the resident that the damp and mould is not a hazard and appropriately put things right.
As a result, we have made a finding of severe maladministration. We order the landlord to pay compensation of £1,000. This is in line with our remedies guidance for serious failings which have had a significant impact on the resident. The resident has also told us that she incurred costs when replacing her floor coverings and belongings that had been damaged by the mould. We cannot determine whether the landlord is responsible for this damage as this is a matter of liability. Such decisions are best made by an insurer or the courts. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to provide the resident with details of its liability insurer. The resident may also wish to seek independent advice.

Kitchen cupboard repairs

The evidence shows that the resident reported issues with her kitchen cupboards in 2021 and 2022. The repairs log shows that a job was raised on 4 May 2023 for repairs to be made to the kitchen units as the cupboards were coming off the hinges. An appointment was made for 13 July 2023, however the repairs log indicated that the resident cancelled this.
There is a subsequent is a lack of evidence to show what happened, if anything, until the resident raised her complaint on 7 June 2024. The landlord noted in its stage 1 response that no jobs had been raised, but to remedy this it would assign a resident liaison officer to communicate with the resident and arrange a visit. There is no evidence that this transpired. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to this repair is poor and likely impacted the resident’s ability to track and progress the repair in a timely manner.
When the resident escalated her complaint, she indicated there had been some attempt at a repair, but it had not been a lasting one because the door had fallen off and the others were loose. It was not until the landlord’s stage 2 response in January 2025, that a plan to complete the work to the kitchen was agreed. The landlord took 17 months to deal with this repair which is not appropriate. As a result, we have made a finding of maladministration.
The compensation offered by the landlord has not been apportioned for kitchen repairs. As a result, we will order the landlord to pay £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this failing. We will also make an order to facilitate the completion of this repair.

The associated complaint

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 days. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. It should not exceed these timescales without good reason. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident complained on 7 June 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 September 2024, this was 66 working days outside of its policy timescales. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 October 2024, and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 January 2025. This was 51 working days outside of its policy timescales. On both occasions there was a delay in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We also note that the landlord failed to log the complaint initially which also contributed to that delay.
The landlord’s policy makes allowances for situations where it needs additional time to respond to a complaint. It states it may extend the timelines by no more than 10 additional days at stage 1 and 20 days at stage 2. It says it will agree this with the resident. However, there is no evidence that the resident’s agreement to any extensions was sought during the complaint process. This was not in line with its policy. It missed the opportunity to manage the complaint appropriately, given it was aware it could not meet the published timescales.
The resident incurred time and trouble in chasing the landlord for both responses. This was further impacted by the resident asking for inspections and work to be paused while the complaint was being considered. Under these circumstances, the landlord should have engaged with the resident and encouraged her to allow inspections to progress while the complaint responses were outstanding. Had it done so it could have managed the complaint and repair more effectively.
The Code sets out that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for decisions. The resident in her escalation request raised her concern that mould had been painted over and that she was against being temporarily rehoused during the works. This was not addressed by the landlord in its stage 2 response, and it should reasonably have been.
The landlord offered £100 in recognition of its failure to handling the complaint in line with its policies. While it appropriately acknowledged the delays, the level of compensation that it offered did not go far enough to put things right. As a result, we have made a finding of service failure and order it to pay a further £50. This is in recognition of its failure to address all issues by stage 2 and its failure to minimise the delays.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about subsidence and cracks.
2. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp and mould.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about kitchen cupboard repairs.
4. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failings identified by this investigation, in line with our guidance on making apologies.
2. pay compensation of £1,300, this in addition to its overall offer of £400. It should be paid directly to the resident and not her rent account and comprises of:
  1. £100 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the subsidence and cracks.
  2. £1,000 in relation to the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould.
  3. £150 in relation to the landlord’s handling of kitchen cupboard repairs.
  4. £50 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
3. create a schedule of works for when and how it intends to update the resident about the impending repairs relating to the subsidence issue. It should provide us with a copy. Given that the repair is complex, it may wish to appoint a single point of contact for the resident to liaise with for the future.
4. arrange to meet with the resident to inspect the damp and mould in the property to:
  1. determine the cause and whether remedial work is needed.
  2. provide her details of how she can make a claim for her damaged belongings and flooring.
5. Arrange an inspection of the kitchen cupboards. It should confirm in writing with the resident what its proposed plan of action is and whether or not any further work is required. It should provide us with a copy of the same.
6. Provide the resident with the details of how to make an application to be rehoused.