Clarion Housing Association Limited (202501544)

Background

1. The resident, who has vulnerabilities, lives in a ground floor flat. She complained to the landlord that it had not resolved various repair issues in her flat, including leaks, damp and mould. She also complained about how it had responded to her reports of noise and other antisocial behaviour (ASB) caused by her neighbour.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Repairs to windows, a door and an extractor fan.
   3. Reports of ASB.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Repairs to windows, a door and an extractor fan.
5. The landlord provided reasonable redress to the complaint about its handling of reports of ASB.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of leaks, damp and mould

7. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and carried out follow-up works, in line with its repairs policy.

Handling of repairs to windows, a door and an extractor fan

8. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about her windows, door and extractor fan in line with its repairs policy.

Handling of reports of ASB

9. The landlord delayed in providing the resident with advice about using a noise monitoring app and completing diary sheets. It had provided this advice by the time of its stage 2 response, but it acknowledged the delay was not in keeping with its ASB policy. It apologised and offered the resident a reasonable amount of compensation.

Handling of the complaint

10. The landlord should have responded to all aspects of the resident’s complaint even though she had sent it, through her solicitor, a disrepair claim letter. It failed to do so. It also delayed in processing and responding to the complaint at both stages in line with its policy, although it apologised and offered reasonable compensation for this.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

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

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.

11. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergencies within 24 hours of receiving a resident’s report. It should complete works to make the property safe or carry out a temporary repair within that timeframe. The policy states it will inspect and complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. If the work is major or complex, it may take up to 90 days to complete this. However, it must still carry out an initial repair visit within 28 days to assess what work is required.
12. In its stage 1 response in June 2024, the landlord set out a timeline of how it had responded to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould. It dated this back to her initial report in January 2023. It said it had responded to all reports within its policy timeframes. We reviewed its repair records and agree with its analysis. We found:
    1. Between January 2023 and June 2024, there were 9 periods in which the resident reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord categorised these reports as requiring a routine response. This was reasonable as although the resident suggested the damp and mould was caused by a leak, she did not suggest the leak was active. The landlord carried out inspections each time within the range of 3 to 21 days. Its average response time across the 9 inspections was 10 days. It therefore complied each time with the 28 day target response time set out in its repairs policy.
    2. In September 2023, May 2024 and June 2024, the resident reported water was leaking through a ceiling and running down walls. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord categorised these reports as an emergency and attended within 24 hours. It provided an emergency response on 3 further occasions between its stage 1 and stage 2 response upon receiving more reports from the resident of an active leak.
13. The landlord found no signs of an active leak during any of its inspections. It checked the upstairs flat a number of times but found no leaks. It checked the void between the resident’s ceiling and the floor of the upstairs flat. It found no signs of a leak and no evidence that the neighbour had been, as the resident suggested, pouring water or sewage into that space. The disrepair survey, completed by the landlord’s surveyor in July 2024, supported its previous findings that there was no leak. If the resident wished to challenge the surveyor’s findings, she had the option of instructing her own surveyor. However, she did not progress her disrepair claim any further.
14. Although the landlord identified no active leaks, it found damp and mould during some of its inspections. It treated this each time and considered what may have been causing it. This led to it upgrading the bathroom extractor fan, repairing ceiling plasterwork, repairing external brickwork and fixing roof tiles. It agreed dates for completing these repairs in line with the resident’s availability. It also provided her with a dehumidifier. This was in keeping with its damp and mould policy which required it to “deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of the problem, not just the symptoms”.
15. Since receiving the final response to her complaint in November 2024, the resident has continued to report concerns about leaks, damp and mould to the landlord. She told us that it has recently treated mould but that it continues to tell her there are no leaks in the property. The landlord should continue to respond to any further reports she makes in line with its policies and, if applicable, Awaab’s Law.
16. We note that when investigating the stage 1 complaint, the landlord considered whether it should make a safeguarding referral. This was because the resident had reported a number of leaks actively pouring through ceilings and down walls, but when it attended the property was dry. It considered, on balance, this was not necessary. It reasonably provided signposting advice to support services in its stage 1 response. We have recommended, however, that if the resident continues to make similar reports which it does not substantiate, it should discuss support services and safeguarding with her.

Windows

17. The resident complained that the seals around her windows were damaged. She said her neighbour caused this damage. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that it had inspected the windows and found no evidence of damage. Its repair records support this. It inspected the windows in April 2024 and July 2024 following reports from the resident of damaged seals. In line with its repairs policy, it carried out both inspections within 28 days of receiving the resident’s report. It found no issues with the seals or windows in general, other than paint was flaking from windowsills.
18. The resident told the operative carrying out the July 2024 inspection that she wanted the landlord to replace the windows throughout the property due to their age. She also included this request within her legal disrepair claim. However, she did not include the request within her complaint or escalation request. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not address it within its complaint responses. We have, however, recommended that it writes to the resident and advises her if it intends to upgrade the windows as part of its planned works programme. We note that its disrepair surveyor recommended it should do so given the windows were “aged” and required “overhauling and redecoration”.

Door

19. The resident told the landlord in February 2024 that someone had intentionally marked her front door with a pen or pin. She suggested it was her neighbour. The landlord treated this as an ASB report. It told the resident that it could not take action against the neighbour without evidence she had caused the damage. The landlord’s records show the resident said she understood this and she agreed it should not speak to the neighbour in the absence of evidence. The landlord’s response to this report was therefore reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
20. In June 2024 the resident told the landlord in her complaint, and a few days later in a separate report, that her front door was in poor condition. The landlord therefore inspected the door during its stage 1 investigation and within the 28 day timeframe required by its repairs policy.  It found a “couple of scuff marks” on it, but that it did not require repair. It was not responsible under the tenancy agreement for removing the scuff marks. It was therefore reasonable that it took no further action in relation to the door.

Extractor fan

21. In her complaint in June 2024, the resident said there was dust and a bad smell coming from a new bathroom extractor fan installed by the landlord. The landlord had already inspected the fan twice for these issues, in April 2024, following similar reports from the resident. During both inspections it found no issues with dust or odour. However, it reasonably said in its stage 1 complaint response that it would inspect the fan again given the resident remained concerned. It did so 2 days later and found the fan to be in good working condition, with no issues of dust or odour.
22. The landlord similarly committed in its stage 2 response to inspect the fan again given the resident remained concerned. It did so 3 days later and found no issues with dust or odour. There was therefore no obligation on the landlord to take any further action in relation to the fan. We are satisfied it investigated the resident’s concerns thoroughly.

23. The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to respond to reports of ASB within 5 working days. The policy states that it will not carry out a full investigation into every report, including where the reports relate to low-level household noise. However, it will make an exception if the noise is persistent or deliberate and is having a harmful impact on others.
24. The resident first reported noise caused by her neighbour in the upstairs flat in January 2024. The landlord responded the same day and asked for more information. The resident provided further information the following month. She said the neighbour was slamming doors, drilling and banging. She believed they were doing this deliberately to create noise. She also suggested they had intentionally scratched her front door.
25. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord opened an ASB case and contacted the resident within 5 working days to discuss her concerns. It also spoke to the neighbour about the resident’s allegations. The neighbour said she relied on essential visitors to her home and they often, unintentionally, slammed the doors. She said she had spoken to them before about it and would remind them again to be mindful of noise. The landlord updated the resident on this conversation and advised her that it would close its ASB file. It explained to her that without evidence, it could not take any action in relation to the door. It appropriately advised her to report any criminal damage to the police.
26. We are satisfied that the landlord’s actions up to this point were proportionate, given the available evidence, and in line with its ASB policy.
27. Four months later, in June 2024, the resident reported the noise had resumed. She made a number of further reports over the next 2 months. Within these reports she said that the neighbour was using listening devices to eavesdrop on her. She suggested they were lifting floorboards and pouring water and sewage through her ceiling, which was causing leaks in her property. She also said they had caused damage to her window seals.
28. As we have outlined above, we are satisfied the landlord inspected the floorboards and windows within reasonable timeframes and explained its findings to the resident. However, it took limited action in response to the noise reports between June and August 2024. Although it spoke to the neighbour again, it did not then have a further discussion with the resident about what noise it could and could not investigate. It did not assure her it had found no listening devices during any of its inspections. It was not until the end of August 2024 that it suggested she use a noise app and complete diary sheets.
29. The landlord reflected on this in its stage 2 complaint response in November 2024. It said the ASB case had “not been managed appropriately” as it had not actively attempted to gather evidence to substantiate the resident’s noise reports. It acknowledged its communications with her about the action it could take had not been clear. It apologised and offered her £500 compensation.
30. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will calculate compensation on a case by case basis, taking into consideration the severity and impact of any identified failings. Having considered these factors, along with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, we are satisfied £500 was a reasonable level of compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused.
31. The landlord also said in its stage 2 response that its tenancy team would contact the resident again to discuss her ASB case in more detail. We are satisfied it followed through on this commitment. In the 3 months following its stage 2 response, the landlord spoke with the resident a number of times and met with her to discuss her concerns. It listened to 9 sound recordings she submitted. It explained why these did not provide it with enough evidence to take formal action against the neighbour. However, it took informal action by speaking with the neighbour again about the resident’s concerns. This appears to have resolved the issue as the resident recently told us the noise issues have subsided and are no longer a concern to her.

32. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It requires the landlord to acknowledge new complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt. From the date of the acknowledgement, it should issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It may extend these deadlines although this should usually be by no longer than a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
33. The landlord did not comply with the above timeframes at either stage:
    1. Stage 1 – it delayed by 1 working day in acknowledging the complaint. It then told the resident 18 working days later it needed to extend the response date. It should have done so before the original 10 working day deadline had passed. It issued its response 20 working days after its acknowledgement which was within the maximum timeframe envisaged by its policy.
    2. Stage 2 – it delayed by 3 working days in acknowledging the escalation request. Although it extended the response deadline before the original deadline had passed, it did not issue its response within the new deadline it had proposed. It issued its response 55 working days after its acknowledgement which exceeded the 40 working day maximum timeframe envisaged by its policy.
34. The landlord apologised for its delays in its complaint responses. It explained this was due to the complexity of the complaint. It offered the resident £50 compensation at stage 1 and £75 compensation at stage 2. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, we are satisfied this was proportionate to the length of delay at each stage. We have seen no evidence these complaint handling failures caused the resident any detriment. The landlord was in regular communication with her about her complaint issues throughout its complaint investigations.
35. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was unable to provide the resident with updates on any issues raised within her disrepair claim. It said this was because it would manage these matters through the legal disrepair route. However, the resident had not issued the claim at court and it remained in the pre-action stage. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code make clear that in cases where legal action has not begun, it should investigate under its complaints procedure.
36. The landlord’s misapplication of its complaints policy due to the disrepair claim, meant it did not address leaks, damp and mould in its stage 2 response. It therefore failed to address all aspects of the complaint as required by its policy and the Code.
37. There is no evidence this failure caused the resident any detriment. As we have outlined above, we are satisfied there was no maladministration in its handling of leaks, damp and mould. Therefore, there were no failings to which it should have provided redress. It could have used the stage 2 response as an opportunity to assure the resident it had thoroughly investigated the leaks, damp and mould. However, we are satisfied it provided that assurance outside the complaints process. It shared its disrepair survey findings with her. It also attended her property the month before it issued the stage 2 response to investigate a reported leak and to treat damp and mould. It continued to respond to her reports of leaks, damp and mould after it issued its stage 2 response. It explained its findings to her and was in regular communication with her during and after its complaint investigations.
38. Given this, we have not ordered the landlord to pay compensation for its failure to address leaks, damp and mould in its stage 2 response. However, it should apologise to the resident for the failure. If it has not already done so, it should pay her the £125 compensation it offered for its complaint handling delays.

Learning

Complaint handling

39. The landlord should use its complaints procedure in cases where the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims has commenced, up until legal proceedings have been issued. This is to ensure it maximises opportunities to resolve disputes outside of court. It should ensure its legal and complaint teams work together effectively where an issue is being pursued through the complaints process and protocol.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord’s repair records contained details of all the inspections and works outlined within its complaint responses. However, the information provided against each entry on its records, particularly around inspection findings, was at times limited. We remind the landlord of the importance of keeping comprehensive repair records which can be easily understood by all staff responding to reports and complaints from residents.

Communication

41. The landlord’s communication with the resident was mostly good, particularly during its complaints process. It spoke to her about her complaint a number of times and arranged a tenancy visit during its stage 1 investigation. This enabled it to better understand her concerns and conduct a thorough complaint investigation.