Clarion Housing Association Limited (202509922)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property which a 3-bedroom maisonette. She has a number of vulnerabilities including dementia and a history of multiple strokes. The resident lives with her daughter, who has acted as her representative during the complaint process and with this service. The representative will be referred to as the resident for ease of understanding in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks into the property and damage caused.
   2. Damp, mould and silverfish infestation.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of leaks into the property and damage caused.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and silverfish infestation.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the leaks into the property and damage caused

4. The landlord did not repair the leak in line with its policies and procedures. It acknowledged these failures in its complaint responses and offered an appropriate amount of compensation to the resident.

The handling of damp and mould and silverfish infestation.

5. Although the landlord fixed the leak which was causing the damp and mould, it did not take sufficient action to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property. The report from the pest controller made several recommendations about damp and mould which the landlord did not follow. The landlord also failed to consider the vulnerabilities of the household and did not consider all the relevant policies.

The handling of the complaint.

6. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s stage 1 or stage 2 complaints in line with its policy and procedures. However, the landlord recognised these failures and offered the resident compensation. We consider the compensation offered to be reasonable redress for its complaints handling.

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.

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.

7. The landlord has a leaks, condensation, damp and mould (LCDM) policy and a repairs policy. The LCDM policy in place at the time states that the landlord is responsible for diagnosing the cause of leaks and dealing with the cause of the problem, including carrying out any repairs necessary to fix it. The landlord’s repairs policy states that communal repairs should always be completed within 28 days.
8. The leak was reported to the landlord on 16 July 2024. An emergency repair to contain the leak was completed on 17 July 2024. This was within the timeframes set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. A further repair was raised on 26 July 2024 for follow on works. This was recorded as a communal repair. The contractor job card shows that operatives attended on 28 October 2024, 95 days later. Works completed included repairing a pipe and descaling. This work did not address the roof as it was believed that the leak was caused by a drainage issue. This was not in line with the timeframes set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
9. A communal repair was then raised on 30 October 2024 for the roof following reports of a leak from another property in the building. It was at this point that the landlord identified that the issue causing the leak was related to the roof. The landlord’s repair records show that this job was completed on 20 December 2024.
10. Reports from the resident, and the landlord’s repair logs, show that the leak continued to be a problem. The resident raised the issue in her stage 1 complaint on 6 January 2025, and made further reports of water ingress on several occasions after this. On each of these occasions the landlord attended within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. The Area Supervisor also attended on two occasions, on 21 February 2025 and 13 March 2025 to inspect the bedroom. However, the problem of the leak was not resolved until 26 March 2025 when operatives attended and carried out waterproofing works on the roof.
11. In relation to the damage caused by the leak, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend on 10 March 2025 to repair the ceiling and walls. However, they were unable to complete the work. The contractor reported that the previous roof repair had failed and there was still water ingress into the property. The roof was repaired on 26 March 2025. The landlord raised another job for internal repairs on 7 April 2025. This work was originally scheduled for 23 April 2025 which was in line with the timeframes in the landlord’s repairs policy. The job was rescheduled for 9 May 2025 at the request of the resident. The landlord’s repair records show that the work was completed on this date, with photographic evidence provided.
12. The resident wanted the landlord to redecorate the room because of the damage caused. An internal email from the landlord records that the Area Supervisor told the resident that while the landlord was responsible for repairing the walls and ceiling, the resident would be responsible for replacing the laminate flooring and any decorating work.
13. The landlord’s response was appropriate and reflect the responsibilities for decorations set out in the resident’s occupancy agreement. The landlord’s compensation policy also specifically states that damage to belongings, including floor coverings, due to leaks should be claimed on a home contents insurance policy.
14. The resident explained in her stage 2 escalation that her living arrangements had been disrupted. She said that due to the leak and resulting damp and mould and silverfish infestation, she had to move out of her bedroom and sleep on the sofa. The resident said this caused her significant discomfort and it impacted her physical and mental health. In its response to the resident’s request for compensation for the medical impact and the damage to her belongings, the landlord provide the resident with its insurance details to allow the resident to make a claim through its insurance.
15. We acknowledge that it can take more than one attempt to fix a leak. However, the time taken for the landlord in this case was not reasonable. The landlord failed to diagnose and fix the leak at the earliest opportunity.
16. The landlord acknowledged its failures and delays relating to the roof repair and offered compensation. In its stage 2 response, it offered the resident a £400 discretionary payment for the delayed roof repair and stage one complaint response. In its stage 1 response, the landlord had offered £100 for its stage 1 complaint handling failures. Therefore, it is our view that the £400 offered at stage 2 was made up of £100 for stage 1 complaint handling failures and £300 for the delays in resolving the roof leak.
17. We recognise that the landlord has acknowledged its failures and offered the resident compensation. The compensation offer of £300 for the delayed roof repair is appropriate and line with our remedies guidance. We consider this to be reasonable redress.

18. The landlord has a LCDM policy and a pest and wildlife policy. The LCDM policy states where there is a health risk to a member of a household, residents may be required to move out of their home in line with the landlord’s Decant Policy. This policy says that residents may be temporarily moved when a property is uninhabitable as the result of a leak or damp and mould works. It also says that the landlord will consider any vulnerabilities in a household when considering a temporary move.
19. The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy states that the landlord will be responsible for eradicating any infestations caused by its failures including disrepair. It specifies that silverfish eradication will be considered during repair works. The landlord also has a compensation policy which says the landlord will award compensation for loss of a room for longer than the repair Service Level Agreement, which is 28 calendar days.
20. When the resident complained about the leak on 6 January 2025, she also raised the issues of damp and mould and the silverfish infestation. She explained the impact these issues were having, including causing breathing difficulties, distress and inconvenience, and impact on mental health. The resident also said this had an impact on her ability to care for her mother.
21. Following a further email from the resident on 29 January 2025, the landlord raised an order on 6 February 2025 for a pest control contractor to attend the property. This shows that the landlord had accepted responsibility for addressing the silverfish, which is in line with its pest and wildlife policy.
22. A pest control contractor attended the resident’s property on 19 February 2025. The contractor inspected the property and identified signs of damp and mould and water damage. The contractor placed insect monitor points in the property and left additional monitor points with the resident to use if required. Their report also made several recommendations, including resolving the damp and cleaning the mould, investigating damp and mould in void areas of the front bedroom, and removing the laminate flooring to clean any mould that had formed below.
23. The Area Supervisor inspected the room on 21 February 2025 and 13 March 2025. Based on these visits, he felt that the room was not inhabitable. However, no evidence has been provided that the landlord completed a risk assessment or considered the vulnerabilities of the resident and her mother based on this. There is no evidence that it considered its Decant policy either as a result.
24. The resident also said in her stage 2 escalation on 7 April 2025 that she was sleeping on the sofa and would need alternative accommodation while works were completed. Although the landlord’s internal scoping form for the stage 2 response indicates that it considered if loss of room was an issue, it has not evidenced what its decision was and did not address this in its complaint responses.
25. The landlord acted to repair the leak which was causing the damp and mould. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging the pest control contractor, however, it has confirmed to us that it has not acted on the recommendations of the pest control report. This is a failure of the landlord’s responsibility to deal with the silverfish. By not taking action on the recommendation of the pest controller, the landlord also failed to comprehensively deal with the damp and mould.
26. The landlord previously offered the resident a discretionary payment of £150 in its stage 2 response. It recognised failures including inconvenience and disruption, time and trouble for the resident, and a failure to follow process. However, it did not recognise its failures to appropriately consider the vulnerabilities of the household and consider the appropriate policies and procedures based on this. In recognition of these failures and the impact on the resident, the landlord must pay the resident further compensation. The landlord must also consider whether the resident suffered a loss of room and follow its compensation policy in relation to this.

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 days and provide a formal response within 10 working days. It aims to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving the escalated complaint.
28. The resident submitted her stage 1 complaint on 6 January 2025. She then sent an email to the landlord on 29 January 2025 as she had not received any acknowledgment. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this on 6 February 2025. This was 24 working days after the resident made her complaint. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response until 7 April 2025. This was 66 working days after the resident made her complaint. This was a breach of the landlord’s complaint policy and was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
29. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 8 April 2025. The resident then sent a further email on 28 April 2025 raising additional concerns. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 June 2025. This was 43 working days after the resident’s stage 2 escalation and 29 days after the further email from the resident. This was a breach of the landlord’s complaint policy and was not in line with the Code.
30. In its stage 2 response, the landlord addressed the resident’s request for £20,000 compensation for distress, inconvenience, health impacts, and damaged property. It advised the resident this would need to be made by an insurance claim. The landlord provided the resident with the contact details required to make a claim to the landlord’s insurers. It also told the resident what information to include when making a claim. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
31. The landlord also appropriately addressed the resident’s additional concerns about asbestos in its stage 2 response. It explained that the work had consisted of painting a waterproof roofing repair compound. It said the work had not been intrusive and there had been no disturbance of the roofing materials so no survey or testing was required.
32. The landlord recognised there had been complaint handling failures at both stage 1 and stage 2. It offered the resident a total of £150 for complaint handling failures. £100 was offered for failures at stage 1, and £50 was offered for delays in the stage 2 complaint response.
33. Although there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, it recognised these and provided explanations of what had gone wrong. It also offered the resident compensation in recognition of these failures. We consider the compensation offer of £150 to be reasonable redress.

Learning  

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised there had been record keeping failures in its stage 1 response in identifying when the issue of the leak was first raised. It is important that landlords keep clear, accurate, and accessible records. This will help avoid any confusion and help the landlord to form clear timelines around when an issue has been raised and what actions have been taken to resolve them.

Communication

36. The resident had to contact the landlord on several occasions to follow up her complaint. There were also occasions when the landlord contacted the resident to tell her the complaint response would be delayed and apologised for this. The landlord should consider how it can be more proactive in communicating with residents and keeping them updated about their complaints.