Clarion Housing Association Limited (202313883)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313883

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 July 2024

 

 

Amended at Review

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of roof repairs, condensation and cold.

 

2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The residents are partners who have lived together in the property with 2 children since 2010. The property is a 3 bedroom house owned and managed by the landlord, a housing association. The word “resident” will be used to refer to the joint tenants of the property and their interactions with the landlord.

 

4. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 September 2021, saying that:

 

 

1. The landlord had replaced some of the fascia on the rear of the roof earlier in the year and the contractor had remarked that some tiles and felt on the roof needed to be replaced.

 

2. They were expecting this work to be completed and wanted an update.

 

5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint via webform on 20 February 2023. They said:

 

1. They had been waiting for a roof repair for over a year.

 

2. They had contacted the landlord numerous times about the repair but it had not taken action.

 

3. They had not been contacted by the landlord when promised on several occasions.

 

6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 March 2023, confirming it would respond within 10 working days. It sent its stage 1 response on 26 April 2023, in which it said:

 

1. In April 2021, it had identified nesting material in the soffits to the rear of the property, which was a potential source of mould in the roof space.

 

2. It had replaced the rear soffit and fascia in July 2021, but the roof was found to be watertight and did not require further attention.

 

3. It noted that the resident had wanted the front and side soffits and fascia to be replaced but, on assessment, this work was not required.

 

4. Its surveyor had visited the property in August 2021 and assessed that any damp and mould was “due to an issue with condensation and not for any other reason”.

 

5. The contractor who completed the rear roof work had submitted a quote for the renewal of the front and side fascia and soffits, but it had not authorised this.

 

6. It had inspected the roof again on 24 November 2022. Its roofer had reported no signs of any leaks but observed that the vents had been taped closed and were preventing ventilation in the property.

 

7. Based on its investigation, it was not proposing any further works. However, it would inspect the roof again on 15 May 2023.

 

8. It was sorry that the resident had needed to chase updates about the roof.

 

9. It was providing £50 to recognise the delays in sending its stage 1 response.

 

10. The resident could request an escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure if they were dissatisfied with the response.

 

 

7. The resident requested a stage 2 escalation on 2 May 2023, stating:

 

1. The landlord had been “supplied with a lot of false information”.

 

2. The resident had only taped up 1 vent in the winter because it was very cold. All other vents were left open, and they had removed the tape from the vent in question when the weather had improved.

 

3. They had not “wanted” the side and front fascia and soffits to be replaced. Rather, the landlord’s contractor had told them these needed to be replaced due to rot and nesting.

 

4. The contractor had also told them there were around 15 damaged tiles at the front and sides of the roof.

 

5. The roofer who had attended on 24 November 2022 had not gone onto the roof.

 

6. They felt the landlord was accusing them of lying, which was upsetting.

 

8. The landlord inspected the property on 15 May 2023 and noted that:

 

1. The chimney needed to be repointed.

 

2. The power cable needed to be sleeved.

 

3. Contractors needed to remove the bottom metre of felt and replace this with new felt and felt support trays on the front and sides.

 

4. The soffits were full of moss.

 

 

9. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 June 2023, in which it said:

 

1. It had attended the property on 15 May 2023 and no additional issues were identified.

 

2. The contractors were only tasked with completing work to the rear elevation of the roof in 2021. They had completed the work they were supposed to do.

 

3. It would need more specific detail about the “false information” the resident had mentioned.

 

4. It had not found any evidence of water penetration to the property. All signs pointed to condensation in the property being caused by the resident “failing to utilise the ventilation system”. It asked them to refrain from taping any of the vents in the future.

 

5. It had found no evidence of issues with the fascia and soffits to the front and side of the property.

 

6. In addition to the £50 it awarded at stage 1, it was awarding £450 at stage 2. This comprised £400 to acknowledge that the resident had to continually chase repairs, and £50 to recognise that its stage 2 response had been delayed.

 

7. The resident had the right to bring the complaint to this Service if they remained dissatisfied.

 

10. The resident duly made their complaint to this Service on 31 July 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of roof repairs, condensation and cold

11. The resident contacted the landlord in September 2021 about further repairs to the roof following the information they had received from a contractor of the landlord. The evidence suggests that the landlord acted reasonably to the issues with the roof in 2021 by carrying out the repairs and assessing the roof as watertight. It also sent a surveyor who said that any damp and mould in the property was due to condensation and not the condition of the roof.

 

12. The landlord also assessed the roof in November 2022 and concluded that it was in repair, while noting issues with the ventilation of the property.

 

13. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord acted reasonably in response to the condensation it identified in the property. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out an investigation to identify the source of the condensation and any factors that might generate condensation.

 

14. It is noted at the time of the reports in 2021 that the Ombudsman had not yet issued his spotlight report on damp and mould. However, when the landlord’s roofer visited the property in November 2022, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report had been published for a year. The roofer noted matters that could contribute to condensation in the property. It does not appear that the landlord took any action set out in the spotlight report to address condensation which can lead to damp and mould.

 

15. In the resident’s request that their stage 1 complaint be escalated, they said that the reason for the vent being taped up was that it was very cold in the winter. This information put the landlord on notice of a possible disrepair issue and/or a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating system. This was notified to the complaints team which did not respond to this point in the complaint response and did not appear to notify the relevant teams so this matter could be investigated.

 

16. Sections 5.4 to 5.8 of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy cover responsive repairs. The landlord has 2 main categories of responsive repairs:

 

 

1. Emergency repairs, which present an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property. These should be attended within 24 hours and made safe.

 

2. Non-emergency repairs, which are appointed “at residents’ convenience” within 28 calendar days.

 

17. It is evident that the landlord identified various non-emergency repairs for the roof when it attended on 15 May 2023. However, we have seen no evidence it completed this work. We asked the landlord during our investigation if it had completed the work, but it did not respond. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to complete this work as a result of this investigation.

 

18. The resident has said the contractor who completed the work in 2021 told them the front and side fascia and soffits, and some roof tiles, needed to be replaced. The landlord considered the information provided by its contractor and decided not to authorise any work. The resident has not reported that there is a leak from the roof and so the landlord’s response is reasonable. What has been a factor in this investigation is the landlord’s failure to update the resident which has been acknowledged and compensated for.

 

19. Section 5.4 of the landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay residents compensation where repairs are not completed within the target time. The compensation is £10 for the first day over the target date, followed by £2 per day after this up to a maximum of £50. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to pay £50 compensation in line with this policy for the repairs not completed.

 

20. It is evident that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s queries about the potential repairs until they raised a formal complaint. However, the Ombudsman notes the landlord provided £500 compensation during its internal complaints procedure, £400 of which was for the failure to update the resident regarding this.
21. For the failure to adequately investigate the issues of condensation and cold within the property, and the failure to take the appropriate actions after identifying the required works on 15 May 2023, the Ombudsman finds maladministration.

Complaint handling

22. Section 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure states it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days. Section 2 of the procedure says it aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.

 

23. The landlord took 46 working days to send the stage 1 response and 25 working days to send the stage 2 response. It was therefore 26 working days late in issuing the stage 1 response. However, the Ombudsman notes the landlord recognised this delay and provided a payment of £50 at the time.

 

24. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had attended the property on 15 May 2023 and found no additional issues. This was false, as the landlord had identified additional work during this visit. The landlord should have told the resident that additional work was needed and arranged for completion of this.

 

25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it required more detail from the resident regarding the “false information” she had mentioned in her escalation request. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord contacted the resident before issuing its stage 2 response to query this. This went against the landlord’s “promise” in its complaints procedure to “listen and ensure we understand your complaint”.

 

26. In the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, she stated that she taped up the vent because the property can be very cold. The landlord failed to respond to this point in its stage 2 response or notify other teams to look into it.

 

27. Due to the long delays, the misinformation provided in the stage 2 response, and the lack of effort to fully understand the complaint, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:

 

1. Handling of roof repairs, condensation and cold.

 

2. Complaint handling.

Orders

29. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides an apology written by a senior member of staff.

 

30. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £450. This comprises:

 

 

1. £250 for failing to investigate the condensation issues and the cold noted in the property.

 

2. £50 for the failure to complete the repairs identified on 15 May 2023.

 

3. £150 for the complaint handling failures identified, and the resulting impact on the resident.

 

31. It is ordered that, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord carries out an inspection of the resident’s property to check for the causes of condensation and cold and to assess this in accordance with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.

 

32. It is ordered that, within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord must send an operative to assess the condition of the roof and identify if any of the works listed below are required to ensure the roof is fit for purpose. If the operative confirms that the works are required, the landlord must ensure it completes the required works.

 

1. Repointing the chimney.

 

2. Removing the bottom metre of felt and replacing this with new felt and felt support trays on the front and sides.

 

33. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the report, the landlord must clear the soffits of moss.