Clarion Housing Association Limited (202214511)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214511

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 September 2024

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 reported failure to move the resident to a suitable property, as a result of a leak causing damp and mould.

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

Background

3.             The resident has occupied the property, a 2–bedroom, 4th floor flat since 2010 and is on an assured non-shorthold tenancy. She is disabled and diabetic and lives with her son.

4.             On 29 November 2021, the resident reported a leak from a property above, affecting the light and electrics in her kitchen. A contractor was sent the same day but could not get access to the resident’s property. A contractor attended again on 1 December 2021 but found no water had penetrated the electrics. The resident reported further water coming through the kitchen ceiling and the wall being stained on 3 December 2021.

5.             Although a surveyor attended on 15 December 2021 and found no leak, a contractor attended on 21 December 2021 and confirmed there was a leak coming through the hallway and bathroom ceiling. The resident explained to the landlord it was causing damp and mould and she was very upset living in those conditions.

6.             The landlord’s records show it tried to arrange visits to the properties above but had difficulties obtaining access due to people self-isolating (during the covid pandemic) and one property being void. A neighbourhood response officer contacted the resident and spoke with her son on 30 December 2021. The landlord noted her son wanted his mother moved, but the resident is recorded as not wanting that. However, the landlord decided to proceed with a decant and tried to find suitable accommodation for the resident’s needs, as she was vulnerable and had very little mobility. The landlord also explained to the resident that there were challenges gaining access to a number of properties above, to allow it to proceed with its investigation into the source of the leak.

7.             On 31 December 2021 the landlord offered the resident a decant property, but this was rejected as not meeting her needs as there was no wet room or cooking facilities.

8.             The landlord updated the resident’s son on 14 January 2022 and explained that it was liaising with neighbouring properties to gain access to investigate the leak. It spoke with the resident on 17 January 2022 and noted the need for decant accommodation. Internal landlord emails refer to it considering a specific empty flat as possible decant accommodation (rather than a hotel) and noted the resident needed carer’s access and sounded “incredibly desperate”.

9.             The leak was still ongoing by 19 January 2022 and the landlord recorded that it needed to gain access into several other properties above, as it seemed there was an issue with the waste pipe but it needed to identify where the leak was coming from. The situation was noted as being difficult to resolve due to the location of the pipework.

10.        The landlord met with the resident on 21 January 2022 and noted she was seeking a permanent move. It said it was still trying to locate the leak and had arranged to attend the upstairs properties on 24 January 2022. It was noted the resident had rejected a decant due to suitability of accommodation, and she was now seeking a permanent move. She was unhappy she had been left in a property that was uninhabitable.

11.        The resident’s son complained on her behalf on 30 January 2022 about the leak causing damp and mould and that only one attempt to decant them had been made, but was not suitable. He said his mother was “in no physical or mental condition to be housed in temporary housing and has suffered more than enough, all she wants is to be moved to permanent accommodation”. The landlord acknowledged this on 31 January 2022.

12.        An internal landlord email of 15 February 2022 said it had no properties available at that time. However, it had put the resident on the early movers list, but that waiting list was 2 to 3 years. It noted to look in to her vulnerabilities and to gain access to one of the properties above that had become empty.

13.        The landlord reports that a person residing in the property above said they had found a leak and had had it repaired but the landlord did not know exactly when that happened.

14.        In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 24 February 2022 it apologised for the delay in responding and said a surveyor had attended on 17 February 2022 and found the leak to have stopped. It had scheduled repairs for 15 March 2022 which would address the damp and mould and damage caused by the leak. It noted the resident wanted to move and confirmed that was being considered separately. It offered her £400 compensation (£200 for the leak and £200 for the damp).

15.        On 15 March 2022, the resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered.

16.        All remedial works were completed by 31 March 2022. The landlord called the resident on 14 April 2022 to check she was happy with the repairs, and she confirmed she was. However, she said some appointments had been missed with no notice given (no specific dates provided) and some items had been damaged by the leak.

17.        The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 May 2022. It said the resident could claim on her home insurance for property damage or make a claim against its insurance. It noted it had overlooked a complaint at stage 1 about noise from the neighbour, and it increased its compensation offer by £50 to recognise that. It noted though that no antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports had been made about the neighbour and it provided details of how the resident could report ASB. It also offered a further £100 compensation (£50 for any missed appointments and £50 for the delay responding to the complaint).

18.        The landlord issued a further response to the complaint on 28 September 2022, when it apologised for the delay but confirmed it was satisfied with its stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Reported failure to move the resident to a suitable property, as a result of a leak causing damp and mould

19.        The resident’s son has explained that the crux of the complaint is that the landlord failed to temporarily decant his mother following the leak, and that the one offer it made was unacceptable as it did not have a wet-room or cooking facilities (which she needed so she could prepare her own food as she is diabetic).

20.        The landlord’s Vulnerable Resident’s policy says when a resident requests a repair, the contact centre will confirm if there are any disabilities or support needs which should be taken into account. This should be recorded on the resident’s record so that the service can be delivered appropriately, aligned to the needs of the household. In this case, the landlord did have the resident recorded as being vulnerable, and as the resident was reporting a leak along with damp and mould, the landlord rightly arranged for someone to attend straight away. Although the landlord dealt with the leak as an emergency in line with its Repairs and Maintenance policy, unfortunately there was initially an access issue and then a problem identifying the leak and its cause.

21.        The repair was not fixed until mid-February 2022, so the landlord failed to adhere to the target timescales set out in the Repairs and Maintenance policy. The landlord’s Compensation policy says for repairs which have gone over target time it will pay £10 for the first day over the time limit, plus £2 per day for each additional day, to a maximum of £50. In this case, it took around 3 months for the leak to be fixed and an additional month for the necessary repairs to be completed. Therefore, the landlord should have compensated the resident £50 for the time things took. While it did offer compensation in general as a result of the leak and damp, as well as compensation for other things, it did not specifically include the payment for the delay in carrying out the repair, which was an oversight.

22.        The Ombudsman appreciates the landlord was having problems identifying the source of the leak and accessing a number of properties in order to resolve it, and it did make contact with other residents to arrange visits. However, the time taken meant the resident was living in very difficult conditions; something the landlord clearly acknowledged.

23.        The landlord’s Decant policy says it will “only decant tenants in exceptional circumstances where the property is uninhabitable and/or unsafe, or it is not possible to undertake the works with the tenant in-situ. In deciding whether a decant is necessary we will consider the household composition, any vulnerabilities, needs and preferences, the likely time periods involved, the suitability of alternative accommodation and the level of disruption”. The landlord knew the resident was vulnerable and needed a carer’s help, and it acknowledged a decant was necessary. Therefore, arranging a move should have been a priority, so not offering her alternative accommodation for 6 weeks amounts to unreasonable delay.

24.        The Decant policy says the landlord “will make every effort to ensure insofar as possible that the alternative accommodation meets the tenant’s needs. However as available housing is limited, it will not always be possible to offer a property of a similar size or type in the same area as their current home. When deciding on whether a property is suitable, we will consider the household composition, any vulnerabilities, needs and preferences, and the likely time periods involved”.

25.        It took the landlord approximately 6 weeks to make a single offer of temporary accommodation, which proved to be unsuitable. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord may have found it difficult finding a suitable temporary property, but due regard must be had to the specific requirements of the individual in assessing whether an offer is appropriate. Due to her health issues and vulnerability, this period of delay was unacceptable and the offer should have been more carefully considered.

26.        However, having made an offer of temporary accommodation on 31 December 2021, the resident then made her position clear; that she did not want a temporary move. Therefore, the landlord cannot be criticised for a failure to offer further temporary accommodation after this date. Instead, it adhered to her request and took steps to plan a permanent move once accommodation became available.

27.        The resident’s feelings are entirely understandable, but it is important to appreciate that a permanent decant would have only been considered, according to the Decant policy, in the event of major improvement works being needed or where the damage was so extensive that permanent rehousing was necessary (e.g. a major fire). That was not the case here, so a permanent decant was not appropriate in the circumstances.

28.        The landlord’s Management Transfer policy says it allocates homes as set out in its Allocations Policy to ensure that there is fair access to available homes to all who need them. However, in exceptional circumstances it is necessary to try to urgently rehouse a tenant due to a serious threat to their personal safety, such as domestic violence or harassment that puts their life at risk. Then it would use the Management Transfer policy. In this case, while it was difficult for the resident to live in the property with damp and mould, she did not meet the criteria for an urgent move, so a management transfer would not have been appropriate. 

29.        The repairs have now been completed, but the landlord did note the resident’s request to move permanently. It therefore put her on an early mover’s list as there is a large scale complex regeneration project being carried out, with new properties being built. The landlord has told this Service that the resident “will move into a 2 bedroom home under the terms of our Tenants Offer for Regeneration. Due to her disabilities, she would need a property on a lower floor”. These properties are being completed in phases over the next few years; therefore, the landlord has noted the resident’s request to move and has taken appropriate action accordingly.

30.        With regard to the question of compensation, the landlord initially offered £400 for the leak and damp. The resident claimed 3 appointments were missed, and the landlord’s Compensation policy says a payment of £15 will be paid in the event that its staff or repair contractor fails to keep an appointment, without giving 24 hours’ notice where it is reasonably practicable to do so. Although there was no supporting evidence, the landlord took a view and offered an additional £50 on the basis that the appointments were missed. Therefore, sufficiently remedying that part of the complaint.

31.        The photographic evidence shows that, as a result of the leak, several rooms were affected by damp and mould. On that basis, the resident’s son has said the landlord ought to refund the entire cost of the rent paid for the 4-month period the rooms were affected. The Compensation policy says the landlord may offer compensation for the loss of room use, due to severe damp for example. “Where a household has not had the use of a room(s), beyond published repair response times, we may offer compensation as a proportion of the weekly/monthly rent. The amount paid will be based on a pro-rata amount of the net rent according to the number of unavailable rooms”.

32.        It is accepted that there was a 6–week period from the resident reporting the leak, to her being offered a decant, when the leak was unrepaired. The evidence, including photographs, show the hallway, bathroom and kitchen had damp and mould and it is possible other areas were also affected. Over that period, the resident was paying £117.45 a week in rent.

33.        While it is recognised that the resident was living in difficult conditions until the repairs were fully completed, it was this 6 week period when the landlord failed to offer a decant or resolve the repair, and where consideration has been given to compensation by way of a percentage of the rent paid. It would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to compensate her for having to continue to live in the property from 1 January 2022, when she made it clear she would not move out to allow the repairs to take place, unless it was a permanent move.

34.        Over the 6 week period, the resident had the benefit of having a home; therefore, rent would be payable. However, she should be fairly compensated for having to live in unacceptable conditions; therefore, it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident compensation calculated at a rate of 50% of the property being affected as at least 3 rooms were impacted. The total rent payable over the 6 week period was £704.70 (6 x £117.45) and 50% of this amounts to £352.35.

35.        The landlord has already offered the resident £400 to recognise that she had to live in a property with a leak and damp and mould. Aside from the £50 offered for the delay in complaint handling, the landlord then offered an additional £100 compensation at stage 2, making the overall compensation offered for this part of the complaint £500. This exceeds the proposed compensation of £352.35 plus the £50 it ought to have paid to recognise the delay in carrying out the repair. Bearing in mind the leak was resolved in approximately 12 weeks, the repairs were completed shortly after, and the landlord has made attempts to put things right, compensation of £500 is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the redress already offered by the landlord is reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

36.        The landlord’s Complaints procedure in place at the time of the complaint, says it will acknowledge a complaint within 10 working days, and issue a response within 20 working days of it being logged. It goes on to say a resident can then request a peer review and that would also be acknowledged within 10 working days. It would aim to resolve peer reviews within 40 working days, but would tell the resident if that deadline could not be met.

37.        The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued within 20 working days, in compliance with the timescales in its Complaints procedure. However, the resident made it clear she was dissatisfied with the compensation offered on 15 March 2022 and the landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 24 May 2022, some 49 working days later. There is no evidence of the landlord advising the resident that its response would be late, so it missed the deadline to respond at stage 2 by 9 working days.

38.        At stage 2, the landlord reconsidered its position and increased the compensation offered, and made it clear to the resident that was the end of its Complaints procedure and the complaint could be referred to this Service. However, as the resident told the landlord she remained unhappy, it chose to provide a further response on 28 September 2022. Although it did not need to respond, and it did not change its position, it is good to see the landlord had the courtesy of responding further.

39.        Overall, there was a 9 working day delay to the landlord responding to the complaint at stage 2, which it acknowledged, apologised for, and offered £50 compensation for. The landlord’s Compensation policy says it may pay compensation of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. There is no evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for an update on the complaint during this time, so there is nothing to suggest any significant detriment was caused by this minor delay. Therefore, the compensation offer already made by the landlord to resolve this part of the complaint was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Determination

40.        In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaints about its:

1. Reported failure to move the resident to a suitable property, as a result of a leak causing damp and mould.
2. Handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

41.        The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £550 compensation already offered under its internal complaints procedure, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress findings are made on that basis.