Clarion Housing Association Limited (202334904)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334904

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 August 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She lives at the property with her 5 children aged from 3 to 16 years old. The property is a third floor, 3 bedroom maisonette. The resident has dyslexia. She has arthritis in her spine and an autoimmune disease.
A leak in the loft space of the building in 2021 caused damage to ceilings in the property. The landlord stemmed the leak and over the course of the next year carried out repair works in the property. This included replacing the hall ceiling as it was badly damaged by the leak. It also carried out damp and mould treatment to various cold spots.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 October 2022 and asked to make a formal complaint about outstanding repairs to the door entry system, the front door, and the toilet. Over the next 6 months she continued to report these issues via email and telephone. She also reported during this time that the hall ceiling was still leaking.
On 17 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint she made in October 2022 to stage 2. In this correspondence she raised some additional repair issues not included in the October 2022 complaint. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint. It apologised that it had not provided a stage 1 response previously. It said that given the time that had passed, and additional issues raised, it would treat the complaint made in April 2023 as a new stage 1 complaint.
On 12 June 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident and asked her to explain what repairs remained outstanding. The resident outlined numerous issues, including leaks, damp and mould, and resultant damage to ceilings and walls. She also complained about ongoing problems with electrics, a toilet not flushing, the bathroom floor, the door entry system, and kitchen cupboards. The resident asked to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience the disrepair was causing her and her children.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 7 July 2023. It referred to work that had been carried out in the property that same week. This included the application of a 3 stage mould treatment, filling in of cracks in ceilings, and sealing of the lino floor in the bathroom. The kitchen cupboards were assessed, and the toilet was checked and confirmed to be in working order. An electrician attended to assess an extractor fan and bathroom and hallway ceiling lights that were not working. The resident indicated she did not want the lights to be repaired until the leak was resolved. The landlord said that it would come out again and inspect whether there was an active leak. It said it would pass the door entry fault onto its mechanical and electrical team, who would be in contact with the resident directly to arrange a repair appointment.
The landlord apologised in the stage 1 response for the delays in attending to the repairs, for not keeping the resident informed and managing her expectations, and for the inconvenience caused. It also apologised for the delay in issuing its complaint response. The landlord offered the resident £400 compensation for the identified failings and for distress and inconvenience.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 25 July 2023. She was unhappy that some repairs remained outstanding and with the level of compensation offered in the stage 1 response.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 7 August 2023 as part of its stage 2 complaint investigation. During the call it discussed the outstanding repairs. It then attended the property on 10 August 2023 to assess for damp and mould. It completed the treatment started the previous month and fixed cracks in a bedroom ceiling.
On 29 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It summarised the action it had taken to date. In relation to outstanding works, it said that it had raised works requests for the hallway and bathroom ceiling lights to be fixed, and also the front door entry system. As the resident had indicated that a leak in the hall ceiling may be due to condensation dripping off an aluminium ventilation duct, the landlord said an area supervisor would attend the property to inspect this. It said the supervisor would also check for any other outstanding repairs and ensure all completed work was of an acceptable standard.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to complete multiple repairs within the timeframes provided for by its policy. It recognised that the resident “had to repeatedly contact” it to try and gain a resolution, and that it failed to keep her updated on when the repairs would take place. It apologised for this. It said that as of 1 August 2023, it was no longer using the contractor who had completed repairs in the property previously. Instead, it was using an in-house repairs team. It hoped that going forward, this would assist with addressing some of the issues identified within the resident’s complaint.
The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the identified communication failings and delay. This was offered in addition to the £400 compensation offered in the stage 1 response.
As indicated in the stage 2 response, the landlord sent an area supervisor to the property to inspect the works that had been carried out and to check whether any repairs remained outstanding. This inspection took place on 24 October 2023. Following this, the landlord concluded that of all the issues raised in the resident’s complaint, all that remained to be fixed were cracks in the hallway ceiling and paintwork in a bedroom. The landlord subsequently attended the property to carry out these repairs in December 2023, but the resident did not permit it access. She subsequently referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident advised the Ombudsman she was unhappy about the length of time the landlord had taken to attend to the various repairs in the property. She said damp and mould remained a problem, particularly in the bathroom, hall and bedrooms. She was concerned the landlord had not resolved the underlying cause of the leak in the hall ceiling. She advised that repairs to her toilet and front door remained outstanding. The remedy she sought was to be compensated for the distress and inconvenience caused by the various disrepairs and for the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property

The resident’s complaint is multi-faceted and concerns a lengthy list of repair issues. The first section of this assessment considers the landlord’s handling of repairs generally, including its communications with the resident and the timeframes within which it completed the various repairs. It also specifically considers the landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet, front door, hall ceiling and a bedroom. This is because they are the repairs that the resident has indicated remain outstanding. The landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp and mould is considered in more detail in the second section of the assessment.
Prior to August 2023, the landlord outsourced its repairs work to a contractor. It would appear that residents were in direct contact with the contractor to report repairs and arrange appointments. By its own admission, the landlord holds limited records on any such communications between the contractor and residents. Given this, the full history of the resident’s reports of disrepair, and the contractor’s response, is not known. The resident complained to the landlord on 7 October 2022 that the contractor had not responded to her reports of a broken door entry system, front door and toilet. Based on the limited records available, it would appear that that over the next 6 months the resident sent at least 3 further emails and made 7 phone calls to follow up on these issues. By the date of her further complaint on 17 April 2023, all 3 repairs remained outstanding. This meant that the landlord had not carried out the repairs in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement. It had also failed to provide a response within a 28 day timeframe as required its ‘Responsive Repairs and Maintenance Policy’. This was a failing.
The resident complained that in addition to not carrying out the repairs, there was a “lack of communication and care” from the landlord and the contractor. The landlord acknowledged there had been poor communication in both of its complaint responses. It acknowledged in the stage 2 response that the resident had to “repeatedly” contact it to try and gain a resolution. As such, it recognised that it had failed to keep her updated with a schedule of when repairs were to take place. In its stage 2 response, the landlord set out the following reasonable steps to improve its communications and address the outstanding repairs:
1. It outlined the works that had been carried out to date along with its understanding of the repair jobs that remained outstanding. It advised the resident of the dates the remaining work would take place.
2. It said that an area supervisor would inspect the property on 12 September 2023 to ensure that all repairs had been completed to an acceptable standard. During this visit, the supervisor would also check that there were no external ingress issues causing damage to the hall ceiling.
3. It said the area supervisor would be the resident’s designated point of contact while repairs were ongoing and that he would ensure that any dates for jobs were agreed in advance with her.
The landlord apologised in both complaint responses for the various delays and communication failings. This was appropriate as although the failings may have involved a contractor, the contractor was acting on the landlord’s behalf. The landlord was required to manage the contract to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. It was therefore ultimately the landlord’s responsibility that it did not meet its repair obligations and that there was poor communication with the resident.
The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 complaint response that as of 1 August 2023, it was no longer using a contractor and repairs were instead being dealt with be an in-house team. It said that this would give it “more control on the repairs being carried out, as well as providing more visibility on attendance and any follow-on repairs required.” It hoped that going forward, this would enable it to provide a better level of service to the resident in relation to any future repairs arising.
The landlord demonstrated good complaint handling practice in making a link between the issues arising in this complaint and improvements in how it would deliver its repairs service. It was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles which encourage landlords to take steps to put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord further demonstrated further good complaint handling practice by speaking to the resident during both stages of the complaint investigation. During these calls it sought to understand what specific repairs were outstanding. It took action prior to issuing each complaint response to resolve some of the repairs. For example, prior to issuing the stage 1 response, it carried out a 3 stage mould treatment to cold spots throughout the property, filled in cracks in plasterwork and resealed the lino floor in the bathroom. Prior to issuing the stage 2 response, it completed the damp and mould treatment and filled in some further plasterwork cracks. It was good practice that the landlord attempted to resolve some of the repair issues alongside the complaint investigation, rather than holding off on carrying out any work until the complaint responses had been issued.
As not all of the outstanding repairs were complete by the time the stage 2 response was issued, the landlord appropriately raised works requests for these. Some of the repairs were then resolved shortly thereafter, such as the bathroom and ceiling lights, the kitchen cupboards, and the front door entry system. The area supervisor subsequently attended the property to check that all repairs had been completed to a satisfactory standard. This inspection took place on 24 October 2023, rather than 12 September 2023 as indicated in the stage 2 response. The landlord has explained that this was due to awaiting confirmation from the resident as to her availability for the visit. The delay in carrying out the inspection was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
Following the area supervisor’s inspection on 24 October 2023, the landlord was satisfied that all repairs raised in the complaint had been completed except for a repair to a hallway ceiling and decorative work in the bedroom. It arranged for this work to be completed in for December 2023, however, the resident denied it access. The resident informed this Service in August 2024 that this work had not yet been fully completed. She also disagreed with the landlord’s assessment that all the other disrepair issues raised in her complaint had been resolved. She said repairs to her toilet and front door lock remained outstanding.
As per the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), to provide reasonable redress to a resident, any proposed remedy must be followed through to completion. The Ombudsman has therefore reviewed the landlord’s handling of the repairs that the resident indicated remained outstanding.

Toilet

The resident complained in October 2022 that her toilet was not flushing properly. She raised this again in April 2023 when making her further complaint. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it inspected the toilet on 6 July 2023 and confirmed it was fit for purpose. In March 2024, the resident complained that the toilet was blocked. The landlord appropriately sent a specialist drainage contractor to inspect it. The specialist confirmed the toilet was not blocked. While the resident’s comments are not disputed, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of professional tradespeople. Should the resident continue to experience problems with the toilet, she should continue to report this to the landlord. The landlord should continue to respond to the reports in line with its repairs policy.

Front door

In October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about the front door. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what the specific issue reported was. It was however raised as a separate issue to the door entry system. The door entry system was addressed by the landlord through the formal complaints process and fully fixed by October 2023.
The problem with the front door was not raised again by the resident when she submitted her further complaint in April 2023. She does not appear to have raised it with the landlord during phone calls in June and August 2023 to discuss her complaint. The landlord therefore did not address the issue in its complaint responses. It was not picked up by the area supervisor during his inspection in October 2023 as an outstanding repair job. The resident however has informed this Service that the door lock does not function properly. She explained she is concerned about the health and safety aspect of this as her 3 year old child was recently able to open the door. The door leads out onto a third floor balcony at the front of the property.
The Ombudsman’s remit is to investigate complaints that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. As the problem with the front door lock was not addressed through the complaints process, the Ombudsman is unable to assess the landlord’s response to it. We have, however, made a recommendation that the landlord carries out an inspection of the front door. If the lock is broken, it should ensure it is repaired as a matter of urgency given the health and safety concerns raised. The resident may also wish to make a new complaint to the landlord so that it may review its handling of this repair and identify if there were any failings.

Hall ceiling and decorative work in the bedroom

The resident’s complaint in April 2023 included that there was cracking and water damage to the hall ceiling. She also complained about the decorative finish in the main bedroom. It was repainted by the landlord during 2022 as it was damaged by a previous damp and mould treatment. The resident complained there were bubbles and spots in the paintwork, and that during the works, paint had splashed and damaged wallpaper in the room.
Despite inspecting the property and carrying out some repairs in July and August 2023, including to a bedroom ceiling, the landlord did not raise a works order for repairs to the hall ceiling. It did not carry out any decorative works in the bedroom. This was unreasonable. It was only after the stage 2 complaint response had been issued, and an area supervisor inspected the property in October 2023, that a works order was raised. During that inspection the landlord told the resident that it would normally be her responsibility to strip the damaged wallpaper in the bedroom, but that on this occasion it would strip the walls. It explained that its repair obligations only required it to repaint the walls and that if she wanted to put new wallpaper up, it would be her responsibility to do this. The landlord subsequently attended the property on 15 December 2023 to fix the hall ceiling, strip the wallpaper in the bedroom, make good the walls and paint them white, and paint the woodwork. However, the resident refused access. The work was therefore not carried out.
The resident advised the Ombudsman that she refused access because the landlord did not give her notice of the visit. She shares the main bedroom with 2 children therefore she required notice to clear the room and prepare it for decoration. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether notice was given. Its records indicate that the reason the resident refused access was because she was unhappy that the landlord had not agreed to replace the wallpaper. It maintained its position that it was only required to repaint the walls and it was the resident’s responsibility to replace the wallpaper. This in the Ombudsman’s view was unfair given how the damage occurred in the first place. The position taken was also not in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord does not appear to dispute that the wallpaper was damaged by its contractors the previous year. As per its compensation policy, it will award compensation where damage has been caused by a contractor and it is not reasonable to expect the damage to be covered by the resident’s home contents insurance. According to the Association of British Insurers, buildings insurance, rather than contents insurance, “covers the structure of your home such as walls, wallpaper, ceilings and permanent fixtures and fittings like baths, toilets, and fitted kitchens”. This means that even if the resident had contents insurance in place, it is unlikely it would have covered damage to wallpaper. Therefore, if the landlord was not prepared to replace the wallpaper when painting the room, it should reasonably have considered compensating the resident in order that she could arrange for it to be repapered. It does not appear to have done this during the complaints process or when carrying out its follow up inspection in October 2023.
In early 2024, the resident contacted the landlord again about the outstanding repairs required to the hall ceiling and the decorative work in the bedroom. The landlord arranged to carry out the work in May 2024, but the appointment was cancelled due to operative availability. The landlord apologised to the resident for this and offered her £100 compensation. It subsequently arranged to carry out the work in July 2024. The reason for the 2 month delay in rearranging this appointment was due to the resident’s availability. However, the resident refused access again. The landlord’s records indicate she said this was because her complaint was with the Ombudsman. It is understood that it returned again in August 2024 and that the hall ceiling was repaired, but the work in the bedroom remains outstanding.
The Ombudsman accepts that part of the reason for the significant delay in the landlord repairing the hall ceiling, and not completing the bedroom decorative works, was due to the resident refusing access. While the reasons for the resident refusing access are acknowledged, she is obliged by her tenancy agreement to grant access to the landlord to carry out repairs provided it has given notice (except for in the case of emergencies, when no notice is required). However, the access was first refused in December 2023. This therefore does not explain why there was an 8 month gap between the resident submitting her complaint in April 2023 and the landlord’s first scheduled appointment to attend to the repairs. Furthermore, had the landlord considered compensating the resident for the wallpaper, she may have been more willing to grant access in December 2023.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property. It took some steps to provide redress in its complaint responses. For example, it acknowledged there had been delays and communication failings which had caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It apologised and explained that bringing its repairs service in-house would address these issues going forward. It carried out some repairs alongside the complaints process. It put a plan in place when issuing its stage 2 response to ensure that any remaining repairs were attended to. However, the Code is clear that for a complaint response to offer reasonable redress, any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. Guidance on the Code states that any outstanding repairs should be tracked and completed expeditiously. The landlord’s stage 2 response therefore did not offer reasonable redress to the resident as the hall ceiling repair and decorative work in the bedroom was not completed within a reasonable timeframe.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £800 compensation for the delays in completing the repairs and for distress and inconvenience. It also offered £100 for delays in issuing both complaint responses; this is considered further below in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The £800 compensation was appropriately calculated in line with the landlord’s ‘Customer Compensation and Remedies Policy’. This amount also falls into the upper bracket of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests redress of between £600 – £1,000 is appropriate where failings have had a significant impact on a resident. The Ombudsman therefore finds that £800 was a fair offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication failings and delays up to the point of the stage 2 response.
Given that the landlord did not subsequently complete the hall and bedroom repairs within a reasonable timeframe, an additional £200 should be paid to the resident for the distress and inconvenience this has caused. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay £1,000 overall to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of repairs.
The landlord is also ordered to inspect the property and draw up a definitive list of outstanding repairs. It should develop an action plan with timeframes for completing the repairs. It should communicate this plan to the resident. Where the repair involves decoration that would not usually be the landlord’s responsibility, it should consider whether it caused the damage. If it did, the landlord should either carry out the repair or compensate the resident in order that she can arrange for the damage to be fixed.
The resident has dyslexia and advised the Ombudsman that this means she sometimes has difficulty with processing written communications. The landlord should therefore speak to her about the best way in which it can communicate with her. Whichever medium is used, the landlord should keep a clear written record of all communications.
In this context, it is also worth highlighting that the resident advised the Ombudsman that due to her physical disabilities she is unable to carry out decorative works herself. The landlord has in the past offered her a ‘paint pack voucher’ in order that she could buy decorating materials. However, these vouchers could not be used to pay for the labour required to, for example, wallpaper her bedroom. The landlord should take this into account if it decides to compensate the resident for decorative damage rather than complete the repair itself. The compensation should be financial, so that the resident can reasonably make arrangements for redecoration work to be carried out, rather than a decorating voucher.

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property

The hall ceiling was replaced in 2022 following a leak from the loft space of the building. The landlord said it repaired the loft space at that time. It also treated the property for damp and mould twice that year as the leak had caused some mould to appear.
The resident complained in April 2023 that the new ceiling in the hall had cracked and was showing signs of water damage, including spots of mould. She also said there was mould in the bathroom. She complained that she had raised these issues with the landlord on numerous occasions prior to this but that nothing had been done.
In response to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, the landlord applied a 3 stage mould wash to cold spots on 6 July 2023. It filled in some cracks in plasterwork. This work was carried out by its contractor. On 10 August 2023, by which date repairs had reverted to the landlord’s in-house team, the landlord itself inspected the property for damp and mould. The landlord found no evidence of damp and mould during the visit. It identified cracks in a bedroom ceiling but said that these were caused by the previous loft space leak, rather than being due to damp and mould. It was satisfied that the leak was historic and not active. It filled in the bedroom ceiling cracks and then returned to the property on 18 August 2023 to sand down the filler and paint the ceiling.
The area supervisor who inspected the property on 24 October 2023 also confirmed that there were no active leaks in the property. He identified that the cracks in the hall ceiling still required repair and raised a job for these to be attended to. He was satisfied that the damage to the hall ceiling was due to the historic leak and that there was no ongoing problem of damp and mould in the property.
In August 2023, the resident and the landlord discussed the possibility that the leak was being caused by condensation dripping off an aluminium ventilation duct, rather than by a further leak in the loft space. The landlord said in the stage 2 complaint response that it would visit the property to investigate this further. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to confirm that this was subsequently investigated. In its response, the landlord referred to having limited information available prior to 1 August 2023 due to issues with its contractor’s record keeping. It simply stated, “from the information available it would seem there was issue with a condensate pipe dripping that had caused the hallway wall damage.” However, the resident raised this issue with the landlord after it had brought its repairs service back in house. It was discussed during the stage 2 complaint investigation and a commitment made to the resident in the complaint response that it would be investigated.
Guidance on the Code requires landlord to ensure any actions proposed in a complaint response are tracked through to completion, with regular updates provided to the resident. It was therefore unreasonable that either:
1. The landlord did not inspect the aluminium ventilation duct and satisfy itself that it was not causing water damage to the property; or
2. The landlord did inspect the duct but did not keep an accurate record of its findings and did not update the resident on the outcome.
The resident has recently advised the Ombudsman that there is still a problem with water ingress in the hall ceiling. She explained it gets worse in winter and drips of water fall from the ceiling. She believes it is caused by the aluminium ventilation duct. The resident advised us that the landlord removed some mould spots from the hall ceiling in early August 2024. She expressed her frustration to the Ombudsman that the landlord has responded to the surface issues with the ceiling, “rather than fixing the underlying cause.”
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to treat mould in the property, to rule out that there was an active leak from the loft space, and to satisfy itself there was not a damp and mould problem in the property. Through its complaint responses, it apologised for delays in responding to the resident’s report of leaks and mould, and for its poor communications. However, there is no evidence that the landlord followed through on the commitment made in the stage 2 complaint response to investigate whether the aluminium ventilation duct was causing water damage to the hall ceiling. On this basis, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation for this maladministration. It is also ordered to inspect the aluminium ventilation duct and determine whether it is causing water to enter the property and cause damage. It must document its investigation and clearly communicate its findings to the resident. It should also advise the resident of the steps it has taken to ensure that the leak from the loft space is no longer active.
When referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident reported that there are signs of damp and mould in her property. As outlined above, the landlord reasonably investigated the damp and mould reports during 2023. It ruled it out as an ongoing issue further to its inspections in August 2023 and October 2023. However, given the potentially serious nature of damp and mould, particularly in properties where there are young children, the ongoing issues raised by the resident are summarised below together with some recommendations for the landlord to consider.
In March 2024, the resident reported that there was mould in the bedroom. The landlord was scheduled to treat this on 27 March 2024. However, the resident did not allow the treatment to go ahead. She said that the bathroom had been cleaned of mould 3 times previously and the problem would not go away until the landlord replaced the extractor fan. She said that a surveyor had previously told her the extractor fan was not powerful enough for the bathroom, which did not have a window.
The extractor fan was not working in April 2023 when the resident raised her complaint. The landlord addressed this in its complaint responses and repaired it in August 2023. It received no further complaints from the resident regarding the fan until March 2024, and she then refused the mould treatment on the basis of the fan needing to be replaced. The landlord tested the fan again in June 2024 and remained satisfied that it was in working order.
The Ombudsman’s remit is to investigate complaints that have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. The complaint made about the fan in April 2023 was that it was not working. This has been fixed by the landlord. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the repair in its complaint responses. The complaint that the fan, although working, is not fit for purpose is a separate issue. It has not been addressed through the complaint process.
During a phone call to the Ombudsman in August 2024, the resident advised that she reported damp and mould under a bedroom carpet to the landlord. The bedroom is shared by 2 of her children. She said that the landlord attended the property to inspect and take photos of this, but that it has done nothing further. The landlord’s records indicate that the only reports of damp and mould it received from the resident during 2024 related to the bathroom. As this matter has also not been addressed through the landlord’s internal complaints process, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate this further.
The landlord will be aware of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021, along with the follow up report in February 2023. The reports urge landlords to take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and to manage it proactively. Given this, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord takes steps to address mould in the bathroom and to investigate under the bedroom carpet, within 6 weeks of the date of this report, rather than await a formal complaint being received from the resident. The Ombudsman’s recommendations are as follows:
1. If the landlord has not yet carried out the mould treatment in the bathroom, it should engage with the resident and use its best efforts to encourage her to agree to the treatment.
2. The landlord should consider whether the extractor fan, although working, is sufficient for the size of the bathroom.
3. The landlord should provide advice to the resident on any action she can take to reduce the likelihood of the bathroom mould reappearing given she is already using the extractor fan and cannot open a window.
4. The landlord should investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould under a bedroom carpet. It should advise the resident of any action it has taken, or proposes to take, to address this.
If the resident remains unhappy after the above actions have been undertaken, or if the landlord fails to act on the Ombudsman’s recommendations within the time specified, she may wish to raise a new complaint. If, at the end of the complaints procedure, the resident remains unhappy, she may refer the matter to the Ombudsman as a new complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Both the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require stage 1 complaints to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within a further 10 working days. The landlord may ask the resident to agree to an extension of up to 10 further working days if it requires more time. Stage 2 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within a further 20 working days. The landlord may ask the resident to agree to an extension of up to 20 further working days if required.
The landlord delayed in issuing its response at both stages of the complaint process. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident’s initial stage 1 complaint was submitted in October 2022. However, it was not processed by the landlord as a formal complaint. It is not clear if it was processed as a service request as there are no records to demonstrate that the landlord took any action in response to the complaint. When the resident complained again in April 2023, the landlord issued an acknowledgement. However, it took 57 working days to respond. There is no evidence that it sought agreement from the resident to extend the response timeframe. Even if it did, 57 working days far exceeds the maximum possible time allowance for a stage 1 response, as set out in the Code.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for not formally responding to the October 2022 complaint and for the delay in responding to the April 2023 complaint. This was appropriate. However, it did not explain why it did not respond in October 2022. The only explanation provided for the delay in responding to the April 2023 complaint was that it was “due to high customer contact at this time.” This does not justify an almost 3 month gap between the complaint being received and a response being provided.
Although the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay, in the Ombudsman’s view this was not a proportionate offer. It does not reflect the fact that had the landlord dealt with the October 2022 complaint formally, and responded sooner to the April 2023 complaint, some of the repair issues could have been resolved months earlier than they were. The April 2023 complaint would potentially not even have been made, had the landlord engaged with the resident in October 2022 and addressed her concerns. This may have reduced the overall distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response 4 working days late. It apologised for this in its stage 2 response and offered the resident £50 compensation. This was a reasonable level of compensation given the delay was short.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure. This has been calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £50 – £100 for service failure, as follows:
1. £100 for the failure to formally respond to the October 2022 complaint.
2. £100 for the delay in providing a stage 1 response to the April 2023 complaint.
3. £50 for the delay in providing a stage 2 response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It should be made by a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
2. Pay the resident £1,550 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This is broken down as follows:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of repairs in the property.
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its response to reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its complaint handling.
3. The £1,550 compensation ordered above replaces the £900 offer of compensation made by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Inspect the property and draw up a definitive list of outstanding repairs. It should develop an action plan with timeframes for completing the repairs. It should communicate this plan to the resident. Where the repair involves decoration that would not usually be the resident’s responsibility, it should consider whether it caused the damage. If it did, the landlord should either carry out the repair or compensate the resident in order that she can arrange for the damage to be fixed. The compensation in this circumstance should be financial, rather than a decorating voucher, so that the resident can reasonably make arrangements for redecoration work to be carried out.
2. Inspect the aluminium ventilation duct and determine whether it is causing water to enter the property and cause damage. It must document its investigation and clearly communicate its findings to the resident. It should also advise the resident of the steps it has taken to ensure that the leak from the loft space is no longer active.

Recommendations

It is recommended that, within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord takes proactive steps to ensure there is no damp and mould in the property. In particular it should:
1. If the mould in the bathroom remains untreated, use its best efforts to encourage the resident to agree to a mould treatment being applied.
2. Consider whether the extractor fan, although working, is sufficient for the size of the bathroom.
3. Provide advice to the resident on any action she can take to reduce the likelihood of the bathroom mould reappearing given she is already using the extractor fan and cannot open a window.
4. Investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould under a bedroom carpet. It should advise the resident of any action it has taken, or proposes to take, to address this.
It is recommended that the landlord inspects the front door and ensures that if the lock is broken, it is repaired as a matter of urgency.
It is recommended that the landlord agrees with the resident how it will communicate with her when providing updates about its compliance with the Ombudsman’s orders and recommendations. If the communication is to be verbal, the landlord should ensure that it keeps accurate written records of the discussions.