Clarion Housing Association Limited (202007763)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007763

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 December 2023

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
1. Bathroom wall cracks, flaking paint and replacement of a rusty radiator.
2. Issues with the kitchen extractor fan.
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy agreement started on 3 November 2008. The property is a one bedroom first floor flat.
The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 28 July 2020, this Service determined a complaint, reference 201916003 about a bathroom pipe/mould, the kitchen extractor fan and windows which exhausted the landlord’s procedure on 23 March 2020. In this determination it was noted that the landlord insulated a bathroom cold pipe in February 2020 and that the landlord did not agree to replace the kitchen extractor fan.
On 31 August 2021, this Service determined a complaint, reference 202004806 about the landlord’s handling of a boiler installation, moving a carbon monoxide detector, replacement of a rusty radiator, bathroom wall cracks, replacement of a towel handle, replacement of a vacuum cleaner and holes around the boiler. This complaint exhausted the landlord’s procedure on 20 July 2020. In this determination it was noted that the landlord carried out painting to the bathroom walls on 22 July 2020 and that the landlord did not agree to replace the bathroom radiator.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s subsequent complaint made with the landlord in September 2020, he reported cracks to the bathroom wall and flaking paint. Although the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints which have already been decided upon in a previous determination, this review will consider the landlord’s handling of reported cracks to the bathroom wall and flaking paint since September 2020 as this concerns a timeframe not previously considered by this Service.
In the resident’s subsequent stage 2 complaint made with the landlord in January 2022, he raised an issue with the kitchen extractor fan. As previously mentioned, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints which have already been decided upon in a previous determination. However, this review will consider the landlord’s handling of the reports of issue with the kitchen extractor fan since January 2021 when its surveyor recommended a replacement kitchen extractor fan, as this is within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s complaint and concerns a timeframe not previously considered.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair history show that on 4 September 2020, the resident reported that new cracks had appeared on the untiled bathroom wall. A job was raised but the status of this job is shown as ‘cancelled’.
On 16 September 2020, the resident raised a complaint regarding the condition of the bathroom wall reiterating that the durable paint and seal previously applied by the landlord had cracked. He requested compensation for the poor service he had received and for the bathroom wall to be tiled, as sealing and painting the walls had failed.
On 18 November 2020, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. This stated the bathroom was already tiled around the bath area and it would not be tiling the remaining sections of the bathroom as the decoration of the walls was the resident’s responsibility.
Within its response the landlord offered £50 in compensation for the time taken to resolve his complaint and £15 for a missed appointment on 13 November 2020 (in relation to a repair unrelated to the complaint being investigated here).
On 18 November 2020, the resident requested a review of his complaint regarding the condition of the bathroom wall. He reiterated that the untiled bathroom wall had cracked again after the landlord had sealed this. He also stated that the top white sealant was getting mouldy and the towel rail and radiator had rusted. He requested to have the bathroom wall tiled to resolve the problem of paint flaking due to condensation.
The landlord carried out inspections of the bathroom on 10 December 2020 and 20 January 2021. Its surveyor’s report dated 20 January 2021 made recommendations including for the landlord to:
1. Scrape the wall in bathroom and reseal plaster and repaint.
2. Replace the sealant around the (bathroom) windows.
3. Replace the bathroom radiator and towel rail.
Within the surveyor’s report there was also a recommendation for the replacement of the kitchen extractor fan with an “Enviro Vent” fan.
The landlord’s repair history shows it raised the following jobs on 27 January 2021 for:
1. Replacement of the kitchen fan with “Enviro Vent”.
2. Scraping of wall in bathroom, resealing of plaster and repainting. This job was shown as completed on 15 March 2021.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident. It said that during the inspections of 10 December 2020 and 20 January 2021 it had been found that further work to the bathroom wall was necessary. The landlord said it had previously lagged a cold water pipe and attempted to seal and paint the walls to address the problems which had arisen from condensation. It would now remove the top layer of paint and treat any evidence of mould prior to applying an appropriate bathroom paint.
The landlord stated it would also replace the towel rail and radiator and renew sealants around the window reveal in accordance with the surveyor’s recommendations. It explained that tiling the walls would not resolve the cause of condensation and to manage condensation effectively, it recommended to install an extractor fan but said the resident had previously refused this.
It stated that in addition to the £65 offered at stage 1 of the complaints process, as there had been a need to undertake further inspections of his property, there had been a delay in providing this review response so it was offering further compensation of £50 in recognition of this (£115 in total).
The landlord’s repair history shows that on 1 September 2021, a job was raised for the bathroom wall to be tiled with comments inserted that the new radiator could not be installed until this work had been done. This job is marked as completed on 17 September 2021.
On 28 November 2021, the resident told this Service that the landlord removed the old radiator on 20 September 2021 but had not fitted a new one and that the area manager had refused to allow the repairs team to complete the tiling of the untiled bathroom walls.
The landlord’s internal complaint note dated 6 December 2021 referred to the resident’s request to raise a stage 1 complaint about the area manager’s decision that it would not tile the whole of his bathroom. Its notes stated he wanted to also complain about not having a working radiator in the bathroom. The landlord emailed the resident on 6 December 2021 acknowledging his complaint.
The landlord’s internal stage 1 complaint note dated 31 December 2021 show its heating contractor advised it on this date that they first attended on 6 December 2021 to reports of a leaking radiator and they agreed to fit a new radiator once tiling behind it had been completed. They asked if a decision had been made about the tiling, they could return to fit the radiator.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. Within its response, it apologised for the delay and said this was due to a higher than usual volume of complaints received. It summarised his complaint as about:
1. The current status of bathroom works.
2. Whether it had changed its position in relation to tiling his bathroom.
Regarding his bathroom works, it said that its previously provided stance on this matter had remained unchanged as such it would not offer floor to ceiling wall tiles but said he could complete this work himself if he applied for an alterations request.
In regard to the radiator, the landlord stated that its heating contractor had advised a new radiator was required in his bathroom but they were awaiting a decision around the tiling before this could be fitted. The landlord stated it understood that its repair contractor had fitted new wall tiles to allow the radiator to be fitted and this work was completed on 17 September 2021. As such, it said that the heating contractor was able to return and fit the radiator. It asked the resident to contact them to arrange an appointment at his convenience.
In stated it would like to award £25 in compensation for its response provided outside of its published service levels but said it would “hold off paying this” until the resident had confirmed he was happy with this amount.
On 13 January 2022, the resident asked to escalate his complaint regarding bathroom works to stage 2 of its complaints process. Within this he referred to a need for a replacement of the extractor fan for an alternative fan called “Enviro Vent”.
On 14 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and said it had passed this complaint to its customers solutions team.
On 18 January 2022, the resident sent photos of the “deplorable bathroom works” and said it was clear that the bathroom wall had not been tiled.
On 20 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord again reiterating that the tiling in his bathroom had not completed or the radiator fitted.
The landlord’s repair history shows that on 26 January 2022, the resident reported that the extractor fan in the kitchen was not working. The landlord raised a job to inspect and repair this which was shown as completed on 24 February 2022 however no further details are given.
On 10 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the bathroom wall and said that the kitchen extractor fan was negatively impacting his life and health due to external strong and damaging winds coming in through the fan.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected property on 21 February 2022 and the landlord’s complaint note dated 23 February 2022 highlighted that information provided in its stage 1 complaint response that tiling was completed on 17 September 2021, was incorrect. It said its surveyor who visited on 21 February 2022 confirmed this. It stated in recognition of the confusion caused it agreed it would “tile out” the bathroom wall and dry line the bathroom wall to bury the pipework as this would prevent further condensation on the pipes. Its note continued that this would need to be done before the radiator was hung and the surveyor would co-ordinate with the heating contractor.
The landlord’s complaint note dated 10 March 2022 shows it contacted its surveyor to enquire how the plans for the repairs were progressing.
On 10 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 final response. It summarised the complaint as about:
1. The lack of tiling work completed in the bathroom and no radiator fitted. The resident had said the untiled bathroom wall (which were painted) accumulating mould fortnightly after he applied a mould wash.
2. His report that it had refused to inspect the bathroom to establish it had been tiled.
3. The kitchen extractor fan.
It had arranged an inspection of his bathroom and its surveyor attended on 21 February 2022 and completed an inspection. As previously advised it did not offer floor to ceiling tiling, only sink basin and bath splash back tiling. However, it acknowledged that information provided in its stage 1 response that it had fitted new wall tiles on 17 September 2021 to allow for the radiator to be installed, was incorrect. Further, its heating contractor had also contacted him and told him they were waiting for wall tiles to be fitted before fitting the radiator.
It explained that in recognition of the contradictory and confusing information provided, it agreed to “tile out” the bathroom wall and dry line the wall to bury the pipework in the wall, as this would prevent further condensation on the pipes. It said following this its heating contractor would hang the radiator on the wall. The landlord also told the resident its surveyor would coordinate this work with them to ensure this work is completed.
Regarding the kitchen extractor fan, the landlord explained that its surveyor had advised it was unable to decommission the kitchen fan as this would exacerbate any condensation issues. It had however agreed to replace the extractor fan with a different design that would not admit air blowing back and a separate cooker hood with a charcoal filter. These works had been raised along with the bathroom works and its surveyor would remain his single point of contact throughout these works and ensure he was kept updated. It expected the tiling works and the radiator to be completed within the next 4 weeks.
The landlord offered a further £300 in compensation based on £50 for the delay in responding to his peer review request and £250 for: its errors, the resident having to seek correction of mistakes and for the subsequent delay to works being carried out.
The landlord’s internal complaint note dated 10 March 2022 shows it asked the surveyor to monitor bathroom works and works to kitchen extractor fan until completed and to keep the customer updated at least every 10 days. Task to be kept open until action is completed.

Post final response

The landlord’s repair history indicates that on 13 May 2022, the resident reported that the newly tiled bathroom wall was not sealed around the windows and tiles on top of the window section needed sealant. A job was raised and this is shown as completed on 20 May 2022. Another job for the same was raised 23 May 2022 and shown as completed on 27 May 2022.
On 18 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident advising that it had reviewed his further queries raised. In relation to bathroom and kitchen repairs, since its stage 2 response issued on 10 March 2022, its surveyor, has confirmed that all works agreed for the bathroom had been completed. Whilst he had advised that he wished for a further inspection of the bath to consider tiling the window side of the untiled wall (coldest area of the bathroom) it had been determined that these works would not be required.
Regarding the decommissioning of the kitchen’s extractor fan, its position on this would remain the same. However, as agreed it had successfully installed the extractor fan on 13 May 2022.
Also on 18 May 2022, the landlord sent a ‘peer review addendum’. Within this it stated that the bathroom works carried out on 26 April 2022 had been undertaken to a good standard and prior inspections have not identified that any further works are needed. In conclusion, it was satisfied with the works completed to the bathroom and that no additional repairs have been identified at this time and will not be re-visited.
The resident told this Service on 21 July 2022 that the bathroom wall had been tiled and the compensation paid by the landlord. He said the full blocking of the insulated cold pipes around the toilet and sink was outstanding and that had attracted a pest infestation. As this complaint was raised post final response, this complaint has not been considered in this review.
The resident told this Service on 28 September 2022 that the new extractor fan in the kitchen was installed however he highlighted issues with the old extractor fan and referred to the non-completion of the new filter type extractor fan fitted (the hood was still not fitted due to gas and water pipe running at that part of the wall).

The landlord’s obligations and policies.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out a landlord’s obligation to maintain the structure of a property and to keep in repair installations for space heating and heating water. The landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain the structure of the property is echoed in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy sets out standards for responsive repairs including by its partner contractors. For non-emergency repairs, it states that appointments will be offered within 28 calendar days of a repair being reported.
The landlord’s complaints policy (dated December 2020) requires the landlord to provide a response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at the peer review stage (stage 2).

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports about bathroom wall cracks, flaking paint and replacement of a rusty radiator.

Less than 2 months after the landlord sealed and painted the resident’s bathroom wall in July 2021 (assessed in our previous adjudication), the resident reported that new cracks had appeared on the wall as a result of condensation. Although the landlord’s repair history shows it raised a job in response to this report, the status of the job is shown as ‘cancelled’. There are no further details included. Therefore, it is unclear from this record why the job was cancelled or what happened after the landlord raised this. The incomplete information here indicates inadequate knowledge and data management by the landlord when handling the reports regarding this issue.
In his subsequent complaint raised, the resident requested that the landlord fit floor to ceiling wall tiles to resolve the condensation issue. In its stage 1 response dated 18 November 2020, the landlord stated that as the decoration of the bathroom was the resident’s responsibility, it would not fit floor to ceiling wall tiles and its policy was to only provide sink and bath splash back tiles. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for internal decoration as such the landlord’s refusal to provide floor to ceiling wall tiles (in the bathroom), was in line with this position.
However, in accordance with its obligation to repair and maintain the structure of the building, the landlord is required to investigate reports of damp and mould and in the resident’s case, his further report indicated a recurrence of the same issue that should have put the landlord on notice that the measures it had previously taken to resolve the mould and condensation in the bathroom, had not fully worked. As such, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have carried out further investigations at this time to identify alternative solutions to his reports of bathroom wall cracks and flaking of paint. Therefore, its failure to set out any action plan in its stage 1 response indicates a failing by the landlord.
In the resident’s escalation request, he reported that mould had formed on the sealant and that the towel rail and radiator had rusted. Following this, the landlord arranged inspections of the bathroom on 10 December 2020 and 20 January 2021 to investigate the resident’s reports. This action was appropriate. Further, because during the inspections, the surveyors had identified that further work was needed, in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord committed detailed works it would undertake to address the issue. This included removal of the top layer of paint, treatment of any mould prior to applying an appropriate bathroom paint, replacement of the radiator (found to be rusty due to condensation) and also renewal of the sealants around the window reveal. The landlord also explained why it did not believe (full) tiling of the walls would resolve the cause of condensation but stated that to manage this issue more effectively, it recommended to install an extractor fan but said that the resident had previously refused this.
Although the resident explained in his communications with the landlord why he did not think an extractor fan would resolve the condensation problem (because he associated the cause of the condensation issue with the insulation the cold pipe and not the lack of a fan), it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest fitting an extractor fan to manage condensation as this would help reduce excess moisture from the air. Therefore, the proposed works and information provided in its stage 2 response was appropriate.
Its repair history indicates that the landlord completed the recommended works to address the cracks and flaking to the bathroom wall by 15 March 2021. However, as the resident’s report was made in early September 2020, the landlord acted well outside the 28 day calendar day timescale in its policy.
Also, it did not replace the radiator as promised and only raised a job for this several months later, on 1 September 2021 indicating an unreasonable delay. Furthermore, although this job is shown as completed on 17 September 2021, the radiator was not fitted at this time. The comment in the repair history suggested this was because tiling to the wall behind was needed before the radiator could be fitted. However, in its subsequent stage 1 response the landlord told the resident its responsive repair team had fitted new wall tiles on 17 September 2021 to allow for the radiator to be fitted. This shows the landlord failed to interpret the information in its repair history correctly indicating further evidence of poor knowledge and data management by the landlord. On this occasion it impacted its ability to capture what had happened regarding the resident’s bathroom works when responding to his further complaint. The Service acknowledges that as well as causing confusion, it meant the resident had to spend additional time in communication with the landlord seeking for it to correct its understanding of the position in relation to the bathroom repairs. He also had no working radiator in the bathroom during this timeframe. This is evidence of the service provided by the landlord not reaching the expected standard.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did then inspect the bathroom again on 21 February 2022 following which it apologised for its error in its stage 2 response. In recognition of the confusion caused by its error at stage 1, the landlord agreed to provide floor to ceiling tiling as per the resident’s request and assured him that after completion of this work it would install the new radiator. It also said it would dry line the wall to bury the pipework on the bathroom wall, as this would prevent further condensation on the pipes.
By acknowledging its mistake at stage 2, this indicates lessons were learned by its error made whilst handling the resident’s complaint at stage 1. Further, by agreeing to carry out the tiling works which were above and beyond its policy, this redress went some way to putting right its failings. However, this Service is mindful that the radiator was not replaced until May 2022 and bearing in mind the landlord initially told the resident it would replace this in its stage 2 response issued 15 months earlier on 12 February 2021, this represents an unreasonable delay.
In summary, there were unreasonable delays by the landlord both when responding to the resident’s reports and in providing the promised works throughout the 2 complaint processes investigated which spanned more than 18 months. It is clear unsatisfactory knowledge and data management by the landlord contributed to the delays although the landlord did eventually provide the promised works to address the issues caused by condensation.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord awarded compensation of £250 for errors made whilst handling the resident’s reports in relation to bathroom works in its stage 2 response dated 10 March 2022. On balance, this redress, together with its apology and completion of the works mentioned above, was sufficient to resolve this complaint. Therefore, this Service finds the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of this complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports about the kitchen extractor fan

The evidence shows that the landlord’s surveyor first recommended that the kitchen extractor should be replacement with a different type of fan during an inspection on 20 January 2021 when a job for the same was raised. However, it is clear the extractor fan was not replaced at this time with no explanation for this from the landlord. However, The Ombudsman is mindful that there is no evidence to show that the fan was not in working order. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the resident raising this matter with the landlord until approximately one year later, on 13 January 2022 when he asked for the type of extractor fan previously mentioned because he said the existing fan allowed external “winds” to come into the property. After the resident reported, less then 2 weeks later, that the fan had broken, the landlord attended to fix the fan. As its repair records indicate the fix was provided within the 28 day timescale, this was appropriate.
In its final response the landlord confirmed that it would replace the kitchen extractor fan with a different type that it said would not admit air blowing back and a separate cooker hood with a charcoal filter. In its (post-final) response dated 18 May 2022; the landlord stated the new extractor fan was installed on 13 May 2022.
In summary, although the landlord did not act on its surveyor’s recommendation to replace the extractor fan when initially made, it took steps to replace this once the resident got in touch about the issues he was experiencing with his existing extractor fan a year later. The resident told us in September 2022 that a part of the fan still needed to be fitted, therefore a recommendation has been included below for the landlord to, if not already done so since September 2022, contact the resident regarding this concern.
Therefore, overall, the landlord acted in accordance with its obligations and there was no maladministration when handling this report.

Complaint handling

During both complaint processes investigated, the landlord failed to issue its complaint responses to the resident at both stages 1 and 2, within the timescales stated in its complaints policy. These delays range from 23 working days outside of its policy (its stage 1 response provided to the resident on 11 January 2022) up to 59 days outside of its policy (its stage 2 review response provided to the resident on 12 February 2021).
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 11 January 2022 it explained the delay was due to a “higher than usual volume of complaints”. However, there is no evidence of it agreeing in advance with the resident, any extension of the timescales stated in its complaints policy on this occasion or in relation to the other delays previously mentioned. The landlord’s untimely responses prolonged the complaints process and caused the resident additional time and trouble, frustration and distress.
In summary, there were service failings in the landlord’s complaint handling as it did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy, which resulted in significant delays. This would have caused the resident additional time and trouble, frustration, and distress.
The landlord apologised for the delays and offered the resident compensation totalling £175 across both complaint processes in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was insufficient evidence of the landlord showing learning from failings whilst handling his complaints. On balance, the redress offered by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling failings, including the amount offered in compensation, fails to fully recognise impact of these on the resident. Therefore, the landlord did not provide reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports about bathroom walls cracks and flaking paint and replacement of a rusty radiator.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about issue with the kitchen extractor fan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

There were some unreasonable delays and instances of the landlord not doing what it told the resident it would do when handling his reports about bathroom wall cracks and flaking paint and replacement of a rusty radiator. However, the landlord provided redress during the complaints processes which was reasonable and proportionate and therefore resolved this complaint.
The landlord agreed to replace the kitchen extractor fan in line with the surveyor’s recommendation following the resident reporting issues he was experiencing with it.
The landlord did not provide its complaint responses within the timescales states in its complaint policy and the redress offered was not sufficient to resolve this complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord, within 4 weeks:
1. Pays the resident additional compensation of £100 for complaint handling failings.
2. If not already done so, review its complaint handling to ensure it responds to complaints within the timescales in its policy and provide this Service with the outcome of this review.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. In view of the failings identified in this report, if not already done so, consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report Knowledge and Information Management and self-assess against these findings to identify any actions to improve its knowledge and information management.
2. If not already done so since September 2022, contact the resident regarding his concern about a part of the kitchen extractor fan still needing to be fitted.