Clarion Housing Association Limited (202014737)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014737

Clarion Housing Association Limited

1 June 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a top floor flat in a block.
The resident has stated that his wife has a severe immune disorder and his children have breathing issues.
The landlord’s website confirms that it is responsible for the structure of the property and keeping walls watertight. In respect to condensation and mould, it is responsible for conducting surveys, carrying out mould washes and addressing some ventilation issues, while residents are responsible for preventing and dealing with it. The website recommends against the use of bleach on mould, explaining that this can sometimes make the situation worse.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy advises that it attends to emergency repairs within 24 hours, while other repairs are classified as non-emergency repairs, for which appointments are arranged at a “resident’s convenience” and offered within 28 days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure, responding at stage one within ten working days and at stage two within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms it compensates for its actions or failure to act, and considers the length of time to resolve problems; difficulties making a complaint; and costs incurred due to a service failure. The policy advises that discretionary compensation can be considered for issues such as time taken to resolve a complaint, inconvenience, and failure to follow process; and that £100 per year should be awarded for each identified failure. The policy also advises that the landlord pays £10 plus £2 per day repairs are not carried out within agreed time limits, up to a maximum of £50.

Summary of events

In December 2018, the landlord’s records advise that the resident reported leaks from his property affecting a neighbour, and damp and mould in his own living room. It does not appear disputed that the landlord attended to early reports, and the resident has said that the landlord provided guidance about wiping down walls with bleach.
In early February 2019, the resident reported that damp and mould kept returning, after which it was noted that one bedroom had a wet patch; the bottom of the wall in another bedroom was very wet; there was possible water penetration from outside; and a surveyor was required. In late February 2019, the resident made a further report that there was a “massive green mould problem” in both bedrooms which caused him and his children shortness of breath.
The information provided advises an inspection was booked for early March 2019, and then a repair was raised to “trace and remedy leak entering side of building from outer wall inside 1st floor flat bedroom. job requires cherry picker to reach area.” In late March 2019, information provided then advises that a boiler leak occurred and a further repair was raised for “severe mould in property caused by leak carry out mould wash.”
In April 2019, contractors attended, carried out a mould wash and noted “roof is all ok, brickwork is all ok.” They added that there was mould in the property including in the bedrooms, which was not from the roof as it was at the bottom of the rooms. The following day, an internal note stated “surveyor needed for external wall inspection possible tower or scaffold required,” and a day later the resident contacted the landlord to follow up an operative telling him a surveyor was required. The landlord’s records advise that an inspection was requested to be arranged, however this investigation has seen no further information about a surveyor inspection and the outcome.
In February 2020, there was a report that water ingress from the resident’s balcony was causing damp and mould to a flat below, for which information advises the landlord had replaced tiles on the resident’s balcony a year prior. The landlord noted for this report that the balcony was in good condition, but the wall outside the flat below needed to be repointed. The resident raised concerns about his own property in correspondence for this report, stating that outer walls had severe damp and mould issues; his children’s walls were “crumbling away;” and he had done everything in his control to try to address the issue. He stated that the brickwork needed to be addressed to avoid more damage to the property, and he asked if a surveyor could inspect. The landlord subsequently internally noted that access to third party land was required to erect scaffold, however this investigation has seen no further information about a surveyor inspection and the outcome.
The resident then submitted a formal complaint on 10 February 2021 and attached photos of mould in his home and external brickwork with apparent gaps in the pointing. He detailed that:
1. The property was prone to severe damp and mould on all walls in winter months, which was first experienced within weeks of moving into the property in 2018. He had spoken to all his neighbours in the building and everyone, including a neighbour in a flat below, had issues with mould and damp due to bad brickwork, insulation and pointing.
2. The landlord had said after his reports of the issue to wipe the walls with bleach, and that there was nothing else it could do. However, the damp had continued to return after his following the landlord’s advice, and the issue was very bad in his children’s bedroom, where walls were filled with black mould and wall was crumbling away.
3. There was a previous inspection which had identified the issue was water leaking in through the walls which needed to be addressed. He was informed that scaffold would be applied for and works done, however he had heard nothing after that and the issue remained unfixed.
4. He was concerned about the effects on his family’s health, as his wife had an autoimmune disease which had worsened and his children had beathing difficulties.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint same day, but this investigation understands there were delays in progressing it until early March 2021. The following week, the landlord’s repairs department received correspondence from the local authority, about a report from the resident of damp and mould as a result of water penetration due to possible missing mortar. The landlord was asked to confirm what it was doing about the issue, to avoid an inspection of the property to consider if enforcement action was required by the local authority. The resident later chased the landlord for a response to his complaint on being informed no complaint had been logged.
The landlord carried out an inspection in response to the local authority letter on 23 February 2021, which found there were areas of mould on external walls in a main bedroom and children’s bedroom; mould around a living room window; and evidence of a leak on the underside of the living room window. The inspection photos seen by this investigation appear to show limited internal mould issues and no photos taken of brickwork. The landlord raised repairs to mould wash all affected areas and cut out and replace mastic near the living room window frame, which were subsequently completed on 10 and 11 March 2021; and also raised repairs to service or replace a kitchen extractor fan, which was subsequently completed on 17 March 2021.
The landlord issued a stage one response to the complaint on 15 March 2021:
1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and that he was seeking for root causes of water ingress into the property to be investigated.
2. It confirmed it had inspected and that it had diagnosed the damp and mould issue to be condensation. It detailed the repairs scheduled.
3. It acknowledged and apologised for a delay responding to the complaint, and awarded £50.
The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response the same day.
1. He felt the landlord had only acted in response to the contact from the local authority and said the surveyor who had inspected had been unaware of the complaint.
2. He said there had been a failure to investigate the matter and diagnose the cause of problems. He disputed that the issue resulted from condensation and restated a concern that water was seeping through bad brickwork. He felt works had not resolved the issues and were not complete.
3. He highlighted aspects of the inspection and said that:
  1. The inspection did not adequately identify ‘bubbling’ on the walls which he felt was due to water ingress.
  2. The surveyor had said he was doing everything correctly for condensation not to build by keeping windows open and using a £700 dehumidifier.
  3. The surveyor had been shown issues such as external brickwork but had not taken photos.
  4. The surveyor had made comments he had found offensive, including that he had used cheap paint.
  5. The surveyor had left him without a clear understanding of what would happen next, and had said they would get back to him when they had not.
4. He raised concern about the works the landlord had scheduled when these had been attended:
  1. The operative believed the arranged works to the window would not do anything, as water would enter the property as a result of the effect of hot and cold weather changes to the seal. The operative believed resin was required to rectify the problem for good. The operative had not done seal work on the balcony as it was raining and had then returned unexpectedly the following day to complete this.
  2. The operative had said walls were wet, a surveyor inspection was needed, and had carried out works such as a mould wash with reluctance. The operative had then stopped doing a stain block after the mould wash due to wetness of the walls. The operative had said they would speak to the landlord, as the walls needed taking back to the brickwork, plastering and painting.
The landlord reviewed the previous inspection photographs from which it was concluded present mould was caused by condensation; internally discussed concerns about staff behaviour; and arranged a further inspection of the property to gain a second opinion. The resident was highlighted to have made reports about an ongoing damp and mould problem returning since 2019 and a surveyor having made historic comments about a wall issue, and a review of the history was internally requested. In response to this, it was noted that the second inspection concluded the original diagnosis was correct; there were no active repairs issues relating to water ingress; and no repairs issues were found with the pointing in the two inspections carried out.
The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 30 April 2021.
1. It noted that a surveyor had diagnosed that mould within the property resulted from condensation, which it was confident was correct on review of photos.
2. It noted that works to carry out a mould wash, renew window/door seals and service an extractor fan were completed on 11 and 17 March 2021.
3. It noted that advice had been offered at the inspection about condensation, and it apologised if the resident felt this was rude.
4. It advised that it discussed an operative’s reluctance to do the work with their manager, and the reason they were rebooked for the following day was because stain blocking could not be carried out due to one of the walls being slightly wet from the mould wash.
5. It advised that different staff had post-inspected the works on 15 April 2021, finding mould had been removed and there were no active leak or water ingress repairs issues, which confirmed the initial diagnosis was correct.
6. It advised that the pointing had been inspected by two members of staff and there were no repairs issues.
7. It advised that mould in the property at low levels and behind furniture was indicative of condensation, and there was no evidence of water penetration from the roof, but a roof check had been scheduled (separate contemporaneous records show this identified no issues).
8. It advised that it had a process to ensure concerns were understood, raised in the investigation and addressed in the response. It acknowledged this was not followed in the resident’s case, which it acknowledged would have led to confusion and for which feedback had been provided. It apologised for this and delays in response to the complaint and awarded £50 compensation.

Post complaint

In July 2021, this investigation understands that the resident contacted the landlord for follow up repairs to the visit in March 2021, after which the landlord raised a repair to fill in holes which were ‘scrapped off’ due to mould. The landlord’s contractor attended for this in October 2021 and noted “bedroom walls dub out and skim completed. Scaffolding needed for external work due penetration ingress leak.” From the resident’s account and photos, the works carried out meet the description of repairs recommended by the March 2021 operative, to take the walls back to the brickwork and plaster. The resident detailed an account of the October 2021 visit to this Service:
1. The operative had to dig to the brick to replaster the wall and was reluctant to do the job, saying it was damp and that the surveyor should be made aware.
2. The resident explained the landlord’s surveyor had decided the damp was his fault. The operative then called the March 2021 operative, who confirmed over loudspeaker that they were aware of issues, but the landlord “would not fix it due to money issues and will always blame the tenant.” The operatives said they would raise the issue with their manager.
3. The resident told the operative to plaster the hole in the wall, after which a few days later the wall was wet and had ‘fur’ growing due to water ingress from rain.
4. The photos provided show the wall taken to the brickwork; replastered; later apparently affected by water ingress; and the wall taken to the brickwork being tested with a damp reader with a reading of 25%.
In March 2022, the landlord carried out a review of the complaint, which appears to have been part of a review of complaints pending determination by the Ombudsman. It discussed the complaint with the resident and provided a further complaint response on 14 March 2022, in which it said:
1. It had independently reviewed the complaint as part of its approach to ongoing learning.
2. It acknowledged concerns about the mould at the property; inconsistent causation opinions expressed by surveyors and contractors; and concerns about the impact on the resident and his family, particularly their health.
3. It believed it could have handled the initial reports and complaint better; it agreed a joint visit was the best course of action given the different opinions the resident said had been expressed to him; and it would arrange for a surveyor to attend with a contractor to agree what works may be required.
4. It apologised for its handling and awarded £1,000 compensation, for the way it had handled the complaint and the delays in acting upon the resident’s reports of mould in 2019.
The landlord appears to have inspected shortly after, as a surveyor’s report on 16 March 2022 noted the inspection findings. This said:
1. The property was “very well aired” and in “very good decorative order” outside of damp patches, and the resident used an expensive dehumidifier in his living room due to being told the issues were condensation related.
2. There were various readings taken in the two bedrooms and living room. The pin readings showed mainly completely dry, however the pinless readings (which took readings up to five inches deep) showed damp, which indicated damp was coming from outside the property and that condensation was not the issue. The surveyor noted that the pointing was in very good condition which indicated the issue was via the brickwork.
3. Specifically, the living room had issues mainly confined to an area below the window. The main bedroom showed damp to an area between windows on a pinless reading, for which an external inspection advised bricks between windows appeared discoloured and were holding moisture. The smaller bedroom had damp in a corner and along an external wall, while a far right wall had condensation-caused mould due to a wardrobe and restricted airflow.
4. The surveyor’s readings and visual inspections led them to believe it was an external problem that would be confirmed on a second visit, after completion of works to dye test the roof where the rear bedroom was; and to reseal cables, repoint external wall, reseal around window frame and renew window seals, in relation to the living room. At the surveyor’s second inspection holes would be drilled and “deep probe readings” taken, to confirm the damp was caused by driving rain through the brickwork.
The information provided by the landlord advises that a dye test of the roof in early April 2022 resulted in no signs of water ingress. It attended in mid-April 2022 for the window seals and re-scheduled these to be completed by 11 May 2022, as parts needed to be ordered, the windows needed to be taken out of the frames, and the works required more than one operative. The landlord most recently advises works to replace windows and seals are complete and it repointed the living room external wall on 21 May 2022. Its surveyor now intends to attend on 13 June 2022 to drill holes, take deep probe readings, and take further readings throughout the property.
The resident advises that following the landlord’s further complaint response in March 2022, he has received no further written correspondence to confirm the actions it is taking, and raises recent concern about the continued length of time the matter remains outstanding. He feels the landlord is still failing to show it is taking responsibility to resolve it. He also explains that at recent visits, operatives have raised concern about what their actions will accomplish and have said that works in the living room will not address issues with the wall in the bedroom.
The resident also appears to query the difference between the landlord’s approach to repairs to his property and to a flat below his, which has also had water ingress issues. He advises that for the below property, the landlord reportedly carried out works to the brickwork last year (covering it with some kind of solution) which he understands helped resolve the water ingress issues in the flat below. He advises that he has queried if similar repairs could not be done to his own property but been informed the walls would not be able to ‘breathe,’ which he does not understand.

Assessment and findings

Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. This Service notes that the resident’s complaint was made in February 2021, however this investigation will consider matters from 2019 onwards, as records show an effective investigation of the external walls of the resident’s property has been outstanding for a protracted period since then.
This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems; extend investigations to other properties in a block; and clearly communicate to residents about actions. The report was published after the landlord’s first and second complaint responses, however it consolidated some of the good practice that would be expected of landlords for such issues.
While damp and mould appears to have been less severe when the resident complained in 2021, he had clearly reported recurrent damp and mould issues each year since 2018. The resident’s account and the landlord’s records showed that individuals attending the property in 2019 and 2020 had recommended for further investigation of the external walls and surveyor involvement, and showed that these did not appear to have been effectively followed up.
Following the complaint in 2021, the landlord inspected the property and took steps to raise repairs which it believed would address and mitigate issues identified. This appears positive and reasonable, given this followed opportunity to assess the extent and cause of the issues currently being experienced, and the landlord being entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff. However, the resident should not have had to resort to contacting the local authority in order to try and progress matters. There is also concern that the landlord assessed the current issue in isolation and without proper regard to the lack of follow up advised by its records and the resident. This might be understandable for the inspection, given there was a delayed referral of the complaint to the repairs team and this was prompted by contact from the local authority; but not for the landlord’s consideration of the complaint as a whole. The subsequent responses therefore lacked a level of detail and the type of approach that would have been expected given the concerns raised.
The resident reported that the landlord had failed to progress previously identified works to the external walls, however there is little evidence this was given appropriate attention. There was a suggestion that a review of the repairs history be done, however subsequent discussions focused on the property’s current condition. The landlord should have demonstrated that it scrutinised the history of reports; investigated previous recommendations; and considered if the approach and response to current reports needed to take the previous reports more into account. There should have particularly been greater consideration of repeated recommendations to investigate wall water ingress, considering there was no evidence this was ever done.
The resident had also made repeated reports of damp and mould; said on multiple occasions that he was doing all he could; and had reported that the surveyor who inspected after the complaint had said he was taking the correct steps to avoid condensation, including using a £700 dehumidifier. The resident’s last statement in particular should have provided some prompt to review if this was accurate, and whether more effective action or monitoring of the issue was required, given it was a repeat issue which the resident was clearly taking steps to avoid.
The external wall was highlighted to be an issue and a photo of apparent gaps in pointing was provided in the resident’s first complaint, however there is little evidence this was given appropriate attention. There was internal confirmation that no repairs issues were found with the pointing in the inspections, however the landlord should have addressed the brickwork issues in a more extensive way, particularly given the photo appeared to show gaps in pointing and a significant part of the complaint was an ongoing lack of action for previously identified issues with the wall. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to demonstrate it carried out more specific tests such as damp readings of the walls, to show it was taking robust steps to rule out the resident’s claims of ongoing water ingress via the walls.
The resident reported that other residents of the block had similar issues, however there is no evidence this was given appropriate attention. While the focus was on the resident’s issues, it is unsatisfactory that the landlord does not demonstrate it assessed concerning claims that damp and mould were widespread at the block, and set out its position on this in its responses.
The resident detailed in his escalation his account of an operative’s reluctance to carry out works in March 2021 which the landlord arranged following the complaint. The landlord addressed this in its response by stating that it had discussed this with a relevant manager, and established that the operative had returned for a further visit because walls were wet due to the mould wash. This is not entirely satisfactory, as the resident’s account advised of the operative’s concern about wall wetness prior to the mould wash, and advised the operative intended to speak to the landlord about the walls needing taking back to the brickwork, plastering and painting. While it is generally reasonable to rely on contractor information, the level of detail provided by the resident could have prompted further clarification, such as a joint inspection with the operative concerned.
The resident reported that he had been following the landlord’s previous recommendation to wash his walls with bleach. The contemporaneous records to the complaint advise the resident was given verbal advice about mould and condensation which was presumably current. Nevertheless, this investigation notes that the landlord’s website advises against the use of bleach as this could make issues worse, which the written responses to the resident could have taken the opportunity to clarify.
The resident’s case shows a repeat pattern of identification of issues and recommendations, which then do not appear to be followed up without clear explanation why. The October 2021 contractor attendance to carry out works recommended in March 2021 appears no different, as this made a recommendation in the landlord’s repairs records for scaffolding for external work due to “penetration ingress leak.” This again resulted in no evidence of action being taken, and the resident confirms there were no further visits until March 2022. This was five/six months later and appears to have been prompted by a review of the case due to a pending investigation by the Ombudsman, and not because of the October 2021 recommendation.
The resident supplies a photo that shows a 25% damp reading of internal brickwork in October 2021, which he says is of the operative’s reading and is what presumably helped prompt the recommendation in the landlord’s repairs records for external work due to water ingress. The resident’s account of the October 2021 visit indicates a lack of confidence by operatives that effective action will be taken about some issues they identify. This and the lack of apparent action on the operative’s recommendation gives some cause for concern about the landlord’s processes for following up repairs, and suggests it would be beneficial for it to review these and whether the appropriate process is in place to progress issues, particularly if they relate to damp and mould and structural wall issues.
The landlord’s records and its further complaint response in March 2022 confirm that the resident has experienced delays in reports being effectively acted upon. The landlord’s more recent response shows it has acknowledged failings and delays; has learned some lessons from the case; and has taken some steps to put things right by awarding compensation. It also took steps to ensure a more effective investigation was carried out, which was more aligned to what this investigation would have expected after the resident’s complaint and in 2019 and 2020. The delay in such an investigation is clearly inappropriate and it was right that the landlord offered compensation for its handling and the delays. This totals £1,100 taking into account the compensation the landlord offered for response delays during the progress of the complaint within its procedure.
The subsequent inspection by the surveyor in March 2022 is not definitive. However, it does confirm the property is “very well aired,” in good decorative order and an expensive dehumidifier is being used, suggesting the resident is doing as much as he can to mitigate the issue. The findings also confirm there was some basis to the repeated concerns that water ingress may be occurring through the wall and brickwork. The resident has reported issues primarily occur in winter months and the landlord took some action to address the extent of the issue it identified on inspection in March/April 2021. However, the lack of action on the issue will have had an ongoing impact on the resident and his family and a delayed resolution to matters, which is inappropriate particularly given household vulnerabilities the resident has mentioned. This also has implications for aspects such as the resident’s purchase of an expensive dehumidifier and electricity costs he has incurred running this.
The resident’s account also advises that following the landlord’s further complaint response in March 2022, there was no further written correspondence to confirm the landlord’s plan of action following its inspection. This Service’s guidance to landlords for repairs complaints, and our Complaint Handling Code, recommends that landlords give details and timescales for any actions they plan to take and should keep residents regularly updated and informed. The landlord should consequently have effectively communicated its repairs action plan to the resident, however this Service’s recent discussion with him advises he is unclear about its plans. His account indicates that this has led to confusion on his and operatives’ parts and the apparent misunderstanding that no action is being taken in relation to the bedroom wall (when the internally stated intention is to drill holes for further tests following completion of a current schedule of works).
The above confirms that while the landlord has clearly taken recent steps to try to put things right, there are elements of the handling of repairs at the property which remain unaddressed. This leads this Service to make a finding of maladministration in respect of the complaint, which would have been a severe maladministration finding if the landlord had not taken steps following the referral of the complaint to the Ombudsman to take more effective action.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

Reasons

Following the resident’s complaint in February 2021, the landlord took over a year to appropriately investigate the claims of wall water ingress. There were previous missed opportunities to fully investigate the issue in 2019 and 2020; a missed opportunity in February 2021 when the resident complained; and a further missed opportunity following an operative’s recommendation in October 2021. While the landlord has acknowledged the delays and, following referral of the complaint to the Ombudsman, taken further action to address the issues, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not go far enough to address the failings identified in this case. The resident should not have to resort to contacting this Service, or the local authority, in order to try and progress matters. The responses have not demonstrated that the landlord has considered the potential wider impact of the issue such as costs incurred in relation to the expensive dehumidifier. The responses have not demonstrated it identified appropriate areas of improvement or provided reassurance to the resident that steps were being taken to improve future service. Finally, the landlord has not effectively communicated to the resident about the steps it is currently taking, in order to manage his expectations and assure him that it is taking steps to find a permanent resolution to the issue.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £1,600 for its handling of his damp and mould reports since 2019 (£500 if the £1,100 total it has previously offered has already been paid).
The landlord to review the resident’s costs for the purchase and running of the dehumidifier; consider a further compensation payment in recognition of this; and set out its position to the resident about this. As part of this, the landlord could consider reimbursement of the dehumidifier cost and reimbursement for incurred electricity costs which would have been contributed to by the lack of resolution to the issue.
The landlord to review and inform the resident in writing about :
1. the status of works to the property, its plan of action and current next steps.
2. its position on the March 2021 operative’s reported view that resin was required to effectively address water ingress via the living room window.
3. its position on his query that brickwork repairs carried out to a flat below should be carried out to the brickwork in respect to his own property.
The landlord to review reports from other residents on the estate in the past 12 months about damp, mould and condensation, and to consider sending out a resident survey, in order to ensure it is taking pro-active action.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks of this report.
The landlord to review its processes for repairs that involve damp and mould, and in particular consider whether:
1. The processes allow for appropriate triage of issues when they are reported.
2. The processes allow for operatives’ concerns, reports and recommendations to be sufficiently considered and actioned.
The landlord should inform this Service of the outcome to its consideration of the above within six weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to review this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould and the report’s recommendation for a separate damp and mould policy.