Clarion Housing Association Limited (202101750)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101750

Clarion Housing Association Limited

8 October 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of repairs needed at the property;
2. the resident’s reports of mould growth to windows and kitchen pipework;
3. the resident’s reports of rats entering his garden from a neighbour’s garden;
4. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant whose tenancy began on 15 June 2010. The tenancy agreement describes the property as a three-bedroom house.
The resident has advised the landlord through the complaints process that he has epilepsy and his partner has asthma, a skin condition and allergies.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including ‘window sills and window frames, window catches and sash-cords’ and ‘pathways’. The landlord is also required to keep in good repair and proper working order any installations for water heating and sanitation, including toilets and water pipes.
The tenancy agreement shows that the resident is responsible for replacing light bulbs, keeping the interior of the property in a ‘good and clean condition’ and keeping the garden ‘clean, tidy and cultivated’.
The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy that shows:
1. it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days
2. major component replacements are completed ‘through planned programmes which ensures that they are delivered in line with the relevant standards and specifications for these works, and ensures that they are delivered providing the best value for money’
3. it will keep items ‘safe and serviceable’ pending referrals for planned improvement.
The landlord’s website shows that it conducts planned improvement programmes and that residents can expect kitchens to be renewed every 20 years, boilers every 15 years and windows every 30 years.
The landlord’s website has a ‘managing condensation and mould’ page that recommends residents dry washing outside, use a drying rack rather than radiators to dry clothes and remove condensation moisture from windows.
The landlord’s website shows that residents should apply to the local authority if they wish for aids and adaptations to their property to improve the standard of living through modifications (from handrails to shower installations). It advises that an occupational therapist will inspect the property and forward a report to the landlord to confirm any adaptations that may be needed.
The landlord’s website has a pest control section that shows that residents are responsible for removing pests and preventing infestations unless the problem is a communal one.
The landlord’s complaints policy shows it had a two-stage procedure where it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two).
The landlord has a compensation policy that sets out that it will award compensation between a range of £50-£250 where it has failed ‘to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact’.
The resident’s partner has corresponded with the landlord on the resident’s behalf at points during the complaints process. Any contact from the resident’s partner will be referred to as being from ‘the resident’ in this report.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s repairs records show that it:
1. raised an order on 20 March 2019 to address heavy condensation to two double glazed units and noted on 4 April 2019 that it had measured up for seven window units, replacing living room and kitchen windows on 17 May 2019 and further units on 7 June 2019
2. raised an order 24 August 2020 to address a containable leak to the downstairs toilet where it joined the floor, visited the property on 25 August 2020 and diagnosed a hairline crack, leading to the replacement of the WC pan on 18 September 2020
3. overhauled kitchen cupboard units (repairs to hinges and door re-alignments) on 16 October 2020
4. raised a repairs order on 12 February 2021 as the resident reported that the landing light was switching off by itself and noted on 19 February 2021 that it had replaced a hallway light
5. raised an order on 12 February 2021 as a leak from the downstairs toilet was affecting new flooring and noted on 17 February 2021 that it had removed the toilet, found a ‘small weep’ on a flush pipe, repaired this, reinstated the toilet and asked the resident to call when the area was dried out so it could be re-sealed
6. raised an order on 17 March 2021 and completed it on 19 March 2021, listing the works done as re-slabbing an alleyway, sealing a toilet, fitting three vents and re-fitting bead to the outside render.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 21 April 2021, following contact from the resident. It advised the landlord of concerns the resident had raised about mould to windows, rats in the garden (linked to the neighbour’s garden), a toilet coming away from flooring, faulty landing electrics and concrete around a drain at the front of the property that required repair.
The landlord’s recorded that it re-positioned a manhole cover and re-laid paving on 28 April 2021.
The landlord’s records show that it logged the complaint on 23 April 2021 and spoke to them on 5 May 2021, noting that:
1. the resident mentioned an unsuccessful right to buy application and that they had not reported repairs then because they thought they would be able to rectify the issues once they owned the property
2. an inspection of the windows issue had been undertaken a couple of months earlier but there had received no outcome to this.
The landlord’s internal emails from early May 2021 show that it investigated the resident’s concerns and recorded that it had inspected the property on 11 March 2021 and that repairs had been completed on 19 March 2021. It also noted that it had advised the resident to call the repairs team two weeks earlier to report flickering landing lights, that no potential rat issues had been identified in the neighbour’s garden and that the kitchen pipework mould had not been raised at the March 2021 inspection.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 20 May 2021. It concluded that:
1. there had been a property inspection on 11 March 2021 that diagnosed repairs such as uneven paving slabs, a loose plastic trim to the external render, missing soffit board vent covers, a failed front bedroom window unit and a leaking ground floor WC pan (albeit no evidence was seen at the inspection) and all of these repairs were completed on 19 March 2021
2. it had identified that the black substance to window casements was dirt from outside
3. the flickering landing lights, concrete around a drain, lifted downstairs toilet and mould around kitchen pipework had not been reported before and these issues would now be assessed
4. it had visited the neighbour’s garden twice in April 2021 and found no evidence of rats or items that could encourage rats
5. it would address the rat problem if the resident could provide a pest control report that showed it was a communal issue.
The landlord recorded that it completed a repairs order on 9 June 2021 to repair concrete around a manhole cover, screw a toilet down and repair a landing light.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 June 2021 – it said that this was in response to a complaint escalation request dated 25 May 2021 (a copy of this has not been seen by this Service). It asked the resident to set out what outcomes he was seeking from the complaint.
The resident replied to the landlord on 18 June 2021, setting out the following concerns:
1. he consistently needed to report various repairs to the property as the landlord failed to send fully qualified operatives, leading to only temporary fixes
2. neighbours to the back and side did not look after their gardens so rats had entered the resident’s garden
3. the downstairs WC flooring needed to be replaced as the toilet had lifted it following a leak that the landlord had attended to several times
4. they had been told nothing could be done about mould to kitchen pipes
5. window frames had been damaged by mould (with most handles broken) and a strong product could not be used for cleaning due to medical conditions of the household
6. the landlord had changed the landing light bulb but this was still not working
7. the boiler had started to be very noisy
8. the property was at an age where many updates were needed and the landlord’s short-term fixes were insufficient.
The landlord recorded that it attended the neighbour’s garden on 23 June 2021 and found action such as the removal of rubbish and a black membrane were needed to bring the garden up to a good standard.
The landlord recorded that it attended the property on 15 July 2021 to overhaul some kitchen drawer units and again on 19 July 2021 to remove some boxing in and re-fit the toilet tighter to the flooring.
The landlord recorded that it reviewed the boiler issue on 21 July 2021 and determined that there was no fault with it but that the resident would prefer a newer boiler without a water tank.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 21 July 2021. It concluded that:
1. it agreed that the neighbour’s garden was not in a good condition (which they had visited several times to discuss) but they had not witnessed any rat activity
2. possession and court injunction action were unlikely to be successful so it would continue to work with the neighbour and undertake monitoring of the issue
3. the dirt to windows should be able to be cleaned without use of strong chemicals and a second opinion inspection had been undertaken that confirmed the dirt needed to be cleaned but that improved ventilation would also assist which it would carry out within 28 days
4. it also recommended that the resident stop using radiators to dry clothing as this was likely to promote condensation
5. a second opinion inspection of the toilet had found there was indeed a leak so this would be resolved within 28 days
6. there had been service failure in the time and number of visits taken to resolve the toilet leak
7. the second opinion inspection did not find mould to kitchen pipework but noted that ‘condensation is occurring in the property linked to the drying of clothes internally, which will cause condensation to occur on cold surfaces; such as pipes’
8. although there had been no service failure in the handling of the landing electrics, ‘an intermittent fault would be difficult to identify’ so a contractor would attend to check this within 28 days
9. the boiler had been checked and was found to be fine and would not be part of the upgrade programme for another eight years
10. it would pay compensation of £200, made up of £100 for delays in resolving the toilet leak, £50 for the failure to give the resident guidance on condensation and £50 for the delay in providing a response to the peer review complaint.
The landlord recorded that it attended the neighbour’s garden on 13 August 2021 and found that there were still a few items there and that new artificial grass had been purchased but not laid. It noted that it had taken household circumstances into consideration and that it had agreed an action plan with the neighbour which it would review in mid-September 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 August 2021. He expressed continued concerns on the grounds that:
1. changing window handles and air vents would not resolve the mould problem as this was due to the frames and insulation of the windows
2. the dirt, mould and dust that developed on the windows was not due to lack of cleaning and had impacted his partner’s asthma and skin condition
3. he did not agree that drying their clothes on radiators had caused the mould problem
4. rats were still entering the garden from the left of the property and, although they agreed that a court injunction was not the best route, there were rugs and a black membrane in the neighbour’s garden that should be removed
5. there were new issues with kitchen drawers, kitchen cupboards and bathroom rails and there had been no answer to a request for a shower to be installed.
The landlord recorded it attended the property on 16 August 2021 to replace a toilet pan and cistern, all trickle vents, a window handle and hinges and to clean the rear windows.
The resident wrote to the landlord 18 August 2021 as he advised that not all of the issues had been resolved when the landlord attended on 16 August 2021. He explained that:
1. there was still mould on kitchen pipework as well as broken drawers and cupboard hinges
2. the bathroom handrails were sharp and the landlord should install a shower due to his epilepsy
3. the landlord had changed the window handles and filters that week but the dirt and dust that was thrown up by these works had caused the resident’s partner’s skin condition to worsen so they requested all windows be renewed
4. the downstairs toilet door had started to trap them inside which they thought to be a fire hazard
5. he appreciated the gesture of money but could not accept this as it would not resolve their problems so he proposed that they be allowed to purchase the property so they could resolve the issues themselves.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 August 2021. It advised that:
1. it would attend to check the kitchen drawers and cupboards, bathroom rails and downstairs toilet door
2. information had been given to the resident about tackling condensation
3. it advised the resident to speak to an occupational therapist at the local authority regarding any impact of the property condition on health as they could make recommendations on adaptations (and a disabled facilities grant could be obtained if necessary)
4. the resident no longer had the right to buy the property as the voluntary scheme that the government had been running had ended and funding was therefore no longer available
5. the resident could consider making a housing or mutual exchange application
6. it was not necessary to report repairs through the complaints process as the contact centre should be used.
The landlord recorded that it replaced hinges to kitchen cupboard doors and two drawer fronts and adjusted the toiler door on 27 August 2021. It added that it had emailed colleagues about bathroom rail handles.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 August 2021. He said it was not normal to have to raise so many repairs issues and that a property move was not an option due to their children being at local schools. He added that the landlord was obliged to change broken windows.
The landlord responded to the resident on 16 September 2021. It requested more information on the window issue, including where mould was penetrating.
The resident provided this Service with a medical letter in September 2021 that confirmed the household had health conditions such as asthma, eczema, allergies and epilepsy and that the current housing condition was likely to contribute to exacerbation of symptoms. They added on 20 September 2021 that the WC had begun to leak again.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 September 2021. He reported that there was a smell coming from the toilet (which had already been changed twice) that was leaking again, that the complaint about the windows would be investigated by the Ombudsman and that he was waiting for a response to the bathroom issues.
Internal landlord emails from 21 September 2021 indicated that they intended to conduct a further inspection of the windows.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Repairs

The resident reported a range of repairs needed to the property during 2020-21. The longest standing issue was a leak from a downstairs toilet – this was originally reported in August 2020. In response, the landlord renewed the WC pan in September 2020, repaired a flush pipe in February 2021, re-sealed the toilet in March 2021, screwed the toilet down in June 2021, tightened the toilet to the floor in July 2021 and replaced the toilet pan and cistern in August 2021. Although the landlord responded within an appropriate timescale when the resident reported the leak from the toilet, it was unreasonable that it failed to resolve the matter over the course of almost 12 months. It is also of concern that the resident reported the leak had recurred on 20 September 2021.
The landlord apologised and awarded £100 compensation for this service failure when it reviewed the matter at the final stage of its complaints process in August 2021. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends compensation of at least £250 for ‘failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs’. Given the resident had to regularly report the toilet leak over a period of 12 months and that the leak may remain unresolved, the landlord’s compensation award of £100 did not offer sufficient redress for this service failure.
Evidence seen by this Service indicates that the landlord responded as follows to the resident’s other repairs reports prior to him making a complaint:
1. replaced a hallway light on 19 February 2021 in response to his report of 12 February 2021
2. renewed slabs to a concrete alleyway on 19 March 2021 following an inspection in mid-March 2021.

These repairs were attended within the 28-calendar day timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy so were dealt with appropriately.

The resident reported further issues during, and after, the complaints process which the landlord responded to as follows:
1. repaired concrete outside the property and a landing light on 9 June 2021 in response to his report received via this Service on 21 April 2021
2. checked the boiler performance on 21 July 2021 in response to his report of it being noisy on 18 June 2021
3. advised on 21 July 2021 that it would re-check the intermittent landing light fault in response to his report of 18 June 2021 (evidence seen by this Service indicates that this issue has not been reported since)
4. repaired kitchen cupboard doors and drawers and a toilet door on 27 August 2021 in response to his reports of 14 and 18 August 2021
5. signposted the resident on 26 August 2021 to the local authority for an occupational therapy assessment in response to his report of 14 August 2021 that a shower was needed
6. passed on a report on 27 August 2021 that the resident had raised a health and safety concern on 14 August 2021 about bathroom handrails.

The landlord again responded to each of the resident’s reports within a reasonable timescale and its recommendation for an occupational therapy assessment was in line with the aids and adaptations information on its website. It is unclear from the evidence seen by this Service what further actions have been taken in recent weeks regarding the bathroom handrail issue – a recommendation has therefore been made below.

In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to a variety of repairs issues the resident raised during 2020-21. However, it delayed in resolving a leak from the downstairs toilet and its compensation award did not offer sufficient redress given the length of the delay and number of visits it undertook.

Mould

Evidence seen by this Service indicates that the landlord renewed windows in the property during the early part of 2019 in response to reports of ‘heavy condensation’ but that the resident began to report a new problem with mould growth or dirt to the windows from at least as early as March 2021.
It is not disputed that the landlord inspected the property during March 2021. It is of concern that there is no report based on this inspection but the landlord’s records indicate that it did not diagnose any faults or mould growth to the windows. It determined that no works were needed as the marking to the windows was dirt from outside. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection and rely upon the surveyor’s professional opinion in deciding that no repairs were needed.
It is not disputed that there was a second opinion inspection prior to July 2021 (when the landlord issued its final complaint response) and that this considered the resident’s continued concerns about mould growth to windows and report of mould to kitchen pipework. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the resident’s property again in light of the resident’s complaint and its willingness to obtain a second opinion demonstrated that it was resolution-focused.
It is again of concern that the landlord has provided no inspection report for its second opinion visit. However, it advised in its final complaint response that no mould had been located to the kitchen pipework nor the windows. This concurred with the original March inspection results and indicated that the landlord’s initial diagnosis was accurate.
The second opinion inspection did conclude that there was condensation in the property and that the resident had likely contributed to this by drying clothes on radiators – it therefore gave the resident relevant advice in July 2021. This was in line with the information on its website about damp and mould and was therefore appropriate.
However, the landlord had lost an opportunity to offer the condensation guidance to the resident earlier in 2021 when it had initially inspected – this was unreasonable. It subsequently apologised for this failure and awarded £50 compensation. This was within the range recommended in the landlord’s compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as a remedy for a service failure that had an impact on the complainant but was of a short duration – this therefore represented reasonable redress for its service failure.
Within four weeks of the final complaint response, it is not disputed that the landlord carried out repairs to the windows, namely to trickle vents, handles and hinges and also cleaned the windows. These repairs demonstrated that, although the landlord had not concluded that the windows needed to be renewed, it was willing to carry out repairs, some of which were designed to reduce the potential impact of condensation. This was in line with its repair policy that shows it will keep items ‘safe and serviceable’ pending any major works and there is no evidence that the windows required renewal – the landlord’s approach to repair faulty window parts was therefore appropriate.
The resident raised his partner’s health in connection to his reports of mould growth. Although the landlord did not concur that the windows needed to be renewed due to any mould problem, it did take the household health circumstances into account by cleaning the windows (even though it was not obliged to), giving the resident advice on being able to remove dirt without needing chemical products and considering a third opinion inspection of the windows in September 2021.
In summary, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of mould growth to windows and kitchen pipework by conducting two inspections between March-July 2021. These did not conclude that there was mould growth to either the windows or pipework but related repairs were conducted within a reasonable timescale and the landlord offered the resident guidance on managing condensation. There was a delay of three months in the landlord providing this guidance to the resident but its apology and compensation award represented reasonable redress for this service failure.

Rats

The landlord was aware of the resident’s reports of rats entering his garden at least as early as March 2021. In response, it noted that it inspected the neighbour’s garden that month and twice in April 2021. There is no evidence that rats were observed on any of these occasions. Its decision not to undertake pest treatment and to recommend that the resident obtain their own report was in accordance with the information on its website and therefore appropriate.
The resident continued to raise concerns in June 2021 that his neighbour’s garden was untidy and contributed to the rat problem. The landlord responded by visiting the neighbour on 23 June 2021 and 13 August 2021. These visits were designed to improve the condition of the neighbour’s garden and the landlord’s records show that it attempted to work with the neighbour to reduce items left in the garden and ensure that grass was laid. This approach was reasonable and the landlord explained to the resident in July 2021 that it did not consider that tenancy enforcement was likely to be successful.
The landlord’s actions in visiting the neighbour to encourage them to adhere with the terms of their tenancy agreement to keep the garden clean and tidy (after it had determined that tenancy enforcement was inappropriate) were reasonable.
Evidence seen by this Service indicates that the landlord was due to revisit the neighbour in mid-September 2021 to confirm progress made and it is unclear whether there was an outcome to this – a recommendation has therefore been made below in this regard.
In summary, there was insufficient evidence gathered by the landlord, even after three visits, to show that it was responsible for any pest control treatment at the resident’s property. Nevertheless, it took reasonable pro-active action to work with a neighbour to improve the condition of their garden.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted an initial complaint via this Service which was forwarded to the landlord on 21 April 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 20 May 2021. This was outside of its complaints policy timescale by eight working days. However, given the complaint was not made direct to the landlord, it was reasonable for it to wish to speak to the resident itself to establish the reasons for this complaint – it did so on 5 May 2021 – and that this may have caused a small delay in its usual timescales.
The landlord noted that a complaint escalation request was received on 25 May 2021 but that it did not write to the resident (to check the outcomes he was seeking) until 11 June 2021. It then failed to offer its final complaint response until 21 July 2021. This was several weeks outside of its complaints policy requirement of 20 working days for a final complaint response and therefore inappropriate.
However, when the landlord provided its final complaint response, it apologised for this delay and awarded £50 compensation in recognition of this. This level of compensation was within the range recommended by the Ombudsman for service failure over a short period of time and therefore represented reasonable redress.
During the complaints process, the resident indicated that one of the outcomes he was seeking was to purchase his property so he could complete repairs himself and he confirmed this after the landlord’s final complaint response. The landlord explained the resident’s situation in terms of his right to buy status in August 2021 when it updated him on the government voluntary right to buy scheme. It also took reasonable steps to advise and signpost him on ways in which he could secure a property move. The landlord’s actions in responding to this aspect of the resident’s complaint were therefore appropriate and there is no evidence that it was obliged to offer the resident a right to buy the property as a result of his property condition concerns.
In summary, the landlord dealt with the resident’s initial complaint appropriately and considered the outcomes he sought through the complaints process. It delayed unnecessarily in responding to the stage two (‘peer review’) complaint but its apology and compensation award represented reasonable redress for this service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of mould growth to windows and kitchen pipework;
2. the related complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of rats entering his garden from a neighbour’s garden.

Reasons

The landlord contributed to delays in remedying a leak from a toilet over a 12-month period and its compensation award was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of mould growth to windows and kitchen pipework, conducting repairs to the former when it diagnosed faults. It delayed in providing guidance about managing condensation but its apology and compensation award were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s pest control concerns during March-April 2021. It also followed up on his reports that the neighbour’s garden was untidy by liaising with the neighbour and conducting inspections between June-August 2021.
The landlord delayed by a month in responding to the resident’s stage two complaint but its apology and compensation award were appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

The landlord to contact the resident to check if the toilet leak remains ongoing; if so, it should attend urgently to diagnose and remedy the fault and post-inspect these works to check the leak has been stopped.
The landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure in the handling of his reports of repairs needed at the property.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 that it proposed in its final complaint response.
If it has not already done so, the landlord to re-inspect the windows of the property and provide a detailed update to the resident on its findings and whether any repairs will be undertaken.
If it has not already done so, the landlord to inspect the resident’s report of sharp bathroom handrails and advise him of the outcome, including any actions it can take to remedy the issue.
If it has not already done so, the landlord to complete a follow up visit to the neighbour’s garden and provide the resident with an update (while ensuring it does not breach data protection guidance).

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.