Clarion Housing Association Limited (202204243)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204243

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 March 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of a leak and damp and mould in the resident’s bathroom.
2. Concerns from the resident about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a ground floor, 1 bedroom flat.
For the purpose of this report the flat above the resident’s from which the leak occurred will be referred to as ‘neighbour A’.
On 14 October 2021 the resident reported a leak in her bathroom. She stated the leak was coming from neighbour A’s property.
On 29 December 2021 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said the landlord had not responded to or repaired the leak coming through her bathroom ceiling. The landlord arranged for its contractor to visit neighbour A’s property to investigate the leak on 28 February 2022. The contractor was not granted access to the property.

On 18 March 2022 the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint. She said this was because the landlord had not repaired the leak in her bathroom. The resident reported that the mould and an unpleasant smell in her bathroom meant she was unable to use her bath or shower. The landlord said it could not find the resident’s previous complaint. It acknowledged the resident’s contact on 18 March 2022 as a stage 1 complaint.
Between 5 April 2022 and 28 May 2022 the landlord’s contractor made 3 attempts to access neighbour A’s property to repair the leak. It did not get access to the property during these visits.
The landlord’s contractor said the leak was repaired on 14 June 2022.
On 17 June 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delay in repairing the leak and awarded the resident £550 compensation. It also said it would repair the damage caused to the resident’s bathroom. The resident wrote to the landlord, asking it to escalate her complaint. The landlord received the resident’s letter on 14 July 2022.
Between August 2022 and October 2022 the resident told the landlord the leak was not fixed and had affected the electrics in her bathroom. She said she felt neighbour A’s actions were intentional and were to cause her harassment in her home. The housing standards officer from the resident’s local authority also contacted the landlord during this period. They said the resident was concerned the leak was going to cause the bathroom and hallway ceiling to collapse. The housing standard’s officer was also concerned for the welfare of the resident.
Between 14 October 2022 and 28 October 2022 the resident was moved into temporary accommodation. This was whilst the landlord carried out repairs to fix the leak and the damage caused to the resident’s bathroom.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised for the delay in providing its response to the resident’s complaint. It awarded the resident a further £506 compensation for its delays in fixing the leak and responding to her complaints.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 3 June 2023. The resident has said she wants the landlord to move her to another property. The resident is also seeking compensation. She believes the compensation awarded during the complaints process may have been added to her rent account. She was not in any arrears. She was also seeking to be reimbursed for having to pay to use hotels to wash whilst she had a leak in her bathroom.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

Paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident has advised this service that she continues to have a number of on-going concerns, particularly in relation to her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). The Ombudsman can only deal with the resident’s complaints from October 2021, until the landlord’s final complaint response on 14 December 2022. However as part of this report, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident about the resident’s reports of ASB. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, she can make a new complaint to the landlord about this. If the landlord is then unable to resolve matters to her satisfaction through its complaints process, she may be able to refer the complaint to this service for investigation at that stage.
The Ombudsman was sorry to learn of the resident’s fungal skin infection, which she states was caused by the mould in her property. The Ombudsman however, is unable to comment on the landlord’s liability for this injury. This is in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states we may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, or other tribunal procedure. However, consideration has been given to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she had been injured due to a repair issue.

Reports of a leak and damp and mould in the resident’s bathroom.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that its repairs fall into the following 2 categories:
1. Emergency repairs – The landlord describes this as a repair which presents an immediate danger to the resident or would jeopardise the health and safety to the resident. It states it will make safe this type of repair within 24 hours, and that further subsequent repairs may be required.
2. Non-emergency repairs – The landlord states that these repairs will be carried out by appointment at the resident’s convenience. This will be within 28 days of the repair being reported. This service is from Monday to Friday, between 9am and 5pm, with an out of hours service covering emergencies outside of these times.
The landlord’s decant policy states that when moving residents into appropriate temporary accommodation, it will consider a number of factors which includes the availability, and suitability of accommodation. It also states that the landlord will meet all reasonable costs as a direct consequence of being required to move home.
On 14 October 2021 the resident asked the landlord to repair a leak coming through her bathroom ceiling. She explained the leak was causing a bad smell as well as damp and mould in her bathroom. The landlord asked the resident for further information about the impact of the leak on 21 October 2021. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have contacted the resident within 24 hours to determine if the resident’s leak was an emergency or routine repair.
The resident responded to the landlord’s request for further information on 21 October 2021. She also told the landlord the effects of the damp and mould had impacted her health. The Ombudsman has been provided with no evidence that the landlord took any action to attend to this repair until 28 February 2022. This was unreasonable and evidence of poor communication in its handling of the repair. The landlord should have made an appointment to respond to this repair within 28 days which it states it will do in its repairs policy set out above.
The landlord’s contractor attempted to access neighbour A’s property on 28 February 2022 to investigate the leak. They were not granted access. The landlord closed the repair without any further action being taken. This was not appropriate. It should have continued to seek access to neighbour A’s property. It also should have kept the resident updated of what action it was doing to fix the leak in her bathroom.
In March 2022 the resident told the landlord that she was unable to use her bath or shower due to the damp and mould in her bathroom. She said the landlord had provided no communication on how long it would take it to fix the leak. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have inspected the leak inside the resident’s property, whilst trying to gain access to neighbour A’s property. It should have considered the vulnerability of the 80-year-old resident and the impact of her being unable to use her bathroom facilities.
The landlord’s contractor attempted to gain access to neighbour A’s property on 3 occasions between 5 April 2022 and 28 May 2022. It then warned neighbour A of its obligation under their tenancy agreement to allow access for its contractors to carry out works. This was appropriate action by the landlord. The landlord’s contractor then said they had repaired the leak on 14 June 2022. The resident has said the leak was not repaired and she continued to be unable to use her bath or shower due to the damp and mould. This was not appropriate and is evidence of confusion on the matter being suitably resolved by the landlord’s contractors for which it is responsible.
The landlord arranged for its contractor to remove the mould in the resident’s bathroom on 15 July 2022. The contractor failed to attend. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have communicated with the resident about why it missed the appointment. It should have then made a further appointment to carry out these works. It also should have awarded £15 compensation for the missed appointment in line with its compensation policy.
On 29 August 2022 the resident reported that the leaking water had entered the bathroom light which caused the electrics in the property to short circuit. The landlord provided an emergency response the same day to make the electrics safe. This was an appropriate response.
The resident was left with no lighting in her bathroom due to the leak from neighbour A’s property not being fixed. She was also still unable to the use the bath and shower due to the damp and mould. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have assessed at this point whether the resident should have been placed in alternative temporary accommodation whilst it fixed the leak. The repair should have been classified as an emergency repair unless the leak was minor and resulted in no significant consequence. If it needed longer to carry out the repair, the landlord should have set out a schedule of works, within a reasonable time scale. This should have been communicated to the resident. This would have been in line with best practice and the landlord’s own repairs policy.
In October 2022 a housing standards officer from the local authority raised their concern to the landlord as follows:
1. The resident’s bathroom and hallway ceiling appeared at risk of collapse due to the continued leak from neighbour A’s property.
2. The landlord had left the vulnerable and distressed resident using a plastic box to catch water from the leak, which had yellow liquid in it.
3. The landlord had not responded to the resident.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property on 14 October 2022. The resident was moved into temporary accommodation the same day. The landlord extended the resident’s temporary accommodation to 28 October 2022. This was because some of the works remained outstanding. The landlord moved the resident to a second hotel for the extended period. Both hotels were under 5 miles of the resident’s home address. These distances were not unreasonable in the circumstances. This was in line with the decant policy as set out above.
On 28 October 2022 the resident told the landlord she had been unable to use the food vouchers provided. She was also not provided with a dinner allowance during her time in the second hotel. The landlord has provided no evidence that it assisted the resident with this issue. This is evidence of poor communication. The landlord should have explained to the resident that in line with the decant policy it will cover all reasonable costs. Therefore, the Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to reimburse the resident all reasonable costs, in line with the decants policy, subject to being provided receipts by the resident.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord carried out a post inspection of the resident’s property. It then arranged to carry out a mould wash of the resident’s bathroom on 16 December 2022. The resident refused the mould wash during this period. It would not have been helpful that the resident refused this work. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for these works to be completed. The landlord made a number of other appointments to complete the mould wash, which was completed 4 August 2023.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and damp and mould in the resident’s bathroom. This includes the poor levels of communication and significant delays in carrying out this repair. It took 379 days for it to fix the leak in the resident’s bathroom and provided no acceptable reason for this. It then took longer than this to address the damp and mould caused by the leak. The Ombudsman has considered that the landlord was not responsible for the further delay of the mould wash following 16 December 2022.
The resident reported the leak in her bathroom on 14 October 2021. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will refund a percentage of the net rent of the property when a room is unusable beyond its published repair response. It states it will compensate 50% of the weekly rent for a bathroom. The Ombudsman has seen no correspondence that the landlord has considered this. The Ombudsman considers this to be an appropriate mechanism for compensation. Therefore, the Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord pays this from 11 November 2021, which is 28 days after the leak was first reported. This is until 28 October 2022 when the leak was fixed. This was a total of 50 weeks. This is because the landlord did not suitably address the repair of the leak since this time.
The resident pays £100.16 per week in rent. The Ombudsman calculates the compensation based on the resident’s loss of use and enjoyment of her property. The amount of compensation to be awarded to the resident is as follows:
1. 50 percent of £100.16 is £50.08.
2. £50.08 multiplied by 50 weeks is £2,504.
The landlord is to pay compensation of £2,504 to the resident being unable to use the bathroom for 50 weeks.
The landlord has awarded the resident £850 compensation during its complaints process for its handling of the repair. Any of this compensation already paid to the resident should be deducted from the £2,504.The Ombudsman will not make a separate additional order for compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident about its handling of the repair, as this is included in the £2,504 awarded.
The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord sends a cheque for the compensation amount as the resident does not wish to provide her bank details. If the landlord is unable to process a cheque, then it should communicate this to the resident, in order to make a bank transfer.

Concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.

The landlord’s ASB policy categorises ASB in to the following 3 categories:
1. Crime – The landlord states the police lead on criminal matters of ASB. It will provide a collaborative and supportive approach to this type of investigation.
2. Noise – The landlord states it will collaborate with the local authority and its environmental health service.
3. Other – The landlord states it will investigate these matters of ASB where the threshold of 3 incidents are reported in 7 days. Or where 5 incidents are reported in 28 days.
It is outside our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, taking into account its own internal policies and industry best practice.
In May 2022 the resident said she felt the continuing leak in her bathroom was intentional. She believed neighbour A’s actions were to cause her harassment in her home. The landlord directed its tenancy specialist to investigate the matters of ASB. It looked into previous reports made by the resident, and the case history. The landlord conducted a review meeting of the resident’s ASB reports on 22 June 2022. This included the resident’s neighbourhood officer and social worker. This was an appropriate response by the landlord in seeking to investigate the resident’s concerns.
It told the resident to do the following in respect of her ASB reports:
1. Keep diary sheets detailing her account of the ASB.
2. Directed the resident to the local authority and police to make reports of ASB where there was suspicion that a criminal act had been committed.
This advice was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy as set out above.
In its final complaint response the landlord explained to the resident that the leak was a repair issue. It told the resident that following its investigation, the actions of neighbour A had not been intentional. The Ombudsman understands the landlord’s significant delay in carrying out the repair will have added to the resident’s suspicion that the leak in her bathroom was an intentional act. It was therefore appropriate the landlord provided its explanation of its findings.
On 18 December 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it had closed its investigation of ASB involving the leak and neighbour A. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
The landlord acted appropriately and reasonably in the circumstances in its handling of the concerns by the resident about antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.

The associated complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It states that for all complaints received before 17 June 2022, it will make an attempt to resolve a resident’s complaint by ‘managing their expectations’. It states it will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 10 days at both stage 1 and stage 2. It does not offer a timescale for a response for complaints before 17 June 2022. The landlord states it will provide its written response at stage 2, within 40 working days. The landlord states it will contact the resident if it requires more time to respond to their complaint.
On 29 December 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord that it had not repaired the leak. The resident requested her complaint be escalated on 18 March 2022 due to the landlord’s lack of response to her previous complaint. On 21 March 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it could find no record of the resident’s initial complaint. This is evidence of poor communication, poor record keeping, and poor handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord should have communicated with the resident to establish the details of her missing complaint. The resident had kept a copy of her complaint submission form. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have obtained a copy of this and escalate the resident’s complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 17 June 2022. This was 117 working days after the resident first raised her complaint. It was 60 days after the landlord acknowledged her complaint. This was not in line with Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which expects the landlord to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days. This delay was therefore unreasonable and would have impacted the resident.
The resident sent a letter to the landlord via recorded delivery as she was aware of its on-going IT issues. This letter requested the landlord escalate her complaint. The landlord signed for the letter on 14 July 2022. The resident chased the landlord on 22 August 2022 stating it had not responded to her. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s request within 10 days, as per its complaints policy. This is evidence of poor complaint handling.
The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 14 December 2022. This was 108 days after the resident requested her complaint be escalated. This delay was not in line with the landlord’s own complaints policy of 40 working days. It was also not in line with Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which expects the landlord to provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. This delay was therefore unreasonable and would have impacted the resident.
There is evidence of maladministration as described above, caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s complaint response, which included an apology and £206 compensation for complaint handling to be reasonable redress for this incident. The Ombudsman has also taken into consideration the compensation awarded in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repair.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in her bathroom from the property above, causing damp and mould.
2. no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident £2,504 compensation for being unable to use her bathroom for 50 weeks. This is inclusive of the £850 previously offered during the complaints process. This is to be paid within 28 days of this report. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.
The landlord is to conduct an internal review of its handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom, to identify the reasons for the failings set out within this report, and what action it may need to take to avoid a recurrence of this in the future. It should provide this within 8 weeks of this report and should share the findings of this review with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord should make contact with the resident within 28 days of this report to identify if it needs to assist the resident further in respect of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The landlord should pay the resident the £206 in compensation that it awarded the resident as part of its stage 1 and 2 complaint response for complaint handling, if it has not already done so within 28 days of this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report, subject to the resident submitting her receipts the landlord is to review and reimburse all reasonable costs, including food and taxi expenses incurred by the resident during her period in temporary accommodation. It is then to update this service that it has done so.
The landlord should communicate with the resident following her request to move to another property within 28 days of this report, in line with its housing allocations property. It should also provide information to the resident on her rehousing options.