The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202226110)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226110

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for her flooring.
    2. Handling of repairs for damp and mould in the resident’s property.
    3. Handling of pest control work.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She lives in a flat within a block of similar properties (the property).
  2. Between 21 January and 12 February 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property on four occasions to repair her boiler to restore heating and hot water and fix a leak. The resident wanted the landlord to replace her laminate flooring which had been damaged by the leak. It declined to do this and instead told her to claim for the damage on her home contents insurance. The landlord offered to provide a dehumidifier to dry the property and remove the damaged flooring, which it completed on 19 March 2021.
  3. The landlord attended the property on 5 and 20 May 2021 to do follow on work to repair water damage. It repaired loose plaster, painted and stain-blocked areas affected by mould. On 6 July 2021 the resident reported that the mould had returned and said this was caused by a leak from the flat above her. The landlord made an appointment for 19 July 2021 to inspect. It rearranged this to 14 September 2021 when it painted and stain blocked the areas affected by mould.
  4. On 8 December 2021 the resident reported a leak from her boiler. This was fixed on 19 January 2022 after multiple visits by plumbing, heating, drainage, and carpentry contractors. On 10 February, 22 March and 9 June 2022, the resident asked the landlord to compensate her for, or repair, the damage to her flooring. It told her this was her responsibility and directed her to her home contents insurer.
  5. On 20 September 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there was extensive damp in the property, which was causing an infestation of silverfish. She also said that mice had infested the property from entry points in the kitchen and living room. The landlord started pest control visits on 20 October 2022.
  6. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 31 October 2022. She said that the damp in her property was attracting pests. She wanted the landlord to move her out while it completed repairs for the damp. The resident said the boiler had flooded her property previously and damaged her flooring. She wanted compensation for this.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 November 2022. It offered £65 compensation for missing an appointment on 15 September 2022 and delaying the repair. It offered its insurance team’s details for making a claim for the damaged flooring. It said that pest control work needed to be completed before it could address the repairs for damp in the property.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 November 2022. She said that the mould continued to be a problem in her property and provided medical details to show she was in ill-health. The resident wanted to be moved out of the property, which she felt was unsafe for her health, while the landlord did repairs for the damp and mould. She said she replaced her flooring after the first leak which was then damaged by the second leak. The resident wanted compensation of £10,000 for her flooring costs since moving into the property.
  9. The landlord issued its final response on 3 January 2023. It said that it found that the damp and mould were a result of a leak from the property above. The landlord said it attended on 2 November 2022 to review the damp and it attended on 1 December 2022 to resolve the leak from the above property.
  10. The landlord said that it found no failures in its handling of the resident’s boiler leaks. It said it had incorrectly provided its insurance teams’ details to her in its stage 1 response. The landlord instead directed the resident to her contents insurer to claim for the damaged flooring. It said that it could not provide the resident with a management transfer to another property as she did not meet its criteria. The landlord explained that moves for medical needs were handled by its allocation policy or by the local authority. The landlord said its offer of £65 compensation in its stage 1 response was in line with its compensation policy and offered a further £50 for its delayed final response.
  11. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 6 September 2023 confirmed that it had identified the leak that was affecting the resident’s ceiling. It noted that an outstanding roof repair to a neighbouring property was the cause of the resident’s leak. The roof repair had been closed as the landlord could not gain access.
  12. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman on 2 April 2024 that she remained dissatisfied as she still experienced persistent damp throughout her property. She said the landlord had been unable to fix the leak in her bedroom ceiling. The resident said that she still had a silverfish infestation in the property and wished to be relocated as she felt the property was not liveable.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for her flooring

  1. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to determine liability for damage to a resident’s property. However, we will consider whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s report of the leaks. We will also consider whether the landlord followed its own processes for determining whether it was liable for the damage to the resident’s flooring.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that any repair which is an immediate hazard to people, or the property is an emergency. It should attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and make these safe. For non-emergency repairs, the policy states that it will offer an appointment to suit the resident within 28 days of receiving the repair report.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay compensation for a resident’s out of pocket expenses if these are a direct result of its actions or lack of action.
  4. The landlord provided its “Public liability claims – damage to property or belongings” procedure in response to our request for its policy on dealing with liability claims. The procedure states that, when it receives a report of damage to a resident’s property, its insurance team should be notified as soon as possible. This procedure also confirms that liability insurance claims are time sensitive, and information to support a claim must be submitted within 90 days of making a claim.
  5. It was not disputed that the landlord attended within 24 hours on 5 February 2021 and fixed the resident’s first reported leak. On 10 February 2021 the resident reported that her radiator was not working. The landlord attended on 12 February 2021 to repair the boiler and confirmed there was no leak. It attended these reports within reasonable timeframes and there was no evidence of a failure.
  6. After the landlord fixed the leak, the resident asked it to fix the damaged flooring. It did not perform the repair and directed her to her home contents insurer. The resident said that the damage had been due to the landlord’s “negligence”. Despite this, there was no evidence that it referred the matter to its insurance team. This was a failure to follow its public liability claims procedure.
  7. The resident next reported a leak on 8 December 2021. The landlord should have attended this as an emergency in the same way it attended her previous report of a boiler leak. As set out in its policy, a defect which poses a hazard to the property should be attended within 24 hours as an emergency.
  8. The landlord’s heating contractor was unable to access the boiler on 15 December 2021 because the floor was swollen from the leak and the door to the boiler cupboard could not be opened. It raised a repair on 22 December 2021, 7 days later, for a carpenter to adjust the door to allow access to the boiler. This was unreasonable as the carpentry repair should also have been raised as an emergency to enable the leak to be repaired.
  9. The landlord identified that a drainage contractor was required to fix the leak. The contractor attended on 29 December 2021 but could not gain access. The next day the landlord raised an emergency repair for it to return but it did not return within 24 hours. This was a failure to keep to the timeframe in its policy.
  10. The landlord’s heating contractor then re-attended on 10 January 2022 and was unable to repair the leak due to the drainage issue. The drainage contractor returned on 13 January 2022. The landlord’s records do not explain why there was a 2-week interval before the drainage contractor re-attended. As this was re-raised as an emergency repair on 30 December 2021 which the landlord should have attended within 24 hours, this delay was unreasonable.
  11. On 13 January 2022, the drainage contractor found it needed to arrange a joint visit with a heating engineer to be able to access the defective area causing the leak. The landlord arranged a joint visit for 19 January 2022 and resolved the leak. In total, the landlord took 43 days from the resident’s report on 8 December 2021 to fix the leak.
  12. The resident again requested the landlord repair, or compensate her for, the damage to her flooring after the leak she reported on 8 December 2021. It again failed to refer the matter to its insurance team. The landlord again prevented the resident from having a claim considered by its liability insurer and directed her to her own insurers. This was inappropriate.
  13. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did offer to have her flooring damage considered by its insurance team. It was unreasonable that it then retracted this in its final response.
  14. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration. This led to the resident experiencing distress and inconvenience. She also incurred expense in repairing the damage to her flooring.

The landlord’s handling of repairs for damp and mould in the resident’s property

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould was published in October 2021. This set out recommendations for landlords to follow. These included:
    1. Taking a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
    2. Being proactive instead of reactive.
    3. Extending the scope of investigations into damp and mould – for example to neighbouring buildings.
    4. Ensuring responses are timely.
    5. Communicating regularly with residents about the steps being taken to resolve damp and mould.
  2. The landlord initially attended on 5 and 20 May 2021 to treat the mould in the resident’s property. It recorded these jobs as follow-on work to fix water damage after the leak. The resident then reported on 7 July 2021 that the mould had returned and there was a possible leak from above affecting her ceiling. The landlord raised a job for 19 July 2021 to investigate the source of the damp and perform mould cleaning.
  3. The mould cleaning was delayed until 14 September 2021 due to staff absence. The landlord took 70 days to complete work to mould wash and repair the ceiling This was due to employee absence. This was an unreasonable delay. The Housing Health and Safety Rating Scheme (HHSRS), introduced in the Housing Act 2004, lists damp and mould as potential hazards to health. Therefore, the landlord should have prioritised its response to the resident’s report. It should have had processes in place to ensure that staff absences do not delay repairs.
  4. The landlord did not do enough to identify the underlying cause of the leak and resultant damp and mould. It has not provided any inspection reports to the Ombudsman, and there is limited evidence of its investigation.
  5. The landlord’s records showed that it attempted to gain access to the properties above the resident on 27 July and 27 August 2021. This appears to be part of its investigation of leaks into another property below. It was unable to gain access and there was no evidence of it making further attempts. Since it was aware of the reported leak into the resident’s property, the landlord missed an opportunity to investigate this alongside. This was unreasonable as the landlord should have used all available means to find the source of the leak. It would be expected to take formal action to gain access if other methods had failed.
  6. It was evident that the landlord’s lack of action in repairing the leak led to the resident reporting “extensive damp” in the property on 20 September 2022. On 4 November 2022, the resident reported that the bedroom ceiling was now “leaking badly”. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 15 November 2022 said that it attended the resident’s property on 2 November to review the damp. No reports from this visit have been made available to the Ombudsman. It did not provide a good reason in its stage 1 response for why it could not do repairs for the leak, damp, and mould until after pest control work was done. It was unreasonable that the landlord continued to delay addressing the damp and mould work.
  7. The landlord’s final response said it attended the property on 1 December 2022 to resolve the leak. Its records showed that on this date the landlord raised work to clean and paint the area of ceiling affected by the mould. It completed this on 29 December 2022. However, there was no evidence of any work arranged to remedy the leak. The landlord again did not act appropriately to identify and fix the source of the leak. The resident reported the return of the mould on 4 July and 29 August 2023.
  8. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 6 September 2023 showed that a property above was causing the leak, and resulting damp, in the resident’s property. The correspondence noted that it had experienced past issues gaining access to the above property and had closed the repair job. It is unclear how long it was aware of this, but it was unreasonable that there has been no evidence of it acting on this.
  9. Once the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould was published, we would expect the landlord to follow the recommendations within. However, from October 2021, there was no evidence of the landlord being proactive to stop the leak and related damp and mould. Nor was there evidence that it comprehensively investigated the neighbouring properties for the source of damp. There was also no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident in a timely manner about its efforts to stop the leak, damp and mould.
  10. Overall, there was a significant, long-term failure by the landlord to tackle the leak causing damp and mould in the resident’s property. This led to distress and inconvenience for the resident, and allowed a potential health hazard to persist, over 3 years. These failings amount to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of pest control work

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident states that the resident is responsible for eradicating infestations of mice and rats in the property. The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy states that “Responsibility for preventing, reducing and eradicating pests is shared between (the landlord), our residents and the local authority.” The policy also says that “silverfish eradication will be considered during repair works” and “Where appropriate we will offer advice or signpost for support with actions the resident can take to address and prevent pest issues.” The policy is silent on timescales for when it will deal with pest infestations.
  2. The HHSRS puts a duty on landlords to inspect and minimise any hazard to residents. The HHSRS sets out that pests are a potential housing hazard which may lead to stress, infections, and food spoilage.
  3. The resident first reported mice and silverfish to the landlord on 20 September 2022. She said that she and her children were experiencing bites from the silverfish. It first attended to inspect the pest issue on 20 October 2022, a month later. While the landlord’s policy does not provide a timescale for responding to a report of pests, it should have recognised that the pests were a potential hazard and assessed this as a priority. The landlord did not respond within a reasonable time. There was no evidence of it providing any advice or support to the resident. In response to her report, it should have communicated with the resident to set out what it would do.
  4. The landlord carried out pest control visits at reasonable intervals on 20 October 2022, 3 November 2022, and 17 November 2022. It was unable to gain access on the last visit. Its inspections found no evidence of mice. However, there was no evidence of the landlord inspecting for silverfish until 3 January 2023. The landlord was aware of the resident’s report of “extensive damp” in the property. Since damp conditions promote silverfish infestation, it was unreasonable that it delayed for over 3 months to inspect for silverfish. The landlord provided no report from its inspection on 3 January 2023.
  5. After the conclusion of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s pest control reports show it attended the property to inspect for silverfish on 9 February 2023 but was unable to access all areas to confirm whether silverfish were present. On 20 April 2023, it found silverfish were present. It then carried out block treatments on 23 September, and 7 and 21 October 2023 when it found that multiple neighbouring properties reported silverfish.
  6. The landlord did not do enough to address the resident’s report of silverfish. The landlord had the opportunity to carry out repair work to eradicate the silverfish alongside dealing with the resident’s reports of damp. There was no evidence that it considered dealing with both issues together. It therefore did not follow its pest and wildlife policy and delayed unreasonably in dealing with the silverfish which allowed the problem to persist.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s interim complaints policy provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it should provide a response within 20 working days, at the final stage it should respond within 40 working days. The policy states that liability and personal injury claims are not considered through its complaints policy.
  2. All member landlords are required to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). At the time of the complaint, the Code defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. The Code also states that a resident does not need to use the word ‘complaint’ for the landlord to recognise their dissatisfaction as a complaint.
  3. The landlord missed opportunities to raise complaints for the resident on both occasions when she said she was unhappy with the damage to her flooring. Since the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s service, it should have investigated the resident’s dissatisfactions as a complaint to determine whether any failures had occurred and put them right. It was unreasonable that it did not do this.
  4. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the details for its insurance team to the resident. This was so she could make a liability insurance claim. However, its final stage complaint response retracted this offer. This was inappropriate as this went against its public liability claims policy. The landlord did not apologise or acknowledge that it may have caused distress by raising the resident’s expectations.
  5. The landlord said that no service failures occurred, based on its account of events in its final response. Based on this, it said the resident would not be able to make a liability insurance claim. Its final response said that the resident reported the leak on 22 December 2021. However, this was not consistent with the timeline of events provided to the Ombudsman. In the evidence the landlord provided to this Service, it said the resident reported the leak on 8 December 2021. Its final response also said two separate leaks were reported on 22 December 2021 and 10 January 2022. This did not match the events in the landlord’s repair log and the landlord’s final response was inaccurate.
  6. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to acknowledge that the resident had first reported the leak in her ceiling, damp, and mould on 6 July 2021. Consequently, it did not acknowledge any learning from the complaint as it did not identify its failings. This goes against the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of ‘learning from outcomes’.
  7. The landlord offered the resident compensation for a missed appointment on 15 September 2022. There was no evidence of this appointment. This most closely matches the appointment on 19 July 2021 which was rescheduled to 14 September 2021 due to staff absence. This inconsistency was a failure by the landlord to be clear in its complaint responses. The landlord’s failures in the handling of the complaint amount to maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for her flooring.
    2. Handling of repairs for damp and mould in the resident’s property.
    3. Handling of pest control.
    4. Handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £3,150 compensation. This is made up of
      1. £1,800 for its failure to act appropriately to remedy the leak and damp in the resident’s property. This is £50 per month to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience since her report of a leak on 6 July 2021 which remains unresolved to date. It may deduct the £65 it offered the resident in its stage 1 response if it can evidence that it has already paid this.
      2. £1,100 for its failures in the handling of pest control. This is £50 per month to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience since her report of pests on 20 September 2022 which remains unresolved to date.
      3. £250 for its failures in complaint handling. It may deduct the £50 it offered the resident in its final stage response if it can evidence that it has already paid this.
    2. Contact the resident to gather information about her costs for replacing the flooring after the leak from her boiler in December 2021. It must then reimburse the resident accordingly. The landlord should avoid onerous evidence requirements in relation to the damage.
    3. Arrange an inspection by a surveyor or damp specialist to investigate the source of the damp in the resident’s property. This must consider the effect on the resident’s property of any disrepair from neighbouring properties. The inspection should also consider the risk to the resident from remaining in the property. The report from this must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. An appointment for any follow-on work must be agreed with the resident within 4 weeks of the inspection.
    4. Arrange an inspection by its pest control contractor to assess the extent of the silverfish infestation in the resident’s property. The report from this must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. If follow-on work is required, an appointment must be agreed with the resident within 4 weeks of the inspection.