Clarion Housing Association Limited (202226981)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226981

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 October 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint in about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s decant.
2. The gas safety checks at her property.
3. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and the subsequent repairs.
4. The associated complaint.
5. The resident’s compensation payment.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme notes the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In this case, the resident was decanted on 17 April 2023. The resident told this Service she was unhappy with the length of time she had been staying at the decanted property. On 30 May 2023, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about its handling of the gas safety checks. No evidence has been seen that the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord for either matter.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and the gas safety checks at her property are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
If the resident makes a formal complaint, progresses it through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, she may then be able to refer the complaint to this service.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since December 2017. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat in a sheltered scheme.
The resident was decanted on 18 April 2023, to allow for the repairs to be completed at her property. The resident informed this Service on 4 October 2023, that she had not returned home and remained living in the decanted property.
The resident informed the landlord she was vulnerable, had a disability, and suffered from asthma and a chronic illness. She also informed the landlord that she had several hospital appointments for treatment throughout the period of the complaint.
The landlord and surveyor shared photos of the property with the Ombudsman. It should be noted that it is unclear when the photos were taken and no commentary was provided with the photos. However, the photos offer some context in understanding the state of repair of the flat. The photos show, what appears to be:
1. Resident’s furniture pulled away from the walls.
2. Settee stored outside the property under a plastic cover.
3. Damp and mould halfway up some walls.
4. Damaged paint work.
5. Bubbling plaster.
6. No flooring in the kitchen and bathroom.
7. No drain on the wet room floor.
8. Black mould on kitchen floor.
9. Wet walls. it is unclear from the photo which room had a wet wall, whether it is more than one wall or whether it is in more than one room.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy covers day to day responsive repairs. It says it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. For non-emergency repairs, it will offer an appointment to the resident within 28 days of the repair being reported. Complex repairs such as disrepair cases, fire and flood damage, and other complex casework will also be completed through the responsive repairs service.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy further explains that:
1. Where a hazard or risk associated with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is highlighted, it will address the works required within its responsive repair service.
2. The landlord’s technical staff are trained in identifying risks and hazards under the scheme and will complete risk assessments within their roles.
3. Support in completing risk assessments and finding solutions in complex cases is available via the landlord’s health and safety team.
4. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 states that as a landlord, it is required to ensure its properties are fit for human habitation.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider offering compensation for its actions or failures when a resident has incurred out of pocket expenses or unnecessary inconvenience. It will:
1. Consider residents’ vulnerabilities and whether those affected had needs that were made worse by the situation.
2. Consider offering compensation for loss of room use due, for example, to severe damp or unsafe flooring. The compensation would be calculated as a proportion of the rent.
3. The policy has guidance on levels of compensation it can offer. It also says it will pay £700 or above for long stays in temporary accommodation due to mishandling of repairs.
4. Pay the agreed compensation to offset rent or other arrears. Where a resident’s rent account is up to date or in credit, the payments will be paid directly to the resident.
The landlord’s vulnerable residents policy says it will identify vulnerable residents and record any vulnerabilities identified. It will consider any known vulnerabilities in the provision of its services. It will consider what additional support, consideration or variation in its usual service provision is appropriate for vulnerable residents.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 20 days. If dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the complainant can request the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 40 working days.

The landlord’s complaint policy further explains that it will address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.

Summary of events

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the property’s repair history. The repair log noted when the landlord had sent text messages to the resident to inform her that a technical officer was on its way to her property.
The resident reported an issue with damp in her bedroom on 6 March 2020. The landlord’s records showed that it suspected this was due to a leaking down pipe at the front of the building. The landlord planned to attend and address the issue on 26 March 2020; however, the visit was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions. It advised the resident it would call back once the restrictions were lifted.
Between 16 August 2021 and 20 August 2021, the resident reported 4 leaks in her bathroom from a waste pipe and the toilet. The landlord recorded all reports as emergency repairs and attended within 24 hours.
On 16 August 2021, the resident reported that her toilet was blocked and sewage water was leaking into her bathroom. The landlord attended on the same day and noted an emergency plumber was required to clear a blocked waste pipe. A technical officer attended the following day and repaired the leak in the bathroom. The officer noted on the repairs log that several jobs were required at the property. They noted that a “multitude of jobs to be done in kitchen floor and bathroom floor, boxing in new sink base unit too much to mention”.
On 18 August 2021 and 19 August 2021, the resident made further reports of an issue with the toilet and a large leak in the bathroom. The landlord cleared the blockage and restored the flow on 19 August 2021. It noted that it suspected there was a defect in the line and recommended for a CCTV inspection. The repairs log show that the CCTV inspection was recorded as completed on 1 February 2022, the log does not show the outcome of the CCTV survey.
The resident reported further leaks to the toilet waste pipe on 20 August 2021. The landlord noted this was a routine repair. It also noted that there was no trade person available to attend. The landlord attended on 21 September 2021 and on 23 September 2021 to fix the leak. It noted that repairs around the toilet were required and the flooring was to be replaced. The job around the toilet was recorded as completed on 17 November 2021. The landlord asked the resident on the same day to choose a colour for kitchen and bathroom flooring. The landlord also noted that plastering was to be done.
Between 13 August 2021 and 24 February 2023, the resident reported damp and mould at the property on 4 occasions. She said the issue were in the kitchen and living room. The resident informed the landlord several times that she was vulnerable, distressed, had asthma and a chronic disease. She said that the issues were affecting her health. The landlord recorded all the reports as routine repairs.
The resident reported damp and mould on 13 August 2021. The landlord attended on 15 September 2021. It recorded it cleaned the mould from the wall and repaired the wall with filler.
On 14 July 2022, the resident reported that there was sewage under the lino in the bathroom. No repair was recorded on the log.
The resident made a further 2 reports about issues with damp and mould on 14 July 2022 and 8 August 2022. The repairs log showed that the issues were logged under 3 separate job numbers and dates. The log referred to an appointment made for 5 October 2022. The purpose of the appointment or whether it was carried out was not recorded on the log.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 September 2022. She reiterated her vulnerability to the landlord. She described herself as an “old age pensioner dealing with a chronic illness that requires hospital attention”. She elaborated that she suffered from asthma and was prone to chest infection. She said, “my health is being severely compromised because of the effects of certain disrepairs”.
Within the same communication, she informed the landlord she had waited for more than a year for repairs to be completed. She mentioned she had contacted the landlord several times for updates. She identified an issue with rising damp and leaks, which she said caused some damage to her property such as rotting kitchen units, damaged flooring. She explained she did not have the full use of her kitchen. Her living room furniture had to be placed in the middle of the room, away from two damp walls. She had used 2 dehumidifiers but could not afford the expense. She said the landlord attended many times to inspect the work to be done but failed to return to complete the work.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 9 September 2022. The resident reiterated her vulnerability and health issues to the landlord. Her complaint was about:
1. Waiting for more than one year for the landlord to address the issue with rising damp and the damage it caused. She said some of the damage caused included staining on the wall, bubbling paintwork, flaking plaster, and black mould on skirting boards.
2. As a result of a blocked main drain, she had leaks in her property and her toilet waste pipe burst. This caused an overflow of raw sewage and flooding in her property. She said the repairs to her kitchen and bathroom flooring remained outstanding.
On the 27 September 2022, the resident asked the landlord to add the following to her stage 1 complaint:
1. Poor communication from the landlord.
2. The landlord started the repairs but did not finish. It left her property in poor state of repairs.
On 30 September 2022, the landlord confirmed and acknowledged the resident’s request to add to her stage one complaint. It said it may not be able to respond to her complaint within its time scales because of “a disruption”. It said it may contact the resident with a new time frame to respond to the complaint.
On 9 October 2022 and 11 October 2022, the resident asked the landlord to add to her stage one complaint. She said that she had contacted the landlord several times to confirm when the repairs would be carried out. She said the landlord arrived at her property unannounced on 29 July 2022, 7 September 2022, 28 September 2022, and 6 October 2022. She further explained that on 11 October 2022, an operative arrived but was unclear of what work needed to be done, he contacted the landlord and left without an explanation. She said “I was left totally uninformed. How frustrating.”
The landlord issued its stage one response on 14 October 2022. It responded as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay responding. It explained the delay was because of a cyber security incident, which had caused disruption to its IT systems.
2. It acknowledged that the resident provided a list of outstanding repairs on 12 September 2022.
3. It liaised with the repairs team and established that an operative attended the property to undertake the plastering work on 17 September 2022, but the work was not finished. It said that due to the cyber incident, it had not been able to access the full timeline of this repair.
4. It confirmed that it would attend the property to resolve all outstanding repairs on 31 October 2022.
5. In recognition of its failings in handling the repairs, it offered £700 in compensation to the resident to reflect:
  1. inconvenience to household;
  2. time taken to commence work;
  3. resident repeatedly having to chase;
  4. failure to follow process;
  5. lack of communication;
  6. repeat visits;
  7. lack of ownership;
  8. time taken to resolve the complaint.
6. The landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation to reflect its failing to respond to her complaint within its published time frame.
The landlord inspected the property on 31 October 2022. It identified several unresolved repairs. The landlord booked a number of jobs to address the issues identified:
1. replastering and painting;
2. replacement of 4 worktops, sink, base units, and plinths;
3. replace window seals;
4. It emailed stating “planning to confirm flooring”.
The resident informed the landlord she remained dissatisfied following the stage one response to her complaint. She requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 1 November 2022. She said the landlord had not completed the outstanding repairs on 31 October 2022. She reiterated the impact the issues were having on her health and living conditions. She explained she was having hospital treatment and could not rest when returning home from hospital. She also said she spent a lot of time repeatedly preparing and organising her home for the repairs to be done.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 December 2022. It responded as follows:
1. It explained that it had spoken to its staff and checked its systems.
2. It recognised that the resident was promised a call back on 27 October 2022 and did not get one.
3. It explained that there had been a misunderstanding as to the purpose of the visit to her property on 31 October 2022. It clarified it attended the property on that day to inspect the property and not to complete the repairs. It acknowledged that the job had not been recorded correctly on its system. As a result of this the resident was provided with incorrect information and had expected the repairs to be completed on the 31 October 2022.
4. It apologised and explained the jobs could not be brought forward as it would cause scheduling issues. It provided the dates and job numbers for the resolution of the outstanding repairs. It agreed to the following:
  1. It would replace 4 worktops, sink and base unit and plinths. It said the job was completed on 22 November 2022.
  2. It would carry out paint work following leak and plastering work. It said the job was completed 24 November 2022.
  3. It would tile the kitchen after the repairs to the windows were completed. It said the job was booked for 15 December 2022.
  4. It would repair the windows. It said the job was booked for 6 January 2023.
  5. It would replace the flooring. It said it was waiting for a response from the contractor regarding when these works would commence.
5. It concluded that its stage 1 response was “fair, reasonable and accurate”. It acknowledged that there had been issues with poor communication and apologised for this.
6. It offered £150 compensation in addition to the £750 offered at stage 1. £100 as a discretionary compensation and £50 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
7. It said it would contact the resident within 28 days to discuss processing the payment for the compensation. It explained that if there were arrears on her rent account, then the compensation would be offset against the arrears. If there were no arrears on her account, the compensation payments would be made directly to her bank account.

Post internal complaint process

Despite raising a job to repair the windows on 10 November 2022, a new works order was opened on the repairs log on 2 December 2022, to inspect the windows. This job was closed on 17 January 2023. The same record, with a different job number, was then duplicated on the system and dated 18 January 2023. The job was closed on 7 February 2023. It is unclear when the inspection to the windows took place and whether the identified repairs were completed.
On 6 January 2023, the resident made another report of damp and mould. The resident said there was damp on the kitchen and living room floors, and the property smelt of damp. The landlord’s records showed that on 8 February 2023 and 16 January 2023, it identified that a surveyor was required to attend.
In January 2023, the resident reported another 3 leaks in her kitchen and bathroom. The resident told the landlord on 11 January 2023, that she could not use her kitchen or bathroom. The landlord attended the property and noted that it could not locate the source of the leak. The landlord identified that a specialist surveyor was needed to investigate where the water was coming from.
Post January 2023, further issues were identified and raised and repairs remained on going.
On 24 January 2023, at the resident’s request, the landlord agreed to put the compensation payment on hold. It said it would wait for the resident to confirm whether she had decided to accept the compensation.
On 31 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for a balance of her rent account. The landlord informed her that on 19 January 2023, £750 of her compensation had been paid into her rent account to offset the rent arrears. The resident told the landlord she had not been aware this had happened and was unhappy with this. She informed the landlord she had not accepted the compensation and did not want it to be paid into her rent account. She asked for an explanation as why this happened and for it to be corrected.
The landlord contacted the resident on the same day and explained the reasons for adding the compensation to her rent account. It signposted the resident to her stage 2 response, which explained the procedure for paying compensation. It also asked the resident how she would like the rest of the compensation to be paid to her.
Between 1 February 2023 and 22 February 2023, the resident and landlord continued to communicate about the compensation. The landlord asked the resident several times to provide her bank details so that it could pay the remainder of the compensation. On 22 February 2023, the resident said to the landlord it had not explained to her the process and the policy for paying compensation.
The landlord told the Ombudsman on 13 October 2023, that due to the severe amount of damp at the property no repairs had been possible inside the property. Dehumidifiers have been in the property full time in an attempt to dry out the floor and walls. It said it is not yet clear if further damp work will be required.

Assessment and findings

Scoping paragraphs

Prior to this investigation, the Ombudsman carried out an investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. The investigation reviewed 13 determinations made by the Ombudsman over a six-month period up to June 2022. The investigation identified common points of failure and made recommendations for improvement. The investigation resulted in a special report which was published in October 2022 and can be viewed at Special report on Clarion | Housing Ombudsman Service (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its improvement plan and the Ombudsman is monitoring its progress in making the changes that are needed.
Some of the events in this case took place over the same period as that investigation and some of the findings of the Ombudsman’s special report are relevant in this case. While these have been referred to these in this report, the Ombudsman has not made any orders or recommendations which would duplicate those made to the landlord in the Ombudsman’s special report.
This investigation is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain that the scope of an Ombudsman investigation is limited to the outcome of the landlord’s final complaint response. It is noted that both parties have provided additional evidence up until October 2023. While this provides some context to the current situation, it will not be assessed in depth as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord.
This Service recognises that this situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced disrepairs, leaks, and damp and mould in her property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on her health. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Leaks, damp and mould, and subsequent repairs

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following common points of failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould which are relevant in this case:
1. A failure to accurately diagnose the cause of damp within a reasonable timeframe.
2. Poor communication with residents.
3. Failures to update residents on inspection findings and the actions to be taken.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) says that it is the landlord’s responsibility to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amounts to a hazard that may require remedy. The resident made a report of damp and mould on 13 August 2021. The landlord noted the report as a routine repair. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
In this case, no evidence was seen that the landlord tried to understand the severity of the issue before defaulting the repair to a routine repair. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate further from the first point of contact, especially as this was not the first time the resident reported the issue. It is noted that the landlord washed the mould off on 15 September 2021, however this was not enough to fully address the issue.
The landlord has a responsibility under the HHSRS to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties, such as risks from damp and mould. The landlord should be aware of its obligations and that it is expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. However, in this case, no evidence was seen that the landlord attempted to understand the underlying cause of the issue following its visit in September 2021. For instance, it did not show that it monitored and measured the humidity, looked at the building and the neighbouring properties, or considered whether a specialist surveyor was required. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out further investigative work. This was a missed opportunity to put things right and to prevent the issue from escalating further.
The evidence seen shows that during the same period, the resident reported several leaks to her toilet. The landlord responded to each report within 24 hours, which was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy. However, it failed to resolve the issue on the first attempt and the problem reoccurred several times.
On 19 August 2021, the technical officer recommended a CCTV survey to establish whether there was a defect in the line. This took place 5 months later. The landlord did not explain the delay or the outcome of the CCTV survey. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to keep the resident informed and explain the reasons for the delay. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to share the outcome of the survey with the resident. This would have reassured the resident that the repairs were being addressed and taken seriously. However, it did not do this.
While attending to fix the leak to the toilet on 17 August 2021, the landlord’s technical staff noted that the kitchen and bathroom flooring needed replacing. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will offer an appointment for non-emergency repairs within 28 days of the repair being reported. 3 months later, the landlord visited, took measurements, and asked the resident to choose the colour for the replacement flooring. The landlord did not explain the reason for the delay. It was not reasonable for the landlord to delay the repair without providing the resident with updates or a reasonable explanation.
Following this visit, it would have been reasonable to expect the repairs to be completed promptly. However, an inspection in October 2022, identified that the flooring had not been replaced. The landlord did not explain why the flooring had not been replaced 11 months after it measured for replacement. There is also no record showing that the flooring had been replaced in either the kitchen or the bathroom prior to the resident being decanted. No evidence was seen that the resident was kept informed of the delays during that period. This was an unreasonable delay to complete the repair. During that period, the resident did not have full use of her kitchen and living room. This impacted on the way she was able to live. She explained to the landlord that she could not rest in her home when returning from hospital. It was inappropriate for the landlord to leave the resident with unsuitable flooring in her kitchen and bathroom for 20 months. Especially as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability and health issues.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that since 2021, the resident had to chase the landlord several times for updates on the repairs. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident or its own technical officers. The resident reported several unannounced visits or instance when the technical officer was unclear of the job required. She also reported times when the officer would leave without finishing a job or telling her when it would return. The resident explained that every time she was expecting the landlord to attend, she would spend time and effort getting the property ready. The impact of the landlord’s poor communication was significant, it caused the resident some frustration and impacted on the landlord resident relationship.
The resident reported that she had waited over a year for repairs to be carried out. This is unreasonable, any repairs should be completed within a reasonable time scale. In the stage 2 response, the landlord informed the resident of the repairs it agreed to do to put things right, and of the date for their completion. The evidence seen shows that 6 repairs were agreed and only 2 were completed within the agreed time frame. Unfortunately, the landlord failed to keep its promises, which was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to put things right. The records also show that the landlord was not proactive in keeping the resident informed, which was not appropriate. The landlord’s failings left the resident with unresolved repairs and caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The evidence seen shows that the resident reported issues with damp and mould several times since 2020. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould said the landlord should ensure that its responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. However, the record shows that following reports made by the resident after July 2022, the landlord did not attend the property to investigate. Based on the photos seen and the landlord own admission, it is reasonable to conclude that there was an issue with damp and mould at the property. The landlord repeatedly failed to investigate the residents reports of damp and mould. This was inappropriate and allowed the issues to develop further.
Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged in October 2022 and January 2023, that there were issues with water ingress, damp and mould at the property. No evidence was seen that the landlord conducted a risk assessment in accordance with its repair and maintenance policy for risks identified under the HHSRS. This was inappropriate, particularly as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability.
The Ombudsman spotlight report recommends that the landlord identify where a suitably qualified surveyor should be used. The landlord identified that a surveyor was required which was appropriate. However, this was not until February 2023. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the issue of damp and mould when it was first reported. It would have prevented the resident from having to ask the landlord for updates and to have to make further reports.
The evidence seen shows that the resident informed the landlord in September 2022 that she did not have full use of her kitchen and living room. She also shared with the landlord how the situation impacted on her health. The landlord did not show that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or the ongoing impact on the resident. There is no evidence to show the landlord discussed with the resident the impact of not being able to fully use the rooms or to understand to what degree the facilities were usable. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore this further with the resident. It would have enabled the landlord to fully assess the situation and determine whether it agreed or disagreed with the resident’s comments and consider any appropriate actions.
The evidence shows that the repairs had been on going following the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould says landlords should identify where a suitably qualified surveyor should be used. Therefore, it is positive that in January 2023, the landlord identified a specialist surveyor was required. oHOHowever, it does not explain why the landlord did not identify this sooner. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to do this and act on the resident’s reports of damp and mould much sooner.
It is noted that since January 2023, several issues were raised, the nature of some the repairs identified changed. In terms of this investigation and as mentioned earlier in this report, those have not been assessed as part of this investigation. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. However, a recommendation has been made for the resident to consider whether she wishes to address those issues directly with the landlord.
Based on all of the above findings, we found severe maladministration on the part of the landlord. Overall, there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and the subsequent repairs. The landlord repeatedly failed to act to the reports of damp and mould, which had a significant detrimental impact on the resident. It also failed to resolve the issue of the leaks within a reasonable time frame. This exacerbated the situation and further undermined the resident and landlrod relationship.
Because of the landlord’s failings the resident was left in a property which was damp and in poor state of repairs. The impact on the resident was considerable as she is elderly and has a number of health conditions, including asthma and a chronic condition. During that time the resident was regularly visiting the hospital for treatment. She said she could not properly rest and recover when returning home from hospital. She also said she spent considerable amount of time requesting updates from the landlord.
In recognition of its failings the landlord offered the resident £800 in compensation. The Ombudsman considered the landlord’s compensation policy and its own remedies guidance and determined that the compensation was too low. The offer did not go far enough to put matters right. It did fully not recognise the impact the landlord’s poor communication had on the resident. It was time consuming for the resident to spend considerable time chasing the landlord for updates. The level of compensation does not reflect the distress, frustration and inconvenience the failings caused the resident. It does not reflect the cumulative impact the failings had, especially when considering the resident’s vulnerability. When considering all circumstances of the case, a fairer amount of compensation is £2,500. This is equivalent to:
1. £500 for time and trouble of chasing the repairs and the frustration caused by the landlord’s poor communication. The resident said she was in poor health and spent time chasing the landlord for updates for 20 months. She also spent time and effort repeatedly getting her home ready for the repairs to take place.
2. £2,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould and repairs. The landlord raised the resident’s expectations several times that the repairs would be carried out and it did not happen. The resident informed the landlord she did not have full use and enjoyment of her kitchen and living room. She also shared with the landlord that she was vulnerable and her living conditions impacted on her health and wellbeing.

Complaints handling

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following common points of failure in the landlord’s handling of complaints which are relevant in this case:
1. Inadequate analysis of what had gone wrong.
2. Insufficient offers of redress to put things right.
3. A lack of evidence of learning from the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 20 working days. The landlord responded to the resident stage one complaint 3 days outside its published time frame. This was reasonable as it had explained to the resident that its response would be delayed due to a cyber incident. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and offered £50 compensation to the resident to reflect its failings.
The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 40 working days. It is also noted that although the landlord provided its stage 2 response within its published time frames at stage 2, it offered an additional £50 compensation for the delays in handling the complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. At stage 1, the landlord recognised its failings in term of its handling of the repairs, which was appropriate. However, it failed to address the resident’s complaint about poor communication and ineffective repairs appointments. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address all the points raised by the resident in her complaint. The landlord’s failure to do so meant that the resident felt that she was not heard and that her complaints were not taken seriously.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord failed to address its failings in handling the reports of damp and mould in both its responses. It failed to consider its responsibilities under the HHSRS or the Ombudsman’s wider recommendations about dealing with damp and mould. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to reflect, learn, and prevent repeating the failings. This also meant that it failed to demonstrate to the resident that it fully appreciated how its failings impacted on her.
In summary, while the landlord appropriately offered some compensation to reflect its delayed responses, this was not proportionate to remedy the full extent of the failings identified. Given that it failed to address all the points raised by the resident, which left the resident with her complaint being partially unanswered, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £250 compensation has been made to reflect the impact this had on the resident. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100.

Compensation

The landlord’s compensation policy says that when compensation is agreed, it may pay the compensation to offset rent arrears. The landlord explained the compensation policy in its stage 2 response letter to the resident. It said that if there were any arrears on her rent account, then the compensation would be offset against the arrears. It also said it would contact the resident within 28 days to discuss processing the payment for the compensation. The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident 21 days outside the agreed time frame. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident as agreed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 January 2023, 42 days after receiving the stage 2 response. She informed the landlord she did not want to accept the compensation as she was dissatisfied with the response to her complaint. The landlord agreed to put the compensation on hold. The evidence does not show that the landlord informed the resident that part of the compensation had already been paid into her rent account. The landlord also did not explain to the resident that accepting the compensation would not prevent her from escalating her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The resident found out the compensation had been paid into her rent account when she enquired about her rent balance. This would have been confusing for the resident as she had previously been told the compensation payment was on hold. It is also noted that the landlord had raised the resident expectations that it would discuss the compensation with her before paying it. The evidence seen shows that the landlord paid the compensation 12 days prior to speaking to the resident. This was unreasonable, the landlord caused the resident some confusion, distress and frustration. This was unfortunate as it further damaged the landlord and resident relationship.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord followed its policy when it offset the compensation against the resident’s arrears. The Ombudsman also recognises that this course of action was shared as a possibility with the resident during the complaint process.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident felt the compensation should not have been paid as she had not accepted it. The Ombudsman also recognises that the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations. It said it would discuss the compensation with her before paying it, which it did not. However, accepting the compensation or not, would not have impacted on the resident’s right to the repairs or to refer her complaint to this Service. It would have been helpful for the landlord to explain this to the resident. However, the impact and detriment to the resident were minimal. It is noted that communication could have been better and the failing caused some time and effort to the resident. Therefore, there was service failure on the part of the landlord in its failing to discuss the compensation.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s special report highlighted the following common points of failure in the landlord’s record keeping which are relevant in this case:
1. Poor record keeping.
2. Poor and misleading communication.
3. Inaccurate or incomplete records.
The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report says that good records assist housing providers to offer efficient and effective services by ensuring that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information. This promotes transparency, accountability, and improves communications with residents, which in turns nurture a good tenant and landlord relationship based on openness, respect, and trust.
It is recognised that the landlord suffered a cyber-attack around 17 June 2022, and that access to its systems were limited as a result around this time. However, the landlord did not say that it had been unbale to recover the relevant data for this investigation.
In this case, the evidence points to multiples failures in the landlord’s record keeping. For example, the resident noted several unannounced visits from technical officers to her property, most of which do not appear on the repairs log. The landlord also acknowledged that the wrong information was recorded on the repairs log, which resulted in incorrect information being provided to the resident. This caused confusion as to the purpose of a visit in October 2022.
The landlord provided copies of its repairs log for this investigation. It was particularly difficult to determine, by looking at the log, whether a repair had been completed and what work had been done. The Ombudsman also noted that the damp reports made by the residents in July 2022 and August 2022, were logged under 3 separate job numbers and dates. It was unclear from the logs whether any of those repairs jobs had been carried out.
The records should be clear on what repairs were done, when, and by whom. It provides an audit trail, which can be shared with a resident or the Ombudsman, as evidence of the history of repairs for a property. In this case, the records are unclear and make it difficult to understand the events. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and the gas safety checks at her property are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and the subsequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s compensation payment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

Between 2020 and 2023, the landlord consistently failed to act on the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It also failed to resolve issues of several leaks within a reasonable time frame. It repeatedly failed to complete repairs within a reasonable time and keep the resident informed. As a result of the landlord’s poor communication, the resident had to chase the landlord for updates, which was frustrating and time consuming. The landlord’s failings left the resident living in a property which was damp and in poor state of repairs. The impact on the resident was considerable as she is vulnerable and has a number of health conditions.
The landlord failed to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint as per its complaint policy. It failed to address all the points raised by the resident, which left the resident with her complaint being partially unanswered.
The landlord’s communication for processing the compensation could have been better. It would have been helpful for the landlord to explain to the resident that accepting the compensation would not impact on her right to repairs or to escalate the complaint to this Service. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to discuss when and how it was processing the compensation. However, the impact and detriment to the resident were minimal.
The landlord provided a copy of the log repairs to evidence the repair history of the property. The repairs log had missing and incorrect information. It was difficult to understand and determine the full history of the repairs by looking at the log.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord is ordered to pay £2,825 in compensation to the resident. This is inclusive of the compensation offered by the landlord. The landlord is to deduct any payments already made to the resident from this amount. The remaining of the compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and is equivalent to:
  1. £500 for time and trouble of chasing the repairs and the frustration caused by the landlord’s poor communication. It also reflects the time and trouble the resident went to in getting her property ready for each time the landlord said it would attend to carry out the repairs and did not.
  2. £2,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of leaks, repairs, and damp and mould. It reflects how the landlord’s failings impacted on the resident’s enjoyment of her home. The impact on the resident was greater due to her vulnerabilities.
  3. £250 to reflect its failing to fully answer the resident’s complaint.
  4. £75 to reflect the landlord’s poor communication when processing the compensation payment.
3. Provide the resident with an update on the repairs to her property. The landlord is also to share the time frames for completion of the repairs.
4. Provide the resident with a single point of contact, who will provide monthly updates to the resident on the progress until the completion of the agreed repairs to her property.
5. Provide information to the resident on her housing options.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that for issues not addressed as part of this investigation the resident should discuss those directly with the landlord. If following the landlord’s response, she remains dissatisfied, she may wish to consider raising those as part of the landlord’s formal complaint process.