Clarion Housing Association Limited (202301032)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301032

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 April 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
2. In addition, this Service has considered:
   1. the landlord’s record keeping
   2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

3. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 12 December 2011. The landlord is a housing association.
4. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident advised the landlord of concerns about his child’s health (chest issues and croup). The resident advised this Service that the damp issues were ongoing over a period of approximately 11 years.
5. The landlord inspected on 26 May 2022 and noted that it “could see clearly that the property still had water streaming on the walls of the bedroom and ceiling and window.” It said that it would recommend external wall insulation (EWI) and it noted that this had resolved similar issues with condensation in other properties.
6. On 22 June 2022 the landlord made internal enquiries with regards to when the EWI work could be done and how it would be funded. However, due to budget restrictions, the landlord was advised that works were unable to take place that financial year. On 14 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord for an update. He referenced a visit from the landlord that had taken place in June 2022 and he said that the EWI works had been agreed.
7. In February 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint. In addition to the delays undertaking the EWI works, the resident said that the landlord had agreed to renew his kitchen due to the smell of damp and the mould behind the kitchen units. The resident also referenced costs that he had incurred replacing furniture and decorating because of the damp and mould. He advised the landlord that his children’s health was suffering and that water was running down the walls and into the plugs.
8. On 23 February 2023 the landlord noted, “The mould recurs because the rendering has not taken place”. Its Planned Investment team subsequently agreed to provide a work specification and a budget. The landlord said that it would progress matters as a priority once the specification had been received.
9. On 14 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary, it acknowledged that the resident had requested updates on several occasions and that there had been a lack of response on its part. The landlord advised the resident that works to instal the EWI would begin by the end of May 2023. It said that any claim for damaged possessions and decoration costs would need to be made via the resident’s home insurance, and it said that it was unable to locate a record of any agreement that had been made to renew his kitchen. The landlord apologised for the service failures that it had identified and it offered the resident £500 compensation.
10. On16 March 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said that a surveyor had visited the property in November 2022 and that it had been agreed that the kitchen would be renewed. He said that it was unfair to have to live in such conditions for 11 years, and he reiterated the costs that he said he had incurred. In addition, the resident raised ongoing concerns regarding the impact of the damp on his child’s health.
11. On 7 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary, it:
    1. apologised for the delay in issuing its complaint response, and for any conflicting information that it had provided. It explained that the EWI works had not gone ahead due to a lack of financial resource
    2. advised that the mould had reoccurred because rendering works hadn’t taken place. EWI works would, however, be progressed and the kitchen would be renewed. The landlord said that it anticipated that works would be completed by the end of July 2023
    3. offered the resident an extra £250 compensation.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident to clarify the insurance process. It explained that the standard practice would still be for the resident to go through his content insurers, however it advised him that if this was unsuccessful thenit could review the matterfurther.
13. The resident sought assistance from this Service. He referenced the time taken to complete the repairs and to resolve the ongoing issue with damp and mould. He advised of damage caused to his personal belongings, the impact of the damp and mould on health and wellbeing, and the landlord’s poor communication. He asked for all issues to be resolved.

Events post the landlord’s internal complaints process

14. This Service understands that EWI works and the kitchen renewal were completed around September 2023, and that this has resolved the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

15. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of the living conditions on the health of his child. The Ombudsman acknowledges the concerns that the resident raised in this respect and the distress that this would have caused. However, the Ombudsman is unable to determine that the actions (or lack thereof) of the landlord impacted on health in the way that the resident has described in this case. This matter would be more appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. This Service has not sought to establish liability in this case but has considered the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, and the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about his child’s health.
16. Taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence and the date that the resident raised the formal complaint, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to May 2022. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaints made between 2022 and 2023.

The landlord’s response to reports of mould and damp, and its handling of the associated repairs

17. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
18. The landlord’s repairs policy says that the landlord aims to ensure that repairs to properties are conducted in a timely and efficient manner. It says that complex repairs are completed through the responsive repairs service. Major component replacements are not responsive repairs, and these items should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes.
19. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, published in 2021, says that a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and that it must ensure that its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
20. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right; and learn from outcomes.
21. In May 2022 the landlord noted that the resident had contacted its Chief Executive regarding an ongoing damp issue. It subsequently arranged for a full damp survey to establish what remedial works were required, including whether EWI was needed. This was an appropriate action to take to investigate the matter, although it may have been something that the landlord should have considered sooner if there had been ongoing reports for the period that the resident has described. However, the landlord failed to update the resident following the inspection which was unfair and had a detrimental impact on the landlord’s relationship with the resident.
22. On 14 November 2022 the resident advised the landlord, “We had someone come out to us in June who was very helpful and got the work agreed for a wrap and render to finally deal with the issue after 11 years. I have been trying to get an update on this.” The resident did not receive a response until February 2023, after intervention from this Service, and even then, the resident did not receive an update on the proposed EWI. This caused the resident additional frustration.
23. At times the landlord demonstrated a lack of knowledge and understanding with regards to the complaint and what had previously been agreed with the resident. On 23 February 2023 it noted, “We really need to establish what the agreed solution was and get on with it”. With regards to the works it said, “The remaining properties in the street had been done but not this one, for reasons unknown” (it is noted that this may have been linked to a pilot programme in 2018/19 to improve the energy efficiency of a small number of properties). Nevertheless, the landlord subsequently noted that the resident’s property had been inspected in 2022 and that it had been agreed that it needed to be externally rendered to insulate the building, and to prevent mould and damp. The landlord’s internal records failed to provide clear information to staff across different teams who had a shared responsibility for progressing matters and providing timely and consistent information to the resident.
24. It is acknowledged that financial restraints contributed to the delays that occurred progressing works. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord proactively managed the investigation or undertook a risk assessment.  In addition, there is no suggestion that the landlord discussed whether a temporary decant should be considered given the clear issues with damp at the property, and the resident’s reports of the impact that the matter was having on the family’s health. Overall, the landlord’s approach showed a lack of urgency, and it failed to appropriately consider the detriment to the household.
25. On 14 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about his child’s health, however there is no evidence to demonstrate that it considered any support that the household may have needed in this respect.  The landlord failed to adequately respond to the resident’s concerns and to recognise the extent of his distress.
26. The landlord apologised to the resident that it had not kept him updated regarding delays to instal the EWI, which was appropriate.  It advised the resident that works to instal the EWI would begin by the end of May 2023. However, on 26 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to express his frustration with the ongoing delays and the landlord’s lack of contact. Residents should not be expected to follow up on outstanding works. This is the landlord’s responsibility and speaks to the importance of good communication and robust follow up procedures. The communication failings throughout the case exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the household. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship and contributed to the resident’s distress, time, and trouble that he spent pursuing the matter.
27. The resident reported damage to his personal possessions due to the mould, and he referenced costs that he had incurred decorating the property. This Service does not look at claims in the way that an insurance provider would, however it can assess whether the landlord responded appropriately and followed good practice.
28. In its stage 1 response the landlord advised the resident, “you would need to claim for the damage to your personal possessions and redecoration through your insurance provider”. The landlord is reminded that it should initially at least have considered whether there was any evidence that it had been at fault for any claimed damage. If a landlord accepts that it was at fault, or may have been at fault, then it may not be reasonable to ask residents to claim on their own contents insurance policy as all claims made on a policy may affect their future premium and / or require them to pay an excess. The resident raised concerns with the landlord on 14 March 2023, “this is another cost that will be pushing us into a position that we can’t afford to pay”. An order has been made below for the landlord to review its approach when responding to insurance issues in accordance with this Service’s guidance: Guidance on complaints involving insurance issues (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
29.  On 7 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response in which it said that it anticipated that the EWI and kitchen renewal would be completed by the end of July 2023. In addition, it reassured the resident, “Our team will continue to monitor these works and should there be any further delays, they will ensure you are updated.” Nevertheless, on 19 July 2023 the resident contacted this Service to ask for assistance with initiating a response from the landlord. When timescales for works were extended for a second time, the landlord again failed to ensure that the resident was kept updated as it had said it would. This further exacerbated the distress, frustration, and inconvenience that he experienced.
30. In addition, in its stage 2 response the landlord referenced an inspection that had been due to take place on 16 March 2023. However, due to an administrative error the appointment was not confirmed. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered a compensation or goodwill payment at the time to recognise the inconvenience that this may have caused the resident which was unfair in the circumstances.
31. In summary, there were significant delays and a lack of active repair management to resolve the substantive issue. There was a period of 16 months elapsing between the landlord recognising the need for EWI to resolve the damp issue and this work being completed. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, or with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould. In addition, there was a failure to communicate effectively, to manage the resident’s expectations, and to assess the level of risk to vulnerable household members. There is a lack of evidence that the landlord had due regard to its responsibilities under the HHSRS. These cumulative failings had a detrimental impact on the resident and a finding of maladministration has been made.
32.  At stage 1 of its internal complaints process the landlord offered the resident £450 in acknowledgement of inconvenience caused, numerous calls, vulnerability, misdirection, and a failure in its process. At stage 2 it offered the resident an additional £100 for further delays undertaking agreed works, inconvenience caused, consideration of vulnerabilities, and time taken to resolve matters. A total compensation amount was therefore offered of £550 for the impact of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports. It was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principle, ‘put things right’, for the landlord to offer compensation. However, the amount offered was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. An order has been made below that is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for cases where there have been serious failings by the landlord. The compensation that has been ordered takes into account the failures that accumulated over a significant period, and that the landlord’s communications exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
33. Going forward the landlord is reminded that it should clearly demonstrate learnings from a complaint and that it should explain how its learnings will improve its future service delivery. In this case, the landlord should ensure that its staff recognise when a resident discloses a vulnerability and the need to respond appropriately. It should also ensure that a resident is kept updated regarding work schedules and any associated delays. An order has been made below with regards to learning from outcomes.

Record keeping

34. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould makes it clear that landlords should ensure that their record keeping is sufficiently accurate and robust. In this case the gaps in the landlord’s records hindered its ability to demonstrate that it was confident in its investigations and to effectively communicate with the resident.
35. This Service acknowledges that the landlord was subject to a cyber-attack in July 2022 which affected its IT systems and caused the landlord significant issues. Nevertheless, the landlord’s record-keeping practices in this case were insufficiently robust and caused an extended period of detriment to the resident who referenced, “being sent round in circles each week trying to find out what is going on. ”Good record keeping is important to evidence the actions that a landlord has taken and to identify and respond to problems when they arise. A finding of service failure has been made in this respect.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

36. There are 2 stages to the landlord’s complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it aims to respond to new complaints received since 17 June 2022 within 20 working days of the complaint being logged, and to respond to peer reviews (stage 2) within 40 working days. The policy says that if it is unable to do so, it will contact the resident and explain why, and that it will provide a timescale of what is involved to resolve the peer review. In addition, it will agree with the resident the frequency of keeping them updated.
37. There is no dispute that the landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy, that responses were delayed, and that at times the resident was provided with conflicting information. This contributed to the frustration that he experienced and to the time that he spent following up with the landlord and with this Service. The landlord failed to use its complaints process as an effective dispute resolution tool, and the resident required this Service to intervene to request that responses were issued. This was unfair when considering the circumstances of the case.
38. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures, which demonstrated that it attempted to ‘put things right’. This comprised of £50 at stage 1 in recognition that the response time was outside of its published service level agreement, and £150 at stage 2 (£50 for the conflicting information provided at stage 1, and £100 for issuing the stage 2 response outside of its service level agreement). The level of compensation offered was in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance and constitutes reasonable redress. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate any lessons learnt with regards to its complaint handling which was a shortcoming. A recommendation has been made below to address this.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
41. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

42. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. pay the resident £550 (this is in addition to the £750 that has already been offered which this Service understands was paid to the resident’s rent account). The additional £550 ordered should be paid directly to the resident (and not to his rent account) and comprises:
       1. £450 for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of mould and damp
       2. £100 for the impact of the landlord’s record keeping failures.
    2. apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report
    3. within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to undertake a case review at management level. The landlord should then update the resident and this Service on the learnings that were identified and how these will be, or have already been, used to improve service delivery
    4. contact the resident to offer advice on how to pursue a claim for damages, and facilitate a claim to its own insurers should he wish to do so
    5. self- assess against this Service’s guidance on insurance claims: Guidance on complaints involving insurance issues (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)  to determine if its current policy and practice is in line with this, and write to the Ombudsman with the outcome. If it is found that it is not, the landlord should set out what action it will take to address this
    6. the landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

43. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. undertakes staff complaint handling training if it has not done so within the last 6 months.