Clarion Housing Association Limited (202301840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301840

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 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

The complaint is about the:
1. Landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property, including damp and mould.
2. Level of the rent increase.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement that commenced on 2 March 2020. The property is described as a bedsit located on the first floor of the building. The landlord has informed this Service that the resident does not have any vulnerabilities.
In November 2022, the resident made repair reports regarding his inability to shower due to missing tiles in the bathroom. The flooring to the kitchen and bathroom was lifting and needed to be replaced. In addition, the seals to the window were blown and the property had damp and mould.
An operative attended on 15 December 2022 and assessed that extensive works were required to the property. These were: removal of the tiling along the length and width of the bath plus the timber sub floor was rotten and required replacement; all double-glazed units to the property were blown and there was severe condensation on all the double-glazed units with puddling on the window sill boards. The records show that the property has storage heaters but the remainder of the landlord’s assessment regarding their adequacy was incomplete.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 19 January 2023 a referral was sent to a surveyor. This showed that the timber frame supporting the bath was rotten with tiles coming away from the wall. The solution proposed was to install a new frame under the bath and replace the tiling along the length of the bath.
On 6 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that it had not acted despite his reports of damp and mould in the property. In addition, the property condition meant that his children could not stay at the weekend.
The resident complained to the landlord on 13 March 2023 about the property condition. He advised that there was water running down the walls and window seals were blown which caused the curtains and blinds to go black. He had been unable to shower for months as the wood surrounding the bath was rotten and he had been waiting for over 3 years for the kitchen and bathroom flooring to be replaced. He had been hospitalised with a chest infection as the property was not habitable. Also, the increase in rent was too high.
The landlord complaint responses on 6 April 2023 and 4 July 2023 apologised for its delays in responding to the resident’s complaints. It acknowledged that it had made mistakes in closing the repairs orders for the window, bathroom tiles, damp, bathroom and kitchen floor. Also, confusion had occurred as instead of raising a repairs order for the resident’s property, a repair order had been raised to the property below. It accepted that the repairs remained outstanding and advised that an inspection had been arranged to assess the works required to the property. It added that since April 2023, a new area manager had been appointed who would be responsible for the management of the repairs.
In addition, the landlord made an overall compensation award of £800 through the complaints process. At stage 1, £350 had been offered for its failure to follow its processes, the delay, communication failures, lack of ownership and inconvenience experienced by the resident. A further compensation award of £450 was made at its final complaint stage, made up of £400 for its delay in completing the repairs and £50 for its complaint handling failures.

Events after the end of the complaint process

The landlord’s repair records show that on 7 February 2024, it completeda3-stage mould treatment to the kitchen, hallway cupboard and bathroom ceiling. In addition, it assessed that 8 panes of glass to 3 windows were required where the seals had blown. The glass was replaced 3 weeks later.
On 19 March 2024, the landlord replaced the flooring to the bathroom and kitchen and the tiles and silicone around the bath.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42(d) the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge. Neither can the Ombudsman consider complaints about the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the resident’s complaint about the level of the rent increase is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
Rents for social housing are set using national guidelines and the amount of the increase is dependent on the type of property, size and the date of the tenancy. The actual amount of the resident’s rent review is sent at the beginning of the financial year, with the Government setting the maximum amount that can be charged. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is the appropriate body that deals with complaints regarding concerns about rent levels. The First Tier Tribunal can make determinations on the appropriate level and amount of rent recoverable by a landlord and decide if the charges were reasonably incurred and by whom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During the complaint process, the resident has explained the impact of his living conditions on his health. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of actions have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property including damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair;
2. put things right;
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
The landlord’s repairing obligation are set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) and the resident’s tenancy agreement. Following a repair report, the landlord may need to carry out an inspection to determine who is responsible for the repair and these should be completed within the timescales outlined in its repairs policy.
The earliest report of repairs required to the property was on 24 November 2022. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will respond to non-emergency repair requests within 28 days of being notified of the repair. The landlord has accepted in its complaint responses that it did not respond within its published repair timescale to the resident’s reports. The repairs related to the bath, kitchen and bathroom flooring, windows and damp in the property. The landlord’s response to the repair reports it received was unreasonable.
The landlord was informed on 15 December 2022, following an operative’s attendance, that repairs were required to the bath. After that inspection, a surveyor reviewed the pictures of the bath on 19 January 2023 and recommended the removal and renewal of the frame supporting the bath. Despite the recommendation, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed the risk to the resident or the property in using the bath in its current condition. This was not appropriate.
Although the resident had informed the landlord that he was experiencing difficulty bathing, and its assessment that the frame to the bath required replacement, in March 2023, a surveyor rejected the works order to carry out the repairs to the bathroom. No reasons were given for the surveyor’s decision. This is not reasonable as the limitation of its records means that it is not possible to assess what factors the landlord considered when it made that decision.
Under the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System, the landlord has a responsibility to keep the property free from category 1 hazards such as damp and mould. The resident described the property as having damp and mould with water dripping down the walls despite using special paint and a dehumidifier. Following this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 (“It’s not lifestyle”), the landlord introduced a policy on leaks, condensation, damp and mould. Its policy says that it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould quickly by carrying out required works. In addition, it would work with residents to take proper measures to resolve any such reports received. There is no evidence that it acted in accordance with its policy as the resident had to chase the landlord in March 2023 to advise that the property condition was changed.
The landlord’s submission to this Service shows that a surveyor did not inspect the property to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould; instead, a review of the pictures of the property was undertaken. Neither was an assessment conducted of the suitability of the property for the resident to remain in. This is not appropriate as it was required to assess whether the resident required alternative accommodation until the damp and mould was resolved. This resulted in the resident living with damp and mould for a protracted period until the damp and mould treatment was completed to the kitchen, hallway and bathroom around 15 months later (in February 2024). This represented an unreasonable delay and contributed to the inconvenience and frustration experienced by the resident.
The resident informed the landlord that the damp and mould in the kitchen had damaged the kitchen blinds and curtains in the property. Its operative reported in December 2022 that the condensation in the property caused puddling on the window sill boards. Also, there were water droplets present on the wall above the windows in the kitchen and lounge. The resident provided pictures of the damaged blinds and curtains to the landlord on 21 April 2023.
The complaint responses did not set out the landlord’s position regarding its responsibility for the damaged items. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to determine whether the landlord has been negligent and should reimburse for damaged possessions as this is a matter more appropriately considered by an insurance or legal process. However, it was not reasonable that the landlord did not assess whether the damage to the resident’s belongings was its responsibility and/or whether he can make a liability claim to its insurers for this.
The landlord is responsible for keeping the floors in the property in good condition. The inspection of the bathroom and kitchen floor in December 2022 found that the timber sub floor was rotten. After the inspection, the landlord failed to act until the kitchen and bathroom floor were replaced in March 2024. Again, this meant it took around 15 months to complete the repair which was not reasonable and represented an unacceptable delay.
With regard to the condition of the windows in the resident’s property, an operative advised on 15 December 2022 that the seals in all the double-glazed units in the property required replacement and that the property had condensation. Replacement glass was recommended and it was noted that there was a slight fall to the bathroom window, allowing water to run off into the bath. Though a review of the window condition was undertaken on 19 January 2023, there was a lack of urgency to resolve the defects to the windows. Following this, the landlord checked on 7 March 2023 whether the replacement glass had been ordered. At the time, it noted that there was a backlog of glass orders. The order for the replacement glass was rejected on 14 March 2023, without reasons given or an inspection of the property being carried out. This was not reasonable.
There was no evidence of clear communication between the repairs and the planning team which contributed to the unnecessary delays experienced by the resident. The repair order for the replacement windows was handled by the planning team but on 28 March 2023, the responsibility appears to have transferred to the repairs team. In its complaint response, the landlord accepted that there had been confusion about which team was responsible for the replacement glass to the property. This contributed to the unacceptable delay that the resident experienced as the works were not completed until the end of February 2024 which was again 15 months later. It is noted that the resident remains dissatisfied with the work carried out when the glass was replaced, stating that the seals were not changed during that process.
The landlord’s leaks, damp and mould policy states that it will keep residents updated on diagnosis of the issues and the progress of works. The landlord in its complaint response accepted that the resident experienced communication failures as between November 2022 and April 2023, it did not have an area manager acting as a point of contact, progressing or monitoring the work required to the property. Therefore, there was no one assigned with responsibility to take a holistic view of the issues, ensure accurate diagnosis or monitor the repairs to completion. This meant that the resident lived in unsatisfactory conditions from November 2022 until the related repairs were completed in March 2024.
The operative who attended in December 2022 recorded that the storage heaters in the property may not be adequate and could be contributing to the conditions in the property. This is not addressed in the landlord’s complaint responses, neither was an assessment undertaken of the capacity of the storage heaters in the property. This is not reasonable as the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the heating system works and provides adequate heating. The landlord has not evidenced that it did so.
The resident informed the landlord that the property condition impacted his ability to have weekend access to his children. He also advised of the importance of appointments being kept due to his work commitments. The landlord did not provide any evidence to demonstrate that it acted in response to the circumstances that the resident advised of, neither did its complaint response address either of these issues. This demonstrates a lack of empathy and appeared dismissive of the resident’s concerns.
The landlord made an overall compensation award to the resident of £800. This was made up of £750 for the repairs delays the resident experienced and the inconvenience caused. It also paid £50 for its complaint handling failures at both stages of the complaint procedures.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that awards of £700 and above are made to recognise service failure that has had a long-term impact on a resident. Therefore, its compensation award was in line with its compensation policy to reflect the severity of the service failures that the resident experienced.
When a landlord makes a compensation offer and agrees to carry out works in its final response, it would be expected to complete those works within a reasonable period of time in order to put things right. Also, it should be able to evidence to the resident and this Service that it has taken some learning from any identified service failures. Having agreed in its final response of 4 July 2023 to complete the outstanding repairs, these should have been completed within 20 working days. However, the works were not completed 9 March 2024, around 9 months later. This indicated that the landlord had not learned sufficient lessons from its earlier handling of the repairs and would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident for which the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident an additional £500.
In summary, the landlord missed opportunities to resolve the reported repairs in line with its repair policy. There was no evidence that the landlord’s approach was robust to resolve the resident’s concerns and this prevented early and effective action. Therefore, the resident experienced unnecessary and unreasonable delays in getting the repairs completed to the property. The landlord has not demonstrated that it learned from the experiences of the resident to improve its service delivery and delays continued well past the end of the complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint of various repairs to the property including damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the level of the rent increase is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident an overall compensation award of £1,300 for the unacceptable delays and inconvenience experienced. This includes the £800 it awarded during its complaint process.
3. If it has not already done so:

i. Complete a post inspection of the works that it has carried out to the property, including the bath, windows and the adequacy of the storage heaters.

ii. After the inspection, it should write to the resident to confirm whether there is any further action it proposes to take. This should include a decision on whether the storage heaters require upgrading.

Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord is to contact the resident to:
1. Confirm the dates that he had to use dehumidifier in his property to manage the damp and mould. It should then assess whether an additional compensation award is required for the costs incurred due to the use of the dehumidifiers.
2. Advise how it will assess the damage to his belongings either by its own assessment or referral to its insurers. This should inform the resident of the next steps to be undertaken.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should in accordance with paragraph 54(g) to carry out a review of this case to consider its handling of the various repairs. It should establish points of learning with particular emphasis on the interactions between its repairs and planning teams and how it follows up on proposed repairs to ensure they are completed on time. The outcome of the review should be shared with this Service.