Clarion Housing Association Limited (202302245)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302245

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 June 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding:
1. the garden drainage;
2. replacement of the garden fence;
3. damp and mould in the property;
4. a request for the installation of windows.

Background

The resident has held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord since 5 July 2021. The property is described as a 4-bedroom house.
The landlord’s submission to this Service does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident. However, its records also show that the resident has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, she informed the landlord that her son is autistic and her granddaughter had started living with her.
The landlord’s records show that between January 2022 to January 2023, it agreed to install an aco drain outside the patio door. In addition, the resident reported to the landlord that she did not have a window. The report does not say which room the resident was referring to. The resident also reported damp and mould by the kitchen sink and on the bathroom ceiling and walls.
On 12 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the delay in completing the works to the drain. The resident stated that:
1. The drain had not been installed correctly so it should be relocated to the middle of the garden to stop water coming down the slope.
2. The fence bordering the garden had different heights and the people using the car park could see into her garden.
3. She requested a surveyor inspection to assess whether other works were required to the property.
The landlord provided its complaint response on 27 March 2023. A summary of its findings relevant to the complaint are:
1. Groundworks
  1. The aco drain was installed at the bottom of the garden on 20 February 2023. It accepted that surface water from the nearby school field was entering the resident’s garden so a review had been requested from its major works/planned investment team to decide if further works were necessary.
2. Boundary fence
  1. It was satisfied that repairs were not required to the fence panels. To change the existing fence to a taller fence was considered an improvement.
  2. It agreed that its contractor would arrange a mutually convenient appointment to carry out a reinspection of the fence.
3. Windows to be installed to reduce damp and mould.
  1. On 6 February 2023, it had inspected the property and it stated that:

(1) It had not identified that a repair was required to the window.

(2) The resident had advised that they had resolved the damp and mould in the bedroom.

Compensation
1. The landlord made an overall compensation award of £150. This was broken down as £100 for the time taken to install the new drain to prevent water ingress into the property, inconvenience experienced, vulnerabilities in the household and for not keeping the resident updated. £50 was added for the delay in providing its complaint response.

The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and escalated her complaint the same day. The resident expressed that she was dissatisfied with the compensation award as it did not reflect her experiences. She described this as pain, distress, time spent chasing the landlord and missed surveyor appointments. In addition, her granddaughter had an accident in the garden due to the poor workmanship of the landlord’s contractor. The resident stated that her preferred outcome was for the landlord to increase the compensation award to £1,500 which represented the outstanding arrears from her previous tenancy.
With regard to the fencing, the resident expressed that the landlord had a duty of care to protect her and her family. The resident asked that the height of the fencing be increased to 6ft 6in, otherwise she would commence legal action.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 16 June 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response. A summary of its findings are:
1. Groundworks
  1. The drainage works to the garden were completed on 20 February 2023. It apologised that it had not referred the issue of the surface water from the school playing fields coming into the garden to its planned investment team as it had advised in its earlier complaint response.
  2. The referral had now been made to its planned investment team. However, it was likely to take about 18 months before it would respond.
  3. The installation of the aco drain should resolve the issue of the excess water coming into the garden.
2. Fencing
  1. Its position regarding increasing the fence height to the garden had changed. Consequently, the fencing had been replaced on 14 June 2023.
3. Windows
  1. The inspection of the windows had been arranged for 6 February 2023. However, from its review of its records, it had determined that the resident’s request related to the repair of the French doors. Its contractor had attended and the landlord had agreed for the repair to be carried out to the French doors.
4. Compensation
  1. The landlord agreed an overall compensation award of £250. This was broken down as £150 that it had already agreed in its complaint response, £50 for its delay in providing its final complaint response and £50 for its miscommunication to the resident.
The landlord records show that the compensation award was credited to the resident’s rent account on 22 June 2023.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service. The resident expressed that the fencing works remained incomplete and that a gate had not been replaced. Also, the landlord had not responded to her request for 2 new windows as there was limited ventilation in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns with this Service about the actions of the landlord’s contactor. The resident expressed that the contractor failed to remove rubbish from her garden once work had been completed. Also, that the landlord had refused to respond to her reports of mould on the exterior of the property. These issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration. Therefore, this is not something that this Service can determine at this stage as the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident should contact the landlord and, if necessary, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses, it can approach this Service for the matters to be considered.
Whilst 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, including the injury reported to her granddaughter. These matters are likely better to be considered by a court or through a personal injury or insurance claim.
The resident’s dissatisfaction and frustration with the handling of her repair reports is acknowledged. The resident’s feelings are understood and it is not disputed that dealing with such situations can be stressful.
The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its procedures and acted appropriately. In addition, whether the landlord’s response to the reports it received and to the formal complaint was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and in accordance with the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.

Garden drainage.

The landlord is responsible for ensuring that there is adequate drainage to the property. With regard to this particular case, the responsibility for resolving the surface water in the resident’s garden is not straightforward as this comes from the school playing fields which are situated at a higher level than the resident’s property. This report is not able to assess the responsibilities of the school or the water company regarding the management of the escape of the surface water into the resident’s garden.
Looking at the available information, around 6 months after moving into the property, the resident reported in January 2022 that there were problems with the drainage to the property. The first inspection was carried out within 20 days on 25 January 2022. The landlord’s submission to this Service does not provide any information about what its contractor found or the action it took. This is not appropriate and this makes it difficult to assess whether the landlord took appropriate actions to resolve the issue the resident had reported.
The landlord agreed on 29 April 2022 to install an aco drain to the property. The time line regarding the landlord’s ordering, monitoring and progressing of the installation of the aco drain does not provide comprehensive information. It shows a quote raised on 29 April 2022 and another order raised on 4 November 2022 without explanation for the reason for needing 2 separate quotes. The aco drain was installed on 20 February 2023.
The resident requested that the landlord install the aco drain in the middle of the garden. The landlord did not agree with this suggestion and its communication does not show that it provided the resident with an explanation why her suggestion would not achieve the resolution that she wanted. This was a shortcoming.
In its initial complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that further works may be required to resolve the issue of the drainage of the surface water and a referral would be sent to its planned investment team. It accepted in its final complaint response that it had delayed in sending the referral as it had promised.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The resident has expressed that the compensation awarded during the complaint process is too low. The landlord’s compensation procedure shows that awards between £50 to £250 are payable where it failed to meet its service standards and where the service failure did not have a significant impact. This is comparable to this Service’s Remedies Guidance which recommends awards between £100 to £600 where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made attempts to put things right.
Through the complaints process, the landlord acknowledged the delay experienced by the resident regarding the installation of the aco drain to the property. For this, it made a compensation award of £100. It is noted that during the complaint investigation, there was a report in February 2023 of a blocked drain which related to the outlet to the road gullies to the car park bordering the property being blocked. This was not the responsibility of the landlord but the local authority.
The landlord carried out a further inspection in June 2023 regarding the functionality of the aco drain in the garden. The landlord surveyor assessed that the aco drain was operating correctly and the amount of standing water was minor.
The landlord also made another compensation award in its final complaint response of £50 for the delay in making the referral to the planned investment team. This was reasonable to recognise the potential additional delay caused to the resident by its error.
It gave the resident a timescale of 18 months to complete the works following referral to its planned investment team. The landlord’s response to this Service’s special report into it (October 2022) stated that its investment priorities are targeted where needed most. It is reasonable for the landlord to have undertaken interim works to alleviate the surface water entering the garden and for it to have programmes to manage major works required to its properties and to set priorities for those works to be completed. It is also noted that it uses its resident involvement panels as a sounding board to receive feedback. However, there is no evidence that it has given updates to the resident so that she is kept informed when the work to the garden will be completed. A recommendation is made about this later in this report.
This resident said that she was impacted when there was heavy rainfall by flooding. Since the installation of the aco drain, the resident reported water pooling in the garden and an inspection was carried out on 8 June 2023 by the landlord’s surveyor. The landlord’s surveyor did not find a failing with the installation of the drain. The landlord is entitled to rely on the information supplied by its surveyor so there were no failings on its part in this regard.
The installation of the aco pipe is an interim measure until the landlord’s planned investment team finds a long-term solution to the surface water entering the property from the school. However, there is communication detailed in the landlord’s submission to this Service that implies that the interim repairs to install the acro drain have not been successful. The records do not make clear whether this is the opinion of the resident or a member of the landlord’s staff/contractor. To provide certainty to the resident, a recommendation has been made later in this report for the landlord to provide clarity about this matter.
The landlord in its complaint responses has acknowledged and accepted its service failings. It has acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the delay in installing the aco drain and failing to make the correct referral to its planned investment team. The landlord’s approach was appropriate and proportionate to the issues being reported and the evidence available to it when the resident made the complaint.
The landlord demonstrated that the resident’s concerns about the surface water in her garden had not been ignored with its referral to its planned investment team. Its compensation awards reflected the time, trouble, and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the delay and the administrative error.
Any redress made to a resident should be proportionate to the severity of the service failure and the resulting impact. Overall, the landlord’s apology and compensation award represents reasonable address.

Replacement of the garden fence

The landlord’s tenancy term and conditions available online state that the resident is responsible for the maintenance of fencing that borders the garden and that permission is required before the fencing is removed.
The landlord submission to this Service did not indicate that the resident had any vulnerabilities. However, the resident does have a medical condition. The resident’s record does not have a flag on her account to acknowledge her condition. However, the landlord’s actions show that it took her vulnerability, and that of the other household members living with her, into account when it changed its position about supplying a taller fence. A recommendation is made later in this report regarding this.
The landlord acted appropriately by responding to the resident’s request for a taller fence by carrying out an inspection of the property. In its initial complaint response, the landlord advised that it was not minded to change the fence, but it did agree to reinspect the fencing.
The landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection of the fence. It noted that there was a foot of trellis at the top of the fence which it assessed could be repaired. Also, the fence panels were not broken, though they did have different heights. However, the landlord in its final complaint response, confirmed that it had changed the position and agreed to install the taller fence. The taller fence was installed on 12 June 2023.
Ultimately, the landlord has demonstrated that it acknowledged that it was responsible for the installation of the boundary fence and has installed a taller fence. It responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns that people using the car park could see into her garden and that this has an adverse effect on her son and granddaughter.

Damp and mould in the property.

A landlord’s repairing responsibilities are set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord is responsible for resolving reports of damp and mould in the property and it is accepted that the identification of the root cause of damp and mould is not always immediately evident. However, as such issues can have a detrimental impact on residents, they should be responded to in a timely manner.
When a repair is reported, the landlord should complete repairs within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will respond to ‘routine’ repair reports within 28 days. On receiving a report, the landlord may first need to carry out an inspection of the property before raising the correct works.
The landlord’s records show that it responded to the resident’s report in January 2023 by arranging an appointment for 2 February 2023. This appointment was cancelled and rearranged for 6 February 2023. On attending on 6 February 2023, the landlord was informed by the resident that he had used treatment paint to resolve the mould in the kitchen and bathroom. There was no reason for the landlord to dispute the resident’s account that the presence of damp and mould in the property had been resolved.
Around 3 months later, the resident made a further report of a smell of damp in the kitchen (behind the sink) and bathroom. The landlord’s records indicate that it attempted contact with the resident but was unsuccessful. It also noted that it had also attended the property in this regard. It was a shortcoming that the landlord apparently did not pro-actively engage with the resident to address the further damp report.
The following month, on 16 June 2023, the resident made a further report regarding damp at the rear of the property around the windows. When the landlord’s contractor attended, the resident again advised that work had been carried out to treat the damp and the appointment was cancelled.
Overall, the landlord had no reason to dispute the resident’s reports that she had treated the damp and mould that she reported and, given it did not witness and damp and mould issue as a result, there was no obligation on it to perform repairs.

Request for the installation of windows.

The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure and the exterior of the property. This includes the windows.
The landlord responded to the resident’s report that the extractor fans were not working on 13 October 2022. The landlord attended in 12 working days which was within its repair standards.
Around 3 months later, in January 2023, the resident advised that her French doors required repair and (within a fortnight) made a further report that as the draught excluders had fallen off the French doors, they would not close. The landlord’s window fitter attended and advised that 2 windows required a replacement trim. The window fitters also advised that the window frame was cracked from the outside. It provided the cost for the replacement trim for the windows and this was installed on 28 April 2023.
The landlord in its initial complaint response stated that the windows were inspected on 6 February 2023 and no repairs were identified.
The landlord received a further report from the window fitter on 4 May 2023 that the resident had reported a crack in the window frame. It advised that there were no issues with the window frames and confirmed that they were energy efficient. Furthermore, the cracks in the window frame did not relate to the functionality of the windows. It explained that 2 windows had been installed within a redundant frame, which had a crack but that the crack did not interfere with the energy performance of the window.
In its final complaint response, the landlord stated that it had reviewed its repair records and could not find a request to install windows. However, it was aware of the resident reporting concerns about the French doors. From the evidence available to this Service, the landlord reached a reasonable decision to consider possible repairs needed to the doors.
There was no evidence that the landlord or its window fitters had assessed that additional windows were required to the property. A review of the landlord’s records has not evidenced a defect in the performance of the current windows nor that they require replacement and so there was no failing on the part of the landlord in not installing 2 new windows.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the failures in its handling of her concerns regarding the garden drainage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding replacement of the garden fence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding a request for the installation of windows.

Recommendations

The landlord is to write to the resident to:
1. Give a progress update to advise when the works to remedy the surface water entering the property will start.
2. Confirm whether the aco drain is currently acting as it should with regard to the surface water from the school playing fields.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should update the resident’s account to record her vulnerabilities.
If it has not already done so, the landlord is to carry out an inspection of the resident’s property to assess:
1. Whether additional windows are required to the property so it has a satisfactory thermal temperature.
2. If the gate has been installed to the property.