Clarion Housing Association Limited (202315910)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315910

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Damp and mould in her home.
    2. Excessive cold in her home.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In late November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that previously manageable problems with condensation and mould in her home had now become uncontrollable in the bedrooms of her home. The landlord’s records and the resident’s account of events show that the landlord attended twice to mould wash the affected areas, and attended to inspect and identify a cause for the problem. The attending surveyor recommended installing thermal boards in the property to help with the problem. The resident told the landlord that the mould washes only briefly solved the issue, as the mould quickly returned.
  3. The resident has explained that she was told by the landlord that it would install the thermal boards “in the new year.” However, when she followed this up in mid-January 2023 she was told the appointment had been changed to 16 February.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 January 2023. She said that despite the extensive damp in her home the landlord had not yet resolved it. She explained the impact it was having on her family, and that she had had to throw out furniture because of mould damage. She also complained that the house was exceedingly cold, despite her attempts to heat it and the family’s efforts to keep warm.
  5. The landlord sent its complaint response on 31 March 2023. It set out the actions it had taken so far in response to the resident’s mould reports, what actions it had decided to take, and explained that the February appointment had been the first available one. It acknowledged that some of the scheduled thermal board work had not been completed at that appointment, and apologised for the omission. It said it had tried to do a further damp survey in March, but had not been able to agree an appointment date, and it was now scheduled for early April. It offered the resident £350 compensation for the inconvenience and its delayed complaint response, and confirmed the next repair steps it would be taking. It did not address the cold issue.
  6. The landlord arranged an independent damp and mould survey in April 2023. The survey confirmed mould problems resulting from high condensation levels. It recommended that the landlord install several passive vents in the property and a positive input ventilation system (PIV). It also recommended keeping the property at stable levels of heating between 18-20 degrees, and noted a direct connection between wall temperatures and levels of condensation. It found no indications of penetrating moisture or rising damp.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint in early June 2023. She said that no further progress had been made with the damp and mould issue, and as she was now pregnant she was greatly concerned about the ongoing problem. She complained about poor communication from the landlord and its contractors, and about the amount of redecorating she would need to do once the mould problem was resolved. She also repeated her concerns about the excessive cold in her home and the impact that might have after her child was born.
  8. One of the landlord’s surveyor’s did another inspection of the property in early July 2023. He confirmed the earlier recommendations to install passive vents and a PIV. In an internal email several days later he explained his view that the property would benefit from installing thermal boards to “improve the thermal retention and maintain a higher and constant core temperature of the fabric.”
  9. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 31 July 2023. It acknowledged there had been delays in its response to the April survey’s recommendations, and also that the resident had been given conflicting information about its intention regarding the thermal boards. It explained why it had finally decided not to install them (it said they could potentially make the damp problem worse), and why the delays had occurred. It apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the level of cold in the property. It explained it was currently assessing the condition of its properties in the resident’s area, which would include a review of her home’s energy performance. It said it would wait for the outcome of that assessment before deciding what action to take, but warned that any necessary work might be part of its planned work programme up to and possibly beyond the 2024/2025 financial year. It concluded by explaining it had scheduled a further mould wash, and hoped to complete the recommended damp and mould ventilation work within the next four weeks. It offered the resident a further £350 compensation for the ongoing inconvenience its delays, repeat visits, and miscommunication about the thermal boards had caused, offered her vouchers to assist with redecorating, and asked if she would agree to have a moisture monitoring device installed in her home.
  10. Both the landlord and resident have confirmed that the ventilation work was completed in August 2023. The resident has explained that the work resolved the majority of the damp and mould problems.
  11. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and the fact the cold issue had not been addressed.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould in the home

  1. The landlord has a damp and mould policy. It states that after receiving a report of damp and mould problems it will inspect the property to identify the cause, and consider what immediate action can be taken. If the cause is not clear it will conduct further investigations, and carry out any necessary repairs in line with its repair timescales. The specific actions it will take to resolve the problem depend on the circumstances of each case. It commits the landlord to “keep residents informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues and the timetabling of works, where these are required. This includes explaining what work might be needed and why. If any changes to the programme of works are needed, we will keep residents informed. Where work is not required, residents will be advised and we will explain the reason why and any steps they should take.”
  2. The landlord’s repair records do not show any reports of damp and mould problems by the resident before 22 November 2022. The landlord responded promptly to the report by arranging mould washes, and an inspection. These initial actions were done over the weeks following the report, and were in line with the landlord’s policy and the nature of the reported issue.
  3. The evidence shows the initial remedial decision was that thermal boards installed in parts of the home would help. The resident confirmed that the landlord arranged that work to be done in January 2023, but the landlord subsequently explained the need to reschedule it to February due to staff availability. The February appointment proceeded as arranged. By this point the landlord’s actions and responses to the problem were in line with its policy and were proportionate to the scale and nature of what had been reported. The rescheduled appointment was understandably frustrating for the resident, but there is no evidence suggesting the rescheduled appointment was due to a failing by the landlord.
  4. The landlord arranged a further, more detailed survey for March 2023. That was again in line with its policy of undertaking deeper investigations of the problem when a clear cause had not been identified. The need for this appears to have been identified in January 2023, where the landlord’s repair records state there might be a need to consider external wall insulation. That survey needed to be rearranged for April due to what the landlord later acknowledged was a miscommunication on its part.
  5. The April 2023 survey made clear findings that there were no repair issues in the property, but confirmed high condensation levels, and made recommendations to remedy that by installing ventilation systems. The survey made no mention of installing thermal boards. The landlord sought to verify the recommendations with a further inspection in July, which confirmed the findings, but also again recommended thermal boards. The ventilation systems were then installed by mid-August, nearly four months after the original recommendations. The work needed to fulfil the survey recommendations (multiple passive vents and a PIV) does not appear overly complex, but its nature required a certain level of structural work. It may be that the time taken reflected the complexity and scale of the work, but the landlord explained in its final complaint response that part of the time taken had been caused by its contractors delay providing work quotes. Accordingly, it is evident that the time taken to complete the work was at least partly due to the landlord’s failings.
  6. The resident received conflicting information about the landlord’s intentions to install thermal boards. Its internal records confirm a surveyor’s view on at least two occasions that they would assist the damp and mould problem, but other records show disagreement with that view, and the April 2023 survey did not mention them. Basic good practice in such situations is for a landlord to be clear in its decisions and communicate its plans to tenants when it has a firm view of them. Such plans can and often may change, but then the goal would be to communicate meaningfully with the affected tenants to ensure they understand the reasons for the change and what the new plans are. In this case there is no clear evidence of the landlord doing that until its final complaint response.
  7. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the delays it had caused in March 2023 and following the April survey. It apologised for the avoidable frustration caused to the resident, explained how the delays occurred, and committed to completing the work by a set date, which it then met. The resident has confirmed that the ventilation work resolved the main damp and mould problems. The landlord acknowledged it had not communicated well about the thermal boards. It explained why it had ultimately decided against installing them, and its explanations for the confusion are supported by the evidence.
  8. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £600 for the inconvenience and frustration caused by its handling of the damp and mould work, along with £100 for its delayed complaint responses, and vouchers to help with redecoration costs (it did not specify their value at the time of the complaint response but later clarified it to be £500). That level of compensation was near the top of both the landlord’s compensation policy’s scale for cases where there had been serious failings but no permanent or long term impact, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaints in similar circumstances. Accordingly, combined with the vouchers, the compensation offered was reasonable.
  9. The resident told the landlord that some of her furniture had been damaged by mould and needed to be thrown out. It is not apparent if that happened before or after her reporting the problem in November 2022, but there would need to be a meaningful link between a landlord’s failures and the alleged damage for a landlord to reasonably consider providing compensation for damaged belongings. No clear link has been seen in this case. However, such a claim would usually be more appropriately made through an insurance claim by the tenant, either against their own insurance or the landlord’s. It is not clear if the resident made an insurance claim, but in its recent correspondence with the Ombudsman the landlord acknowledged that it omitted to explain to her how to make a claim with its own insurers, and that it had subsequently informed her of the process. Good practice would have been for the landlord to have provided that information in its complaint responses, but the omission, on its own, was not significant enough to be considered an unremedied failing in the circumstances of this complaint.

Excessive cold in the home

  1. Landlords are legally obligated to ensure their properties are safe and free of hazards. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a method use by local councils to check that landlords are meeting such obligations. One of the specific potential hazards described in the HHSRS is excess cold. Accordingly, while the HHSRS is a local council tool, landlords are generally expected to ensure their properties are free of any of the hazards described in it.
  2. There is no clear evidence in the landlord’s repair records of the resident reporting her concerns about excessive cold in her home prior to her complaint in January 2023. Because of that, her concerns should have been treated by the landlord as a service request rather than a complaint. Regardless, there is no evidence of the landlord doing either of the things it should have. It did not raise a repair order to investigate the report, and it did not respond to the issue in its first complaint response. In the circumstances of the resident’s detailed explanation of the problem and how it was affecting her family, and the fact that excess cold is a known hazard, the lack of action or response was not reasonable.
  3. The damp and mould survey conducted in April 2023 made the observation that the high levels of condensation in the property could be linked to temperature levels. It did not specifically state that temperatures were notably low, but its comments provided a potentially meaningful link between the reported cold problem and the damp problems also being experienced. Despite that link, there is no evidence of the landlord investigating the cold issue.
  4. In its final complaint response the landlord addressed the resident’s further complaint about the cold. It said only that the property would be assessed in due course in line with its scheduled stock condition surveys, with any associated work potentially extending beyond the 2024/2025 financial year. By this point the resident had explained she was pregnant and that her concerns about the cold problem were now increased. Given her circumstances, and the fact that excess cold is a known potential hazard which the landlord was obliged to investigate, its response showed a lack of awareness, urgency, and empathy for the resident.
  5. The resident reported her concerns about her home to her local council, which inspected the property early in 2023. There is no evidence of what it concluded or whether it believed there was a potential hazard, and nothing indicates it reported any problem to the landlord in the period considered in this investigation. Nonetheless, the landlord had a clear obligation to investigate the resident’s reports about the cold given the potential hazard it posed.
  6. The nature of the resident’s concern means that the scale of the problem was closely linked to the time of year. It is likely that the landlord could not have conducted any useful investigations at the point it issued its final complaint response, as it was summer at the time. Nonetheless, it had missed an opportunity to do so at the start of the year, and its response to the complaint indicated no urgency to investigate the issue in the following cold period.


Determination (decision)

  1. In line 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, resolves the complaint about its handling of damp and mould in her home satisfactorily.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of excess cold in her home.

Reasons

  1. The landlord initially responded reasonably to the resident’s damp and mould report, but subsequent delays occurred in relation to it arranging a damp survey and resolving the survey’s recommendations. It further caused confusion by its poor communication about using thermal boards in the resident’s home. It acknowledged these failings in its complaints responses, and provided proportionate and appropriate compensation and other remedies which reasonably remedied its mistakes.
  2. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns regarding excess cold in her home. Its response to her complaint on the issue displayed no sense of awareness of the issue’s potential seriousness, or the resident’s personal circumstances.

Orders

  1. In light of the clear frustration and distress caused by the landlord’s failure to investigate her reports of excess cold the landlord is ordered to pay her compensation of £450. Evidence of this payment must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.
  2. Within eight weeks of this report the landlord must consider how to properly respond to the resident’s concerns about excess cold in her home, and work with her to decide when investigations should be conducted. It must create an action plan setting out its intentions to investigate, including its timescales. It should ensure that the plan is robust enough to be held accountable to. Evidence of this plan must be provided to this Service by the eight-week deadline.

Recommendations

  1. The resident has told this Service there were delays in the landlord confirming and providing the decorating vouchers it had promised in its final complaint response. By the time it had done so she had already spent time and money doing the decorating. The landlord has confirmed its delay providing the vouchers. It is not apparent if the resident finally received the vouchers or used them. If not, in these circumstances the landlord should consider reimbursing the resident directly for any reasonable decorating costs she incurred in the relevant period, and which she can provide evidence for, up to the value of vouchers it originally planned to give.