Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202103858)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103858

Clarion Housing Association

18 May 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

1.     The complaint is about the landlord’s response to damp at the property and the resident’s claim for compensation for damaged carpets.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident has an assured tenancy for the property. The tenancy began on 5 March 2012. The resident has informed us that she has a mental health illness.

Tenancy Agreement

3.     Section 21 of the resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord’s duties are to repair the property, including the windows, walls, floors and ceilings.

4.     Section 23 of the resident’s tenancy agreement says that it is the resident’s responsibility to tell the landlord about repairs that need to be done to the property.

Summary of events

5.     On 21 July 2020, the resident reported to the landlord damp in the property. She said that the window sills were rotting and the floor was damp under the lino. The landlord’s repair records said that it needed to assess the property for damp.

6.     On 24 July 2020, the landlord recorded that it attended the property to resolve the damp report. During the visit it applied mould treatment and resealed two bedroom windows.

7.     On 26 March and 29 March 2021, the resident used the landlord’s online complaint form to report a service failure. She said:

  1. Due to a woodlice infestation she had removed her living room carpet and replaced it with laminate flooring.
  2. The landlord should pay compensation as she had reported damp in the property numerous times and despite being told a surveyor would attend to inspect nobody had.
  3. A contractor had come but all they did was clean up the damp patches then reseal the windows.

8.     On 29 April 2021, the landlord attended the property after it received a report of damp in the corner of the bedroom which was an “ongoing issue”. The landlord recorded that no damp was found and noted the resident had her own decorators in the living room. This prevented an inspection of this room.

9.     On 26 May 2021, the landlord raised a complaint. It recognised that it had not registered the ones sent by the resident on 26 and 29 March 2021. The landlord confirmed that it would investigate the request for compensation for damaged possessions and a missed appointment.

10. On 17 June 2021, following a phone call between the landlord and the resident, the landlord emailed the resident with instructions on how to make a claim against its buildings insurance for the costs she incurred replacing the flooring.

11. On 21 June 2021, the landlord sent its stage one response. It had found some failings in its service. In the response it:

  1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  2. Found that it had missed a repair appointment and made a payment of £15 directly into the resident’s rent account.
  3. Offered £50 in recognition of the resident’s repeated need to make contact.
  4. Offered £50 for the delays in providing a complaint response.

12. The resident requested a stage two peer review. The reasons were:

  1. The landlord had offered an inappropriate compensation amount.
  2. She felt that compensation should be paid for the damaged carpets.
  3. A liability claim had been made to the insurers yet the resident had not received a reply.

13. On 8 July 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a gap between the window seal and the floor and she could see daylight. This appointment took place on 30 July 2021. The landlord’s notes for this job said that it resealed the window board.

14. On 21 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord. She said that she had paid for the treatment of damp in her living room. She had removed the living room carpet due to woodlice eggs and installed a new laminate floor. The resident asked for compensation of £1,000. The letter also reported a problem with damp on the walls, a rotted window sill and a gap between the floor and the window in the living room wall.

15. On 30 July 2021, the landlord attended the property and resealed ‘below the timber window board’.

16. On 9 August 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to organise a damp inspection for the bathroom after she had reported damp in the bathroom walls and floors which included a pest infestation of silverfish. When the landlord attended the property on 19 August 2021 the resident confirmed that a new bathroom was due to be fitted as she had received a grant from a third party and the damp inspection did not take place.

17. The landlord sent its peer review outcome on 7 September 2021. In this response it said:

  1. It would not be changing the stage one outcome.
  2. In accordance with the compensation policy the resident had been compensated appropriately.
  3. The resident should make a claim on her own contents insurance for any damage.
  4. It offered a further £50 for the time taken to complete the peer review.

18. Following receipt of this letter on 7 September 2021, the resident contacted the office of the Chief Executive Officer for the landlord as she remained unhappy with the response from the peer review. An additional peer review response was agreed.

19. On 8 October 2021, the landlord completed the additional peer review response and wrote to the resident with its findings:

  1. It reviewed the history of repairs to identify any failings which contributed to a need to replace the property’s living room floor coverings.
  2. It confirmed the landlord’s position with regard to the resident’s insurance claim, following a failure in the repairs service.

20. This response identified:

  1. A repair job to address damp and mould had been raised on 29 April 2021 and completed on 14 May 2021. It found there were no records as to what work had been completed. It acknowledged that there had been a failure to record what had taken place. An apology was made.
  2. A repair for a gap between the window seal and floor which was scheduled for 18 May 2021 was cancelled. This was due to the resident being away. It was agreed that the resident would contact the landlord on her return.
  3. The repair scheduled for 9 June 2021 had to be moved as the repair operative became held up at another job. Due to the resident’s availability she had requested repairs take place after 17 June 2021. A missed appointment payment was made for this.
  4. On 7 July 2021, a repair had been raised to investigate water leaks from the pipes in the wet room when the shower was used. The shower tray was not replaced as the resident advised a new bathroom install was due to be done via a private contractor.
  5. On 30 July 2021, the area below the timber window board and the UPVC window was resealed.
  6. A request was made to investigate damp in the bathroom walls and floors. When the landlord visited to undertake this investigation the resident advised that a new bathroom would soon be installed so no further action was taken.
  7. The review did not find any service failure in carrying out the repairs. It concluded that the damp reported related to the age of the bathroom and condensation issues, which the landlord was then not given the opportunity to deal with. It recognised that more detail should have been included on its notes relating to damp and mould in the property.
  8. The review found that the advice given about pursuing a claim via the landlord’s buildings insurance team had been incorrect. This was because it had been the resident’s decision to replace her flooring before the landlord had opportunity to inspect and provide recommendations.

21. The landlord apologised further for its incorrect advice, poor record keeping and the missed appointment. For these items it offered compensation that consisted of:

  1. £100 for inconvenience.
  2. £150 for incorrect information which it had given.
  3. £15 for the missed contractor appointment.
  4. £50 for delays in providing a response and the inconvenience chasing the matter.

22. In November and December 2021, the resident reported that the window sill was rotted and needed complete replacement. The landlord visited the property on 10 December 2021 and sealed the sill externally. As of May 2023 the resident has told this service that the window sill has not been replaced and is rotten.

Assessment and findings

23. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

  • Be fair
  • Put things right
  • Learn from outcomes

24. 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 response to the residents reports of damp at the property and her claim for compensation for damaged carpets.

25. The landlord was first notified of a damp problem at the property on 21 July 2020. It attended shortly after on the 24 July 2020 and undertook works to resolve the problem. This work included treating the mould and sealing under the window. The landlord was not notified that this work had not solved the damp problem until the residents email of complaint dated 26 March 2021 by which point the resident had installed the new flooring. Through the complaints process the resident asked the landlord for payment of £1,000 for works that she undertook including pest treatment, the removal of a carpet and the installation of new laminate flooring.

26. The landlord had a responsibility as per the tenancy agreement to keep the property in a good standard of repair. The resident is also obliged to report disrepair to the landlord when it is noted. In this case, the landlord responded to the resident’s report of damp in a suitable timeframe by attending the property on 24 July 2020 and attempting to repair. This is a reasonable step for it to take. There is no evidence that the resident then contacted the landlord to advise that the repair had failed. In the absence of further reports until after the resident had replaced the flooring, the landlord was not in a position to know that its repair attempt had not solved the problem. The landlord was therefore not responsible for the resident’s decision to replace carpets and install laminate flooring and it was reasonable not to offer compensation for the replacement undertaken by the resident.

27. The landlord has recognised through its complaints process that it needed to rearrange appointments which delayed its repairs. The resident was compensated £15 for the repair which was cancelled on 15 May 2021 and £15 for the repair which was rearranged on 9 June 2021, in line with the landlord’s missed appointment compensation scheme. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and this demonstrated the landlord’s consideration of the inconvenience to the resident caused by these delays.

28. The landlord had attended the property on two occasions to inspect or repair after the resident’s damp reports. On these occasions the landlord had not been able to access all of the rooms for reasons beyond its control.

  1. 29 April 2021 no damp was found in the bedroom. However the living room could not be inspected as the resident had decorators in the room.
  2. 9 August 2021 the landlord visited to inspect the bathroom however this did not take place. The resident declined works as the bathroom was due replacement.

29. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp by attending the property to assess its condition. In addition to the inspections, during this period the landlord also attended the property and undertook remedial repair work on two occasions.

  1. 24 July 2020 it attended and “resealed the windows”.
  2. 30 July 2021 it “resealed the window board.”

30. The landlord has a responsibility to keep the property in a good state of repair. In response to the resident’s reports of rotten window sills on two occasions between July 2020 and July 2021, the landlord attended the property and resealed around the windows. The resident also reported the window sill was rotten after the end of the landlord’s complaints process and the landlord attended the property again. Given the repeated nature of the reports from the resident that the sills were rotten there is no indication that the landlord has considered whether further or more comprehensive works are required to resolve the ongoing concerns with the windows. A recommendation has therefore been made in this regard.

31. Overall, in its complaint handling the landlord recognised its failings. It then considered the inconvenience caused by the missed appointments, delayed complaints response and misdirection relating to the insurance claim and offered the resident reasonable compensation of £315. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends amount in excess of £250 for failings where there has been no lasting impact on the resident.

 

 

 

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlords handling of damp at the property and the resident’s claim for compensation for damaged carpets which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

33. The landlord suitably addressed the residents concerns using its complaints process and offered appropriate redress for its failings.

Recommendations

34. The landlord is recommended to inspect the properties windows and take necessary action to ensure they are of a good standard of repair.

35.  If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay any outstanding compensation offered during the complaints process direct to the resident.