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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202227017)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227017

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 December 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 reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident has a joint assured tenancy which started on 24 February 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the ground floor. The resident and his partner have asthma. They have a young child who was less than a year old when the damp and mould concerns were first reported.
  2. The resident first reported concerns of damp and mould to the landlord on 31 October 2022. He reported a possible leak in the bathroom which had caused damp staining on the living room wall. The landlord painted the wall with stain blocker and removed the bath panel to allow it to dry underneath before the panel could be replaced at a follow-on appointment.
  3. The resident reported two further instances of damp and mould before making a complaint at stage 1 on 29 November 2022. He said that he had to hire a dehumidifier, at his own cost, to help dry out underneath the bath. He said that the walls were wet at lower levels and that the mould spray he used to remove the mould spores had caused the paint to peel off of the wall. He complained about the window seals being broken or non-existent and that there were no trickle vents installed to help with ventilation. He also said that the front door did not close fully which allowed cold air into the property. To resolve his complaint, he asked the landlord to pay for a decorator to repaint his walls and to be reimbursed for the hire of the dehumidifier.
  4. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 20 December 2022. It did not uphold the complaint and said it had found no service failures in its actions. It said that all current reports of leaks and associated damp and mould had been addressed and resolved in line with its own timeframes. It had liaised with another department and confirmed that a 3 stage system was appropriate to address and prevent damp and mould. It said that it could not reimburse him for the costs of hiring a dehumidifier because its operative had not recommended the use of a dehumidifier at the appointment when the bath panel was removed. It said that its process was to order a dehumidifier for a resident if its operative recommended this, but as there was no agreement for this, it could not pay for this. It also said that if he wished to claim for damages to his personal property, including redecoration, he could do this through his home contents insurance provider.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 December 2022. He said that the leak under the bath appeared to have been ongoing for months and he believed that it had started prior to his occupation. He said that the landlord should be responsible for the cost for hiring the dehumidifier as another operative who later replaced an extractor fan in the bathroom mentioned that it should have supplied one. He said that the leak under the bath would not have dried out without the dehumidifier. He asked what the next 2 steps were in the 3 stage treatment as he still had problems with damp and mould.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 January 2023 and asked if the desired outcome was for it to: resolve the damp in the property, confirm what the 3 stage process would involve and to compensate for the expenses and difficulties experienced. The resident responded the same day agreeing to these points and asking for a call-back to confirm what had happened as he believed that the issues were being miscommunicated. It is unclear whether a call-back was made.
  7. The resident made a further escalation request on 17 January 2023. He said that he was still experiencing damp and mould in the property. The resident said that:
    1. The bathroom did not have a functioning extractor fan at the time of the operative removing the bath panel.
    2. The bathroom did not have any windows.
    3. A dehumidifier was needed to dry out the floor underneath the bath.
    4. He noticed a leak from the taps which went underneath the bath and the landlord replaced the taps at the appointment to refit the bath panel.
    5. The living room wall remained wet.
    6. The bedroom wall remained wet despite a stage 1 mould blocker paint being applied.
    7. He asked why the reports of damp and mould had been closed on its repairs system when he was still experiencing issues. He also asked why it had not returned to check whether the damp and mould was still present or not.
  8. On 26 January 2023, the landlord called the resident and confirmed that he would be happy to be reimbursed for the running costs of the dehumidifier only.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response, on 30 January 2023, the landlord confirmed that it had not found any service failures. It listed a number of repairs that had been raised and completed. It said that it had requested a surveyor to attend the property on 3 February 2023 to further assess issues of possible rising damp and ongoing mould and condensation. It said that it would award compensation for the running costs of the dehumidifier at £5 per day for 14 days. It said that if he wanted to make a claim for damaged belongings, he should contact his home insurance provider, or if he did not have this, he could contact its insurance team to raise a claim for any damages. It awarded a total of £270 compensation, made up of £70 for the dehumidifier running costs, £50 for recognition of its delay in providing a response and £150 as a gesture of goodwill without prejudice.
  10. The resident made contact with this Service on 17 January 2023, when he copied us into his escalation email to the landlord. The complaint became a matter that this Service could investigate on 7 February 2023. In his communication with this Service, the resident said that his desired outcome is for the damp and mould to be resolved and for compensation including the damages to the property.

Post-internal complaint procedure

  1. The landlord completed a number of repairs after the internal complaints procedure had been exhausted. The information from its internal repair logs, and from the resident’s communications to this Service, shows that the landlord did not diagnose the cause of the damp and mould effectively through its internal complaints procedure and there are ongoing issues with damp and mould with works still being completed.
  2. The surveyor attended the property after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure had been completed on 3 February 2023. The report identified a number of issues such as signs of water penetration to the building and high external ground levels relative to damp proof course that cause damp. It said that further investigation was required to check the damp proof course and to resurvey the property in a further 3 months. The report identified issues which could have been identified earlier and reduced the detriment and distress to the resident had it acted proactively in response to the reports of damp and mould.
  3. The further works included additional use of a dehumidifier hired by the landlord, clearing gutters, completing a further 3 stage mould wash on the bedroom wall, clearing and scraping flaky paint off of the living room wall and washing the lounge, installing trickle vents to four windows, swapping the kitchen extractor fan to a humidistat fan and installing a French drain outside of the property. The additional works that the landlord has completed remain mostly focused on the treatment of symptoms of damp and mould. It is unclear, to both this Service and to the resident, how and when the works will be progressed to resolve the cause of damp and mould. It is also unclear whether the follow-up surveyor inspection was completed and if so, what this identified.
  4. It is clear that the resident had to repeatedly contact the landlord for further works and to log reports of damp and mould. In the spotlight report, landlords were advised to regularly communicate and engage with those living in its homes and experiencing damp and mould. It would have been appropriate for it to have been proactive in its communications by contacting the resident regularly which would have likely installed some confidence in the landlord taking action to tackle the damp and mould.
  5. Following a determination and order made by this Service in another case for the landlord, it introduced multiple resident liaison officer posts within its teams. It confirmed this to the Ombudsman in November 2023 and said that these roles are designed to assign dedicated staff to a resident when a repair matter arises. It gives the resident a single key point of contact and its staff contacts the resident every 10 days, at a minimum, until the repair is resolved. It also advised that where a surveyor has been referred to a property, it will ensure that its staff contacts the resident to follow up on the inspection after 6 weeks and can refer for another surveyor inspection if the repair failed to resolve the issues.
  6. It is unclear whether the resident, in this case, has access to a resident liaison officer as this was a change in the landlord’s process after the final complaint response was given. As the substantive issue remains ongoing, this Service would recommend that a resident liaison officer is allocated to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint to the landlord included a request for compensation towards the damaged walls and decoration costs. In accordance with 42(f) of the Scheme, this Service cannot award compensation in the same way that a court might quantify damages and the resident may wish to seek advice relating to this. This investigation has, however, taken into account the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould (and damages caused).

Reports of damp and mould

  1. The resident said that he believed the leak had been ongoing before his tenancy started in February 2022. However, the landlord’s repair logs include no reports of leaks or damp and mould since 2015. The leak is therefore understood to have not been an ongoing matter and it was reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed this to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response.
  2. In the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, it states that non-emergency repairs are arranged at the resident’s convenience within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. Damp and mould have the potential to be health hazards and it is important that the landlord responds to this appropriately in the timeframes set out in its policy, within 28 calendar days. Its policy also states that its staff are trained in identifying risks under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, which is legislation set out by the government.
  3. This Service published a spotlight on damp and mould report prior to this complaint. This stated that landlords should have a ‘zero tolerance approach’ to damp and mould and be proactive in identifying potential issues. It says that landlords should look beyond the immediate symptoms, such as wet walls, and look to find the cause.
  4. On 31 October 2022, the resident reported a potential leak to the landlord which he believed had caused stains on his living room wall. He said that he had painted a stain blocker on to the wall himself and had since repainted the wall 3 times but the stain had returned. The landlord attended the property on 11 November 2022 and sealed around the bath, and replaced tap connectors to stop the leak. It noted that the bath panel had to be refitted after the floor under the bath airdried and that it did not require a dehumidifier. It subsequently fitted a new bath panel on 29 November 2022 after the floor had dried out.
  5. At an appointment in November 2022, an operative attended the property to look at the bath. The resident advised that the operative told him to contact the landlord to arrange for a new extractor fan to be fitted. It is unclear from the landlord’s repair logs how this job was raised and therefore this Service cannot establish whether the landlord’s operative raised this job or whether the resident had to do so. In any case, the landlord’s repairs team should be proactive in reporting additional jobs that are found when attending a property. It should not put an onus on the resident to report such works.
  6. In the resident’s initial complaint, on 29 November 2022, he asked for the landlord to pay for the hire cost of the dehumidifier. He believed that the leak would not have dried out under the bath without the dehumidifier due to the lack of ventilation caused by having no windows in the bathroom and an extractor fan that did not work.
  7. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response, on 20 December 2022, that its process was to provide a dehumidifier when recommended to do so by its operative. It said that it had not been told to provide a dehumidifier and therefore it could not reimburse the resident for the cost of hiring one himself. This Service has not been provided with a copy of a process or procedure which relates to this.
  8. In the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, he said that another operative attended the property and told him that the landlord should have provided a dehumidifier. This would have understandably added to the distress caused to the resident by being given conflicting advice.
  9. In an email from the resident to the landlord, on 17 January 2023, he said that he remained unhappy that the dehumidifier costs were his responsibility. On 26 January 2023, the landlord called the resident and he confirmed that he would be happy to be reimbursed for only the running costs of the dehumidifier. It is unclear why the landlord would offer such compensation for the running costs without offering compensation for the actual hire. If the landlord acknowledged that the dehumidifier was required, it should have offered to pay both if it had evidence of the amount paid for hire. The resident had previously advised the landlord that it had an invoice available for the hire cost.
  10. The resident asked for compensation towards the decorating costs caused by the damp staining on his living room wall and by the 3 stage mould treatment applied to the bedroom wall, which he said had stripped the wallpaper off. In both the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, the landlord advised that he could claim for damages through his home contents insurance provider. In its stage 2 complaint response, it gave him the additional advice of being able to make a damages claim to its own insurance team if he did not have his own contents insurance. This was reasonable and appropriate advice for the landlord to give to the resident when issues of damages to decorations or belongings occur.
  11. The resident was regularly contacting the landlord to report damp and mould. On 14 and 25 November 2022, he reported that there was water on the wall and skirting board, the window seals allowed water through and the front door was letting cold air in to the property.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, on 20 December 2022, it said that all current leaks associated with damp and mould had been resolved within its Service Level Agreements (SLAs). This response was given during a time where the resident was still raising new reports of damp and mould. As such, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have been alerted to the fact that the damp and mould may not have been resolved, and not just respond saying it had action in line with its SLAs. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to make reference to this and to explain its ongoing actions to help resolve the damp and mould.
  13. On 12 January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm what his desired outcome of the complaint would be. He agreed with the landlord’s proposed outcomes which were to resolve the damp in the property, confirm what the 3 stage process would involve and for it to award compensation. He asked for a call-back from the landlord to confirm its understanding of what had happened as he believed that the issues were being miscommunicated. It is unclear whether a phone call did occur, however, it would have been good customer service for the landlord to have responded to the resident’s request and called him to discuss his concerns.
  14. The resident emailed the landlord again on 17 January 2023 to try to progress his complaint further. He mentioned that water was still getting through the window seals and asked it why his reports had been closed down on their system despite mould still growing on his walls. In the Ombudsman spotlight report, it is highlighted that it is good practice for landlords to schedule follow up visits at set periods for a least a year after works have been completed to satisfy itself that the problem had not returned.
  15. The resident was understandably frustrated at having to make new reports of damp and mould. Landlords should not rely on the resident to report further issues, it is rather its responsibility to have appropriate follow-up procedures in place to pro-actively resolve damp and mould. In this email, the resident also advised that both himself and his partner had asthma and that he had a young baby who had sought medical advice due to having a bad chesty cough. He said that he felt that the mould in the property could be impacting on this. While this Service cannot establish a causal relationship between medical conditions and the damp and mould present, this Service can consider the landlord’s response to this and whether it acted fairly.
  16. In response to the complaint escalation, the landlord raised a job, on 17 January 2023, for a surveyor to attend the property. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the damp and mould to a surveyor to inspect the property to establish the cause of the issue. This shows that the landlord was being pro–active in trying to establish a cause following the report of the property impacting on the resident’s health. However, although it took action appropriately at this time, it had not effectively established the damp and mould at the resident’s previous contact nor had it done this at the time of his original complaint.
  17. On the landlord’s repair logs, the job raised for the surveyor to attend the property was a follow-on to the resident’s report of damp and mould from 29 November 2022. The repair logs show that the report was made by the resident on this date and it attended the property on 19 December 2022. The surveyor referral was made on 17 January 2023 following the resident’s complaint escalation and the surveyor attended the property on 3 February 2023. It is unclear why the landlord did not decide to refer to a surveyor after its appointment in December 2022, and as such, it is unclear why the landlord delayed this action. This meant that there was an unreasonable and prolonged time between the first report and the date of the surveyor inspection. It took 18 working days between the appointment on 19 December 2022 and the surveyor referral on 17 January 2023. The surveyor then did not attend until 3 February 2023, a further 13 working days later.
  18. The stage 2 complaint response was provided on 30 January 2023. The landlord’s response outlined again that it had acted in line with its SLAs and that it had booked a surveyor to attend the property to assess issues of possible rising damp and ongoing mould. This response did not recognise the failings of the landlord in promptly diagnosing, and addressing, the root cause of damp in the property. While it took some action such as attending to treat symptoms of the damp and mould by replacing the window seals and resealing the bath, and had now booked the surveyor to attend the property, there were delays in its actions to find the cause of these issues.
  19. From the time of the resident’s first report of damp and mould on 31 October 2022, to the resident’s complaint escalation when the landlord made a referral to a surveyor on 17 January 2023, the resident continued to experience damp and mould. The lack of clear communication from the landlord would have understandably added to the distress he experienced. The landlord should have identified that it needed to investigate the cause of damp and mould as part of its stage 1 complaint process, especially when it reviewed its previous responses to reports of damp and mould. By investigating the cause, it could have considered how to put things right in the context of the complaint.
  20. The landlord’s response that its actions were in line with its SLAs was correct. However, the landlord did not learn sufficient lessons from the complaint and it failed on multiple opportunities to put things right. Its stage 2 complaint response awarded £270 compensation to the resident. This was made up of £5 per day for 14 days for the running costs of the dehumidifier which equated to £70. It added £50 for recognition of the delay in receiving a complaint response and £150 as a gesture of goodwill without prejudice. It did not clarify what the gesture of goodwill was for and it did not admit any service failures.
  21. When investigating a complaint, this Service applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord has not demonstrated that it had met these principles. There were lengthy delays for a surveyor inspection which was one of the first steps it should have taken with frequent reports of returning damp and mould. It caused significant inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. This has impacted this Service’s view on how the landlord handled the substantive issue of damp and mould.
  22. This amount of compensation was not appropriate as it did not reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident through its failed attempts to resolve the damp and mould, which remain outstanding. He had to contact the landlord repeatedly to raise ongoing damp and mould concerns. It also did not consider how the conditions reported by the resident might have affected the health of household members, nor did it take these into consideration when deciding on how urgently to respond to his reports. The combined issues amount to maladministration from the landlord. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of between £600 to £1,000 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which significantly impacted the resident. In view of this, a compensation award of the higher end of the bracket should be awarded and this is outlined in the orders section of the report.
  23. The landlord’s complaint responses at both stage 1 and stage 2 focused on its SLA response times but failed to acknowledge its delay in providing a surveyor inspection. It failed to look at the bigger picture of the cause and instead focused on the immediate treatment of symptoms. It took over 3 months for the landlord to arrange for the surveyor inspection and this is an unreasonably long period of time to leave a family with a young baby in such conditions.
  24. Its actions throughout the internal complaints procedure, and beyond, show a delay in progressing repairs, a lack of following up on work to see whether it had resolved the substantive issue and a failure to provide clear actions with timeframes of when and how it would progress with trying to resolve the issue. Additionally, it failed to assess the risk level of the impact of the damp and mould on the resident and his family despite being informed of their health concerns throughout the complaints process.
  25. This Service would have considered an order or recommendation to include in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, or a separate policy, how it will respond to damp and mould reports in future. Such an order has not been made as this Service is aware that the landlord has created a leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy which was published in February 2023 and updated in March 2023.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident with regards to its failure to identify and resolve the concerns of damp and mould in a timely manner.
    2. Arrange a surveyor inspection to identify what is causing the damp and mould and to produce an action plan of what needs to happen with set timeframes. This should be communicated with the resident in writing.
    3. Pay compensation of £925 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould. This is inclusive of the landlord’s previous offer of £270, unless this has already been paid. This should be paid directly to the resident and not to the rent account.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to consider payment of the dehumidifier running costs incurred by the resident in November and December 2023.
  2. The landlord is to consider completing an inspection of the front door to establish if this needs to be replaced or repaired.
  3. The landlord is to consider whether it should allocate a resident liaison officer to the resident for support and regular communication while the repairs are ongoing, if it has not already done so.