From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202338200)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338200

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 August 2025

 

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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Structural issues with an external wall.
    2. Damp and mould and its repair of the associated leaks.
    3. A loss of heating and hot water following a repair.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom basement flat. The building in which the flat is located is separated from the building next to it by an external partition wall. There is space in between the wall and each building. The adjacent building is owned by a freeholder. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  2. While a contractor was completing repairs to the resident’s building in March 2023 she highlighted that the external partition wall was sloping to one side. The landlord commissioned a survey by a structural engineer which took place on 4 April 2023. As the building on the other side of the wall was not owned by the landlord it needed to identify its owner before any repairs because it had joint responsibility for that wall.
  3. The resident reported a leak coming from her toilet on 21 August 2023. She also reported damp and mould in her bedroom and bathroom the same day. The landlord repaired the leak on 21 August 2023. It completed a damp and mould inspection on 22 August 2023. It recommended a damp and mould survey.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 31 August 2023. She was unhappy that the landlord had not started repairs on the external wall. She said the sloping was getting worse. She also thought the issues with the external wall could be the cause of the damp and mould in her flat.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 December 2023. It apologised for its delay in responding. It told the resident that:
    1. It needed to identify the owner of the property that shared the external wall before it could proceed with repairs.
    2. It should have kept her updated during that time.
    3. It apologised that she had to chase up a damp and mould survey.
    4. The damp and mould surveyor attended on 11 October 2023 without any prior notice to her and could not gain access.
    5. A new appointment was made for 6 November 2023 but the surveyor did not turn up.
    6. A damp and mould survey had since been completed with repairs recommended.
    7. It would be in touch to arrange those repairs and the external wall repairs were due to begin the week commencing 4 December 2023.
  6. The landlord awarded the resident £465 compensation as part of its stage 1 response. That figure was broken down as:
    1. £100 for its delay in responding to her complaint.
    2. £200 for distress and inconvenience related to the delay in repairing the external wall and its poor communication around that.
    3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in arranging a damp and mould survey.
    4. £15 for a missed appointment in November 2023.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 December 2023. She said the landlord have left her without heating and hot water following a repair on 27 November 2023. She wanted it to reimburse her for a private plumber she had employed to repair her boiler. She was unhappy several other repairs remained outstanding. She also wanted the landlord to pay her for loss of earnings for the missed appointment.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 January 2024. It told her that:
    1. The £15 it awarded for the missed appointment was in line with its policy and it does not compensate for loss of earnings.
    2. The cause of the damp and mould was 2 leaks that had likely continued unnoticed for some time.
    3. An inspection recommended that her bathroom floor covering be removed and replaced.
    4. It had arranged that repair for 29 January 2024 after the resident could not agree to earlier dates.
    5. It was satisfied its previous delays were accounted for in its stage 1 response.
    6. It apologised its contractor did not attend her report of a loss of heating.
    7. It agreed to reimburse her the costs of paying for a private plumber to repair her boiler.
  9. The landlord awarded the resident a further £580.24 in its stage 2 response. That figure was in addition to what it awarded at stage 1. It was broken down as:
    1. £480.24 to reimburse her in full for the cost of the private boiler repair.
    2. £50 compensation for its delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint.
    3. £50 compensation for its failure to respond to her heating repair within its 24 hours emergency timeframe.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 28 January 2024. She was unhappy the landlord had delayed in repairing a leak. She also said damp and mould repairs remained outstanding. She wanted the landlord to apologise and complete the outstanding repairs. The issues were preventing her from enjoying her home.
  11. When the landlord attended on 29 January 2024 it removed the flooring and could not locate the leak. After a further survey the landlord decided that it needed to excavate the concrete flooring to locate the leak and would need to re-route all the related pipework. Before it could begin the repairs, it had to wait for the area to dry out. The landlord moved the resident to temporary accommodation so it could complete the repairs. She later accepted a managed transfer in June 2024 and moved to a new flat in August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns to this Service about the landlord’s handling of her decant and the loss of flooring that she installed in her previous flat. She has also said there have been issues with repairs in her new flat and she is unhappy the rent is higher than she paid for her previous flat. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint up to the landlord’s stage 2 response and any assurances it made. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any later issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. Though it is helpful to explain that complaints about the level of rent are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Landlord’s handling of external wall repairs

  1. The landlord has a repairs policy which sets out that:
    1. Emergency repairs are defined as ones that present an immediate danger to the resident or would jeopardise the health, safety and security of the resident.
    2. Emergency repairs should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit.
    3. Non-emergency repairs should be completed via appointment and the resident should be offered an appointment within 28 days of the repair being reported.
    4. Communal repairs must always be completed within 28 days.
  2. The landlord’s initial response was appropriate. It acted promptly to arrange a structural survey of the wall. The survey noted that other than the lean, the wall looked to be in reasonable condition. The only way to resolve the issue would be to demolish and rebuild the wall. As the survey did not recommend any immediate measures to make the wall safe it was reasonable that the landlord sought to identify the freeholder who was equally responsible for the wall prior to arranging repairs. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not keep the resident updated while it tried to identify the freeholder. It missed an opportunity to explain why it could not begin repairs immediately. It did not show it had taken her safety concerns seriously.
  3. Once it was in communication with the freeholder the landlord’s actions were appropriate. The freeholder agreed in principle to cover half the costs of the wall repairs in August 2023. The landlord then arranged a joint visit to the site with the freeholder in November 2023. Following that visit it identified the wall had deteriorated so it was reasonable it requested a further inspection by its building engineer. It also proposed a schedule of works to its contractor which showed it was proactively managing the repair.
  4. The landlord’s approach at stage 1 was reasonable. It was accountable for its poor communication about the resident’s external wall concerns. It awarded her £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the issue. It put things right when it explained that it needed to identify the freeholder and provided the timeframe for when it would begin the repairs.
  5. It was appropriate the landlord explained that it was satisfied with its stage 1 response at stage 2. It explained that it had kept the assurance it had made and started the external wall repairs. The landlord reduced the height of the external wall to make safe in December 2023. It demolished the external wall fully in March 2024.
  6. As the landlord has not provided evidence of the steps it took to identify and contact the freeholder it is unclear to what extent the delays were within its control. In assessing the matter, we must also take into account that a third party was involved, which may have contributed to the delays. When the landlord awarded compensation in its stage 1 response it accepted it had taken longer than the landlord would have liked to contact the freeholder. It also recognised it had not communicated with the resident about the issue effectively during that time.
  7. As the landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation on a case-by-case basis, we have used this Service’s remedies guidance to consider whether the amount of compensation the landlord awarded was reasonable. The £200 it awarded falls within the maladministration banding which covers failings which has adversely affected the resident without permanent impact.
  8. Given the scale of the works and that the involvement of a third party it was reasonable that it did not complete the repairs within the 28-day timescale for communal repairs. It was proactive in starting the repairs following its complaint responses. Taking that into consideration alongside its apology for the delays and the compensation it awarded, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress regarding its handling of the external wall repairs.

Landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and associated repair of leaks

  1. The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould (LCDM) policy says that it will:
    1. Provide well-maintained homes, free from hazards for its residents.
    2. Diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner.
    3. Proactively support residents to manage their homes where they are known to be susceptible to leaks, condensation, damp and mould for any reason.
    4. Track and equip staff to diagnose potential causes of damp, mould and condensation and leak tracing so they can advise residents and provide solutions.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould and a leak within its timeframes. It repaired the leak as an emergency repair in line with its repairs policy the same day as she reported it. The landlord inspected the damp and mould the following day, 22 August 2023. It decided it needed a surveyor to assess the issues.
  3. The landlord did not submit the referral correctly to its surveyor and that resulted in a delay with the first appointment attempted on 11 October 2023. It was not appropriate that neither the landlord gave the resident advanced notice of that appointment. As a result she was not at home and unable to give access. It was also not appropriate that its surveyor did not turn up to the rescheduled appointment on 6 November 2023. While it was appropriate the surveyor attended the next day the landlord’s approach to arranging the survey was not reasonable. Its poor communication with its contractor caused inconvenience to the resident. It also meant it was not following its LCDM policy to diagnose damp and mould in a timely and effective manner.
  4. Its response to the issues the resident raised in her stage 1 complaint was reasonable. It was appropriate it apologised and awarded compensation for its poor communication that resulted in the delay in completing the survey. It also followed up on its assurance to contact the resident to arrange the recommended repairs. It initially arranged the outstanding repairs within its 28-day timeframe for 18 December 2023 but the resident requested a later date.
  5. As the landlord’s compensation policy states that it does not award compensation for loss of earnings it was reasonable that it did not increase the £15 compensation for a missed appointment it awarded at stage 1. The landlord explained that it considered its stage 1 response to have adequately addressed the damp and mould related delays as since then the rescheduling of appointments had been at the resident’s requests.
  6. The landlord was accountable for its failings at both stages of the resident’s complaint. It was appropriate it awarded her compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in completing a survey and its missed appointment. The £165 it awarded falls within the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance. It reflects there was no permanent impact as it completed the survey. The landlord also completed the assurances it made in both its complaint responses. It was outside the landlord’s control that the damage it identified during the 29 January 2024 appointment meant the level of repairs it would be required to complete were extensive. It was at the landlord’s discretion how it approached the subsequent repairs.
  7. Overall, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress regarding its handling of damp and mould and its repairs of leaks.

Landlord’s handling of reports of no heating and hot water following a repair

  1. The landlord has not provided evidence of its 27 November 2023 repair and the contact with the resident that followed. However, in its stage 2 response it did not dispute what she said.
  2. It was not appropriate the landlord did not act to restore heating and hot water following its 27 November 2023 appointment. In not being able to provide an appointment for an emergency repair within 24 hours of the resident’s contact it did not show it was following its repairs policy. If the resident would not have been able to afford to cover the cost of a private plumber, she would have had to experience a lack of heating and hot water for 4 days during the winter.
  3. As the additional issues around the loss of heating and hot water happened shortly before the landlord issued its stage 1 response its Complaints Team was unaware of those at that time. It was not until after its stage 1 response that the resident brought the issue to the landlord’s attention. As it had completed the repairs as part of the resident’s on-going complaint it was appropriate it considered the loss of heating and hot water at stage 2.
  4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was reasonable. It accepted it did not attend within its emergency timeframe. It was appropriate it reimbursed the resident the full cost of employing a private plumber and awarded her £50 compensation for its failure to respond to her. That amount was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for service failure which considers failings which have had a small impact on the resident and covered a short period of time.
  5. As the resident was able to employ a private plumber that reduced the impact on her. That meant she was without heating and hot water for a short period. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s actions amounted to reasonable redress. This was achieved through reimbursing the resident for the full cost of the private plumber, and awarding compensation for its failure to respond within its emergency timeframe. These steps addressed the landlord’s response to the reports of a loss of heating and hot water.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of structural issues with the external wall.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and its repair of the associated leaks.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water following a repair.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £1,045.24 it awarded her in its complaint responses if it has not done so already.