Clarion Housing Association Limited (202428853)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property which is a 1-bedroom flat on the fourth floor of the building. The landlord is a leaseholder in the building and does not have responsibility for the communal areas. It reports such issues to the managing agent (MA) who act on behalf of the private freeholder.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of a leak.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Reports of broken door locks.
   4. Lift repairs.
   5. Communication regarding rent.
   6. Request to be re-housed.
   7. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the handling of the leak.
   2. Maladministration in the handling of damp and mould.
   3. Service failure in the handling of the broken door locks.
   4. Maladministration in the handling of the lift repairs.
   5. The communication regarding the rent is outside of our jurisdiction.
   6. Maladministration in the handling of the request to be re-housed.
   7. Service failure in the handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak

4. There was a significant failure by the landlord in its handling of the reports of a leak. However, the landlord’s offer of redress was fair, aimed to put things right, and showed learning from its outcomes.

Reports of damp and mould

5. The complaint responses did not consider all the failures in relation to this complaint and as such, it did not show any learning. While we have not seen evidence to show the extent of the damp and mould in the property, the landlord’s lack of action was not appropriate and likely caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time.

Reports of broken door locks

6. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for some of the delays in its handling of the door locks, it has not evidenced that it fully considered the security risks or that it properly applied its repairs policy in its handling of the issue.

Lift repairs

7. The repair was not the landlord’s responsibility and it took reasonable steps to chase it. However, we would expect to have seen the landlord considering the impact and potential risks to the resident in the meantime. This wouldbe from both a wellbeing and safeguarding perspective, and in view of the potential safety and evacuation implications.

Communication regarding rent

8. There is no evidence of the resident escalating this part of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, it did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint process and we have no power to investigate.

Request to be re–housed

9. The landlord has not evidenced that it followed its policies or procedures in relation to the resident’s request to be re-housed. It did not show consideration to temporary accommodation and it did not consider her reports that the property was not habitable. The resident escalated this aspect of her complaint to stage 2 and the landlord’s lack of response was not appropriate.

Handling of the complaint

10. The landlord acknowledged some of its failures in its handling of the complaint and offered reasonable compensation for those failures. Although, we consider the landlord did not sufficiently address all aspects of the resident’s complaint within its internal complaints procedures.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

11. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate the freeholder or MA’s response to the resident’s concerns as neither party are members of our Scheme. The MA may have its own internal complaints process. We can, however, investigate the action taken by the landlord to raise the concerns with the MA.
12. The landlord has not disputed that there were failings in this case. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been reporting the issue with the leak for 7 years. While the landlord was not responsible for the roof repairs, it was its responsibility to inform the MA, and it did not do so until 9 July 2024, which was not appropriate. The delay likely caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
14. The landlord has evidenced that once it made the MA aware of the issues, it took proactive and reasonable steps to pursue the report. When the delays were taking longer than anticipated, it escalated the matters further, which was reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord also appropriately appointed a RLO to provide the resident weekly updates until the MA completed the repairs. It showed reasonable learning from its outcome by saying it would liaise with the repairs team on how to improve the process going forwards.
15. To put right its failure, the landlord offered the resident £4,900 compensation. In doing so, it considered the time taken, the resident’s vulnerabilities, its repeat visits, and its failure to follow policy and procedure. We consider that the amount offered was appropriate. It was in line with our remedies guidance for severe maladministration where there was a single significant failure in service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The roof repairs were completed on 19 February 2025.
16. We have concluded that the landlord’s offer of redress for the failures identified was reasonable.

17. The landlord’s leaks, damp, and mould policy at the time stated that it would resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner and in line with its repairs policy. It stated that where it identified particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issues, it would undertake a comprehensive risk assessment to support the resident.
18. The resident reported damp and mould in December 2023 and informed the landlord that she had asthma and eczema, the landlord’s notes at the time stated, “Leak never found and no one knows how to fix it, so it gets left and the mould continues to grow.” The landlord’s stage 1 response referred to completing some routine repair work in mid-January 2024 but it did not specify what the works were and the records do not evidence this either. As such, we cannot determine that the landlord’s response at the time was appropriate.
19. In her formal complaint, the resident said there was significant damp and mould, she outlined her vulnerabilities and said it was impacting her quality of life. She described it as an “increasingly uninhabitable environment”. On 9 July 2024, in an internal email which included the MA, the landlord confirmed the damp and mould repairs should sit with its repairs team, not the MA. There is then no evidence of the landlord raising the relevant actions with its repairs or damp and mould team, which is a failing.
20. On 7 August 2024, the MA informed the landlord that it was unable to carry out the repairs to address the leak until it received additional funds. It asked that the landlord send pictures of the damage inside the resident’s property so they could assess the situation more accurately. There is no evidence of the landlord doing so.
21. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the MA had requested the resident send photos of the interior damage. It was unclear if the damage included the issue of damp and mould in the property. However, it was not appropriate that the landlord placed the onus on the resident to provide the pictures as the request was initially made to the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have attended the property and take the photos. This would have also allowed it to assess the current condition of the property and if further action was required.
22. The stage 1 response confirmed that it had carried out previous actions to address the mould in June 2021 and that in January 2024 it noted that the doors were not fitted correctly, which led to further damp issues. It said it cancelled the work order for the doors due to the ongoing roof leak.
23. We recognise that the landlord would be unlikely to fully resolve the damp and mould issues until the leak was repaired. We also recognise that the delays in repairing the roof leak were in part, beyond the landlord’s control. However, given that it had taken responsibility for the damp and mould and communicated this with the MA, it was not appropriate that it did not take any further action.
24. In line with its leaks, damp and mould policy, and due to the issue recurring, the landlord should have undertaken a comprehensive risk assessment. This, alongside an inspection would have helped to determine the extent of the issue and whether the property was habitable, while the leak was ongoing. The landlord could then have considered what action it could take in the interim. This could have included providing dehumidifiers, removing the mould, sealing the gaps in the doors, or a temporary move.
25. It is concerning that despite the resident continuing to raise the impact on her health, the landlord continued to fail to consider the risks posed to the resident. There is no evidence of it taking action to address the damp and mould until after the stage 2 response. The landlord suggested that the resident would need to obtain an OT assessment to consider her health needs and whether she should be re-housed. This was not a sufficient response. Given the concerns raised, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have also carried out the above actions to establish if it needed to take more urgent action.
26. The landlord’s stage 2 response was an opportunity for it to consider its failings in relation to its handling of the damp and mould, and it did not do so. It is reasonable to consider that the compensation offered for the leak did take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities and its failure to follow policy and procedure. However, there were additional failings which it did not account for and which likely caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience, these were:
    1. It did not acknowledge that unlike the leak, it had taken responsibility for addressing the damp and mould in the property, and therefore it did not put things right by chasing the MA. Its complaint responses failed to outline what action it would take to address the issues and the time taken for it to do so was not appropriate.
    2. It acknowledged the resident had vulnerabilities but it did not show sufficient consideration towards the hazards posed to the resident or its lack of risk assessment. This does not suggest it learnt from this outcome.
    3. It had an opportunity to provide photos to the MA of the damage in the property and there is no evidence of it doing so. This may have assisted in progressing the repair to the leak.
27. To conclude, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s records show that it carried out works to address the damp and mould issues once the MA resolved the leak. It is unclear what steps were taken in relation to the reports of damage caused.

28. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will attend an emergency repair in 24 hours and it should complete works to make safe or temporarily repair at that visit. It says an emergency repair is one that would jeopardise the health, safety, and security of the resident. It said it should complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
29. In her formal complaint the resident referred to her front and back door locks being broken. She said she had experienced abuse from a family member and the landlord advised her to purchase an alarm system and report the locks. She said she asked to be re-housed and the landlord told her it could not do so, as she had not reported the issues to the police. We will address the landlord’s handling of the request to be re-housed later in the report.
30. The landlord outlined the steps it had taken to address the reports made. It said it made appointments in early January and mid-February 2024 but the resident did not provide access. It said it had raised a new work order, ordered a new lock, and booked an appointment for early August 2024. It said it had responded in line with its 28 day service level agreement.
31. As the initial report made was in relation to the front door malfunctioning and not feeling safe, it is difficult to determine from the description if the landlord correctly classified the repair as a “non-emergency repair”. However, the records show that the landlord did attend within 28 days as stated and attempted to carry out the repair twice. The landlord closed the work order after the 2 attempted visits. This may have been reasonable, however, it would have been appropriate to see evidence of it communicating the appointments with the resident and/or leaving calling cards after each attempt.
32. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord made an appointment for 28 August 2024, 36 working days later. We acknowledge the landlord needed to order the lock. However, as the resident had now stated that both her front and back locks were not working and she had concerns for her safety, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have attended as an emergency to make it safe. It is not appropriate that it did not do so. The advice to purchase an alarm may have been fair, however, the landlord still had an obligation to ensure the property was secure within a reasonable timeframe.
33. In it stage 2 response, the landlord said it incorrectly closed the repair to change the lock, it said it had raised a new work order and scheduled the works for 15 October 2024. As the stage 2 response was issued after that date, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm if the repair had taken place. It is unclear from the records if it did. The records show that an emergency repair was raised on 7 April 2025 which stated that the front door was not locking and the property was not secure. It was completed the same day. The repairs to the balcony door took place following the repairs to the leak.
34. In summary, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its complaint response, which was reasonable. However, it did not consider that it should have raised the repair as an emergency and made it safe following the formal complaint. It is also concerning that the resident reported the door not locking again in April 2025. It is unclear from the records whether this was due to it not previously carrying out the repair in October 2024. The landlord should ensure it completes detailed records so that there is a clear log of the action taken.
35. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the broken door locks.

36. The housing, health, and safety rating system (HHSRS) provides guidance for landlords on how to assess and identify hazards which could cause harm to residents. Relevant to this complaint, the guidance refers to the potential hazards caused by the operability of amenities and not having a means of escape in the event of a fire.
37. On 28 May 2024, the MA contacted the landlord to inform it that the lift was out of service due to vandalism. They said they had contacted the lift contractor who would assess the damages and quote for the necessary repairs. They asked the landlord to share the information with all residents. On 19 June 2024, the MA said they had lodged an insurance claim to cover the repair costs and they would reinstate the lift following that. The landlord asked the MA to keep it updated. The MA sent out a further notice to all residents on 27 June 2024 to advise of the current situation regarding the lift. They said they were doing everything in their power to expedite the process.
38. In her formal complaint the resident outlined the impact of the lift being out of service. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the ongoing disruption and stated it was making all efforts to resolve the issue promptly. It said to consider re-housing due to the lack of accessibility, the resident would need to get an OT referral.
39. An OT referral would go some way to assisting with aids and adaptations or priority banding/allocation. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it understood its duties to the resident in the interim. Given the known vulnerabilities of the resident, it would have been reasonable for it to have conducted a risk assessment and personal emergency evacuation plan to consider any immediate support needs or reasonable adjustments it could make. If following a risk assessment, the landlord then felt there were any identified actions which were the responsibility of the freeholder, it could have informed the MA. In not carrying out those actions, the landlord did not pay due regard to its obligations under the HHSRS.
40. On 30 September 2024 the resident informed the landlord that she was losing weight and she did not have enough food in her home due to the lift. On 11 October 2024 the resident informed the landlord that one of the most critical issues for her was the lift being out of service. She reiterated the difficulties she had in navigating the stairs and the detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. She said she had raised it numerous times to both the landlord and the MA and they had dismissed her concerns. It is a failing that there is no evidence of the landlord responding to her emails.
41. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that it was continuing to request regular updates from the MA on the matter and we have seen evidence of the landlord appropriately doing so. The lift was repaired on 31 January 2025.
42. On 7 August 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident. It stated that upon review of its handling of the issue it failed to compensate the resident for the inconvenience caused by the lift being out of service for 8 months. It awarded £200 compensation in recognition of her vulnerabilities, inconvenience caused, and the time taken to process the compensation
43. It is positive to see that the landlord attempted to put right some of its failures but it did not do so during its internal complaints procedure. The resident informed the landlord of the impact of not having a functional lift on many occasions and the landlord missed multiple opportunities to put things right for her. We consider that the £200 was not proportionate to the failings identified and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord has also not reflected on what it would do differently in future.
44. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the lift repairs.

45. In bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident raised this complaint issue which had not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The landlord responded to the concerns regarding the rent at stage 1, but there is no evidence the resident escalated that part of her complaint to stage 2. As such, the landlord did not include this within its stage 2 response and it is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

46. The landlord’s management transfer policy states that in very exceptional cases it may utilise a management transfer where there is a significant change in the resident’s circumstances and they are no longer able to access their home. It said it can consider a transfer where a property is uninhabitable or unsafe because of condensation, damp and or mould. And if it cannot address the problems within a timeframe where a temporary decant would be reasonable.
47. In her formal complaint the resident said she would like to be re-housed if the landlord could not immediately repair the leak, damp and mould, door locks, and lift breakdown. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained the reasons why it could not rehouse her on the grounds of anti-social behaviour, it also explained it would need recommendations from an OT to carry out any adaptations to her home. It said she should explore mutual exchanges if she wanted to be re-housed.
48. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. While its response went some way to address her concerns, as per its policy, it did not outline how it had considered the damp and mould in her property, whether it was habitable, and if a temporary decant was an option.
49. In a call with the resident on 13 August 2024 the resident said her health was declining and she could not work due to the impact on her disability. The landlord noted that she had explored other options and she wanted to move. It also noted that she was suicidal. The landlord again suggested she get an OT referral. It would have been appropriate for it to have also considered the current situation for the resident and the steps it could have taken in the meantime, such as an inspection of the property and a risk assessment. If following that, it still felt she did not meet the criteria to be re-housed, those actions would have helped to inform whether a temporary move or any further action was required.
50. Despite escalating her request to be re-housed to stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord did not respond to this aspect of her complaint in its stage 2 response. In not considering all the reasons why the resident wanted to move, we cannot determine that the landlord’s handling of the request was reasonable or in line with its policies. Its lack of response at stage 2 appeared dismissive and likely caused the further distress to the resident.
51. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.

52. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint within 5 working days which was appropriate and in line with its complaint policy. It provided its stage 1 response 23 working days after its stage 1 acknowledgement. This was not appropriate or in line with its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord offered £50 at stage 1 to account for the delay, which was reasonable.
53. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 2 escalation and it provided its stage 2 response 46 working days after which was again not appropriate or in line with its policy. The landlord offered £50 in its stage 2 response to acknowledge this. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 August 2025 and stated that upon review of its complaint handling, it did not correctly acknowledge or compensate for the time taken to provide the stage 2 response. It offered an additional £50.
54. By awarding compensation after a complaint was referred to us, this makes it difficult for the Ombudsman to consider the fairness of the offer. We do, however, consider that the total compensation award of £150 is proportionate to the failures it identified.
55. The landlord’s complaint process was an opportunity for the landlord to fairly review its handling of the issues and to put right any failures identified, and we do not consider that it did so. While its subsequent compensation offers went some way to putting things right for the resident, it was not appropriate that this was 10 months after the stage 2 response, and once the resident had brought her complaint to this Service.
56. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

57. Throughout the timeframe of the complaint the landlord had incorrectly recorded the resident’s door number. While the resident did not raise this as a complaint at the time, it is evident that the landlord was aware of this error but did not amend its records. The impact of this could have contributed to some of the no access visits and why it cancelled some of the repairs. The resident also referred to an occasion where a welfare check had been raised for her but due to the landlord providing the wrong door number, she said it was then compromised.
58. As suggested above and in our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, incorrect information can contribute to an increased risk to a resident’s health and safety. Therefore, if it has not already done so, the landlord should ensure its records for the resident are accurate and up to date.

Risk management

59. This report has highlighted that the landlord’s management of risks posed to the resident was poor. While the landlord showed appropriate escalation when there were concerns regarding the performance of the MA, it should have done more to consider the risks in the meantime. As highlighted in our spotlight report on landlord’s engagement with managing agents, landlord’s should review their operational response to service or repair requests in buildings owned and managed by third parties to ensure they are effective. This includes the provision of interim support, if necessary.