Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202321417)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321417

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 September 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:
    1. Roof leaks and associated mould.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He lives with his wife and 4 children in a 2-bedroom property. The resident’s wife has health issues which the landlord has not noted on file.
  2. The landlord’s records show historical work being carried out on the resident’s roof, walls and windows since 2019 in response to the residents reports of water ingress and mould. During 2022 the resident reported roof leaks and mould on several occasions and the landlord completed works including roof repairs and mould washes. On 3 February 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. He said he had been experiencing leaks and mould for over 2 years and leaks were affecting his children’s bedroom. He added (on 30 March 2023) that a window was not closing properly, ceilings and walls were wet and there was “aggressive” black mould.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 May 2023. It noted that roof repairs completed in November 2022, and April 2023 had not been effective, and further investigations would be conducted. It said it had attended in April 2023 to treat mould, but the resident had said he had already treated it. It apologised that its contractor had not kept to the service level agreement for repairs and offered £100 compensation for this.
  4. The resident chased his escalated complaint (date unclear) on 22 August 2023 and reported further leaks in September 2023. On 6 December 2023 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property. The surveyor recommended the resident and his family move to temporary alternative accommodation to enable further investigations. Following our intervention the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 January 2024. It acknowledged a delay to repairs and complaint response and said:
    1. The case had been prioritised as a leak, damp, condensation and mould case. Thermal imaging had been completed on 21 December 2023 which noted that the level of mould was mild, but the intermittent issues had been ongoing for a number of years. The inspections had recommended temporary alternative accommodation to allow further internal intrusive investigation to be carried out.
    2. It had appointed a resident liaison officer to discuss a temporary move with the resident.
    3. It offered the resident a total of £2950 comprising £2900 to reflect inconvenience, time taken to resolve, vulnerabilities, repeat visits and £50 for complaint delays.
  5. In March and July 2024, the resident chased the landlord for updates about alternative accommodation. The landlord completed a survey on 27 September 2024 which identified further holes in external walls letting water in and causing mould and the landlord completed works to address these on 18 October 2024.
  6. The resident refused the landlords offer of alternative accommodation on 12 November 2024 stating it was too small for his family. The resident asked us to investigate his complaint as he felt the landlord had taken over 4 years to resolve the issue and he wanted either the issue properly resolved or permanent alternative accommodation. On 21 January 2025, the landlord told us its surveyor recently had met with the contractor and no roof defects had been noted however the issues continued, and its surveyors were working with the resident to resolve this.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us he was concerned the mould affected his children’s health, especially his newborn baby. We do not doubt the resident’s concerns, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation, and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, it is accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant risk to health. We can consider the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors in this by the landlord, and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about this.
  2. The resident also stated the leaks, and mould was present in the property from 2019 onwards. However, the resident raised his complaint in February 2023. Residents are expected to raise formal complaints with their landlord within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the issues arising. This allows the landlord a fair opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live,’ and relevant evidence is available, to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. As such, this investigation will focus on events and evidence the start of 2022 (from approximately 12 months before the resident’s initial complaint onwards).

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord provided repair logs as part of this investigation which show historical leaks and mould repairs to the property as far back as the start of the resident’s tenancy in July 2019. From 1 February 2022 to the date of the resident’s complaint (on 3 February 2023) there had been just over 10 further leak and mould related attendances by the landlord. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses acknowledged that despite multiple attendances works to date had not yet resolved the leaks.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days. It is recognised however that leaks and roof works can be complex and require several attendances to resolve. It is understandable that the landlord was not able to resolve the issue within its 28-day response period.
  3. Landlords however have a legal obligation to complete repairs within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 it is acknowledged that various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should, however, be able to show that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it could to resolve issues appropriately. However, the landlord provided no reasonable explanation as to why this matter remained unresolved for such a prolonged period.
  4. A review of the landlord’s repair logs shows multiple attendances including repeat surveyor inspections and roof works. The landlord’s file shows scaffolding had been erected on 4 occasions, yet the source of the leak was unresolved. Holes in external walls that let water in were noted in 2022 and again on 27 September 2024. The Ombudsman’s spotlight in repairs report emphasises the importance of landlords monitoring repeat repairs for effectiveness. While the landlord was responsive to all of the resident’s repair reports given the recurrence of the leaks the landlord should have reviewed the effectiveness of previous repairs. It is not evident that the landlord considered a different approach to the roof repair which was a missed opportunity to satisfy itself that the works completed were appropriate and effective.
  5. The resident repeatedly also raised concerns regarding mould. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. It must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must make sure a property is “fit for human habitation”.
  6. The landlord was responsive to the residents reports of mould. It installed extractor fans in the kitchen (25 April 2022) and bathroom (2 November 2022) to improve ventilation. It attended on 13 April 2023 following the residents reports of ‘aggressive black mould’ however the resident refused works as he said he had addressed the mould himself. It provided humidifiers and conducted thermal imaging on 21 December 2023. These were all appropriate steps to mitigate mould.
  7. On 6 December 2023 the surveyor recommended an alternative accommodation for the household to allow for intrusive investigations. This was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy which states “For very complex cases, especially where more intrusive building work is required and/or there is a health risk to the resident or a member of their household, we may require residents to move out of their home, either on a temporary or permanent basis.”
  8. However, the landlord’s file shows it took the landlord until November 2024, almost 11 months later, to offer the resident alternative accommodation. This was despite multiple chaser emails from the resident, which we have seen evidence of. The landlord’s file also shows on 22 November 2024 the surveyor noted “ongoing high condensation levels are noted that affect room temperature” which is concerning given the young children in the home. The landlord’s lack of urgency in sourcing suitable alternative accommodation delayed necessary works which led to the family having to remain in unsuitable accommodation. This was inappropriate.
  9. The resident however refused the alternative accommodation as it was too small for his family of 6. He also raised concerns that due to health issues a temporary accommodation would not be suitable and would cause unnecessary disruption. We have not seen evidence of the landlord’s reasonable consideration of the family’s needs and the resident’s concerns. This omission and the delay in offering on alternative accommodation were not appropriate.
  10. The resident also asked the landlord to consider permanent rehousing as the matter had been ongoing for several years and still remained unresolved. We have seen an internal email (24 October 2024) where the landlord said it would approve a permanent move to the alternative accommodation. While the landlord’s positive consideration of the resident’s permanent move request was in line with its damp and mould policy it failed to appropriately consider the suitability of the alternative accommodation. Therefore, we have made an order that the landlord agree alternative accommodation options in full consultation with the resident.
  11. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord did not dispute that the resident experienced repeated leaks and delays in completion of roof repairs, and it offered a total of £2900 compensation for the inconvenience and distress this had caused. This is substantial and within our remedies guidance recommended compensation range for severe maladministration, which suggests compensation above £1,000. This compensation was proportionate for the continued delayed resolution of the health and safety hazards and the delays of 11 months in providing suitable temporary accommodation.
  12. Although the landlord offered financial redress to the resident which was proportionate, its offer of compensation alone was not enough to put right the effect of all its above failures on the resident. The alternative accommodation offer was delayed, and we have not seen evidence of the landlord discussing the suitability of the accommodation prior to making the offer.
  13. While we have seen evidence of appropriate action taken by the landlord and steps to provide interim measures such as dehumidifiers, it could evidence that it effectively sought to provide a suitable accommodation We have therefore made a finding of service failure.
  14. It is acknowledged that the issue remains unresolved, and the family have continued to remain in unsuitable conditions. The landlord advised it had been unable to complete the works as intrusive investigations were needed (as seen in the December 2023 damp report recommendations) which can only be done once the family moved to a suitable alternative accommodation.
  15. Following its stage 2 complaint response the landlord provided evidence of reasonable efforts to agree suitable alternative temporary accommodation options with the resident. It stated that its attempts to date had been unsuccessful as the resident was seeking permanent alternative accommodation. We appreciate that this may take longer and depends on the availability of such accommodation within the landlord’s property pool.
  16. We recommend that the landlord consider the possibility of permanent alternative accommodation for the resident and his family in view of the prolonged period the issues have remained unresolved and their health concerns.
  17. It is noted that the resident stated that the leaks, condensation and mould were still ongoing. We have made an order for the landlord to arrange a new inspection of the property by an independent contractor within 8 weeks, assess the current situation and any risks involved for the household. The landlord should provide a copy of the outcome to the resident and reasonable timeline for recommended works to fully resolve the issues. If it decides not to do so it should write to the resident and us with an explanation for that decision.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy from the time of the complaint said a stage 1 complaint would be acknowledged within 10 working days of receipt and responded to within 20 working days. A request to escalate to stage 2 (peer review) will be acknowledged within 10 working days and it aims to resolve it within 40 working days. The landlord has since amended its complaints process to comply with the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Code (the Code) for a 10 working days response at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident complained on 3 February 2023 and that he added to the complaint on 30 March 2023. However, the landlord recorded the resident’s complaint as submitted on 30 March 2023 which was incorrect. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 April 2023 which was 41 working days outside the landlord’s 10 working day acknowledgement period from when the complaint was initially submitted. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 May 2023, which allowing for 10 working day acknowledgement and 20 working day response period was a delay of 37 working days.
  3. The landlord’s file is unclear regarding the resident’s complaint escalation request. The file shows a chaser email from the resident on 22 August 2023 to the landlord where he said he had specifically asked for his complaint to be escalated and not for it to be closed. On 4 September 2023 the resident called the landlord to chase the stage 2 complaint response and expressed his frustration. The landlord however failed to act on these prompts from the resident and only issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 January 2024 following our intervention. This was inappropriate and caused further inconvenience to the resident having to ask us for assistance. Its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy was unreasonable and led to an excessive 6-month delay.
  4. The Code states “where a response to a complaint will fall outside the timescales set out in this Code the landlord must agree with the resident suitable intervals for keeping them informed about their complaint.” Throughout the above period, the landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident which further compounded the resident’s frustration and was a missed opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident.
  5. The almost 6-month delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint without justification was unreasonable and would have constituted maladministration. The landlord did, however, apologise to the resident for the delay and awarded £50 compensation which showed efforts by the landlord to put things right. However, it did not fully recognise the repeated failure to comply with the requirements set out in its complaints policy and procedure. Nor did it explain what went wrong or what lessons had been learnt. As such, it did not use the complaints process as an effective tool to ensure positive change to its service delivery.
  6. In summary, the LL acknowledged complaint delays at stage 2 and offered compensation which was not proportionate for the length of the delay. Additionally, it failed to acknowledge its stage 1 failures related to appropriately logging the complaint and acknowledging it in a timely manner. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord was responsible for maladministration in relation to its complaint handling and it is ordered to apologise and pay the resident £150 compensation. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £50. This provides appropriate redress for the excessive delay, communication failings and failure to comply with its complaints policy and procedure. This is also in line with our remedies guidance where ‘the landlord may have made an offer of compensation, but it is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.’

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of leaks and associated mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay a total of £3050 composition (including £2950 offered during its internal process if not paid already) comprising:
      1. £2900 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delayed repair, if not paid already;
      2. £150 for time and trouble caused to the resident by its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. In consultation with the resident agree a suitable temporary alternative accommodation accounting for his needs and provide the resident and this service a reasonable timeframe to secure this.
    2. Arrange a new specialist comprehensive inspection of the property by an independent contractor and for them to recommend works to fully resolve the issues and assess any risk. The landlord should then provide the resident and this Service a plan and schedule for completion of works. If it decides not to do so it should write to the resident and us with an explanation for that decision.
  3. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within their respective timeframes.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to provide the resident with details of its relevant liability insurance policy to enable the resident, if he wishes, to claim for any effect on health due to damp and mould.
  2. In consultation with the resident the Ombudsman recommends the landlord to agree a suitable permanent alternative accommodation, if this is a preferred solution.