We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202419919)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419919

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 April 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 response to:
    1. The resident’s reports about heat loss.
    2. The resident’s reports about damp and mould and delays in respect to ‘surveyor cubes.’
    3. The resident’s request for compensation for items damaged by damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a coach house with 2 bedrooms located above an underpass that leads to a rear car park. The landlord records that the resident is vulnerable, and he says he has arthritis and now uses a breathing machine when sleeping.
  2. Since 2017, the resident has periodically raised concerns about heat loss, damp and mould at the property. In 2023, a surveyor took some steps to investigate the issues and the landlord responded to a previous complaint. In its previous October 2023 stage 2 response, it confirmed a surveyor had installed a ‘surveyor cube’ to measure the property conditions for a period.
  3. The resident made a further complaint in late March 2024. He said he was waiting for the surveyor to collect the surveyor cubes and update him on the findings. He also said he was waiting for the surveyor to update him on a check of the underpass ceiling insulation. He later chased the landlord for a response in April, May and June 2024.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 5 July 2024. It apologised it had not told him how long the cubes would be in the property. It said the cubes showed no significant drop in temperature or raised humidity. It said the insulation ratings and methods were adequate for when the property was built. It concluded no further works would be done. It awarded £250 for its delayed response and delay collecting the cubes.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint. He raised dissatisfaction with the support the landlord was providing for issues with the property. He also said that the £250 did not cover mould damaged items he had thrown away.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 20 August 2024. It said the humidity readings were not high but it should have installed the cubes in a way to provide more insight. It said it would check extractor fans and reinstall the cubes to monitor what happened between October and November 2024. It detailed how to make a claim to its insurance team. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and increased its award to £675.
  7. In mid October 2024, the landlord’s insurer offered the resident £1,500 following a claim. The same month, the resident contacted the landlord. He said he had not been told when it would move the cubes and said the property still had heating issues.
  8. In November 2024, an operative noted the resident said he had received no feedback about the cubes and requested a surveyor inspection.
  9. In December 2024, a surveyor inspected. They confirmed there was no damp and mould but noted that heat in the bedrooms reduced very quickly when the heating was switched off. They noted that they were possibly unable to hold heat because they were located over the underpass to the rear carpark and insufficient insulation. They recommended for the insulation levels of the underpass ceiling to be inspected and for the insulation to be added to, or the ceiling over boarded, if the insulation was inadequate.
  10. In January 2025, the landlord investigated the underpass ceiling and confirmed this had insulation.
  11. In March 2025, the landlord reviewed the case after contact from the Ombudsman. It said it was not satisfied the August 2024 stage 2 actions were done and would check the extractor fans and reinstall the cubes. It said this was more for reassurance as it was reasonably satisfied there were no outstanding issues. The same month, it awarded the resident a further £900.
  12. The landlord has since updated that it visited in April 2025. It says no leaks, damp or mould issues were found. It says there was an issue setting up the surveyor cubes and had arranged to visit again on 2 May 2025 to install new ones, after which it would monitor them for 6 months. It says the extractor fans were found to be working but it had arranged to upgrade these on 19 May 2025 to ensure all possible resolutions were provided.
  13. The resident confirms the landlord visited. He says he understands that the underpass ceiling will not be insulated due to cost reasons, although he has not been officially told this. He says he continues to experience chest infections and now uses a breathing machine when sleeping, which he says is due to issues at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman’s main focus is the resident’s March 2024 complaint, up until the landlord’s August 2024 stage 2 response, as this is the complaint response he referred to the Ombudsman. However, some events before the resident’s complaint and after the landlord’s stage 2 response are referred to where this is considered relevant.

The resident’s reports about heat loss

  1. The resident says something is wrong with the property, as the temperature drops significantly in the bedrooms when the heating is off, and it is costly to keep the heating on. The landlord said the insulation is in line with building regulations when the property was built. It also noted before the most recent complaint that issues are due to the property position and are not defects.
  2. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns, but it is not in our expertise to decide if a landlord should do works considered improvements such as add insulation. The resident’s current health situation is also very concerning, but it is also not in our expertise to make definitive decisions about causation and liability in respect to health issues. We can consider if the landlord is meeting its obligations to the resident and has responded reasonably.
  3. The landlord is obligated to keep the heating in good repair, which it is not in dispute it has. The landlord is also obligated to ensure the property provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort and is free from hazards such as cold. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System says a healthy indoor temperature is around 21 degrees and the property has been noted to reach at least 20 degrees when heated. The property has an above average C rating in its Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) which meets long-term government targets for social housing. It therefore seems to have met relevant obligations to do repairs and provide a warm and energy efficient home, but aspects of its response were not entirely satisfactory.
  4. The landlord does not show it satisfactorily investigated the resident’s specific complaint about a lack of an update to a check of the underpass ceiling insulation. Its complaint response did not clearly address this or evidently reflect an investigation of a surveyor’s alleged commitment to check the ceiling. It could have shown it established the outcome to a previous referral to a building safety team. Given the lack of clarity about the previous investigation, the landlord was appropriate to later do an investigation of the ceiling, which subsequently noted that the underpass ceiling has insulation. However, the landlord should have carried out such an investigation earlier.
  5. The landlord said that the property met building regulations when it was built, but it is not evident how it reached this conclusion. It does not show it clearly considered the level and adequacy of the insulation itself as was later internally recommended. It established there is insulation but to what level is unclear. Sufficient insulation would be important, as it seems common for coach houses to have heating issues, and the EPC also says the property is heated by an air source heat pump which can be less efficient in colder periods. It also does not show it satisfactorily considered if the underpass ceiling should be over boarded, as was also later internally recommended.
  6. The landlord should show it considered if works such as over boarding were possible and could meaningfully improve the situation. It should show it balanced this against factors such as the impact on the resident, the works costs, and the property already having an above average EPC rating. It should also have considered if the resident’s energy usage is in line with the EPC’s estimate. It should show it has then clearly communicated to the resident about its investigations, obligations and position in respect to the insulation of the underpass ceiling and the issue. Recent discussion with the resident indicates it has not. It is understandable if the landlord’s unclear approach and communication has not reassured him there are no issues with the property.
  7. Overall, although the evidence indicates that the property meets relevant energy efficiency standards, the issues identified with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about heat loss. While this is the case, given the amount awarded by the landlord, we do not order any further compensation.

The resident’s reports about damp and mould and delays in respect to ‘surveyor cubes’

  1. The resident previously raised issues with damp and mould and the landlord did works such as mould washes and install extractor fans. It later confirmed in a previous (October 2023) stage 2 complaint response that it had installed a ‘surveyor cube’ device to monitor the property for a period.
  2. The landlord said in its recent (July and August 2024) stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that the surveyor cubes showed no significant issues with temperature or humidity. It apologised for its communication and delays about the cubes. It acknowledged the cubes could have been installed in a way to provide more insight and said it would install them again in October 2024 and check extractor fans. It awarded £675.
  3. The landlord acknowledged in March 2025, after contact from the Ombudsman, that it had not done the actions it had committed to in its complaint responses and said it would do these. It awarded a further £900 to the resident. It has now visited and said it found no damp and mould issues, but it has scheduled to install new cubes on 2 May 2025 and renew extractor fans on 19 May 2025.
  4. The landlord was appropriate to acknowledge issues with its communication, as it did not effectively communicate to the resident about the surveyor cubes after it installed them around September 2023. The resident’s further complaint in March 2024 may have been unnecessary if it had done so, and he was caused time and trouble as a result.
  5. The landlord was also appropriate to review how the surveyor cubes were installed, acknowledge these could have been installed in a way to obtain more data about the kitchen and bathroom, and commit to check fans and install the surveyor cubes again. This was right given it noted some higher humidity in February, May and June 2024 and wanted to check how this correlated with readings in the kitchen and bathroom. The £675 it awarded for its failings was reasonable when referring to our remedies guidance.
  6. The landlord recently acknowledges that it failed to meet its August 2024 stage 2 complaint response commitment to check the fans and re-install the cubes by around November 2024. This means it delayed doing this for 8 months. The landlord has since taken recent steps to put this right and awarded £900 which is reasonable when referring to our remedies guidance. It is also evident that from the timeframe of the complaint to the present, no significant issues with damp and mould have been found in inspections of the property and data from the surveyor cubes. It is therefore not clear that the landlord’s handling has resulted in wider detriment to the resident.
  7. However, the landlord’s delay is not satisfactory, particularly given the resident’s vulnerability and some high readings noted. It is important for a landlord to ensure it meets the commitments it makes in its complaint responses. It is also important for a landlord to show it is doing all it can in a timely way. This leads the Ombudsman to find a service failure in the landlord’s response about the damp and mould and surveyor cubes. While this is the case, given the amount awarded by the landlord, we do not order any further compensation.

The resident’s request for compensation for items damaged by damp and mould

  1. The resident complained that mould caused damage to belongings and requested compensation for this. The landlord responded that such issues were outside the remit of its complaint procedure and referred him to its insurer, which offered him £1,500 after he made a claim.
  2. There is a separate formal procedure for insurance claims, so the Ombudsman do not have the authority or expertise to make definitive decisions about cause, liability or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions like the courts.
  3. When a resident says they incurred damages, we do expect a landlord to consider if its action or inaction has led to these or refer a resident to its insurer. In this case, the landlord responded in line with this, which led to the resident being offered a settlement by its insurer. This leads the Ombudsman to find no maladministration in the landlord’s response about compensation for damaged items. The resident has the option to discuss his claim with the landlord’s insurer or seek independent advice if he is unhappy with the settlement offer.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about heat loss.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould and delays in respect to ‘surveyor cubes.’
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for items damaged by damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the £1,575 total it offered, if it has not done so already.
  2. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to re-visit whether the insulation to the underpass ceiling is adequate. As part of this, it should:
    1. Review if the resident’s energy usage is in line with the EPC’s estimate.
    2. Review any action or advice it can offer if the energy usage exceeds or falls short of the EPC’s estimate.
    3. Review whether works such as over boarding is possible and could meaningfully improve matters, balancing this against reasonable factors such as the EPC rating and energy usage, the works costs, its obligations and the impact on the resident.
  3. The landlord should write to the resident about the outcome to the above and set out its position.
  4. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to write to the resident and confirm:
    1. when he can expect to receive an update about the outcome to the ‘surveyor cube’ readings after these have been reinstalled.
    2. contact details in the event he does not receive the update or has any queries.
  5. The landlord is recommended to ensure there is a sufficient process in place to meet and monitor the outcomes it commits to in its complaint responses.
  6. The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident and review if it would be possible and beneficial to record his vulnerabilities in a more detailed way, so these can be considered in its future service delivery.
  7. The landlord is recommended to liaise with the resident to understand how he uses his heating and ensure he knows how to operate it as optimally as possible, particularly in colder periods.