Clarion Housing Association Limited (202442254)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her 2 children. She moved into the property in November 2023. In May 2024 she reported that there was damp and mould in the bathroom and both bedrooms of her home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould at the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould at the property.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to take a holistic view of damp and mould in the resident’s home. The landlord’s communication with the resident was not always adequate. The landlord is yet to resolve the damp and mould. The landlord offered the resident adequate compensation for failures in its handling of the repairs.
6. In its complaints responses, the landlord did not fully address the resident’s complaint about the effectiveness of its planned repairs. When the landlord identified failures in its handling of the resident’s repairs, it did not fully explain how it would put them right.

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.

7. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and need fixing.
8. The landlord acknowledged failures in the resident’s repairs, including:
   1. That it had taken too many visits for it to decide on a course of action. These visits will have caused the resident inconvenience. If the landlord had taken a more holistic approach, it could have combined these visits to minimise the disruption caused to the resident. This may also have improved the timeliness of the repairs.

2. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to complete repairs within 28 days unless they are unusually complex, and it did not always meet this timescale. For example, it took around 4 months from the date the resident reported that she did not have a bathroom extractor fan for it to install one. The landlord also told her it would install a kitchen extractor fan, but ‘overlooked’ this. It installed one in January 2025. This was over 6 months after it recorded that a fan was needed.

3. On 2 occasions, operatives were unable to attend an appointment arranged by the landlord. While circumstances do change unexpectedly, this will have caused inconvenience to the resident, so it was appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident for each missed appointment. The amount of compensation offered was within the range commonly offered by social landlords for missed appointments and was therefore reasonable.

4. Errors in its communication, including that the resident had to contact it to confirm appointments. The resident contacted the landlord repeatedly for updates, which will have caused her inconvenience, and the landlord did not always return the resident’s calls.

9. While it was positive that the landlord acknowledged failures in its handling of the repairs, there were other failures it did not identify.  For example, on around 31 May 2024 the landlord’s operative recommended that a surveyor visit the property. However, when the resident chased the landlord for an update on 4 June 2024, its internal emails show it had not taken the steps needed for this to be considered. After reviewing the case, the landlord decided that a surveyor was not needed. It is not clear why the resident was told the case would be referred, before the landlord’s process had been followed. This mixed messaging will have been frustrating for the resident.  The landlord should ensure all members of its staff are aware of its internal processes so it can give clear advice to residents.
10. While the landlord accepted errors in its communication, it did not explain what it would do to put things right. If the landlord had given the resident a single point of contact, and provided regular updates, this may have improved the resident’s experience and helped build a strong landlord tenant relationship. We recommend that the landlord considers appointing a single point of contact until the repairs are completed.
11. The landlord has a clear record of the repairs it has carried out in the resident’s home. However, on 2 occasions there was evidence that the landlord had not used the information it held to inform its actions:
    1. When the resident first contacted the landlord about damp and mould in her home, she said that she had no extractor fan in her bathroom. However, it does not appear that the landlord considered this in its first inspection. It identified that fans were needed during its second appointment at the property and arranged a further visit to take measurements. If the landlord had used the information available to it in the resident’s initial report, it may have been able to take measurements at its first appointment. This would have saved the resident the inconvenience of an additional visit.
    2. On 4 June 2024 the landlord recorded that ‘the resident has evidence her son is being affected’ by the damp and mould. There was no evidence the landlord took any action because of this information. As we are not medical experts, we cannot establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the health conditions of the resident’s child. However, it is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. As such, the landlord should have asked the resident for more information about this. This would have helped it to develop a full picture of the circumstances of the case and decide on appropriate actions. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident to discuss this now. This is explained in detail in the orders section of the report.
12. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, available on our website, explains that best practice is for landlords to look at a property as a whole. Steps they can consider include assessing the pattern of mould, installing humidity and temperature sensors, and supporting behavioural change where necessary.
13. The landlord has completed at least 3 mould washes in the resident’s home, replastered where necessary, and improved ventilation by installing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.  These are all positive actions taken by the landlord to manage the damp and mould. However, it should have gone further to identify the underlying cause of the mould when the treatments were ineffective.
14. In January 2025 the landlord said it would refer the resident’s case to a surveyor if it could not resolve the damp and mould with its next treatments. As of November 2025, the resident has told the Ombudsman that she still has damp and mould in her kitchen and both bedrooms. A full survey is yet to be carried out. This is a significant failure by the landlord which will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord is ordered to complete a full damp and mould survey. This is discussed in detail in the orders section of the report.
15. Cumulatively, the failures discussed in this report amount to maladministration. Some failures have already been recognised by the landlord. It awarded the resident £530 in compensation for failures in its response to the damp and mould in the resident’s home. Our remedies guidance (available on our website) suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. As the landlord’s offer aligns with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have not ordered any more compensation.

16. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. The landlord met, or nearly met, its policy timescales at both stages of the complaints process.
17. The landlord discussed the resident’s concerns with her by phone. This was good practice, helping the landlord to build a clear picture of the complaint, and to ensure the resident understands the complaints process.
18. The resident said she did not think the landlord’s mould washes were effective. The landlord partially addressed this concern in its stage 2 complaint response by saying it would arrange a survey if it could not resolve the issue with a 3rd mould wash. It should have directly addressed the resident’s concerns. It could have arranged for a member of staff with suitable expertise to explain its damp and mould process in more detail. This may have built trust and helped the resident to feel her concerns were being taken seriously.
19. The landlord should also have been clearer about the actions it would take to improve its service. For example, although it said it would ask its repairs team to ensure residents were updated throughout the repairs process, it did not tell the resident when or how she would be updated. In addition, it said it would be ‘proactive in addressing repairs’ but did not identify any practical actions it would take in the resident’s case. This may have undermined the resident’s confidence in the impact of the learning the landlord had identified.
20. These failures may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident, but they damaged the landlord-tenant relationship. Cumulatively they amount to service failure.  The landlord is ordered to pay £100 in compensation in view of this. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where there was minor failure by the landlord, which may have caused the resident to lose confidence in the landlord.

Learning

21. The landlord should ensure that where it identifies failures in residents’ complaints it identifies clear measurable steps to put things right.
22. The landlord should ensure all relevant members of its staff are aware of its internal damp and mould processes so it can give clear advice to residents.