Clarion Housing Association Limited (202428301)

Decision
Case ID	202428301
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 November 2025

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about the heating system at the property as he believed it was responsible for an increase in his heating bills. He also raised issues about damp and mould and how the landlord had responded to his concerns about an electrical report. The resident lives in a bungalow which is not connected to mains gas. He has vulnerabilities the landlord is aware of, and his children also stay in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs to the heating system.
   2. Handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
   3. Handling of reports of cracks in the wall.
   4. Response to concerns about electrical safety in the property.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the handling of the repairs to the heating system.
   2. Maladministration in the handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
   3. Service failure in the handling of reports of cracks in the wall.
   4. Service failure in the response to concerns about electrical safety in the property.
   5. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the heating system

5. It took the landlord 7 months to replace the broken heaters from when the issue was first reported. This delay was also over the winter period.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property

6. The landlord did not carry out a damp and mould survey of the property. It only took further action to treat the damp and mould following involvement from Environmental Health. It delayed treating the damp and mould for 7 months.

The landlord’s handling of reports of cracks in the wall

7. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports about cracks in the walls. As such it was not clear to the resident who was responsible for carrying out the repair. 

The landlord’s response to concerns about electrical safety in the property

8. The landlord did not fully respond to the resident’s concerns until asked to do so by us. It resolved the issue after its internal complaint procedure had finished.

The landlord’s complaint handling

9. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s complaint until we instructed it to do so.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,200 made up as follows: £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of the repairs to the heating system. £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of reports of damp and mould at the property. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of reports of cracks in the wall. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its response to concerns about electrical safety in the property. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This is in addition to the compensation it has already paid the resident in its complaint responses.	No later than 19 December 2025

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 December 2022	The landlord completed an electrical check – an Electrical Installation Condition Report was completed. No issues were recorded.
8 August 2023	The landlord carried out a mould treatment as it had a legacy report of damp and mould on its previous repairs system. It did not record what was treated.
8 November 2023	The resident reported to the landlord: There was damp and mould in the kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. There were cracks in the wall. The electric heaters were not heating the property properly and were causing his energy bills to increase. The boiler was not producing enough hot water.
13 November 2023	The landlord carried out a mould treatment. It did not record what areas of the property were treated.
23 November 2023	A surveyor visited the property but did not carry out an inspection. They made a referral for a heating upgrade and requested a damp and mould inspection.
November – December 2023	The landlord made 3 attempts to carry out a damp and mould survey.
14 January 2024	The landlord was contacted by Environmental Health. It informed the landlord that it had visited the resident, and his main concerns were about the heating and damp and mould in the property. Environmental Health asked the landlord if it was aware of these issues.
Between March and April 2024	14 March 2024 – the resident complained via the landlord’s surveyor about missed appointments. The heaters were inspected. It was considered that they were old and needed replacing. It found 2 broken heaters in the lounge and kitchen.
5 April 2024	The resident added further details to his complaint. Namely that: He had been told his electrics were dangerous. There were ongoing problems with the heating and boiler. His electricity bill had gone up.
23 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It could only find an electrical report from May 2014 and it showed no issues. It needed copies of the resident’s electricity bills to investigate the issue of running costs. An inspection of the heaters had happened at the start of May and they would be replaced. It could not identify any missed visits. However, as a goodwill gesture it offered a missed appointment compensation award of £15. It offered £50 for the delay in providing its stage 1 response.
30 May 2024	The landlord raised a work order for the replacement of the broken heaters.
6 June 2024	Environmental Health told the landlord it would be inspecting the property. In response, the landlord clarified that it was only replacing the 2 heaters which were not working. As the other heaters were working it would replace them as part of its planned works in 2026.
19 June 2024	The landlord replaced the broken heaters in the kitchen and lounge.
20 June 2024	The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. He said: The landlord had not replaced all the heaters or the hot water tank. He was struggling with the costs of his energy bills. He had to contact Environmental Health about the mould and cracks in the wall. The landlord subsequently confirmed it would look into the matter for the resident.
25 June 2025	The landlord received Environmental Health’s report on the property. It found category 1 hazards both in respect of damp and mould growth, and excess cold.
27 June 2024	The landlord raised a works order to treat the mould. This was carried out on 12 July.
25 July 2024	Environmental Health told the landlord it would expect all heaters at the property to be replaced before the winter. In response, the landlord raised an order on 2 August 2024 to replace the remaining heaters.
8 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It had only replaced the 2 broken heaters as the others were still working. It would only replace the remaining heaters if Environmental Health enforced it. It had not received any reports about cracks in the wall and the resident should report this if it was an issue. The mould treatments of 8 August and 13 November 2023 had not been carried out properly. It did not explain why. It offered £400 compensation for this. A mould treatment had been carried out on 12 July 2024, and the operative had reported no further work was needed. It offered £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
September – November 2024	The landlord replaced the remaining heaters on 25 September 2024. It carried out a joint inspection with Environmental Health in October 2024 and found further mould in the lounge and kitchen. It then carried out a further mould treatment and associated repairs.
1 November 2024	Electrical check for Electrical Installation Condition Report carried out. No issues recorded.
18 November 2024	As part of another complaint the landlord told the resident: It had replaced the other heaters in September 2024. It offered £50 compensation for this delay. It had not received any reports about cracks in the wall and the resident had told it he had now fixed these himself. It needed evidence of his energy bills to look into this. It could not look into the issue about the electrics has it had already been through its complaint procedure.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He told us the landlord had not responded to his concerns about the safety of the electrics, and he was unhappy how the landlord had handled the heating upgrade and mould in the property.

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the heating system.
Finding	Maladministration

10. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping the heating system in good working order. Its responsive repairs policy says non-emergency repairs will be completed in 28 days. If a repair typically falls under planned works, the landlord will decide whether to add the property to a future works programme. However, it will ensure the item stays safe and serviceable throughout this process.
11. The landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns about his energy bills was appropriate – and in keeping with our approach as set out in our Remedies guidance. It required information to assess whether there had been increased expenditure and if reimbursement was needed. It is unclear whether the resident has provided the landlord with any copies of his utility bills. If this is still something he is concerned about, he may wish to provide the landlord with copies of the relevant bills.
12. The landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns about his heating was not appropriate. It failed to fully inspect the heaters for 5 months. We have not seen any explanation for this delay. After it had carried out the inspection it found 2 broken heaters and replaced these 7 months after the resident had first reported the issue. Similarly, we have not seen any explanation for this delay or that the landlord was prevented from replacing the heaters sooner. It is noted that the resident was without a fully functioning heating system over the winter as a result.
13. The landlord’s approach to the resident’s concerns was not appropriate. It failed to fully inspect the heaters for 5 months, and the reason for the delay in unclear. As the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports, he felt compelled to contact Environmental Health for assistance. This was the cause of further inconvenience, which could reasonably have been avoided.  After being contacted by Environmental Health, it still took the landlord 4 months to inspect the heaters. This was not reasonable as the resident suffered further distress and inconvenience as he had to contact an outside agency to help get the issues resolved. It also shows the resident felt the landlord was not taking their concerns seriously.
14. The landlord caused further confusion to the resident as it initially agreed to replace all the heaters. It then said it would only replace the broken ones. As the landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement is to repair and maintain, it was not under any obligation to replace any heaters that were working. However, we have not seen that it explained this to the resident in a timely manner, and it only did so after replacing the 2 broken heaters. It therefore failed to manage his expectations.
15. We have noted that following further contact from Environmental Health the landlord did replace the remaining heaters in September 2024. This was appropriate given the instruction it was given. However, again we appreciate the confusion this chain of events must have caused the resident.
16. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his hot water cylinder (boiler) were poor. We have seen the resident raised the issue 5 times in 8 months. The landlord appropriately explained in its stage 2 response in August 2024 the hot water cylinder was working and would not be replaced until 2026 as part of its planned works. However, this did not resolve the resident’s queries about whether the hot water cylinder was the right size for the property. As a result, the resident referred his concerns to us and asked if we could direct the landlord to respond.
17. The landlord later confirmed that the hot water cylinder was suitable and fully functioning in its updated stage 2 response in March 2025. It said it would therefore not be replacing it. While it is noted that this would have been of disappointment to the resident, the landlord had appropriately considered his concerns and provided a response in accordance with its obligations. What was not reasonable, however, was that the landlord missed several opportunities to provide the resident with this reassurance. As a result, the resident felt like it did not take his concerns seriously.
18. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the heating system. It delayed in the replacing the broken heaters by not following up on its first visit. As a result, the replacement works took 7 months to complete and the resident was left without the necessary repairs over the winter months. The resident also felt the need to report his concerns to Environmental Health to help to resolve the issues at his property. The landlord caused further confusion and distress to the resident by first agreeing to replace all the heaters but then said it would only replace the broken heaters without explaining this fully to the resident.
19. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by these failings. This is in addition to the £50 it awarded in its complaint response of 18 November 2024 for the delay in replacing the heaters.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

20. In his complaint the resident said he had to contact Environmental Health about the mould in his property. In response the landlord said:
    1. The mould treatments of 8 August and 13 November 2023 had not been carried out properly but did not say why. It offered £400 compensation for this.
    2. In June 2024 at the request of Environmental Health a work order was raised to treat damp and mould.
    3. A mould treatment was carried out on 12 July 2024, and the operative had reported no further work was needed.
21. We have seen evidence that shows the landlord had a legacy case of damp and mould recorded at the property. This is what led to the mould treatments in April and November 2023. It was appropriate the landlord carried out treatments to the resident’s property at this time. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that the mould treatments were not completed to an acceptable standard and took steps to put the matter right. It offered the resident £400 compensation and arranged a further mould treatment in July 2024.
22. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection of the property. We appreciate it tried to do so in December 2024 but was unable to gain access to the property. As per our Spotlight report on Damp and mould, it was important to establish the cause of the mould and if any further works were needed to prevent it from returning. This is opposed to just treating the signs and symptoms of it. It was not reasonable that the landlord did not try to inspect the property again after December 2024.
23. In January 2024 Environmental Health told the landlord it had been contacted by the resident about the damp and mould. The landlord said it would rebook the damp and mould inspection again. We have not seen any evidence that it did this, this was a failing and a missed opportunity by the landlord to deal with the issue.
24. Later, in June 2024, Environmental Health informed the landlord it would be inspecting the property. Following this, it wrote to the landlord to confirm that the damp and mould in the property was a category 1 hazard and could be found in the lounge, kitchen and bedrooms. The landlord then carried out a mould wash to the various rooms in the property on 12 July 2024 in response to this. Its operative said no further treatment was needed.
25. The landlord did appropriately address the damp and mould treatments that were not carried out correctly in its stage 2 response. However, it was not reasonable it did not identify or explain the causes for the delay in treating the mould or lack of inspections. This meant the landlord missed an opportunity to review its handling of matters. It should reasonably have identified that it had failed to respond appropriately and that it only did so following the intervention of Environmental Health.
26. As such we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property. Given the landlord’s poor handling, and distress and inconvenience caused, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £500. This is in addition to the compensation it offered him during the complaints process.
27. We have noted Environmental Health carried out a further visit to the property with the landlord after the resident had received his stage 2 response. This found further damp and mould. The landlord treated the damp and mould and replaced the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. We have not assessed these actions as part of our investigation as they have not been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. However, we have highlighted them here to show the landlord’s progress on treating the damp and mould in the property albeit with guidance from Environmental Health. The resident has also told us the damp and mould issue has now been resolved in the property. Despite this, it remains unclear why the landlord did not carry out its own damp and mould survey of the property. Or why it took involvement from Environmental Health for the landlord to ensure that it responded appropriately to the reports of damp and mould.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of cracks in the wall.
Finding	Service failure

28. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property. Its “responsibility for repairs guidance” sets out that the resident is responsible for decorating and minor defects of imperfections in plaster.
29. The resident told the landlord there were cracks in the wall on 8 November 2023. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord inspected the cracks. We would expect the landlord to inspect the cracks to check whether they were a structural issue and to confirm who had the responsibility to repair them. It was not reasonable the landlord did not do this.
30. We have not seen any further reports to the landlord about the cracks in the wall until the resident escalated his complaint on 20 June 2024. The landlord said in its stage 2 response of 8 August 2024 said it had not received any reports about the cracks in the wall. It appropriately told the resident to report any repair issues in the usual way for it to respond to. However, it is not clear why the landlord did not identify that the resident had told previously told it about the cracks in the wall. This was not reasonable.
31. It was poor that the landlord did not follow up on the resident’s first report about the cracks. This meant that it was not established who was responsible for the repair. However, the resident did not raise the issue again until he complained, and therefore we consider the level of overall detriment was low. Nevertheless, given the landlord’s handling, we have found service failure. We have ordered it to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to concerns about electrical safety in the property.
Finding	Service failure

32. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 April 2024 that he had been told the electrics were dangerous. In the stage 1 response of 23 May 2024 the landlord said it could not find the electrical check the resident had mentioned. It said an electrical check was carried out in May 2014 and there were no reported issues from this. It was appropriate the landlord told the resident that it could find no reported issues about his electrics. However, the landlord relied upon an electrical report from 2014 for its response as this was the only electrical check it could find. This was not reasonable as this was 10 years old. This would not have reassured the resident the property was safe. The landlord missed an opportunity to look into the matter further to either find the appointment the resident had mentioned or arrange for an electrical safety check to be carried out. As it did not do this the resident remained concerned about the safety of his property.
33. The landlord did not make any further comment in its stage 2 response of 8 August 2024 as the resident had not requested this as part of his complaint escalation. However, the resident did raise the issue with the landlord again on 4 September 2024 as part of another complaint. It did not provide a response to this issue as it said it could not re-investigate an issue that had already been through its complaint procedure. This was not reasonable as the landlord did not identify that the issue had not exhausted the complaints procedure previously. This was a missed chance to deal with the issue and reassure the resident their property was safe.
34. The resident told us that he was not happy with the landlord’s response. We asked the landlord to look into the matter further, and it issued a follow up stage 2 response on 4 March 2025. It said it had not provided a response in its previous stage 2 as the resident had not raised it as an outstanding concern. It explained electrical checks had been carried out on 12 December 2022 and 1 November 2024 and these did not find any issues with the electrics at the property. It offered the resident £100 compensation for not responding to the resident’s escalation of this complaint issue in September 2024. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that it had failed to respond to the resident’s concerns, it is our view that this compensation offer was for its complaint handling and not for its failure in responding to the substantive issue.
35. As such we have found service failure. The landlord missed opportunities to engage with the resident and did not find out further information from him when the issue was first raised. This meant the resident continued to experience concern about the safety of his property. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order it to pay the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience this caused.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Service failure

36. The timescales in the landlord’s policy are compliant with our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord failed to comply with its complaints policy and the Code for the following reasons:
    1. It issued its stage 1 response 36 working days late.
    2. It acknowledged the resident’s escalation to stage 2 request 2 working days late.
    3. It issued its stage 2 response 9 working days late.
    4. It did not recognise a further escalation request for the resident’s concerns about his electrics on 4 September 2024. It only responded to this after we asked it to.
37. We are satisfied the landlord appropriately compensated the resident for these failings through its complaint responses. It apologised to the resident in both its stage 1 and 2 responses for the delay and offered £50 compensation each time. It also offered the resident £100 in its additional stage 2 response for the missed opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns about their electrics. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we are satisfied that this compensation was proportionate given the length of delay at each stage and the delay caused by the missed opportunity to respond to all the issues.
38. However, we have found service failure as the landlord did not fully respond to all the resident’s issues until involvement from us. As such we cannot find reasonable redress as it did not manage to resolve the complaint within its own complaint procedure.

Learning

39. Once Environmental Health were involved the landlord worked well with it to resolve the heating and damp and mould issues at the property.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord generally kept appropriate records although it did not always record what damp and mould treatments were carried out at the property.

Communication

41. Overall, the landlord’s communication was appropriate. It generally called the resident as well as sending him emails as per his reasonable adjustments.