Clarion Housing Association Limited (202429364)

Decision
Case ID	202429364
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	22 December 2025

Background

The resident is immunocompromised. He reported damp and mould in his home. He subsequently asked the landlord to find alternative mould treatment as he considered the treatment it previously used was having a negative impact on his health. He also reported repairs to the external path, drains and pests in the loft. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the above matters.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
1. resident’s reported damp and mould in his property.
2. pest proofing, drains and path repairs.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his home.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the pest proofing, drain and path repairs.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it proactively sourced and obtained the alternative mould treatment in a timely manner.
The landlord acknowledged its delays in resolving the drain and pest proofing repairs and offered fair compensation during its complaint process. However, it failed to reasonably investigate the resident’s reported path repairs in a timely manner. While the landlord took steps to try to put things right after the complaints process ended, the resident has advised that repairs remain outstanding.
The landlord’s compensation offer did not go far enough to put matters right for its delayed stage 1 response. It also did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the warning letter that it had issued him.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his home. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the pest proofing, drain and path repairs. £200 for its complaint handling failings. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 January 2026
3	Action order The landlord must: contact the resident to ascertain whether he has any outstanding concerns about his reported repairs. In doing so, it should consider whether further compensation is warranted. pay the resident the compensation it offered during its complaints process and within its review if it has not done so already. carry out a review of its May 2025 warning letter and provide a response to the resident’s concerns. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of the above by the due date.	No later than 19 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should provide us with an update on its recent mould treatment and property inspection. If further works are required, it should carry them out within a reasonable timeframe.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
October – November 2024	The resident reported that the damp and mould in his home went unresolved. The landlord carried out inspections and identified follow up remedial works. The landlord’s contractor investigated the resident’s concerns about pests in the loft. The landlord told the resident that once it obtained the contractor’s report it would progress the relevant repairs.
December 2024	On 2 December the landlord started a mould treatment in the resident’s home but did not finish it. It cancelled the follow up appointment on 20 December as its operative was unwell. On 22 December the resident asked the landlord for the product information for the mould treatment as he was concerned that the treatment was affecting his health. The start of reports about the drains around this time is unclear. However, both parties discussed the resident’s reported drain repairs. The landlord told the resident that the covers were difficult to source.
January 2025	The landlord told the resident the mould treatment was safe to use. The resident acknowledged its response and explained that he was still concerned about the product as he was immunocompromised. He cancelled the 10 January appointment for the mould treatment and asked the landlord to look for an alternative product to use, which the landlord agreed to do. He also informed the landlord that the drain repair remained outstanding. The contractor’s report identified that a hole in the roof should be sealed to prevent any further pest access.
February 2025	In early February the landlord told the resident that it was still looking into finding a chemical free mould treatment.
23 – 31 March 2025	The resident made a complaint. He said that there was ongoing damp and mould in his home that the landlord failed to resolve. He had “rejected” further visits from the landlord as he was concerned about harm the mould treatment product may have had on his health. He also explained that the pest issue had not been resolved. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 March 2025.
April 2025	The landlord attended to the drain repairs. It also placed a trap for the pests.
May 2025	The landlord told the resident that it had obtained the new mould treatment and provided the product information. It then booked in an appointment to carry out the treatment. The resident cancelled the appointment; he explained at the time that the situation was causing him stress and exacerbating his ADHD and autism. The landlord attended to measure the drains again to ensure its previous measurements were correct. The resident told the landlord that he had reported that the external path was cracked many times in person, but it had not resolved the issue. The landlord carried out works to temporarily seal the hole in the roof. The landlord issued the resident with a warning letter about non-access for repairs.
4 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it delayed attending to the damp and mould due to “operative sickness” and offered the resident £150 for the inconvenience caused as well as £30 for the missed appointments. It asked the resident to contact it so it could carry out the mould treatment with the new product. it would carry out proofing works to the roof on 6 June 2025 and offered the resident £350 for the delay in resolving the issue. there had been delays in resolving the drain repairs. It offered the resident £200 compensation. It noted that the resident had cancelled the appointment scheduled for 2 June 2025 to install the drain covers. It asked him to rearrange the appointment. the path was repaired on 4 February 2025. it had issued the resident with a tenancy breach warning letter for the missed appointments.
4-6 June 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He reiterated his concerns that the repairs were unresolved. He added: the path at the back of his home which was cracked and lifted went unresolved. He disputed the warning letter. He said he had cancelled the appointments because he considered the previous treatment was harmful to his health and that the landlord told him that it would call him to discuss the new product with him before it made an appointment, but it did not. fence repairs had not been completed. the compensation award was not adequate.
4 July 2025	The landlord issued it stage 2 response. It said: it had provided the resident with the new product information for the mould treatment. It asked the resident to book in the mould treatment. it had carried out works to the path on 4 February 2025 and fencing on 14 April 2025, but it would inspect the repairs on 9 July 2025. it had carried out repairs to the roof on 6 June 2025. it would install the drain covers on 15 July 2025. it should have assigned a liaison officer to support with the resident sooner and offered £250 compensation. the compensation offered in its stage 1 response was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us. He said the repairs remained outstanding, and the landlord did not respond to his concerns about the warning letter.

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 resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

The December 2024 partial/ non-attendances for the mould treatment meant that the landlord delayed treating the mould for approximately a month as it had to reschedule the treatment to go ahead on 10 January 2025. It was positive the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused. Its total compensation offer of £180 was reasonable, proportionate, and in line with our Remedies Guidance for such a failing. It is noted that the resident cancelled the 10 January 2025 mould treatment due to his concerns about the impact the treatment may have on his health.
It is also acknowledged that the landlord offered a temporary decant while it carried out the mould treatment in January 2025. This demonstrated a proactive attitude towards resolving the mould. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and his concerns that the product would cause him harm, it was appropriate that it agreed to find an alternative product to use. The landlord also told the resident that it could take some time to find the product. This was an appropriate step in managing his expectations.
The landlord updated the resident on 5 February 2025, it explained that it was still looking for an alternative product. However, there is no evidence that it reasonably continued to update him over the following month. Given the circumstances, we would expect the landlord to do so, even if it had not yet sourced the new product at the time. Such updates would have demonstrated to the resident that it was still monitoring and progressing the matter.
The landlord’s notes suggest that it updated the resident about the alternative treatment around 2 April 2025. However, we do not have a contemporaneous record of this. We also do not have evidence to show that the landlord took reasonable steps to proactively look for the alternative mould treatment. It is noted that it may have been challenging to source a chemical free mould treatment. Nonetheless, given that it took the landlord approximately 3 months to source and obtain the new product, we would expect to see an audit trail to show what steps it had taken to do so during that time.
Without this, we have been unable to determine that the delays were unavoidable and outside of the landlord’s control. Given this, and that the resident was continuing to live with damp and mould conditions during this time, we have found service failure.
The landlord appropriately provided the resident with the new product information at the beginning on 6 May 2025 and booked the appointment for the treatment to go ahead on 13 May. It is noted that the resident cancelled the appointment and stated that the matter was causing him stress and exacerbated his autism and ADHD.
The evidence shows that over the months that followed, the landlord reasonably encouraged the resident to rearrange the appointment for the treatment to go ahead. The evidence shows that the treatment was completed in August 2025.
In early December 2025, the resident told us that the damp and mould had returned. Following our contact with the landlord about the issue, it arranged to carry out a mould treatment and inspect the property which was appropriate with the resident. Therefore, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide us an update on the matter.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the pest proofing, drains and path repairs
Finding	Service failure

The landlord took over 6 months to carry out the pest proofing and drain repairs. These were significant delays which caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings and offered the resident £550 in total in its final response for these delays. Taking into consideration the length of delays and the impact they had on the resident, the amount was proportionate and in line with our Remedies Guidance. We have not identified failings beyond those which were acknowledged by the landlord, and as such, we consider that it took reasonable steps to put things right in relation to these repairs.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it had repaired the path on 4 February 2025. Given that the resident had notified it that the cracked path had not been resolved in May 2025, it would have been reasonable for it to have carried out an inspection to ensure the issue was resolved as it had considered. It did not, and this was a missed opportunity to ensure that no repairs were required.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to have arranged for a further inspection in its final response, its failure to do so earlier was unreasonable. In particular as the landlord’s record show that works were carried out to the path in August 2025. The delay may have been avoided if it had meaningfully looked into the matter within its stage 1 investigation.
Following our notification to the landlord that the resident’s complaint had been referred to us for investigation, it reviewed this case. It offered the resident an additional £350 compensation for the delays in resolving the path, drain and pest proofing repairs. This was reasonable.
However, landlord’s review in relation to its handling of the resident’s reported path repairs is vague. It is unclear whether it reasonably identified its failings as we have done so in this investigation. Furthermore, we would expect such findings to be found during the final response or within a review without our intervention. The resident has also advised us that the repair remains outstanding. Therefore we cannot be satisfied that a lasting repair has been carried out. A series of orders have therefore been made aimed at putting matters right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 31 March 2025. However, it did not progress the complaint nor provide a response in a timely manner. The resident was left to chase the landlord as a result and sought assistance from us. This was the cause of inconvenience which could reasonably have been avoided.
Following our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 June 2025. That was approximately 3 months after the resident had made a complaint, which was significantly passed its stage 1 response timescale of 10 working days.
It is noted that the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its delayed response. It explained that the delay was due to the time it had taken to gain responses from the business areas. It also acknowledged that there were significant delays in responding to the resident’s stage 1 response in its July final response due to internal communication issues.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this, it failed to acknowledge that there was a failure to keep the resident updated. It also failed to agree extensions with him. If it had done so it may have mitigated some of the distress and inconvenience caused. As it did not, the compensation offer did not go far enough to put matters right.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concern that he did not “accept” its May 2025 warning letter in his escalated complaint. This was inappropriate. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord should have carried out a review of its warning letter to ensure that it was appropriately issued and provided a response to the resident. That it did not was meant the resident’s concerns went unanswered. That was a complaint handling failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication

The evidence suggests that the landlord’s poor record keeping and internal and external communication practices contributed to its failings in this case. Therefore, the landlord may wish to carry out a review into the matter.