Clarion Housing Association Limited (202346198)

Decision
Case ID	202346198
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 January 2026

Background

The resident reported a leak in May and again in June 2023. The landlord resolved the leak in July 2023. However, the resident raised concerns that the landlord failed to identify the leak in a timely manner which caused damp in mould in her flat. The resident also raised concern about how the landlord had responded to her historical reports of damp and mould within the property.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp and mould in the property.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp and mould in the property.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about how it had dealt with historical damp and mould was appropriate. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it appropriately investigated the resident’s reports of a leak in May and June 2023. The evidence suggests that some of the subsequent distress and inconvenience she was caused could have been avoided.
The landlord failed to acknowledge failings in its response to the resident’s reports when it investigated her complaint. As a result, it missed the opportunity to put things right. It also did not address all aspects of the complaint.

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 20 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in her home. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. 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 20 February 2026
3	Contact Order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss if she still has concerns that the damp and mould affected her son’s health. If she does, it should respond to her concerns. This may include referring her to its insurers.	No later than 20 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
April 2023	The resident reported a leak in her home. The landlord attended and noted that the leak came from a neighbouring flat (Flat A). Works were carried out to resolve the leak.
May 2023	Around 24 May 2023 the resident reported that there was a leak which was causing damp and mould in her flat. The landlord attended to treat the damp and mould.
June 2023	In a report at the beginning of June, the resident reiterated to the landlord that there was a leak. She explained that the floor by the boiler was “soaked” and water was coming up through the hallway flooring. The landlord raised an order to attend within 28 days. On or around 23 June 2023 the resident reported the leak was ongoing which was causing damp and mould in her flat.
July 2023	In early July the landlord attended and noted that there were no leaks emanating from within the resident’s property. On 11 July 2023 the landlord identified that the leak was coming from the heat interface unit (HIU) from the property above (Flat B). The water was isolated. The landlord carried out another mould treatment to the resident’s flat on 12 July 2023.
August 2023	The landlord and a loss adjustor inspected the resident’s flat. Remedial works were approved by the landlord’s insurers.
19 September 2023	The resident was moved into temporary accommodation so the landlord could carry out the remedial works. Some of her personal items and furniture were placed into storage.
25 September 2023	The resident made a complaint. She said that there had been a persistent damp and mould “problem” since she had moved in and had become worse at the beginning of the year. She explained that when she reported the leak in May 2023, the landlord did not investigate properly and only carried out a mould treatment. She had to “insist” that the landlord investigate further. When it did, it found leaks coming from the above flat and from her own boiler. Her and her families’ health was affected by living in damp and mould. She wanted to know: the cause of the two leaks and what works would be carried out to resolve the issues, with a timeframe. what action the landlord had taken to resolve her reports of damp and mould over the last 12 months and why a qualified surveyor had not investigated the issues. She asked the landlord for compensation.
October 2023	Remedial works were completed and the resident returned to her flat. When the removal company returned her belongings, the resident reported that some were damaged and others missing.
13 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: the April 2023 leak came from the above flat and was attended to within its 24-hour timescale. in early July 2023 its contractor attended the resident’s flat and noted that there were no leaks coming from her HIU at the time. it had completed the damp and mould treatments within its 28-day timescale. it was unable to provide the 12-month repairs history due to a cyber security incident that occurred in June 2022 as it no longer had access to the data. the resident should contact the removal company in relation to her damaged and missing items. It offered the resident £50 compensation for its delayed response.
20 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the matter had affected her mental health. She said the compensation was not enough due to the damp and mould that had affected her son’s health. She asked what works would be carried out to the property to prevent leaks from happening again. She explained that the landlord did not provide her with the removal company’s contact details in relation to her missing and damaged items.
8 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it had reviewed the resident’s repair history and could see that only one repair had been reported in relation to damp over the 10-year period which was in October 2020. Works were completed at that time. the April and July 2023 leaks came from neighbouring flats. The July 2023 was caused by a leak from a neighbour’s HIU unit which had been replaced. it had not identified any failings within the repairs works required to the resident’s home. The landlord also: outlined the works that were carried out, which included the replacement of flooring and skirting boards. offered the resident an additional £50 compensation for its delayed stage 2 response. provided its insurer details in relation to the resident’s concerns about her damaged and missing items. It explained that it should have done so within its stage 1 response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that she remains unhappy with the landlord’s response because it did not take timely action to her reports that there was a leak. She confirmed that at the time of our contact, works had been completed by the landlord.

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 leaks and associated damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repair records show that on 24 May 2023 the resident reported that there was a leak that had caused damp and mould. The landlord attended at the end of May 2023 to treat the damp and mould, which was reasonable. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that any steps were taken to investigate the source of the leak. The reason for this is unclear, but this was a failing.
The landlord’s repair logs show that in response to the resident’s June 2023 report, it raised a 28-calendar day routine order to investigate the issue. Given the resident’s description of the impact the leak was having in her flat at the time, the reason that it did not take steps to investigate the leak sooner is unclear.
It was not until early/mid-July 2023 that it attended and identified that the leak was coming from Flat B. Given the circumstances, that it took it approximately over a month to meaningfully investigate the issue is unreasonable. If it had done so sooner, the landlord may have mitigated the extent of the damage caused to the flat and the further distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the move to temporary accommodation. The landlord’s failure to investigate the source of the damp and mould and to establish where the leak was coming from sooner was the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident. We have therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.
The resident reported that that the 2023 leaks were causing damp and mould. As the source of the damp and mould affecting the areas in question was considered to be the leak, it was not unreasonable that further investigations were not undertaken. We are also satisfied that the landlord appropriately carried out damp and mould treatments to the affected area. It is also acknowledged that it completed the treatments within its policy timescales and within a reasonable period of time.
It is noted that over the months that followed, the landlord and the loss adjustor were taking steps to progress the remedial works. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident reported any further issues during this time. It is noted the resident was decanted in September 2023 and returned in October 2023, during that period remedial works were completed.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

At the time of the complaint, the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy due to a cyber incident. The policy extended its usual response timescales from 10 to 20 working days for stage 1 complaints and its response timescales for stage 2 complaints from 20 to 40 working days.
Taking the interim policy’s timescales into consideration, the stage 1 response was issued 14 working days late. The stage 2 response was issued in accordance with the timescales. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint. Given the length of them, this was reasonable and inline with our Remedies Guidance.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord provided a reasonable summary of the remedial works that it had carried out and explained that the neighbour’s HIU was replaced which was the cause of the leak.
It also responded to the resident’s concerns about historical damp and mould in her flat. It explained that its record showed that it had received one report of damp and mould which was in 2020 which it addressed at the time. There is no evidence that the resident had disputed its account. As such, we are satisfied that its explanation appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns around these issues. It is unclear whether the resident had concerns about damp and mould in other areas of the property at the time of her complaint. If this is something the resident is concerned about, she may wish to report the matter to the landlord so that it can investigate accordingly.
However, the landlord failed to identify from its repair records that the resident reported that there was a leak in May 2023 and respond to her concern about the matter in its responses. This suggests a Knowledge and Information Management issue. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to address this through its complaints process and therefore did not offer any remedy to put things right.
While it is noted that the landlord reasonably explained that it had treated the mould and damp within its timescales, it would have been appropriate to acknowledge and address the resident’s specific concern that the damp and mould impacted her son’s health. That it did not was unreasonable and her concerns went unaddressed.
Given the failings identified, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it was unable to access the resident’s repair history due to a cyber incident. It also said that the resident should contact the removal company in relation to her damaged and missing items. However, in its stage 2 response it explained that it had reviewed the resident’s 10-year repair history and that the resident should contact its insurers for her damaged and missing items. It is acknowledged that the landlord put matters right in its final response. However, the landlord may wish to ensure complaint handling staff are able to signpost resident correctly.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

We have not identified specific issues with the landlord’s communication in this investigation. However, as stated above, the evidence suggests that the landlord’s poor record keeping contributed to some of the failings identified. This may have affected its communication with the resident, in particular in some of its complaint responses. Therefore, the landlord may wish to carry out a review into the matter.