Clarion Housing Association Limited (202530773)
|
Decision |
|
|---|---|
|
Case ID |
202530773 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Clarion Housing Association Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
27 February 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 2-bedroom open-plan property with her 2 young children. She reported mould in her kitchen to the landlord and raised her concerns about the impact this could have on her medically vulnerable baby. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home.
- We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
We have found that:
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home.
- There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- There were delays and periods of inaction which caused further detriment to the resident. The landlord was aware of vulnerabilities in the household and did not progress the repairs in a timely manner. It appropriately acknowledged many of its failings and provided the resident with a proportionate level of redress to put things right. However, this happened after the resolution of the complaint, which was not appropriate.
- The landlord’s responses were delayed at both stages of the complaints process, which was a departure from our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) and its policy. It provided an apology, compensation and an explanation for this, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
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 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £750 it offered to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of damp and mould. 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 27 March 2026 |
|
2 |
Reimbursement order The landlord should review its records and, if it has not already done so, provide reimbursement to the resident for the period it supplied a dehumidifier in the property from November 2025 onwards. It must write to the resident with its position on the reimbursement and provide a copy of its response to us by the due date. |
No later than 27 March 2026
|
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|---|
|
The landlord should pay the resident £50 for its complaint handling failures, if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this is paid. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|---|---|
|
29 August 2024 |
The resident first reported damp and mould in her kitchen to the landlord. |
|
17 December 2024 |
The resident raised a complaint. She was unhappy that despite several appointments, the mould in her kitchen remained. She was also concerned about the impact the damp and mould may have been having on her children’s health. In order to resolve the complaint, she asked for the kitchen drawers and units to be replaced and compensation for personal items damaged by the mould. |
|
14 January 2025 |
The landlord issued its complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding and provided a list of all the reports and subsequent actions undertaken in relation to the damp and mould. It advised that:
The landlord offered £300 compensation, broken down as:
|
|
30 July 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She was unhappy that the kitchen unit replacement had not been completed. She was also frustrated mould washes had not taken place because the landlord could not access the mould behind the existing units. She said the mould was now affecting 90% of the units and the items stored in them. The resident again expressed her concerns regarding her children’s health, particularly her baby who was medically vulnerable. |
|
29 August 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that the extractor fans had been replaced in January 2025 as agreed, but this had not resolved the issue, which it had now found was due to a structural problem at the property and not condensation. It advised that invasive works would need to be completed to resolve the issue and the resident’s family would be moved temporarily to accommodate this. It also accepted that the stage 1 complaint investigation was not as full as it would have liked and apologised for this. It offered a further £150 compensation for inconvenience, time and trouble, vulnerabilities, and repeated visits. |
|
14 January 2026 |
Following intervention from us, the landlord reviewed the case and provided an updated complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the incorrect diagnosis of condensation at the property when the issue was lateral water ingress. It also recognised there had been poor communication and delays in repairs due to a lack of ownership. In recognition of these failures it offered a further £350 compensation. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred this case to us because she was frustrated by what she felt was a lack of action from the landlord. She said she was also concerned about her children’s health. When we spoke with the resident in February 2026, she advised that the landlord had now agreed a managed move to another property. The resident told she was now largely satisfied with the outcome. However, she said she would like us to review the landlord’s overall response to her reports. |
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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on her health and that of her children. Where we identify failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
What we did investigate
- The resident first reported damp and mould in her property in August 2024. The landlord raised an order the same day for a damp and mould specialist to investigate as it suspected a leak was causing the damp. It was positive the landlord acted promptly and in line with its damp and mould policy, which states it will attempt to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould, not just the symptoms.
- Following this initial visit, the landlord was unable to locate the cause of the damp and mould, and several appointments were scheduled between September and December 2024. In November 2024 an operative advised that they believed the issue stemmed from penetrating damp and not a leak. They recommended that a surveyor attend.
- Upon attendance, the surveyor advised that the kitchen extractor fan should be replaced. They said this would eradicate the moisture in the property and resolve the damp. It is unclear if the previous concern about penetrating damp was investigated in this appointment. We have seen no evidence that it was. The landlord later confirmed that penetrating damp was the cause, so it is disappointing that it did not explore this earlier when it had already been raised as a likely explanation. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to diagnose and rectify the issue at the earliest opportunity and minimise the impact on the resident.
- In January 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that her baby had been in intensive care over the Christmas period. She said that this was the second time in 2 months and she was concerned about the affect the damp and mould could be having on her baby’s health. The property had an open-plan kitchen living area. Although damp and mould was reported in the kitchen, this was effectively the family’s only living space, meaning the resident could not reduce the time spent in this room to alleviate her concerns. As the resident was regularly reporting concerns regarding her children’s welfare and the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities and living conditions, it would have been appropriate to expedite matters. The landlord did not respond with an appropriate level of urgency or care.
- There was a lack of urgency throughout the case. On 17 January 2025, it was identified that a surveyor appointment was needed for further investigations at the property. This was booked for 1 April 2025. A period of almost 3 months was an unnecessary delay and we have seen no evidence this was unavoidable. Given the vulnerabilities in the property, it is unclear why the landlord did not prioritise this appointment.
- While assessments were ongoing to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould, the landlord arranged for 3 mould washes at the property. From the evidence provided, 2 of these mould washes went ahead – the first in November 2024 and the second in September 2025. The landlord had issues accessing the affected areas as the kitchen units were in position. Though we acknowledge the difficulties this posed, the landlord had been put on notice of the damp and mould and was aware that the resident had a medically vulnerable baby in the property. While we recognise the landlord was attempting to diagnose the issue and this took some time, it did not act appropriately or do all that was reasonably possible to remove the immediate risk while further investigations were ongoing.
- The landlord offered dehumidifiers to the resident in November 2025 as a short-term measure to reduce the moisture in the property. This was some 14 months after an operative had attended the property and confirmed excess moisture. It is unclear why the landlord did not offer this sooner in light of the vulnerabilities and open-plan living described above. We have also seen no evidence that the landlord provided any reimbursement for the running costs of the dehumidifiers. We have made an order for it to review this.
- In the complaint responses, the landlord recognised some of its failings in relation to delays and failure to follow policy. It also accepted that its communication had been poor and there had been a lack of progression of works. It offered a total of £400 compensation. Due to the length of time the landlord had been on notice for the repairs, its failures in policy, and the circumstances within the household, the offer of compensation did not adequately address the detriment to the resident.
- Following notice that we were investigating the case, the landlord undertook a further review of the issues in January 2026. It identified and acknowledged further failings associated with misdiagnosis of repairs and communication. It offered a further £350 compensation to the resident.
- The stage 2 complaint response advised that a temporary move would be needed while works were undertaken. The resident has since informed us that a decision was made to authorise a managed move rather than a temporary move due to the vulnerabilities and circumstances within the household. The resident has now signed a new tenancy agreement, and the landlord has paid for the resident’s removals and offered an additional £800 for carpets in the new property.
- We are satisfied that the actions taken by the landlord to move the resident to a new property and assist with the costs of this move, in addition to the total amount of £750 in compensation, put the resident back to the position she would have been in had the maladministration not occurred. However, because a large proportion of the actions to put things right for the resident occurred after the complaints process, we have been unable to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s actions. We have ordered no further compensation.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord took 18 working days and 23 working days respectively to respond to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. This was not in keeping with its complaint policy or the Code, which require it to issue responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Given these were short delays and we have seen no evidence they had a detrimental impact on the resident, the apologies provided within the responses were appropriate.
- In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised that the total compensation figure of £300 included compensation for the complaint response delay. Given the absence of a breakdown, it is unclear what factors the landlord took into consideration when making its offer and how much the offer was for. The landlord’s compensation policy does not provide guideline amounts for complaint handling failures. This has made it difficult to determine if the landlord provided appropriate redress. Based on our remedies guidance, we have assumed the compensation for the delay in complaint handling to be £50, which we consider would be appropriate.
- Our role is to assess landlords’ handling of complaints through their internal complaint procedures. It is positive that the landlord reviewed the complaint in January 2026 after the stage 2 response and felt an increased offer of compensation was appropriate. However, the offer was not made until some 5 months after the time of the landlord’s final response. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right during its complaints process and missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation.
- We have already considered this late review within the substantive issue, so we have not penalised the landlord again for the same failing. However, the landlord may wish to review how it monitors complex complaints with long‑term commitments to prevent similar delays in future.
Learning
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s record keeping was good. It provided us with sufficiently detailed records relating to its various surveys and appointments at the property as well as copies of relevant emails and notes of phone calls with the resident. This enabled us to carry out a thorough investigation.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication was poor, and it acknowledged this in its complaint responses. It may wish to review our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights. This highlights the importance of empathy and use of tone to support positive communication with its residents. This approach was not evident in its communication with the resident in this case.
- The landlord may wish to review how it sets out its compensation offers to residents. Providing a full breakdown of all the issues it is offering redress for ensures transparency for the resident. This means it can assess its own performance and also provide independent organisations, such as the Ombudsman, with contemporaneous evidence in the event of a dispute.