Clarion Housing Association Limited (202513680)

Background

1. The resident complained about delays in resolving a leak that caused damp, mould, and damage in his home, as well as a persistently blocked bathroom sink. He asked the landlord to produce an action plan to address these issues. Throughout the complaint period, his representative also contacted the landlord, and for the purposes of this report both are referred to as “the resident.”

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports of a blocked sink.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a blocked sink.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks, damp and mould

4. The landlord did not consider all its failures in relation to its handling of the issues and did not put things right for the resident or show learning from the outcomes. Its failure to consistently apply its damp and mould policy likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the blocked sink

5. The landlord showed it responded to reports in line with its repairs policy. However, the overall time taken to resolve the issues was not appropriate and did not indicate a proactive approach. The landlord’s compensation offer appropriately acknowledged the impact caused to the resident over the prolonged period.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in providing its stage 1 response and offered proportionate compensation. Although it failed to acknowledge the resident’s earlier formal complaint which likely contributed to the overall delays in resolving the matters.

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.

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’s repair policy says it will attend an emergency repair in 24 hours and it should complete works to make safe or temporarily repair at that visit. The policy says it should complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
8. The landlord’s leaks, damp, and mould policy at the time stated that it would resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner and in line with its repairs policy. It stated that where it identified particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issues, it would undertake a comprehensive risk assessment to support the resident. Actions may include providing and funding dehumidifiers, installing ventilation systems, or applying mould resistant coverings, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis.
9. The resident raised concerns to us that the damp and mould impacted his health. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for the resident. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. On 3 September 2024, the resident reported water leaking through his kitchen light from the flat above. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended the same day. It recorded that the leak was not near electrics, so there was no need to make them safe. As it could not access the neighbour’s property, it left a note asking them to make contact. It raised follow‑on works to trace the leak and treat mould in the resident’s home. These initial actions met the requirements of the landlord’s emergency repairs policy.
11. The records show the landlord attended the neighbour’s property again on 13 September 2024 but there was no access. It said it attended the resident’s property on 19 September 2024 to determine the works required for the damp and mould but there was no access then. On 27 September 2024 the landlord noted it had attempted to access the neighbour’s property again but there was no answer. It said the leak was causing really bad damage to the resident’s property but that it needed to find the source of the leak before it could complete the remedial repairs.
12. Although resolving the leak was essential for a long‑term resolution, there is no evidence the landlord considered interim measures to reduce risks or limit the internal damage. Its initial response was reasonable but given it later noted “really bad damage”, it should have shown consideration as to whether the property remained habitable.
13. The resident raised a complaint on 17 October 2024 about delays in resolving the leak. He said his flat was uninhabitable, raised concerns about electrics and mould, and said he was vulnerable and unsupported. By this point, he had been living with the leak for over a month.
14. The landlord treated the mould on 25 October 2024, which was reasonable in the circumstances. On 28 October 2024 it asked the resident for more information and photos to assess further works. However, there is no evidence it considered the vulnerability reported or took steps to gather further information regarding his vulnerability to guide its actions.
15. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it gained access to the neighbour’s property on 30 October 2024 and fixed the leak. This was almost 2 months after the resident’s first report.
16. It is evident the landlord visited the neighbour’s property 3 times and the lack of access would understandably delay the repairs. However, aside from the initial calling card, it provided no evidence of further communication with the neighbour. It is unclear whether the neighbour was aware of appointments made or was informed of their access obligations. Given the urgency and damage caused, the landlord should have demonstrated more robust action.
17. In an email dated 21 November 2024, the resident explained that his bath panel was rotten, there was no ventilation in his bathroom, his flooring was ruined, and the walls and ceilings needed mould treatment, replastering, and decorating. He said the situation was depressing. The landlord completed an inspection on 3 December 2024. The landlord’s records state it replaced the bath panel on 24 December 2024, as well as fitted new worktops, kitchen cupboards, and “rubbed the wall down”. It was positive the landlord completed some of the remedial repairs but it was unclear what action it was taking in relation to the remaining damp and mould, ceiling, wall and floor issues.
18. In his second formal complaint dated 6 January 2025, the resident said appointments were scheduled for 4 and 5 December 2024 to address the damp and mould, and to plaster his bathroom and kitchen, but no-one attended. He said the issues were ongoing. He said he had eczema which he believed was caused by the mould, was coughing constantly and had irritation in his eyes. He reiterated there was a lack of ventilation in his bathroom. He said he had to buy a dehumidifier and repeated the damage caused to his belongings.
19. The stage 1 response did not address the missed appointments or lack of action taken regarding the damp and mould. It said it carried out a mould treatment in the kitchen on 23 December 2024, however, its records from the time say the wall was “rubbed down”. The landlord has not satisfactorily evidenced that it took appropriate action regarding the reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord said its area manager found no need for additional ventilation because the leak caused the damp. It is unclear how they reached that conclusion, especially as a later survey identified ventilation repairs required in the property. It is a failing that it did not carry out further mould treatment until 3 March 2025.
20. The stage 2 response correctly explained the process for damages and insurance and confirmed outstanding repairs. Although it did not specify which repairs remained and what steps it would take to resolve them. It said delays were due to lack of access, but it did not address its own missed appointments or the resulting impact on progress.
21. The landlord offered compensation in his stage 2 response of £150 but it did not provide a breakdown of how it attributed it between the complaint regarding damp and mould and the blocked sink. It said it was for “repairs”. Where a landlord fails to provide a breakdown, the Ombudsman is able to attribute compensation however it finds appropriate. In this case, we chose to consider the £150 was proportionate for the failings associated with the blocked sink, which we will discuss later in the report. As such, we do not consider the landlord offered sufficient redress for the identified damp and mould failures.
22. The landlord inspected the property a month after the stage 2 response and identified numerous repairs required in the property. This included water damaged doors, ventilation repairs, replacing the flooring in the kitchen, and plastering. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the time it took to complete the identified repairs from this survey. The landlord offered £450 compensation in January 2026 to reflect the ongoing issues and time taken to resolve them, which was appropriate.
23. We have ordered an additional £300 to fully recognise the delays at stage 2 caused by the landlord’s lack of action and missed appointments, as well as its failure to assess the risks to the resident while the leak continued. The landlord has not evidenced it consistently followed its damp and mould policy or took reasonable steps to mitigate the situation, such as provide dehumidifiers or additional ventilation. The amount aligns with our remedies guidance for failings which the landlord did not acknowledge or put right.
24. The landlord recently inspected the resident’s property following reports of a further leak in the bathroom and new damage, including damp and mould. It has provided an action plan with timescales to complete the identified repairs. It is unclear whether some of these issues relate to the original leak, the second leak, or both. However, as this occurred after the stage 2 response, they fall outside this investigation. The resident may wish to raise a new complaint with his landlord if he remains dissatisfied.

25. The landlord’s records show the resident first reported a blocked sink on 17 August 2023. Appointments on 31 August, 5 September, and 22 September 2023 were all recorded as “no access”, and therefore, the landlord cancelled the repairs in line with its policy. Up to this point, the landlord acted reasonably and within its non-emergency repair timescales.
26. The landlord’s complaint responses aimed to provide an overview of the steps taken. However, it did not acknowledge that a repair was reported on 6 October 2023, with attendance on 20 October 2023. The notes from the visit said, “unblock basin, still running slow, went down as far as I could.” It is unclear whether the sink was fully unblocked on that visit or whether further investigation would have been appropriate at this stage.
27. The resident reported further issues in December 2023 and February 2024, and the landlord has evidenced that it attended to those reports within the timescales outlined in its policy for non-emergency repairs. There are no further reports from the resident recorded until his October 2024 complaint. The resident said the sink was constantly blocked and could not be properly unblocked by the landlord’s contractors as it lacked a “U‑bend”. The landlord responded the next day requesting more information and offering to send a plumber. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reviewed the previous repairs, the issue with the U-bend, and considered whether it required a specialist drainage contractor. This would have been a more proactive approach and likely to have reduced the time spent waiting for a repair.
28. The landlord inspected the property on 3 December 2024 and installed a new sink on 23 December 2024.The resident reported a blockage again on 27 December 2024. The landlord said it subcontracted the work to its external drainage contractor who cleared the blockages on 6 January 2025. But in his formal complaint dated the same day, the resident said the contractor had been in touch and was in the process of booking in the works. The information provided by both parties was conflicting. Upon reviewing the records, it is evident the landlord responded to reports in line with its policy. However, it is difficult to determine what action was takenfor each job, and some jobs were marked as completed even when they had not been.
29. In its stage 2 response and following the further reports, the landlord said that its operative was unable to clear the blockage on 17 February 2025 and passed it to the drainage contractor as an emergency. It referred to further no access by the resident. While the stage 2 response on 22 April 2024 suggested the issue was outstanding, it appears the issue was fully resolvedby the drainage contractoron 28 February 2025 as there were no further reports from the resident after this appointment.
30. Although initial access issues from the resident would have contributed to delays, where there are repeated reports of the same issue, we would expect to see evidence of a more proactive, resolution focused approach. The resident had explained on more than 1 occasion that the repair could not be fully resolved due to the sink lacking a U‑bend. It would have been reasonable to see the landlord give more consideration towards this when raising the repairs.
31. The compensation offered in the stage 2 response was not sufficiently broken down between the complaints considered, therefore we consider the £150 was towards the failures associated with the sink. The reasons provided by the landlord for the compensation acknowledged repeat visits to resolve the issue, the resident having to chase, as well as the resident’s vulnerabilities and inconvenience caused. The amount was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.

32. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will aim to respond at stage 1 within 10 days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. These timescales and the landlord’s definition of a complaint is in line with our Code.
33. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It provided its stage 1 response 21 working days later which was not in line with its policy or our Code. The landlord acknowledged this in its response and offered £50 compensation in recognition of its failing, which was appropriate.
34. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation within 5 working days which was reasonable. It provided its stage 2 response 11 working days later which was appropriate and in line with its complaint handling obligations.
35. In reviewing the evidence in this case, we have seen that the resident raised a prior formal complaint on 17 October 2024. The resident made it clear he was making a complaint, along with the reasons why. It is a failing that the landlord did not acknowledge this communication as a complaint or provide a stage 1 response, this was not in line with its policy or our Code. In not doing so, this unreasonably delayed the resident in reaching a resolution to his complaint and bringing it to us for investigation. The landlord has not acknowledged this service failing and therefore it has not put things right.
36. Our order of an additional £100 compensation is in line with our remedies for failures which were not acknowledged and no attempt has been made to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The poor record keeping in this case likely contributed to the delays in this matter, as it was not always clear what happened and when. This raises further concerns about the accuracy of its records and in turn its decision making through reliance on these records. The number of repeated visits, and varied findings supports this. The landlord should reflect on its record keeping and lack of oversight of the repairs in this case.

Communication

38. It is evident in this case that much of the onus was on the resident to keep chasing the landlord and re-raising the same issues to see any progression. As stated, the landlord should ensure it has oversight of outstanding repairs. In this case and given the number of repairs required, it may have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered appointing a resident liaison officer to manage the communication with the resident.