Clarion Housing Association Limited (202444624)

Background

1. The resident reported several repairs throughout her home to the landlord in December 2024. These included a roof leak, damp and mould, a hole in the wall and an issue with her back door. Major works were identified, and the landlord offered to move the resident to a more suitable property while the repairs were carried out. The resident later moved out of the property in October 2025, and some of the repairs remained outstanding at this time. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She is also concerned that the landlord did not inform her of the outcome of its investigation into the possible use of flammable materials within the walls of the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property including, a roof leak, damp and mould, the windows, the back door, and a hole in the wall.
3. We have also considered the associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property including, a roof leak, damp and mould, the windows, the back door, and a hole in the wall.
5. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not complete all the repairs it had committed to by the time the resident moved out of the property, and it did not investigate whether the property contained flammable materials. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for these failings and have awarded additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience these issues likely caused the resident.
7. The landlord has acknowledged that there were errors in its handling of the associated complaint. It has apologised and offered the resident proportionate compensation for this.

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.

Our investigation

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.

8. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. The resident reported a hole in the wall on 30 January 2025. The landlord repaired the hole on 13 March 2025, which was only a few days outside its routine repair timeframe. It is unclear why the policy timescales could not be adhered to, but we have seen no evidence that the resident was caused significant impact as a result.
9. In her complaint of 5 February 2025, the resident said the operatives sent to repair her guttering did not carry out the work because they told her they were not trained to work on roofs. The landlord’s repair records show that the work was not completed until 20 May 2025, nearly 5 months after the resident’s complaint. We have not seen evidence that explains why the landlord could not complete the guttering repair within 28 days. The delay caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience, particularly as the landlord had identified that the guttering issue was the cause of a leak at the property.
10. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had identified possible flammable material in the walls of the resident’s property. It said it would need to carry out further investigations to assess any potential risk and to determine what steps it should take. The resident has provided evidence showing that she contacted the landlord on 15 August 2025 to request an update, but it did not provide one.
11. We asked the landlord to confirm whether it had carried out these investigations and, if so, what steps it had taken in response to any identified risks. We also asked it to provide any relevant fire safety policies and procedures. The landlord did not provide this information. This was a significant failing. We expect landlords to follow through on the commitments they set out in their complaint responses. If there were reasons why it decided not to proceed with further investigations, we would expect to see evidence of this and for the landlord to inform the resident.
12. The landlord should have carried out the further investigations it said it would undertake and should have updated the resident to reassure her either that there was no risk or, if it had identified a potential risk, what steps it would take to manage it. Its failure to do so caused the resident considerable worry and distress, as she was left without information about whether the property was safe for her and her family.
13. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an asbestos survey before confirming what repairs it would carry out to address the issues the resident had raised in her complaint. The landlord acknowledged that, although the survey found no asbestos in the property, there were delays to the survey being carried out. This led to the resident having to chase the landlord on several occasions for updates on what steps it would take to resolve the issues she had reported.
14. The resident first reported issues with her back door on 30 January 2025. The landlord arranged an appointment to take measurements on 13 March 2025. External doors can take up to 12 weeks to replace, as they often need to be manufactured to size. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to order the door on at least 2 occasions and missed several appointments to install it. This was a shortcoming, particularly as the resident had told the landlord that the door was difficult to open at times and presented a potential fire risk. The door was due to be installed on 29 July 2025. However, the landlord’s repair records do not clearly confirm whether the installation took place on that date. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the delay and for the distress and inconvenience this likely caused the resident.
15. The resident told the landlord in her complaint that all the rooms in her house were affected by black mould. She said the property had poor ventilation because the windows did not have trickle vents. The landlord found that, because the property had a timber‑frame construction, there was little it could do to improve the heating system. It told the resident it had identified that major works were required and offered her permanent alternative accommodation. It advised that it could take up to 6 months to find a suitable property. This was a reasonable course of action given the extent of work required to resolve the issues at the property.
16. It is accepted that the landlord carried out mould washes. However, it could have considered what further interim action it could take to manage the damp and mould while the resident waited to be rehoused. This could have included offering temporary heaters or taking steps to prevent water‑pooling in the hallway. The absence of such measures meant the resident continued to experience the impact of damp and mould while she remained in the property.
17. The resident complained to the landlord that there was damage to her belongings caused by the damp and mould in her property. The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident she could submit a liability claim to its insurance department. Matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process and the landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature. Similarly, we cannot determine liability as this is best suited to a court or an insurer who can seek expert opinion, if needed, on the issue of causation.
18. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would carry out repairs to the resident’s flat roof and bathroom, and that it would renew the side door opener. It said it would complete these works 1 day a week over a 4‑week period, starting on 11 August 2025, as requested by the resident to minimise disruption. It is positive that the landlord worked with the resident to accommodate her preferences when scheduling the works. However, on 11 August 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to report that no one had attended. The landlord’s failure to start the works on the agreed date likely caused her considerable frustration, as well as time, trouble and inconvenience.
19. The repair records the landlord has provided to us in this case are inadequate. We have not been able to ascertain what dates the landlord completed the works to the bathroom, the work to the back door, the work to the roof, nor when it renewed the side door opener. The resident said that the landlord had not carried out any works to the flat roof and had not renewed the opener on the side door, prior to her moving out of the property in October 2025.
20. The resident told the landlord she was self-employed and had lost income through having to take time for repair appointments. We acknowledge that the resident had to take time off work to attend repair appointments. However, we will not generally propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents. However, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed. It would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, the Ombudsman can consider time, trouble and inconvenience caused where repair appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue. We have taken this into account when considering whether the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate.
21. The resident told us that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Her concerns have been noted. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
22. The landlord acknowledged that there were errors in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. It offered £930 compensation to reflect the lengthy delays in progressing the repairs and the distress and inconvenience this likely caused the resident. While this was reasonable, as we have identified additional failings, we have made orders above for the landlord to put right the additional distress and inconvenience. We have decided on an appropriate remedy taking into account our Guidance on Remedies and our Compensation Guidance.
23. The resident has raised further issues since her complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. She told us that due to the property not retaining heat, her gas and electricity bills were expensive. She also said the landlord did not reimburse her for the costs of moving or for decorating her new property. As the landlord has not had reasonable opportunity to investigate these concerns, they have not formed part of our investigation. However, the resident may wish to raise this as a new complaint with the landlord if she remains unhappy.

24. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must have a 2 stage complaints process. They should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlords need more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2.
25. The resident complained to the landlord on 30 January 2025 and 5 February 2025. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 February 2025. It was appropriate that the landlord informed the resident at the outset that, due to the complexity of the issues, it would need 20 working days to respond.
26. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 March 2025. The landlord responded on 29 July 2025. This was nearly 4 months outside of our timescales for responding to stage 2 complaints. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation for this delay.
27. The landlord has acted appropriately in apologising for the delays in it responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint and in offering her £300 compensation for this. Our compensation guidance states that where we identify maladministration, we may award £100-£600 compensation. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what we would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is appropriate redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

28. The landlord may want to consider reviewing its processes and/or carrying out staff training to ensure that it follows through on commitments to carry out investigations relating to flammable materials in properties; to satisfy itself it has complied with its obligations relating to fire safety and to avoid causing worry and distress to residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord may want to review its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in our spotlight report.

Communication

30. The landlord has acknowledged that its communication in this case was poor. It has said that it failed to call back the resident on occasions or had called her outside of the times it said it would. The landlord may wish to consider reviewing its processes to ensure that it responds to resident call backs when it says it will.