Clarion Housing Association Limited (202441915)

Decision
Case ID	202441915
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bed flat with their partner and 2 young children. She first reported damp and mould in the property on 7 December 2022 and this resulted in the landlord raising various inspections and works in the property. The resident raised the complaint when the issues were unresolved, seeking a resolution to the damp and mould, compensation and a move to another property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Request to move to another property.
   2. Reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to their request to move to another property is not within our jurisdiction to consider.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould and associated repairs

4. The landlord repeatedly failed to manage the resident’s damp and mould reports effectively, as it made inconsistent and poorly recorded survey findings, delayed raising and completing works, missed and failed to reschedule appointments. These failures caused significant delays to identifying and resolving the underlying issues, left the household exposed to damp and mould for an extended period, and required the resident to escalate the complaint to our investigation to obtain appropriate redress.

Request to move to another property

5. The resident has raised complaint issues which she did not escalate to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident escalated this aspect pf the complaint during the complaints process, and as such this has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord significantly delayed both complaint responses, failed to show that it had acknowledged the complaint and the escalation, and incorrectly told the resident she could only escalate in writing. Its apologies and compensation at the time did not reflect the extent of the failings. It only reviewed the case further and increased its offer after the matter came to us to investigate, which meant it failed to put things right during its complaint process and significantly delayed providing proportionate redress.

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 provided in writing by a senior officer. 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 17 March 2026
2	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required.  If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the property for any remaining damp and mould within the property and to complete a post-inspection on the associated repairs discussed in the complaint. The surveyor must produce a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 31 March 2026
3	Learning order The landlord must use the case review it completed in September 2025 and any other records to identify what actions it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failures this determination and its own review found. This might include changes to its policies, practices, staff training or record keeping. The landlord must set out these actions, along with a schedule showing when these will be implemented by.	No later than 31 March 2026
4	Specific action order The landlord must assess the works undertaken by the resident at her expense and determine if these works were its responsibility to undertake. If so, the landlord must provide its position in writing regarding the reimbursement of these costs. This may be via direct compensation or by referring matters to its insurer to consider.	No later than 17 March 2026
5	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £1,650 compensation it offered in its complaint responses and post-complaint case review. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in the complaint process, post-complaint case review and this determination. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from this figure any of the compensation that it has previously paid, provided it supplies evidence that it has done this.	No later than 17 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 July 2023	The resident complained that there was damp and mould in her property and insufficient action had been taken following an earlier surveyor visit in June 2023.
22 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and acknowledged delays in addressing the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the leaking boiler. It confirmed that inspections in early 2023 identified blocked radiators, a leaking rain butt affecting the bedroom walls, and a minor boiler leak contributing to odours in the kitchen. It noted that works progressed slowly due to an internal failure to complete a surveyor referral and poor communication. It said that it had carried out mould washes, removed damaged flooring, serviced the windows, overhauled the toilet, and treated affected areas throughout 2023, although some appointments were missed or repeatedly rescheduled. The landlord accepted that delays occurred across several repairs, including the boiler leak, damp and mould treatment, and the toilet and window works. It recognised that the resident had been left to chase for updates and that its communication fell below standard. The landlord provided information on moving home and insurance routes for damaged belongings. It offered £750 compensation to reflect delay, inconvenience, vulnerabilities, and repairs completed outside service standards.
24 October 2023	The resident escalated her complaint because several issues remained unresolved, including the removal of kitchen panels, missing kickboards, persistent mould and damp odours in the cupboards, and delays with delivering dehumidifiers. She also said she continued to have restricted access to the outside area, problems with the MVHR ventilation system, and repeated miscommunication and missed appointments. These ongoing problems affected both her and her daughter’s health, as they both had asthma.   The resident said her escalation had been delayed because the landlord had advised  she could only escalate her complaint in writing.
23 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and accepted that the resident had been wrongly told she could only escalate her complaint in writing and apologised for this error. It reviewed the outstanding repair issues and arranged appointments to inspect or complete works, including removing the kitchen panels, assessing the mould smell in the cupboards, checking the missing kickboards, and reviewing the MVHR concerns. It advised that the delayed dehumidifier delivery had occurred because the resident was not at home, though it apologised for any inconvenience and said it would remind staff to make contact before appointments.   The landlord concluded that its Stage 1 response had been correct and stated that no further compensation was warranted for the substantive issues. It acknowledged a delay in issuing the Stage 2 response and offered £50 in recognition of this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us on 17 January 2025 seeking an apology from the landlord, resolution of the damp, mould and repair issues, compensation and a move to a different property.
12 September 2025	The landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint “following contact from the Housing Ombudsman Service”. It found continuing concerns with unresolved damp and mould, poor record‑keeping, and “unacceptable” delays between January and June 2023. It recognised delays in raising works after the survey, “weak note‑taking” during contractor visits, and slow escalation of MVHR issues. It also accepted that the Stage 2 response should have awarded more compensation and that it should have led communication on the delayed kitchen flooring and kickboards.   After the initial complaint, the landlord identified that it had completed further works, including upgrading the heat recovery system in December 2024, replacing the bath in March 2025, and finishing window and kickboard repairs in April 2025. It offered £900 additional compensation for escalation errors, missed appointments, delays, communication failures, and poor contractor management. This brought the total compensation offered by the landlord to £1600.

 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 request to move to another property
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

7. We can only consider complaints which the landlord has had an opportunity to examine, make a finding and potentially provide redress. In this case, the resident raised this issue as part of her stage 1 complaint and the landlord provided some information about how to apply to move home. It also offered support with this process. There is no evidence that the resident raised a request to move property as part of her escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process and therefore this element of the complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process.

On this basis, this element of the complaint is not within our jurisdiction to consider. The resident may wish to consider escalating this element of her complaint to stage 2, or raising a new complaint about this issue, with the landlord.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

8. The first report of damp and mould in the resident’s property was on 7 December 2022. The resident told us that she had been reporting poor boiler pressure prior to this, which was later attributed to a leak on the boiler, causing water ingress into the kitchen and under the kitchen and hallway floor.
9. The landlord inspected the property on at least 3 occasions during the complaint process and at least 2 further occasions post-complaint procedure. It was positive to note that these were raised in response to continued concerns from the resident about reoccurring damp and mould, however some of the findings were incomplete or contradictory to the works raised. For example, one survey found no signs of damp and mould, but works were raised shortly after for a mould wash, additional fans and “multiple [leaks, condensation, damp and mould] works”. These inconsistencies and poor record keeping were a failure which attributed to the later delays in completing works.
10. The landlord raised various works to address the damp and mould. This included works to:
    1. Resolve damp behind the kitchen cupboards and underneath the kitchen flooring. This included removing kitchen panels, plinths and replacing the entire kitchen flooring once the concrete sub-floor had dried sufficiently.
    2. Remove damp from the walls in one of the bedrooms.
    3. Clear the side of the property where foliage was resting against the exterior wall.
    4. Service and calibrate the resident’s ventilation system (MVHR).
    5. Conduct mould treatments and apply anti-mould paint in various locations throughout the property.
    6. Fix leaking taps, toilet cisterns and the leaking boiler. The landlord later “confirmed the prolonged resolution to the boiler leak appears to have caused the damp issues to arise.”
    7. Overhaul all the windows in the property, including fitting new handles and restrictors.
11. Between the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses and its post-complaint case review, completed in September 2025, the landlord identified and does not dispute the following failures in this case:
    1. Being “unaware” of issues related to the kitchen plinth, despite this being raised by the resident.
    2. There were delays in raising works following its surveyor visit in June 2023.
    3. There was poor note taking following contractors’ attendances on 29 March 2023 and 16 August 2023. It said that this did not fully evidence the work completed at these appointments.
    4. It had delayed in seeking advice from its mechanical and electrical department, related to the resident’s MVHR system.
    5. There was no evidence of attempts to reschedule works that were due to take place on 18 June 2024, despite there only being one ‘no access’ appointment recorded.
    6. There was evidence of missed appointments by the landlord’s operatives and contractors. It said that this was compounded by communication failures and mitigated in part by several ‘no access’ appointments when the resident was not at home.
    7. There were significant delays in removing the kitchen panels and treating the wall behind. The landlord attributed this to incomplete notes and miscommunications.
    8. Noting it should not have closed the works order to deliver dehumidifiers to the resident after 2 ‘no access’ appointments on the same day.
    9. Both the toilet and window repairs being completed outside of its policy timescales. The landlord attributed this to poor notetaking.
    10. That it was unclear at the time this complaint was brought to us whether the damp and mould issues had been resolved.
12. These findings align with our investigation into this case which has found failings in the landlord’s communication, record keeping and works rescheduling, which all contributed to the overall delays and lack of oversight of the resident’s repairs and the resolution of the damp and mould. This left a household with 2 young children exposed to damp and mould for a protracted period, as there were significant delays to making a lasting and effective resolution to this issue.
13. Alongside this, the records indicate that the resident has undertaken several works themselves, and at their cost. This has included clearing the side of the property to manage the water ingress from the foliage and undertaking mould washes. The resident told us that the landlord expressed its gratitude regarding the works to clear the foliage but did not offer to reimburse the resident or assist with removing of the rubbish. This was a failing and also caused damage to the landlord and tenant relationship. The landlord must now assess these costs and provide its position on reimbursement in writing.
14. Within its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered £650 compensation for the delays and failures it had identified at this point. No further compensation was awarded at stage 2, despite further delays and issues being identified. This was a significant failure and missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.
15. Alongside the post-complaint case review, the landlord awarded a further £800 compensation for the substantive issues (and another £100 for complaint handling), bringing the total to £1,450. While this level of compensation was appropriate, and in line with what we would have ordered based on our Remedies Guidance, this relied on our intervention, and the landlord missed an opportunity to provide this at the earliest opportunity and during its complaint process. This caused the resident additional time and trouble in escalating the matter to us. It was appropriate that the landlord provided its insurance details in its stage 1 complaint response, to enable the resident to raise a claim for damaged possessions.
16. In September 2025, the landlord’s records indicated that damp and mould issues were still unresolved in the property. It wrote to us and said it was arranging a further surveyor visit to assess if all repairs were complete. This indicates that the landlord was not aware of the state of the property, the repairs or the damp and mould. This was a significant record keeping and process failure, given the length of time that this issue had been present in the property for.
17. Overall, the landlord has identified the causes of the delays in this case and has now offered appropriate compensation, alongside its apology to provide timely redress for this. It is acknowledged that this was significantly delayed and required our intervention to prompt the case review. It has not provided evidence that it has made a lasting and effective repair to these issues, or completed all of the scheduled repairs, at the time of this investigation. It has also not identified learning, process changes or additional staff training which might be needed to prevent a reoccurrence of the failures it has identified.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint
Finding	Service failure

18. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days and within 10 working days at stage 2. The policy says that residents should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
19.  The records show that the landlord:
    1. Issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 September 2023, which was 47 working days after receipt of the resident’s complaint.
    2. Issued its stage 2 compliant response on 23 May 2024, which was 147 working days after receipt of the resident’s escalation.
20. This means that the landlord’s responses were significantly delayed at both stages. The landlord has also not provided evidence of when it acknowledged the resident’s complaints and this is a record keeping failure. The Code expects landlords to issue timely complaint responses, to avoid the resident being delayed in escalating their complaints. The Code also requires landlords to agree extensions (of up to 10 working days) with residents and there is no evidence that the landlord did this.
21. Additionally, the resident said that she was delayed in being able to escalate her complaint as the landlord said it would only accept this in writing. The landlord later apologised for this in its stage 2 complaint response and said it had highlighted this to its advisors as learning. This stance is not in line with the requirements of the Code and it was appropriate that the landlord corrected this position and apologised for it.
22. The evidence shows that the landlord’s stage 2 recognised ongoing issues which should have been resolved at an earlier point. However, the landlord did not provide any additional redress for the further substantive issue failures. This was an unreasonable and dismissive response which caused the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing the repairs and needing the escalate the associated complaint to us to consider.
23. The landlord apologised for the delays in sending its complaint responses and offered £50 compensation at each stage. Given the length of delays at stage 2 in particular, this level of compensation was not in line with our Remedies Guidance, and a higher award should have been considered. The landlord reviewed the complaint again when it was referred to us and awarded the resident a further £100 compensation for poor complaint handling.
24. We accept that the new compensation offer is more appropriate in recognition of the landlord’s failings, and it represented an attempt to put things right. However, it offered this a considerable time after the complaints process was exhausted. Additionally, it was prompted by this Service’s intention to investigate the complaint. This outcome and redress should have been identified at the time of the complaints process to avoid causing additional time and trouble for the resident.

Learning

25. The landlord undertook a case review in September 2025, when the case was escalated to us for investigation. This was a detailed review, which identified several failings and this was positive to note. The review did not, however, identify actions needed to prevent a reoccurrence of these failures in future. We made a learning order to reflect this.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord has acknowledged that its record keeping was poor at several stages of this complaint. This included contractor works notes and contact notes, which meant the landlord did not have records of some issues, such as the missing plinth in the kitchen which the resident had reported.

Communication

27. The landlord has acknowledged that its communication was poor at points within the complaint. This was particularly prevalent around the organisation and rescheduling of appointments and in the timeliness of issuing its complaint responses.