Clarion Housing Association Limited (202319637)

Decision
Case ID	202319637
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 February 2026

Background

1. The reported issues in her property, including cold coming through the walls, damp and mould and pests within the loft area from August 2023 onward. She raised various complaints about the issues. The property was part of a regeneration programme, and the resident has since moved to a new property.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp, mould, and excess cold.
   2. Concerns about pest in the property.
   3. Complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of damp, mould, and excess cold.
   2. Service failure in its handling of pests in the property.
   3. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp, mould and excess cold

4. The landlord repeatedly delayed inspections and repairs, including fitting the door, carrying out, and completing the mould wash, and inspecting the windows within a reasonable timeframe. It also missed several appointments and showed no evidence of learning from the multiple complaints raised.

Pests in the property

5. The landlord attended to treat the pests, but its failure to carry out the remedial works within its policy timeframe caused the issues to recur for the resident.

Complaint Handling

6. The landlord did not respond to the complaints in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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 found in this report. The landlord must ensure: A senior member of staff provides the apology. The apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 March 2026
	Compensation Order The landlord must pay £1,300 to the resident, made up of the following: £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the damp, mould, and excess cold. This is inclusive of the £845 previously offered for the failings in its handling of the damp and mould. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the pest issues. £200 for the failures found in its complaint handling, inclusive of the £150 previously offered. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 26 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 December 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about the condition of her property, including damp and mould, cold, mice and rats. She asked for all outstanding repairs to be raised as complaints and asked for all communication to be via email moving forward.
26 January 2024	The resident raised a further complaint about the delays to replace her back door.
15 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. The key points were as follows: In relation to the door, it had first raised a repair in August 2023 which its operative attended to at the end of August 2023. At that appointment, the operative was unaware it had already agreed to replace the door. It attended in December 2023 but with a wooden door. It then attended in February 2024 to replace the door with a UPVC one. It apologised for the delay. With regards to the mould, it raised a works order in October 2023, but when its operative attended, the resident had said she was awaiting a joint visit with the area manager and surveyor. It attended in November 2023, but the resident told the operative she had no mould. It attended in January 2024 to complete a mould wash. It apologised for the delays and accepted it should have completed the mould wash at the first visit. With regards to the pests, its contractor had completed a 3 part treatment which it concluded in January 2024. A repair was needed to seal a hole, but it had not completed this until the end of January 2024. It apologised for the delay. It offered compensation of £445, made up of the following:           £150 for the delay in resolving the damp and mould.           £150 for the delay in replacing the door.           £45 for 3 missed appointments.           £100 for the delayed stage 1.
15 March 2024	The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said she had never told anyone she did not have mould in the property. In relation to the backdoor, she said the surveyor had agreed to a UPVC door. It then cancelled an appointment to fit the door. She had then seen an operative climb onto her balcony to take measurements, and she asked to raise a complaint about that. She said there was 1 hold still needed to be to be filled in relation to the pest issue.
03 May 2024	The resident raised a further formal complaint via this Service about the windows and doors, cold walls, the overall delays in completing the remedial works and other issues not part of this investigation.
14 May 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. The key points were as follows: It explained the residents block was under a regeneration programme that was on hold but due in 2025. With regards to the doors and outstanding repairs, it had logged a stage 2 response for those as it had dealt with them under a different stage 1 complaint. It had raised a works order for the windows in August 2023; it had attended in August but had found no evidence that it had inspected the windows or raised follow on works. It apologised for this. It offered £200 compensation for not resolving the window issues and £50 towards the right to repair.
17 May 2024	The resident requested to escalate her complaint. She said staff were dishonest and had trespassed on her property which caused anxiety. She also asked for a response in relation to the heating allowance.
23 May 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response, which it said was in response to the complaint issued on 15 March 2024. It made the following key points: It apologised for the miscommunication about the mould and could see it had attended since to complete the treatment. It apologised for the confusion in relation to the door and for the delays in resolving the issue. It completed an internal investigation into the issues raised about its staff entering the balcony and accepted it was unacceptable. It had completed the works in relation to the pest control. It offered £350 compensation, made up of the following:           £100 for the inconvenience with the door.           £50 for the balcony issue.           £50 for removal of the washing line.           £100 for the delays in installing the door.           £50 for the delayed stage 2.
24 July 2024	The landlord provided a further stage 2 response in relation to the stage 1 response issued on 15 March 2024. It confirmed it had previously dealt with the trespassing issue under another complaint. In relation to help with heating costs, it explained the trial it had hoped would help residents while awaiting completion of the regeneration project, had been cancelled. It confirmed it would write to all residents to inform them of this.
11 December 2024	The resident referred the complaint to us for investigation. She asked for compensation for the distress and inconvenience. The resident confirmed, in February 2026, that she had since moved from the property following the regeneration project.

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	Damp, mould and excess cold
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not looked at

7. The resident told us the repairs, pests, damp, and mould had an impact on her mental and physical health. 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 to decide 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 the distress and inconvenience.

What we have looked at

8. The landlord has a repairs policy which sets out that it will attend to routine, non-emergency repairs, within 28 days. It will manage reports of condensation, leaks, and mould in line with its leak, condensation, damp, and mould (LCDM) policy alongside its repairs policy. Its LCDM policy sets out it will diagnose the cause of damp and mould and aims to deliver a solution based service. It will investigate the issue and inform residents of the residents. It will recommend effective solutions and provide details of the remedial works needed with estimated timescales to complete the works.
9. On 30 June 2023, the resident reported that her property was freezing cold, mould had built up and it took 3 days for the property to heat to a comfortable level. The landlord did not raise an inspection until 1 August 2023. While this was within its policy timeframe, it did then not attend until 25 August 2023, 40 working days after the resident had reported the issues and outside of its 28 day timeframe.
10. Within that timeframe, the landlord cancelled several appointments. The evidence is not clear on the reasons why. However, its failure to attend to inspect the issue within its policy timeframe was not appropriate. The landlord needs to ensure it takes a proactive approach to reports of damp and mould. Not doing so caused delays in resolving the issue for the resident.
11. Following the inspection on 25 August 2023, the evidence shows that a new back door was requested to help with the temperature in the property, mould was found in the property, and the resident had raised concerns about the windows due to the cold.
12. The landlord attended to complete the mould wash on 25 October 2023; however, the evidence suggests the resident declined this appointment due to awaiting a visit from the area manager and surveyor. Given the reported mould, it would have been useful for the landlord to have explained the importance of completing the mould wash on that date and explained that it would not have prevented the visit from the area manager.
13. The landlord appropriately re raised to complete the mould wash. While it noted that it had attended on 10 November 2023 when the resident said there was no mould present. The resident disputed that anyone did attend on that date. The landlord repeated this in its stage 1 response on 15 March 2023, highlighting a lack of effective record keeping, but apologised for the error in the stage 2 response on 23 May 2024.
14. This error caused a delay in the damp and mould being resolved. The landlord raised a works order for the mould wash following further communication from the resident on 9 December 2023 and it attended on 4 January 2024. This was 5 months after the issue had first been raised and outside of the timeframes set out in its policy.
15. On 25 August 2023, the landlord identified that the resident needed a new back door to help with the cold in the property. The landlord appropriately raised this; however, it did not fit the door until 10 February 2024. During that time, there were several missed appointments. The landlord also attended with the wrong door type causing further delays in ordering and fitting the door. We understand doors can take some time to make. However, it was not appropriate that the resident had to wait 6 months for new door. During that time, she had several missed appointments when she had waited in for a contractor, and she continued to live with cold penetrating the flat.
16. It is also important to note that during the period when the resident was awaiting the door, an operative attended and using a ladder entered the resident’s balcony, without her prior knowledge, to measure the door. This is completely inappropriate and caused significant distress to the resident. However, the landlord appropriately investigated the issue, apologised and offered £50 compensation for the distress caused following the incident.
17. When the operatives attended to replace the back door, they removed the residents washing line. While this was unfortunate, the landlord attended following this to replace the washing line. Furthermore, it apologised and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
18. The resident also raised concerns about the condition the workmen left the property in following the works. The landlord evidenced that it undertook learning from this and communicated to its operatives the importance of using dust sheets where appropriate. It also apologised and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
19. During the appointment in August 2023, the resident had asked the landlord to replace the windows in the property due the ongoing cold. However, despite attending to inspect the coldness in the property, the landlord did not inspect the windows and therefore no follow on works were arranged. This is not appropriate. The landlord needs to ensure it takes a proactive approach to all reports of issues within a property, particularly where issues with windows and cold are raised.
20. The landlord did not raise an inspection until its stage 1 response in May 2024. It did not attend until 13 June 2024, almost a year after the resident raised the issue. While it attended on 13 June 2024 to inspect the issue, it is not clear from the evidence what the outcome of this inspection was or if it attended to complete remedial works following that. Furthermore, it is important to note that the resident continued to chase the landlord about the windows in August and September 2024 which suggests that the landlord did not resolve the issues within a reasonable timeframe following the complaint.
21. While it apologised and offered £200 compensation for the delay in inspecting the windows, that it did not then show that it took any further action to resolve the issue within a reasonable timeframe after the complaint means it did not put things right for the resident.
22. While we understand that the resident was expected to move once the regeneration project was completed, this delay did not relieve the landlord of its responsibility to inspect the property or carry out necessary works. A landlord must still address issues promptly, even if a property is due to become vacant. In this case, the landlord’s failure to inspect the reported problems demonstrated a disregard for the resident’s concerns and its duty of care.
23. The resident raised concerns about heating costs due to the ongoing issues within the property and delays to the landlord’s regeneration project. The landlord showed that it had informed residents it would explore options to help with heating expenses while they waited to move to new properties. However, these plans did not materialise. While the landlord cannot be held responsible for third‑party cost‑of‑living initiatives falling through, it has not shown evidence that it signposted the resident to any support agencies that might have been able to offer financial assistance.
24. The landlord delayed on multiple occasions to inspect and repair the issues faced by the resident. She had to raise multiple complaints for the landlord to take action and spent a significant amount of time chasing the landlord for repairs. There were multiple missed appointments, and landlord evidenced a lack of effective repairs system. While it apologised and offered compensation, its repeated failures suggested that it did not learn from each complaint. Therefore, we have found maladministration in its handling of the issues reported by the resident.

Complaint	Pest control
Finding	Service failure

25. The landlord’s pest control policy sets out that it will fulfil any legal responsibilities it has or responsibilities it holds under the tenancy agreement. It will aim to eradicate any infestations and pests in its owned or managed communal areas.
26. The resident had been reporting issues with pests in the loft for some time prior to the complaint. After reporting rats in the loft on 15 October 2023, the landlord arranged for its contractor to attend to complete the necessary treatment, this was in line with its policy.
27. It is important to note that the pest contractor found the issue to be caused by squirrels. The resident disputes this. However, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors to determine what the cause of the infestation is.
28. The evidence shows that the contractor attended 3 times following the report to complete treatment works at which time it also recommended further works to seal holes in the roof to stop the pests from entering. While it filled 1 of the holes and a vent installed on 31 January 2024, it did not complete all the follow on works at the time. The evidence shows the resident had to chase the landlord about this following the first stage 1 complaint in March 2024.
29. The contractor then attended on 25 March 2024 to complete further treatment works. It also raised further works to seal the ingress points. However, the evidence suggests it did not complete this work until 4 June 2024. 7 months after the holes were initially found and 3 months after the resident told the landlord that it had not completed all the works. The landlord needs to ensure it has an effective system in place to track and monitor all repairs to ensure it completes these within the published timescales. Not doing so caused the resident to live with pests in the roof for an extended period.
30. The contractor notes from 25 March 2024 also recommend a drone survey of the roof, however, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it took any further action in relation to this recommendation.
31. While the landlord attended to complete the treatment works needed, it delayed in completing the remedial works which ultimately caused the issues to keep recurring, during which time it left the resident living with pests in the loft area.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

32. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
33. The resident raised a formal complaint on 12 December 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 24 January 2023, 18 days outside of the timeframe in the Code to acknowledge a complaint.
34. The landlord did not respond until 15 March 2024, 27 working days after the response was due. During that time, we cannot see that the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that there would be a delay. However, in its response it apologised and offered £100 compensation to reflect the delay.
35. The resident requested to escalate that complaint to stage 2 on the same date, which the landlord acknowledged on 18 March 2024. It did not provide its response until 23 May 2024, 26 working days outside of its published timeframes. However, it apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused.
36. Following a further complaint made via this service on 3 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 May 2024. This was in line with its policy and the Code.
37. The resident escalated that complaint on 17 May 2024, and the landlord acknowledged this request, in line with the Code, on 18 May 2024. It responded at stage 2 to this complaint on 24 July 2024, 26 working days outside of the timeframe in its policy. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its response.
38. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord responded at times using the wrong complaint reference. While it did respond to all the complaints raised, this caused confusion both when the complaint was brought to us and through this investigation. The landlord needs to ensure it has an effective and robust system to track complaints, particularly where multiple complaints are raised at similar times.
39. Overall, the landlord delayed in responding multiple times throughout the complaint process. While it apologised and offered compensation, the multiple delays suggest that it did not take on any learning to improve its complaint process.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. While the landlord showed that it kept extensive records in this case, its repair logs were at times unclear. It was not always clear which repair related to which therefore making it hard to determine if it had adhered to its published repair timescales. It needs to ensure that it has an effective system in place to accurately and clearly record all repairs.

Communication

41. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. Where multiple works orders exist, it should ensure it communicates effectively with residents, so it is clear which repair a communication relates to. It was clear that this caused confusion for the resident throughout the duration of the repairs. It also needs to ensure that, where there are delays in completing repairs, it has regular communication with residents to help manage expectations.