Clarion Housing Association Limited (202424276)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424276

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 July 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation, following a leak.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 6 February 1995. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but in her formal complaint the resident said that herself, her husband, and her son all had health conditions.
The resident reported a leak in her property on 6 February 2024. The leak had occurred from the roof of the building which the landlord did not own. Following an emergency move to a hotel, the landlord moved the resident into a to temporary accommodation on 22 February 2024. This was a 3-bedroom empty property.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 June 2024; the key points were as follows:
1. She moved into the temporary accommodation, and it was in need of repair, dirty and damp. The property had an acidic odour to it which she could not get rid of, and there was damp by the front door and evidence of mould in the kitchen.
2. The front door did not lock properly, and the back door was not secure with a hinge not in place. There were gaps around the back door which meant slugs and snails entered the property.
3. The landlord laid new carpet but had incorrectly installed the grips which had caused cuts to a family member.
4. The heating did not work correctly.
5. There was blood, faeces, and mucus on the walls in the bathroom and toilet and the shower had no water pressure.
6. The electrics tripped constantly which was worrying due to her husband’s CPAP machine which needed a constant supply of electricity through night.
7. The resident reported men knocking on the door, the neighbours playing loud music and smoking drugs which made them feel unsafe.
8. The property was smaller than her main property, so the furniture did not fit, and she had paid for storage for the excess items. She had also paid for mail direction twice.
9. As a resolution the resident asked for a face–to–face meeting with the landlord and for it to complete the works on her main property as the landlord had said she would be able to return in July, yet it had completed no work.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 August 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property in June 2024 it had attended, in line with its policy, to complete a mould wash and replaced parts of the kitchen cupboards.
2. The resident had reported issues with the front and back door in both February and April and on each occasion, it had attended within its policy timescales and repaired the issues.
3. It apologised that it had not cleaned the house prior to her moving in and accepted this was a service failure.
4. It had raised repairs for the carpet grips, the back door gap, and the water pressure. It confirmed it would attend on 2 August 2024 and apologised that was outside of its service level agreement.
5. It confirmed when the resident reported the issue with the storage heaters in April, it attended and fixed the issue within 24 hours.
6. It confirmed it had raised a work order for an operative to attend and investigate the electrics on 5 August 2024 and apologised that was outside of its service level agreement.
7. With regards to the noise nuisance reports, it confirmed the resident had not reported the issue to it previously and she would need to report this via the correct channels. It gave advice around contacting the local authority for emergency housing if she felt unsafe.
8. With regards to the temporary accommodation scheduled, it confirmed the temporary accommodation would not end in July as there was a delay in the freeholder of the building completing works. It said the best option was for the resident to accept a permanent temporary accommodation and its housing team would contact the resident to discuss.
9. It offered compensation of £350, made up of £50 for the delayed stage 1 response, £100 for the house cleanliness issue, £100 for the time taken to resolve the carpets, back door, and toilet and £100 for its lack of consideration of vulnerabilities with regards to the electrics.
The resident escalated the complaint on 6 August 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. There was still damp and mould in the property.
2. The back door remained damaged, and she had bought her own safety hardware for the front door as she did not feel safe.
3. She had reported ASB to the temporary accommodation officer prior to the complaint.
4. She had reported an active gas leak which she had asked the landlord to add to the complaint at stage 1. She had bought her own gas detector following which she contacted the gas company. The resident said she could have died.
5. With regards to the decant, the landlord had assured her during check-in calls that she would be moved back to her home in July and so assumed things were on schedule.
The landlord provided its final response on 5 September 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. With regards to the damp and mould it had attended the properly on 22 August 2024 and it detailed the follow on works it had raised.
2. The resident had told the landlord in July she had installed safety hardware on the door, following which the landlord had asked her to provide receipts so it could consider reimbursing the costs.
3. It accepted that while it had been unable to find the resident’s reports of ASB prior to her complaint, it should have raised an ASB case at the time of the stage 1 complaint.
4. With regards to the gas leak, it was unable to find any evidence in relation to this issue.
5. With regards to the decant, it confirmed it had awarded compensation on 1 August 2024 in relation to the delay. Its surveyor had discussed housing options with her, and they were looking into properties for the resident.
6. It understood and acknowledged the impact on the resident and accepted the resident’s case was difficult as it was not the owner of the building and therefore not managing the works.
7. It awarded a further £200 compensation: £100 for missing the gas leak at stage 1 and £100 for not raising an ASB case following stage 1.
In referring the complaint to us, the resident said she wanted to return to her original property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s formal complaint, she raised issues about the condition of the temporary property, including the house cleanliness, issues with the electric, carpet, water pressure and the lack of internet. These issues did not exhaust the complaint procedure so we cannot investigate them.
In her complaint to the landlord the resident explained that the temporary accommodation affected her and her family’s health and mental wellbeing. Personal injury claims are more appropriate for a court because they can obtain independent medical evidence. The resident has the choice to seek legal advice if she wishes.
There are four parts to the resident’s complaint about the temporary accommodation, specifically:
1. The condition of the accommodation when the resident initially moved into it
2. How the landlord responded to the reports of damp and mould
3. The length of time the resident has remained in the temporary accommodation
4. How the landlord handled the reports of ASB at the temporary accommodation
Whilst we have considered these issues under different headings, they are part of the landlord’s overall handling of the temporary accommodation.

The condition of the temporary accommodation

When the resident moved into the property on 22 February 2024, she reported that the lock to the front door was not working, and the back door had fallen off the hinge. She also reported a loss of heating, electrics, and hot water. The landlord appropriately attended the same date to repair the issues raised. This was in line with its repairs policy for emergency repairs and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord appropriately raised the required follow on works for the lock and hinges which it attended to complete on 4 March 2024. Again, this was in line with its repairs policy which says it would attend routine repairs within 28 days.
The resident reported an issue again with the doors on 4 April 2024 and the landlord attended on 18 April 2024 to complete further works. This was in line with its repairs policy and showed a commitment by the landlord to resolve the issues for the resident.
On the same date, the resident also reported an issue with her storage heaters which meant she had no heating in the property. The landlord attended the property as an emergency repair on the same date and fixed the issue. The swift action was in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and was reasonable in the circumstances.
In the escalation request, the resident said the door was in fact still damaged and she had to buy her own safety hardware for the door. The landlord said it had told the resident in July 2024 that it would reimburse the cost of the items bought. While it was reasonable of the landlord to make this offer, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it did offer this in July which indicates a record keeping issue. However, it appropriately asked the resident to provide the receipts again in its complaint response.
The resident also said that the landlord would not replace the door as it was an empty property when it was offered to the resident. We have not seen evidence to show the landlord said this. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clarified whether it would replace the door or not.
The resident first reported a persistent acidic odour in the property to the landlord on 28 March 2024. Smells can result from a variety of different sources and can be a statutory nuisance. Landlords may be required to investigate such reports to identify the source of a smell and whether it was responsible for resolving the issue. As the accommodation was temporary for the resident and needed to be fit for human habitation from when the resident took up occupation, it should have considered the resident’s report. At the very least, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have discussed the smell with the resident in the first instance. Not doing so caused the resident to raise the issue as a formal complaint.
Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it took any action following the resident reporting the issue again in the formal complaint. This would have been a further opportunity for it have explored the smell and may have potentially identified it as a gas leak. The landlord’s further lack of action led the resident to buy her own Co2 detectors.
The resident reported a gas leak to the landlord on 11 July 2024 and confirmed she had called the relevant authority to address it. Although she reported this, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it took any action to confirm the contractor had resolved the leak or if it needed to complete further work. While the property itself had no active gas supply, the landlord still had a duty of care to its residents; therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to either inspect the property itself or coordinate with the contractor to ensure it had resolved the leak in the property, and therefore the resident and her family, were safe.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it could find no evidence of an active gas leak. Given that it has provided evidence to us to confirm the resident made it aware of the leak on 11 July 2024, the landlords response was not appropriate and highlights a lack of an effective investigation into the issue.
Furthermore, the resident asked to add this issue to her formal complaint at stage 1, which the landlord did not do. However, it did appropriately acknowledge this failing in its stage 2 response and offered £100 compensation to recognise that it had missed it at stage 1.
While it was appropriate of the landlord to offer the compensation and apologise for not addressing the issue at stage 1, not responding to the resident’s reports of a gas leak is of concern given the possible safety implications and its offer is not enough to avoid an adverse finding in this case.
Overall, while the landlord attended to complete the repair to the door in line with its policy, its handling of the gas leak fell below the standard expected by us. Its lack of action at each stage of the issue shows a complete disregard to the resident’s safety within her home.

The damp and mould in the temporary accommodation property

On 28 March 2024, the resident reported damp and mould. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it took any action in relation to the issue. This inaction was unacceptable. When residents report damp and mould, landlords must contact them to understand the extent of the issue and the risk and arrange any necessary repairs within a reasonable time. Not acting at all was unreasonable.
Furthermore, its lack of response was not in line with its leak, condensation, damp, and mould policy which says that depending on the severity of the situation it would either attend within 14 or 28 days to inspect the property. Landlord’s need to ensure they take a proactive approach to reports of damp and mould to resolve the situation at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord’s lack of action caused the resident to report the issue again on 24 April 2024. Following this, the landlord appropriately raised a work order for it to attend to investigate issue, in line with its published timescales, within 28 days.
However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it attended to complete any inspection or works. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy which says it would complete an inspection to identify the cause of the issue and that such cases would be specifically tracked and managed. The landlord’s lack of action was a further missed opportunity for it to resolve the situation.
Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it considered if the resident needed any temporary solutions or guidance in the meantime to help alleviate and manage the damp and mould.
The lack of action caused the resident to report the issue again on 31 May 2024. The landlord raised the necessary works and attended to replace the affected kitchen cupboards on 11 June 2024 and completed a mould wash on 27 June 2024.
On 6 August 2024, in the resident’s escalation request, she reported that damp and mould remained in the property. In response, the landlord promptly scheduled an inspection for 22 August 2024.
There is no evidence to suggest that the delay from March to June 2024 was outside the landlord’s control. It should not have been necessary for the resident to have needed to report this on 3 occasions before action was taken. This amounts to an unreasonable delay. While the landlord attended to complete the necessary works in the property following the resident’s third report of the issue and it attended again following the further issues reported at stage 2, its delay in the first instance was not acceptable. Its lack of action left the resident living with damp and mould and meant she had to spend time chasing the landlord to inspect and resolve the issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the length of the decant.

When the resident first reported the leak into her property from the roof, the landlord offered the resident an emergency, out of hours, hotel. This was in line with its decant policy. The landlord’s action in this instance was reasonable.
On 8 February 2024, internal communications show the repairs to the resident’s property would take at least 6 months due to extensive damage and the involvement of the freeholder of the building and various insurance companies. The landlord was proactive in finding temporary accommodation for the resident and the evidence shows it took into consideration the need to have a like-for-like property in a similar location.
The resident moved into the temporary accommodation on 22 February 2024 after the landlord arranged for a removals company to help. This was in line with its decant policy which said it would cover all reasonable expenses incurred as a direct consequence of being required to move home.
In June 2024, when the resident raised her formal complaint, she said she was unhappy with the length of time the temporary accommodation had continued for as she had been told it would be until July 2024, yet no work had begun on her property. From the evidence provided, it is clear from internal communications that while the landlord had said the temporary accommodation would be for at least 6 months, it had not kept in communication with the resident with regards to the progress of works at her home and therefore any potential delay to her returning to the property.
The landlord disputed that it had told the resident she would move back at the end of July and noted that the delay was due to the freeholder completing the works. While that may have been true, for extended stays in temporary accommodation, we expect landlords to maintain regular contact with residents to manage expectations and provide updates on work progress. In this instance, the landlord provided no evidence of giving updates prior to the complaint. This led to the resident’s surprise that she would not be moving back and assumption that “things were on schedule.” The landlord’s poor communication likely prompted the formal complaint.
It is also important to note that the resident had expressed on many occasions how distressing the situation was for both her and her family and their ultimate desire to move back to her home. The landlord’s complaint response lacked any empathy for the situation the resident found herself in and was dismissive in tone of her concerns. The landlord needs to consider any learning it can take from this point.
Following the formal complaint, the landlord appropriately allocated the resident a liaison officer to ensure it kept her up to date with the progress of works in the property. Given the extended nature of the temporary accommodation and the ongoing delays in progressing the repairs, it was useful of the landlord to allocate the liaison officer to help improve communication between itself and the resident.
However, it is clear from the evidence provided by the landlord, that there were internal issues between the surveyor and the liaison officer and therefore, while the liaison officer kept in regular contact with the resident, it often was unable to provide updates as communication between the departments was not productive. Landlord’s need to ensure they have effective internal communication and remember that residents are at the heart of what it does. Its lack of useful communication caused upset and frustration for the resident at a time when she was already distressed.
The landlord approached the resident in July 2024 to discuss a permanent decant, as it was exploring all the available options. However, this approach was concerning. Given the landlord’s ongoing failure to communicate the lack of progress in repairing the resident’s home and the difficulties met in resolving the situation, pushing for a permanent home without a thorough explanation was inappropriate.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it considered permanent rehousing was the best option. However, the response lacked empathy and compassion. Given that the property had been the resident’s home for 29 years, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have met with her face to face. This meeting could have included a full explanation of the situation, detailed the likely repairs, and discussed any issues the landlord was experiencing with its own insurance company and the freeholder completing the works. Providing the resident with all the necessary information to make such a significant life-changing decision would have been reasonable. Instead, the landlord offered a one-line sentence without proper explanation.
In its stage 2 response, in direct relation to the length of the decant, the landlord said it had previously offered compensation at stage 1 which it felt reflected the delay. However, the compensation awarded at stage 1 was specifically for issues the resident found with the condition of the temporary accommodation, therefore it seems unreasonable that the landlord used that compensation to say it addressed the duration of the decant.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated its point that permanent rehousing was the best option. This was due to the lack of detail around when the freeholder would resolve the works and confirmed it would continue to update the resident and inform her if it found other suitable properties.
However, following the complaint, communication with the resident continued to be lacking with the evidence showing that the landlord’s liaison officer continued to chase for updates from the relevant department even after highlighting to the repairs team that the resident was very upset and losing patience with the landlord. This was not appropriate and is further evidence of not appropriately managing communication with the resident at a time which she had said on many times was very distressing for her.
The landlord’s lack of effective communication with the resident was clear throughout its handling of the decant. The resident was unaware of the situation at her home and therefore surprised when she discovered the temporary accommodation would be extended further and the suggestion, she consider a permanent decant. If the landlord had ensured it had regular and effective communication with the resident the outcome may have been different in this case. Our spotlight report on Attitudes, Respects and Rights (January 2024) detailed that a landlord’s failure to deliver a routine service, such as communication in this instance, can act as a catalyst for a prolonged period of service failure. These service failures can, and did in this case, result in a breakdown in trust between the landlord and resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

In this case, the resident asserts that she first reported ASB, in the form of noise nuisance and knocking on her door, to her decant officer over the phone, although it is unclear when. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it had no reports of ASB recorded. We can see from the evidence provided that the resident mentioned in a call to the landlord on 15 April 2024 that there was a time when people knocked on the door but confirmed that was no longer happening. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord had not recorded that as ASB at the time.
Following the formal complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have discussed this with the resident to understand the current situation with the ASB and if necessary, open an ASB case to investigate the issue. Instead, the landlord took no action. This was not appropriate and not in line with its ASB policy which says it would respond sensitively and empathetically to resident’s reports and that it would log all reports of ASB.
However, it is important to note that the landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 response and apologised for its lack of action in relation to the issue. In apologising, it also offered the resident £100 compensation to reflect its service failure.
Following the resident’s request for escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord opened an ASB case for the resident and created an action plan with actions for both it and the resident. Furthermore, it signed posted the resident to support services. This action was in line with its policy and showed a renewed commitment by the landlord to resolve the issue for the resident.
Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the ASB could have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Conclusions on the handling of the temporary accommodation

In summary we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decant because:
1. When the resident moved into the temporary accommodation there were repairs outstanding. This included works to the doors, lack of heating and hot water. Whilst it repaired the door in line with its policy, its handling of the gas leak was not appropriate. It did not consider the resident’s reports about the smell in the property or whether this could have been connected to the gas leak.
2. The landlord unreasonably delayed responding to the damp and mould, which required the resident to report the issue 3 times from March 2024 to June 2024. Further work was required following the landlord’s final response indicating that a full inspection had not taken place at the earliest opportunity to resolve the issues.
3. The landlord’s communication about the length of the stay at the temporary accommodation has been poor. The resident was shocked to discover the work was not progressing at her home and worried that she had been asked to consider a permanent move from her home of over 20 years.
4. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the ASB when it was raised during the complaint procedure. However, the landlord did acknowledge its errors and took appropriate steps to put this right at stage 2 of its procedure.
Based on our findings, we have made an award of £1,050 compensation to recognise the distress, upset and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation. This is to take into account the cumulative effects on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 June 2024. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm that it acknowledged the complaint, in line with its policy. It provided its stage 1 response on 1 August 2024. This was 16 days outside of its published timescale to respond of 10 working days.
Furthermore, it has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the delay to the resident in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the landlord apologised for the delayed response and offered £50 compensation to reflect this delay. That was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident requested escalation on 6 August 2024, which the landlord acknowledged, in line with its policy on 12 August 2024.The landlord provided its stage 2 response, within its 20 working day timescale, on 5 September 2024.
We consider that the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation to reflect its delay in providing the stage 1 response amounts to reasonable redress in this instance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to recognise its complaint handling failures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,550 compensation made up of:
  1. £400 previously offered.
  2. £1,150 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the decant.
3. Undertake a review of its handling of the temporary accommodation in this case. This review must consider any learning the landlord can take from our findings. It must provide us with a copy of the review and any learning within 4 weeks.
4. Set out a summary of outstanding works at the resident’s home, including when they are likely to be completed.
5. Set out a schedule of when the resident will return home and how and when this will happen. It must write to the resident setting out a schedule of when it will update her on the progress of the works.
6. Consider the resident’s costs (for Co2 detectors) and other items she purchased. The landlord must write to the resident (within 4 weeks) to confirm whether it will reimburse these and if not, why not.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress was made in the landlord’s complaint handling, it should pay the compensation it offered of £50 if it has not already done so. This should not be offset against other compensation ordered in this case.