Clarion Housing Association Limited (202538269)

Background

1. The resident reported a suspected leak in her wet room, which was causing water damage to her kitchen ceiling and the lighting. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this. She later reported mould on her wet room ceiling. She was concerned about the impact of this on the health of her and her children. She said her and her son have respiratory conditions and her daughter has type 1 diabetes.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A reported leak in the wet room and associated repairs to the kitchen ceiling.
   2. Reports of mould.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of a reported leak in the wet room and associated repairs to the kitchen ceiling.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of mould.
   3. 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

Reported leak in the wet room and associated repairs to the kitchen ceiling

4. The landlord acknowledged it had made failings when handling these repairs and offered compensation to put things right. However, it did not complete the ceiling repairs in a timely manner after the complaints process ended.

Reports of mould

5. The landlord delayed in initially assessing the mould as a significant or emergency hazard. It also failed to evidence it completed adequate investigations of the mould.

The associated complaint

6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling and offered proportionate compensation to put things right.

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.

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.

7. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states landlords are responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, and to the installations for providing services. The tenancy agreement and repairs policy further reflect this. Its repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and non–emergency repairs in 28 days. It will complete major or complex repairs within 90 days.
8. The landlord having assessed its handling of the repair appropriately identified it made failings. It:
   1. Took almost 5 months and at least 3 visits to complete effective tiling repairs which stopped the leak.
   2. Delayed in completing a lasting repair to the kitchen ceiling. Some of these delays were due to the landlord’s inaction, this included a failure to act on the resident’s concerns about asbestos in November 2024. In May 2025 it had to obtain an asbestos survey, which could have been reasonably requested sooner given the earlier concerns. However, some of the delays were for other reasons. These included the landlord wanting to accommodate a Saturday appointment request and the resident’s cancelation of an appointment. She understandably cancelled this on the basis that she was not satisfied the leak was resolved. We also appreciate that until the leak was stopped it was not impossible to complete a lasting repair. The evidence suggests the ceiling was fully repaired in February 2026.
   3. Took 76 working days to replace the light. This was significantly delayed and it was not until 24 January 2025 that the landlord raised the job for this. On 3 February 2025, the resident reported having to turn off the electrics to use the shower due to water ingress into the light. The landlord raised an emergency repair but did not complete it until 18 February 2025. The resident reported another leak into the electrics on 3 March 2025 which the landlord raised as an emergency repair but did not repair it until 13 March 2025. There is no evidence to suggest this delay was unavoidable to warrant such significant departures from the emergency policy timescales.
   4. Appropriately replaced the wet room flooring in line with its 28 day policy timescale.
   5. Failed to make a referral to its planned investment team to review the schedule of bathroom and kitchen replacement work. It assessed the kitchen and bathroom in August 2025 and concluded it did not need replacing but did not communicate this to the resident.  This meant she incurred time and trouble raising it again in her escalation request.
9. In November 2025, the landlord’s surveyor confirmed the leak had stopped. They also recommended the wet room be replaced as it was likely to fail again. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response was silent on this and instead stated the bathroom was not scheduled for replacement until 2040. If it was planning to depart from the surveyor’s recommendation, we would expect to see it explain this to the resident. By not doing so it missed an opportunity to be transparent. We understand since the complaints process ended the landlord has confirmed to the resident it will install a bathtub.
10. It is positive the landlord recognised these failings and offered compensation to put things right. But the resident experienced further inconvenience after the complaints process ended as the ceiling work was not completed for another 3 months. We are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress. In line with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse effect on the resident, we consider a further payment of £100 compensation is appropriate.

11. Awaab’s law came into effect on 27 October 2025 and was in force at the time of the resident’s escalation request and the landlord’s stage 2 response. It sets clear requirements for social landlords to investigate and address reported hazards such as mould within prescribed timescales and to communicate actions clearly to residents.
12. The resident has confirmed the mould was located on her wet room ceiling. While she said it started to appear in early October 2025, she first reported this to the landlord on 29 October 2025 in her escalation request. The Awaab’s law guidance for social landlords’ states once a landlord becomes aware of a potential hazard, it should use all available information to initially determine if the hazard is a potential significant or emergency hazard. There is no evidence to support this happened. It only acted promptly after the resident raised this again on 4 November 2025. There is no evidence to suggest this delay was unavoidable. It categorised it as an emergency hazard and attended the same day to apply a mould wash. This was a failure. If the hazard was an emergency – it ought to have completed the mould wash (emergency make safe works) within 24 hours.
13. The landlord promptly arranged for a surveyor to assess the wet room on 10 November 2025. The surveyor stated the tiling, and floor works previously completed had been effective to stop the leak, but it would break down in time. They recommended converting the wet room back to a conventional bathroom. However, there is no reference to whether the hazard was still categorised as an emergency or significant hazard or any investigation of the mould in the wet room ceiling. This has made it difficult to assess the landlord’s response. It is unclear why the landlord did not take this opportunity to carry out a damp and mould inspection. It also missed an opportunity to assess its handling of this against the prescribed timescales in its stage 2 response.
14. The landlord’s records show it sent an investigation summary on 12 November 2025. We have not been provided a copy of this. It is not clear what relevant safety works the landlord was planning to arrange, if any. This is particularly relevant because after the complaints process ended, the resident reported mould in January and February 2026. We appreciate the landlord has carried out further works to install an extractor fan and investigate the roof and gutters. However, the resident has told us that the mould is still there. As it is unclear if the landlord has identified the underlying cause from its inspections so we have made a relevant inspection order.
15. Our compensation guidance sets out a payment range which is appropriate to put right failings where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. In ordering £300 compensation, we have considered the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays in handling the ongoing reports of mould.

16. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable from April 2024 was in use at the time. This sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which aligns with the Code. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. It will acknowledge the complaint and escalation request within 5 working days.
17. The landlord took 39 days to acknowledge and respond at stage 1. This was outside of the prescribed timescale of 15 working days. It acknowledged and responded at stage 2 in 22 working days which was in accordance with the Code. It appropriately recognised its failing at stage 1 and offered compensation to put this right. We consider the amount offered to be fair and reasonable. It is broadly in line with our compensation guidance and what we would have ordered for similar failings.

Learning

18. The landlord has recognised this was a poorly coordinated repair which impacted its ability to effectively resolve the matter. It is positive that it has fed back this learning to the relevant departments.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The record keeping was mostly appropriate. However, it should ensure its staff are clearly recording categorisation of hazards and it is maintaining records of investigation summaries.

Communication

20. The landlord’s communication was poor at times, and it did not always keep her updated. It should consider how it can make improvements to better support its vulnerable residents.