Clarion Housing Association Limited (202506813)

Decision
Case ID	202506813
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	14 July 2026

Background

1. In late 2021, the resident reported mould around windows in the bedrooms, living room, hallway, and backdoor. The landlord repaired the windows and treated the mould. More than a year later, the resident reported further mould, mainly around windows, in several of the same areas. She later complained that the mould remained unresolved and spread to other rooms. She said this was because the landlord had not completed effective repairs to address the cause of the problem.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould
   2. Service failure in the complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

4. The landlord took some reasonable steps to investigate and address the damp and mould. However, there were avoidable delays, gaps in its records, and shortfalls in the communication with the resident. It did not always evidence that it completed agreed actions or explained its decisions clearly. These failures delayed works that may have helped reduce the damp and mould and the landlord did not take sufficient steps during the complaint process to put things right.

The associated complaint

5. The landlord delayed both complaint responses and did not evidence that it kept the resident updated before the deadlines passed. It also did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the history and handling of the damp and mould. It recognised some of the delay and awarded compensation, but this did not fully reflect the wider time and trouble caused by the complaint handling failures.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 11 August 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400, made up of: £300 (inclusive of its £100 offer) for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its handling of damp and mould. £100 (inclusive of its £50 offer) for the time and trouble caused by complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. It must provide documentary evidence of payment.	No later than 11 August 2026
3	Specific action order The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a written action plan for the damp and mould and associated repairs identified at its recent inspections. The action plan must: identify each repairs issue. This may include, where relevant, the windows and/or any other issue which may be causing or contributing to damp and mould. set out the full scope of works needed to achieve a lasting and effective repair for each issue identified. confirm the likely timescales to start and complete each item of work. If the landlord cannot provide firm dates, it must explain why and confirm when it will provide them and what interim measures it intends to take.	No later than 11 August 2026

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should provide the resident with information about its personal injury claims process, should she wish to seek independent advice or pursue a claim in relation to any possible impact on her health.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 March 2024	The landlord received the resident’s complaint through her MP. The resident had reported experiencing repair issues with a bedroom window for 6 years. She said there was also worsening mould in the downstairs rooms and said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s proposal to fill gaps around upstairs windows. She said this approach had not been effective and that she had not heard from the landlord since it completed repairs a month earlier. She also sought compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
24 April 2024	In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged delays in completing damp and mould works. It confirmed it had arranged further inspections, including of the roof and ventilation, and awarded £100 compensation. However, it said it would not be replacing a cooker hood because the resident was responsible for it.
12 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s: proposal to install a kitchen wall fan instead of replacing the cooker hood decision not to renew all window seals lack of communication following the visits on 4 and 7 July 2024 lack of progress on the inspection of the roof level of compensation offered
7 October 2024	The landlord responded at stage 2 that: it cancelled the work to install the kitchen fan at the resident’s request, although it encouraged her to rearrange the work because this had been recommended to help manage condensation it replaced the cooker hood as a gesture of goodwill it found no need to renew all seals but would recheck them it saw no reason to increase the compensation, other than awarding £50 (£150 in total) for its delayed final response
After the complaints process ended	Following a further inspection on 20 November 2024, the landlord completed a range of works. This included installing fans in the bathroom and kitchen in January 2025, inspecting the roof/loft in April 2025, and replacing window seals in the bedroom and window units in the bathroom in May 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she said the landlord’s attempts to resolve the damp and mould were ineffective and the issue remained ongoing. She told us the situation has caused stress, inconvenience, and may have impacted the health of the household. She said she is seeking compensation.

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 and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered

6. The resident said in her complaint correspondence that some issues had been ongoing for several years but the landlord did not comment on this in its responses. We expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time. The landlord’s complaints policy also states it may not consider events more than 12 months prior. While the records show the resident first reported damp and mould around windows in several rooms in 2021, there was over 12 months between her reporting the issue again after the landlord completed repairs. Given the passage of time, the availability and reliability of the evidence, and the date of the formal complaint, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s handling of repairs from March 2023, when the resident reported a recurrence of mould.
7. In late March 2026, we put the landlord on notice of a potential material change under Awaab’s Law because the resident had informed us the mould was unresolved and was affecting her health. She told us that she had complained about the landlord’s response to this and had received a stage 1 response to her recent complaint. We have not considered events that gave rise to the new complaint in this investigation because the landlord must have the opportunity to respond to and put matters right before we can investigate. This investigation will therefore consider events up to the point the landlord recorded completing the actions it agreed in its stage 2 response.

What we have considered

8. On 3 March 2023, the landlord raised an order to inspect a recurrence of mould around the windows. The resident said the mould kept returning after cleaning. The landlord set a 28-day timescale, which was its routine timescale for non-urgent repairs. This was proportionate because the mould was reported around windows and was removable through cleaning. The landlord completed the inspection 3 days later, which was well under its allocated timescale.
9. Based on the available evidence, the landlord identified repairs to the window seals in both bedrooms. It completed these on 5 June 2023. The landlord also inspected the back door on 30 May 2023. It identified a crack that allowed water to enter from an external drain. It recorded that it completed repairs between 12 July 2023 and 14 July 2023. These actions were reasonable and were in line with its Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould policy (LCDM policy) because it sought to identify possible causes and complete repairs.
10. However, the landlord has not evidenced that it established the cause of the issues affecting the living room. It also missed its 28-day timescale for both identified repairs. It took 87 days to replace the window seals and 42 days to repair the back doorstep. The records do not explain these delays. We also saw no evidence that the landlord considered mould treatment or gave the resident advice on how to manage it, which were actions its policy states it may take. The landlord therefore cannot show that it consistently followed its LCDM policy or completed repairs within a reasonable time.
11. On 1 November 2023, the landlord raised a further order to assess the crack by the back door because the resident reported that the filler had failed. It also arranged another damp and mould inspection. This included mould in the bedroom and new issues with the kitchen and bathroom windows. The records referred to cracks in the surrounding brickwork and damage to a window frame.
12. The landlord inspected the property on 22 November 2023, within its 28-day timescale. The inspection identified the need for further checks of the roof and loft insulation. It also identified repairs, including renewing bedroom window seals, repairing the bathroom and kitchen windows, installing fans, treating mould, and repainting the hallway ceiling. The landlord was therefore considering more than one possible cause. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman’s 2021 Spotlight Report on damp and mould recognises that damp and mould can have complex and multiple causes. It was not therefore, in itself, a failing that the landlord had not resolved the recurring damp and mould by that point.
13. The resident was dissatisfied with the proposed works. She wanted the landlord to replace the windows rather than repair them. The landlord cancelled the works orders while it considered her request. The records do not clearly show what factors it considered. On 18 January 2024, the landlord told the resident it would repair the windows rather than replace them. The landlord was not obliged to replace the windows if repair was a reasonable option. However, it would have been reasonable for it to record its reasons and explain them clearly to the resident. There is no evidence that it did so at that time. Its complaint responses were also a missed opportunity to provide that explanation.
14. After this, the repair logs show that the landlord reraised the window repairs and mould treatment for the bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom. It completed the window repairs on 16 February 2024. This was within its non-urgent repair’s timescale. It was also reasonable given that scaffolding was needed to access some windows externally.
15. However, the landlord has not evidenced whether it completed the mould treatment, or when it did so. We have also seen no evidence that it considered or discussed with the resident whether it should reraise the other repairs identified in November 2023. The resident complained in March 2024 that the downstairs mould was worsening. The landlord’s failure to evidence action on the other repairs may have contributed to the issue remaining unresolved.
16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord took some reasonable steps to put matters right. It acknowledged delays in completing some works and awarded compensation. It agreed for a surveyor to reinspect the window works because the resident said they had not been effective. It also confirmed it would inspect the roof and revisit the ventilation solution.
17. The landlord inspected on 1 May 2024. However, there were then delays in completing other actions. By the time the resident escalated her complaint in August 2024, the landlord had completed further inspections of the bathroom and kitchen ventilation on 4 July 2024, the windows on 9 July 2024, and the roof on 1 August 2024. It did not meet its timescales for all these actions. The most significant delay was the roof inspection, which took 98 days after the stage 1 response. During this period, the records show that the resident chased an update once, on 21 May 2024. The landlord’s delays and limited communication were not in line with its repairs and LCDM policy commitments to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale and keep residents updated.
18. The resident said in her escalation request that she was dissatisfied with the proposal to replace only one window seal. She was also unhappy with the proposal to install a kitchen fan instead of replacing the cooker hood. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had replaced the cooker hood as a gesture of goodwill. It also explained that installing a kitchen fan may help reduce condensation and offered to rebook the work. This was in line with its damp and mould policy and its wider repair obligations. The landlord also said its operative had only identified the need to replace one window seal. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings and recommendations of its operatives. However, it agreed to reinspect the windows. This was a reasonable position, provided the landlord acted on it promptly and kept the resident informed.
19. After the complaints process ended, the landlord took further action to complete works it had identified or agreed to consider from its November 2023 inspection. It also appointed a resident liaison officer to keep the resident updated. This shows that it continued to take practical steps to address the damp and mould problem after its final response, as it was obligated to.
20. However, there were some delays in it completing some agreed actions and repairs that are largely unexplained by the records. Such as the inspection of the roof, which took place on 23 April 2025, significantly longer than its routine timescale. There was no record that any roof repairs were identified at this inspection, so we are unable to see that this delay had a significant impact on the situation but would have added to the resident’s frustration. The landlord also repeated inspections it had already completed without any clear reason for doing so, such as of the windows. The final window inspection in early 2025 identified more window repairs than the previous inspection had recorded. Its operatives’ findings were not always documented, which may be the reason for these. Again, this would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
21. Overall, the landlord took some reasonable steps to investigate and address possible causes of damp and mould. However, its delays, including after the May 2024 inspection, and limited communication show it did not manage the repairs as proactively as it should have done. Some delays may have been affected by the resident’s disagreement with proposed works, but the failures still delayed interventions that may have reduced the damp and mould. This caused distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble beyond that recognised in the stage 1 response. We have ordered further action, including compensation within the range our guidance recommends for maladministration with serious but non-permanent impact (£100 to £600).

Complaint	The associated complaint
Finding	Service failure

22. The landlord’s complaint handling policy changed during the complaints process. When the resident first complained on 22 March 2024, the landlord followed a different process. This was broadly in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time. The landlord’s policy required it to respond to complaints within 10 working days. If it could not do so, it committed to keeping residents updated and providing a revised timescale.
23. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 24 April 2024. This was 6 working days outside its 10-working day response timescale. The landlord has not provided evidence it told the resident before the response was due that it needed more time. This means it has not shown that it followed its process at the time. While this was a failure, we saw no evidence it had a significant adverse effect on the resident to warrant it paying compensation.
24. By the time the resident escalated her complaint on 12 August 2024, the landlord had changed its complaints policy to align with the Code in place from April 2024. The updated Code required the landlord to acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. It also required a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. The landlord could extend this by up to 20 working days if it explained the reason to the resident before the response was due.
25. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 27 August 2024, which was outside the 5 working day timescale. It requested an extension to complete its investigation on 24 September 2024, after the original stage 2 response date had passed. However, it issued its stage 2 response on 7 October 2024, within the maximum 40 working day timescale. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation. This was proportionate for the impact of this delay and in view of the fact it followed its process in updating the resident.
26. Under the Code landlords must respond to all relevant issues raised and provide clear explanations for decisions. The resident said in her initial complaint that some issues dated back 6 years and, in her escalation, said that the problem had been ongoing for 3 years. She asked for compensation to reflect this. Its complaints policy says it may exclude matters not raised within 12 months, and the Code requires it to explain this if it relies on that exclusion. It should have, in any event, considered the issues within the previous year.
27. Given the above, the landlord did not consistently follow its complaint policy or the Code. It delayed both complaint responses, did not evidence that it updated the resident before deadlines passed, and did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the history and handling of the damp and mould. Its £50 offer for the delayed stage 2 response went some way to recognising the impact. However, it did not fully reflect the time and trouble caused by the wider complaint handling failures. We have therefore ordered the landlord to apologise and pay a further payment within the range (£50-£250) our compensation guidance recommends for impacts arising from complaint handling failures.

Learning

Complaint handling

28. Through the complaints process, the landlord made some reasonable attempts to address and resolve elements of the resident’s complaint.
29. The landlord departed from its complaint process in not meeting policy timescales and not addressing elements of the complaint. If not already, the landlord may wish to provide additional training to staff or implement a quality assurance process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord should review how it records repairs, inspections, and contractor updates. Records should clearly show what was inspected, what works were identified, what was completed, and when. This would help the landlord track outstanding actions, explain decisions to residents, and evidence that it has completed agreed works.

 

 

Communication

31. The landlord took positive action by appointing a resident liaison officer to improve communication with the resident. It should build on this by ensuring residents receive clear post-inspection updates, including what was found, what action will follow, and the expected timescales.