From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202336711)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336711

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house. She lives at the property with her 2 children.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 17 April 2023. She said she had reported damp and mould within the property for over 3 years. She said despite repairs, the issues remained unresolved. She was also unhappy with its lack of communication and updates. She added that the household had health conditions and so its handling of the repair issues was not acceptable. She was also unhappy with that the issues caused damage to her belongings.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 26 May 2023. It said she had first reported damp and mould in January 2023. It said it had inspected the property twice. It found no issues with the damp proof course (DPC), and it did not need to complete any further repairs. It asked her to rebook a further appointment to investigate the damp and mould, as she had recently cancelled a visit. It also advised her to consider taking contents insurance to protect her personal belongings. It provided advice of how to make a claim to its insurers if she needed to. It apologised for its delayed response and offered her £50 compensation for this.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 19 June 2023. She said she had reported further damp and mould in December 2022, not in January 2023. She was concerned that it had not inspected the issues properly and that an operative told her the property had rising damp. She asked it to resolve the damp and mould and to reimburse her for replacing her damaged carpets.
  5. On 18 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It apologised for stating the wrong dates in its initial response. It acknowledged it had delayed addressing the return of the damp and mould in December 2021. This occurred because of a change in its contractors and a lack of information passed along during the handover. Following a surveyor inspection on 6 July 2023, it had arranged works to seal the external brickwork. It said it would consider re-rendering the property if this did not work. It would then arrange internal repairs afterwards. It advised her to make a claim to its insurers about her damaged carpet. It increased its offer of compensation to £1,450. This consisted of:
    1. £1,350 for the inconvenience caused to her.
    2. £50 for not completing the repairs within its target timescale.
    3. The £50 offered at stage 1 for its delayed response.
  6. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the ongoing and unresolved damp and mould at the property. The complaint became one we could consider on 30 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. After the complaints process ended, the resident said the damp and mould returned. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord. She can progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

Response to reports of damp and mould

  1. Following reports of damp and mould, the landlord renewed the DPC in March 2021. In December 2021, the resident reported that the damp had returned. This impacted her kitchen, living room, hallway, bathroom, and a cupboard under the stairs. The evidence shows the landlord raised repair jobs between December 2021 and April 2023. However, it is not disputed that it failed to complete the repairs and address the damp and mould after it returned in December 2021.
  2. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for failing to resolve the damp and mould. It said this occurred because it had changed contractors and it had not passed the information to the new contractors. It was appropriate for the landlord to reflect on its poor handling of the damp and mould reports. By being transparent, it showed it took accountability for the delay and its failings. It also gave an opportunity for it to learn from its mistakes. This was appropriate.
  3. Following the complaint escalation, the landlord arranged a surveyor’s inspection on 6 July 2023. It found that despite air vents, cavity wall insulation and renewing the DPC, the property still experienced damp and mould. It believed this was due to rising damp. It later explained within its complaint response that it had arranged repairs to water seal the lower external brickwork. It said that it would then waterproof the lower half of the rendering if this did not resolve the issues.
  4. It is understandable that finding the cause of damp and mould can be complicated. The landlord cannot predict what would definitely solve a complex repair. It may require a process of elimination to resolve it. As such, the landlord’s proposed action plan was reasonable in the circumstances.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord completed the water seal works as planned. It then agreed with the resident to wait until the autumn months to check if this had resolved the issues. This was also understandable given the weather change would identify whether the repairs had resolved the issues.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation which reflected the impact caused by its poor response to the reports. It took around 19 months for the landlord to inspect the property in July 2023 following the return of the issues in December 2021. While it raised some jobs during this period, it took until the resident escalated her complaint for it to arrange a meaningful inspection. During this time, the resident would have understandably experienced distress and inconvenience due to the ongoing issues at the property.
  7. We therefore consider its overall offer of £1,400 compensation was a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances. We are satisfied that this amount was appropriate to put right the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the damp and mould reports. The amount was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for failures which had a “significant and severe long-term impact” on the resident. It was also in line with our remedies guidance for serious failings over a significant period. Given the above, we have found the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident.
  8. The evidence suggests that after the complaints process ended, the landlord needed to complete further repairs to resolve the damp and mould. However, as noted above, the landlord attempted to complete a lasting and effective repair. It managed the resident’s expectations about potential further repairs needed if the water seal works did not fully resolve the issues. This showed it was committed to resolving the damp and mould for the resident. As such, at the time of the complaint, the landlord put things right in considering its handling of the complex issues.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord took 27 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This was 17 working days beyond the target timescale set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord appropriately apologised for its delayed response. It also offered her £50 compensation for this. It was appropriate for it to offer this to acknowledge the time and trouble caused by the delay.
  2. The landlord’s initial response was understandably disappointing for the resident. It missed an opportunity to review its handling of the damp and mould reports and identify any failings. However, the landlord put this right by completing a full investigation at stage 2. It appropriately reviewed its overall handling and identified failings and how it could learn from this. This was good practice.
  3. Within the complaint, the resident said that the damp and mould caused damage to her belongings. She asked the landlord to pay her compensation for this and for having to replace her carpets. The landlord explained that in line with its compensation policy, it could not offer compensation for any damages. Instead, it advised her that she could make a claim through her contents insurance if she had this. It also gave her details of how to make a liability claim to its insurance team if she wished to. By doing so, it gave her an opportunity to have her concerns independently investigated by its insurers. As such, its advice was appropriate and in line with its policy.
  4. In summary, the landlord acknowledged it failed to respond in line with its policy at stage 1. We consider that the landlord’s offer was a fair and reasonable amount in the circumstances. The amount reflected the time and trouble caused to the resident by its delayed response. This amount was in line with our remedies guidance for minor failings which did not impact the overall outcome for the resident. Therefore, the apology combined with the offer of compensation, amounted to an offer of reasonable redress to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its response to reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £1,450 compensation as previously offered, if it has not already done so. This is because our findings of reasonable redress for both complaint definitions were made on the basis that it paid this.