Clarion Housing Association Limited (202406853)

Decision
Case ID	202406853
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	1 April 2026

Background

1. The residentis partially sighted. Hesaid the damp and mould has been ongoing since 2018. We investigated some of these matters, most recently proofing works for rising damp between 2021 and 2023. The landlord subsequently installed equipment to monitor and reduce ongoing humidity in the resident’s property. He was unhappy with the time it took to implement these, that they did not address the damp and mould problem, and how the landlord handled his reports of how it was affecting him.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a recurring damp and mould problem.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a recurring damp and mould problem.
   2. The associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not demonstrate it followed its damp and mould policy in completing timely investigations and repairs, assessing the risk, or that it appropriately updated the resident. The landlord also departed from its complaints process and timescales.
5. During the complaint process it appropriately recognised its delays, poor communications and awarded sufficient compensation for the detriment caused. But it did not show it learnt from repeated mistakes.

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 provided by a senior officer. The apology is specific to the further failures identified in this decision, be meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 29 April 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident the compensation it awarded of £3525, made up of: £2900 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its failures in the management of the damp and mould repairs. £625 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. It must provide evidence that this has been paid by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it can prove it has already paid.	No later than 29 April 2026
3	Case review The landlord must complete a lessons learnt review report and share this with its senior leadership team. This must include its: Management of the damp investigations and repairs, particularly from mid-2024. Communication with the resident about delays. Not escalating complaints. The aim of this is to seek learning to both improve the management and oversight of the outstanding repairs for the resident. And to prevent similar failings from occurring in other complex damp and mould repair cases. It must also provide us with a copy of its review report by the due date. The landlord must also share a summary of its learning with the resident, including any practical actions it will take forward in the management of his case, should there be any.	No later than 29 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Around mid-February 2024	The resident complained about the time it took the landlord to install equipment to monitor and reduce humidity in his home. He said he was still experiencing damp and its communication was poor. He also reported his energy bills increased from running these.
17 April 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports that the damp problem was unresolved. And that he had to chase up a complaint response. He reported he had mould in a kitchen cupboard and on his mattress, which he threw away. The resident advised he wanted compensation, including for his mattress, and for not being able to live comfortably in his home. And for it to find a solution to the damp and mould.
18 July 2024	In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it: Acknowledged it failed to escalate a formal complaint and respond within its timescales. Acknowledged some initial problems with the ventilation unit not working. Said it had acted on the resident’s reports in February and April 2024 that the damp was unresolved, including repairing a leak in a neighbouring property (in May 2024) and appointing a specialist to investigate (in July 2024). Agreed there was delay in the resident being updated for a few weeks because an officer was unexpectedly absent until their manager took over contact. Identified no failings in its handling of the damp and mould repairs and investigation because of the difficulty in identifying the cause and that it largely kept him updated. Awarded £450 compensation for its failure to respond to his complaint and the time and trouble this caused.
19 July 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint because he said: The landlord had not addressed his request to be compensated for costs, including a redecoration voucher it had offered. The ventilation system was not addressing the damp problem. The communication over the landlord’s investigations (particularly one from March 2024 where it reported finding no “at risk” readings of damp) was poor.
2 August 2024	The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the equipment was initially not working but now was, though it was unable to share data from this. It advised the running cost was estimated to be 12p per year, however, it agreed to consider reimbursing increased costs and asked for him to send his energy bills.
11 November 2024	In a second stage 2 response, the landlord said it: Disagreed with its stage 1 response that delays were an inherent part of the process. Apologised there were delays, which it said was due to the contractor awaiting costs for a quote from its suppliers, after an August 2024 inspection identified potential water ingress from the exterior of the building. Was unable to provide a timescale for the works but would continue to keep him regularly updated. Signposted him to claim under his or its own insurer, giving details for the latter. Awarded an additional £450, though this was later increased to £500. This included £250 for the continued delays, £100 for the delayed response, £100 towards redecoration costs, and £50 because of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Between 16 January 2025 and 24 April 2025	The resident asked to make a second complaint (which he sent 3 times). He said he was dissatisfied the damp and mould issues was still unresolved, including to a shared front door. He was also unhappy with the landlord’s communication about the repairs. He asked for an action plan, the landlord to improve its practices, and compensation (including for reimbursement of costs).
27 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the second complaint. It acknowledged failings in its handling of the front door repair, which it said was related to the damp and mould issue. It also apologised the damp and mould was ongoing and for the communication failings. It said it had appointed a single point of contact and awarded £800, including £250 for the impact of the door repair failings, £500 for the impact of the ongoing damp and mould issue, and £50 for its delayed stage 1 response.
28 August 2025	The resident asked to escalate his complaint because he was dissatisfied that no damp and mould repairs had been carried out, despite 2 further surveys confirming all walls and floors in his property were wet. He was also unhappy that he had to chase updates. He asked for confirmation when the repairs would be started and for copies of the surveys.
28 October 2025	In the landlord’s stage 2 response to the second complaint, it said: The delay up to that point was due to the need to obtain 2 comparative surveys and to then reinspect because of differing opinions on what work was needed. The internal inspection was completed on 21 October 2025 at which it was noted the resident felt his health was being affected. It was looking to temporarily move him and would be in touch separately. It was unable to confirm a date for the repairs but once works were agreed it would provide an action plan. It awarded compensation of £325 (£2075, in total), including £250 for the unresolved damp issue and £75 for the delayed stage 2 response.
After the complaints process ended	In January 2026, the landlord put the works on hold. It then wrote to the resident on 16 March 2026 apologising for further delays and awarded £1450 compensation. It said it would provide an action plan and be in touch about temporarily rehousing him during the works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us because the landlord had not resolved long standing damp and mould or consistently communicated properly. He says this caused considerable distress, damage to his belongings, higher energy bills, and disruption. He wants a lasting solution and more compensation, including rent reimbursement.

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	Reports of a recurring damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

What we have not looked at

6. The resident has been reporting and complaining about damp and mould affecting his home since 2018. The Ombudsman has investigated some of his complaints about its handling of repairs, most recently proofing works for rising damp between 2021 and 2023 (202207945). In our previous investigation, we identified significant failings in the timeliness of the landlord’s actions, including delays in completing damp proof works recommended by specialists, and poor communication.
7. We may not investigate matters which we have already decided upon. Therefore, the issues relating to the resident’s previous complaints about damp and mould will not be revisited in this investigation. We have though considered the resident’s current complaint in the context of the history of his case and our previous findings.

What we have looked at– actions to address the damp and mould

8. The landlord responsible under the tenancy agreement for ensuring that the structure and exterior of the property is in repair. It has an obligation to complete repairs to the resident’s property within a reasonable time. These are expected to be lasting and effective, as far as reasonably possible. Though we were not sent the resident’s initial complaint from mid-February 2024, it is undisputed that he was not satisfied that the landlord had identified the root cause of the damp problem. Because it had returned after the damp proofing works were completed in early 2023.
9. According to the landlord’s damp and mould policy it aimed to:
   1. Establish the cause(s) and carry out effective repairs within a timely manner.
   2. Keep residents updated.
   3. Give advice on how to manage condensation.
   4. Complete a risk assessment where damp recurs and may then carry out a range of actions, including installing ventilation systems.
   5. Consider temporarily rehousing residents where more intrusive building work was required or there was an evident risk to health.
10. Records show the landlord initially followed its damp and mould policy in diagnosing the cause of the problem as being from condensation “being attracted to colder surfaces.” It advised the resident in an email updating him about its findings at an inspection on 26 March 2023 that its position was confirmed by a specialist contractor in September 2023. It said its own findings and readings from the damp monitoring device supported this. The landlord further diagnosed that there a leak from a neighbouring property. We appreciate the resident disagreed with the landlord’s findings, but it was entitled to rely on the advice of its specialist contractors and employees.
11. The landlord also took some actions to resolve the identified problems, which was again in keeping with its policy. It found “no at risk readings” at the inspection, apart from a borderline reading in the bedroom, which it said could be managed through ventilation, heating, and wiping of walls if condensation formed. The landlord had also installed a ventilation system to help reduce humidity (in January 2024) and a monitoring device. It also gave the resident advice about how to condensation. It repaired the leak in the neighbouring property (in May 2024). While there were some delays in implementing these measures, we saw the landlord took some appropriate actions to mitigate the impact, such as using a dehumidifier. Or to progress matters, such as offering the neighbour a weekend appointment.
12. On 14 June 2024, the resident reported that damp and mould was now affecting other rooms, including his hallway cupboard and bedroom. He also said that nothing had been done to address high moisture readings found in the bathroom. He advised the problem was impacting the use of his home and he was worried about his health. Given the resident’s report that the problem was worsening and the effect this was having, it was appropriate that the landlord reinspected in early July 2024. Whether areas of damp and mould were identified was not recorded, which is poor practice. However, it seems more likely than not that the landlord did at least identify damp because it instructed a specialist to further investigate.
13. We recognised in the Ombudsman’s 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould that sometimes the causes of this can be complex. It can require multiple investigations and repairs to identify and resolve. Sometimes there is more than one cause. As such it was not a failing that the landlord had not fully resolved the damp problem. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to remedy it initially, based on the information it had at the time. And then seek further specialist advice when it did not resolve the damp.
14. The moisture and leak detection survey report of 6 August 2024 identified no active leaks, other than an unrelated small leak from a radiator. But reported damp areas in several rooms (including the bedroom and kitchen). It also found some small areas of mould growth in the hallway and kitchen. The contractor suggested some sources of water ingress through the exterior of the building, including an incorrectly installed downpipe. It recommended the landlord instruct a specialist timber and damp survey to determine the cause.
15. We were unable to establish from the available records if the landlord sought further specialist input. It is at the landlord’s discretion if it follows up on recommendations from its appointed contractors. But we would expect to see in such cases that there was an explanation for this or an alternative action proposed. The landlord advised in its November 2024 response that it was awaiting a quote for repairs, which internal emails from that time support. However, what repairs had been identified and if these were based on recommendations from the leak specialist is unknown. It is unclear if the lack of records was due to a shortfall in the record-keeping or because the landlord simply failed to act on its contractors’ findings. Even so, it is a failing that it cannot demonstrate what actions it was taking and why to meet its obligations to attempt lasting and effective repairs.
16. The landlord obtained 2 surveys and quotes from damp specialists in July and August 2025. What was happening in the 8 months before is not explained by the available records or complaint responses. It is a failing that the landlord has not demonstrated that it was monitoring and progressing the damp works as quickly as it could, in line with its obligations. However, we find the landlord’s explanation about why it wanted 2 quotes, and to then assess the situation itself, was reasonable. Both about the differing opinions and recommendations (which included further investigations, to underground pipework, and damp proofing such as tanking, and the scale of the works. It was also not a failing that the landlord was unable to provide a timeframe in its final response in October 2025. The nature and cost of the work would reasonably require some planning and scheduling.
17. Our spotlight report recommended that for complex cases landlords consider interim solutions to improve the conditions for residents. The landlord’s damp and mould policy also said it would complete a risk assessment for recurring issues. And consider temporarily rehousing residents if there was a risk to health. The landlord completed some actions that may have helped in the short term, including installing the ventilation system and completing a mould wash in March 2025. However, we saw no evidence of a risk assessment, which was not in keeping with its policy.
18. The landlord committed to rehousing the resident in its October 2025 response. Records show that the landlord was in touch with him about viewing temporary accommodation in late December 2025 and that he did not respond. We saw no further attempts of the landlord contacting with the resident about the temporary accommodation. However, we are unable to hold the landlord entirely responsible for it not progressing, though we note it could have done more to press the matter.
19. After the complaints process ended, the landlord obtained a further quote in November 2025. It then put the work on hold, but it is not evident why it made this decision. In March 2026 it told us that the issue had been complex because it had received conflicting advice on the potential cause and remedies. It did acknowledge that the further delays were unacceptable. The landlord also wrote to the resident apologising and awarding compensation. It agreed to provide an action plan and contact him about rehousing. It was appropriate for the landlord to take accountability for the lack of progression after its final response. And take action to put things right. Though we are unaware of whether it shared the action plan by the given date, we know from the resident that it is in discussion with him about temporary accommodation. This indicates that it is now progressing.

Communication

20. The damp and mould policy states that it will keep resident’s updated about inspections, diagnoses, and timetabling of repairs. It has a damp and mould team to do this to “give residents a voice”.
21. Records show that there were times where the landlord was keeping the resident informed, such as early 2023 when he had a single point of contact in the damp and mould team. And from late 2025 when the landlord again arranged a similar arrangement. We also saw occasions where it explained its findings and decisions to the resident, such as following its March 2023 inspection.
22. While there were some examples of effective communication, we found that overall, it was poor. And it often led to him chasing responses or updates, multiple times. Though there were some valid reasons, such as the surveyor being unexpectedly absent for a several weeks in Spring 2023, many times he was promised updates within timeframes that were not met. Or not given updates at all, such as in early 2025, or answers to his questions or concerns about the diagnoses and requests for copies of reports. This was a departure from the damp and mould policy which caused the resident considerable time and trouble. It also left him feeling unheard and may have contributed to his distrust of the landlord’s actions and decisions.
23. Though we accepted it was reasonable for the landlord to follow up with the resident with a timetable for repairs, there is no evidence it did this until after our recent contact. We recognise this was a complex repair matter, and the evidence supports there were difficulties in the landlord getting consistent advice from specialists. Nonetheless, the landlord should have been open with the resident about this and kept him informed, as per its policy. This would have managed his expectations.
24. We found the landlord took accountability for communication being poor and took steps to remedy the impact, including reinstating a single point of contact. However, we saw it repeated this mistake after the complaints process ended.

Compensation

25. According to the landlord’s compensation policy it will not usually pay costs where a resident may be able to claim under their contents insurance. It states it may consider reimbursing proven costs if found to be arising from its service failure. The resident was unhappy because he said his mattress was damaged by mould. It appropriately signposted him to his contents insurer or to claim against its own and provided details about what information was needed. As it was not related to service failure an insurer is best placed to determine liability in such circumstances. We also found the landlord’s offer to consider reimbursing the resident for increased energy bills was in keeping with its approach. Because it asked him for copies of them to consider.
26. The compensation policy allows for loss of the use of a room where it becomes unusable, such as from severe damp. In his complaint, the resident advised that he felt unable to fully use his property and unpack. We recognise he was significantly inconvenience by the ongoing situation, but we were unable to see his circumstances qualified for a refund of rent under the policy. Neither he nor the evidence, such as inspections, indicated that any room was unusable. Without evidence to the contrary, it was in keeping with its policy for the landlord to award compensation for the resulting distress and inconvenience.
27. Under the compensation policy, the landlord may award between £250 to £700 where a “considerable” impact has been experienced over a long time. The amounts the landlord awarded in its responses (between £250 and £500) for the impacts of the delays and poor communication were within its policy range. It states it may award above £700 for a “severe long-term impact”. We found the total amount at £1450 was proportionate to recognise the cumulative impacts over a long time (approximately 2 years) and given the fact we saw the landlord took some appropriate actions that would have lessened this.
28. The landlord’s further award of £1400 falls under its most serious compensation category. This demonstrates that it recognised its repeated mistakes with delays in progressing the repairs and poor communication had a serious impact on the resident. The amounts the landlord has awarded are also in keeping with what we may order for cases where failings and impacts are severe. And in total, at £2850, it was proportionate compensation. We will therefore not be awarding more.

Conclusion

29. We are largely satisfied that the landlord has taken appropriate actions to put things right. However, the Ombudsman considers that learning is a key part of effective dispute resolution and the landlord has not sought to do this. Given the repeated failures in its repairs management and communication, we have ordered it to complete a case review with the aim of improving its service.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

30. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its 2 stage complaints process that aligns with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It distinguishes between a resident making a service request and a complaint. Its process is to acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. It must then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. If it needs more time, it will let the resident know and give a revised timescale of no longer than 20 working days. Once it has given a final decision it will ensure any actions to put right the impact of its failings are monitored to completion.
31. We were unable to establish when the resident first complained. However, it was more likely than not in mid-February 2023. The landlord responded on 18 July 2024, which far exceeded its maximum response time of 15 working days. While this was a failing, the landlord took accountability for it and took reasonable actions to remedy the time and trouble the resident was caused in chasing responses up multiple times. As well as an apology, it awarded compensation of £450 which was within the range (£250-£700) its compensation policy states it may pay for considerable failure but there was no permanent impact.
32. After the resident escalated his complaint on 18 July 2024, the landlord responded at stage 2 within its published timescales. This did not address all aspects raised. The landlord then sent a second stage 2 in November 2024 response which did address the outstanding concerns. Sending a further response was not in line with its published process. We have however seen no impact arising from this because the resident was still able to refer his complaint to us. It was a missed opportunity to attempt to address his concerns sooner. Again, the landlord awarded compensation to recognise its failure. At £100 this was in line with the amount its compensation policy states it may pay for where its service failure has had a minor impact (£50-£250).
33. It took 112 working days for the landlord to respond to the resident’s second complaint of 16 January 2025. As in the first complaint, he chased a response at least 3 times. Its stage 1 response on 27 June 2025 was also lacking in detail about the reason for the delays since its last response. The landlord also exceeded its response times when the resident escalated his complaint on 28 August 2025 in responding on 28 October 2025, which was 42 working days. The landlord awarded compensation, at £50 and £75, for each of these delays within its low impact range. While this was proportionate for its stage 2 delay, the award for the stage 1 was not reflective of the time and trouble the resident was caused.
34. Overall, the amount of compensation the landlord awarded at £675 was appropriate financial redress. It is within the range (£600-£1000) that our compensation guidance recommends for serious impacts arising from maladministration. It is above the amount we would have ordered. We have though identified a further, repeat failure to progress the resident’s complaint that the landlord did not. We have therefore ordered it to take actions to put things right.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. We found the standard of the records in this case to generally be of a reasonable standard. However, there were some noticeable gaps, as referenced above. The landlord is strongly encouraged to consider if its record-keeping was an underlying cause of the delays and poor communication. And if so, to look for learning to avoid it from happening again.

Communication

36. The landlord has repeatedly made the same mistakes in the lack of progression of investigations and repairs. And its communication with the resident was inconsistent. These were themes we identified in our previous investigation. These are also key components of Awaab’s Law, although not in force at the time the resident complained. We have asked the landlord to complete a review of the case to help it to make robust change based on its learning.