Clarion Housing Association Limited (202412913)

Decision
Case ID	202412913
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident has vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord. Between February 2024 and June 2024, the resident reported several issues to the landlord.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about staff conduct.
   2. Concerns about the brightness of the streetlight.
   3. Reports of damp and mould.
   4. Reports of alleged discrimination.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the brightness of the streetlight.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of alleged discrimination.
   5. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found that the landlord:
   1. Carried out a reasonable investigation into the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, sought information from the staff member involved, clearly explained the purpose of the damp and mould survey, and reached conclusions supported by the evidence available at the time.
   2. Failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s concerns about the brightness of the streetlight reported in 2023. However, it apologised for the failures and offered compensation that was fair and in line with our remedies guidance.
   3. Made some errors in the scheduling of the repairs identified during the damp and mould inspection. However, it apologised and offered an appropriate amount of compensation to put things right for the resident.
   4. Did not evidence that it undertook or documented a sufficiently thorough investigation into the resident’s discrimination concerns.
   5. Repeatedly failed to meet its complaint‑handling timescales, did not address all aspects of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and failed to provide adequate redress for the shortcomings identified.

 

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 21 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £50 for its handling of his reports of alleged discrimination. £200 for its handling of his complaint. This includes the £100 offered at stage 2 and an additional £100 for the multiple failures identified in this report. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made in relation to the specific matters in this case. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 21 April 2026

 

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Our findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that the resident receives the £350 that the landlord previously offered him (£200 for the streetlight repairs and £150 for the reports of damp and mould). Therefore, if the landlord has not already done so, it should pay this directly to the resident. This is in addition to the £250 ordered above.
The landlord should review its investigation and record‑keeping processes for discrimination complaints to ensure all protected characteristics are considered and that full records of discussions are maintained.
The resident informed us in March 2026 that mould was present in the property. We therefore recommend that the landlord contacts him to arrange an inspection appointment and addresses any issues in line with its leaks, condensation and damp and mould (LCDM) policy.
We recommend that the landlord provides refresher complaint handling training to its staff if this has not been delivered recently.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 February 2024	The resident complained about the conduct of the landlord’s staff member. He said that during the damp and mould survey (carried out that day), they appeared “dismissive and rude” and asked questions that felt intrusive.
10 May 2024 and 30 May 2024	The resident told the landlord on 2 occasions that he wished to complain about its handling of his reports of streetlight repairs and said the brightness was preventing him from sleeping.
30 May 2024	The resident requested to make a complaint about the contractor who had attended his property that day, stating that they were “disrespectful”.
11 June 2024	At the request of the resident, we asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 response regarding staff conduct (during the damp and mould survey appointment) and its handling of the residents reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
14 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint because the staff member had acted in accordance with its procedures during the damp and mould survey, it had resolved the streetlight issues within its repair timeframes, and the condition of the bathroom was handled appropriately under its damp and mould policy.
14 June 2024	The resident escalated his complaint because he believed the investigation was inaccurate and misleading, and specifically: He had been pressured and mistreated during the survey appointment. The streetlight remained unfixed. The damp and mould repairs remained outstanding.
25 June 2024	The resident told the landlord that it had not properly investigated his concerns about the contractors and that he had experienced racism.
26 July 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: The staff member had acted appropriately during the damp survey appointment, and there was no evidence that the resident was “coerced” into answering questions. The streetlight repairs were completed after receiving the required information from the resident in April 2024. However, it acknowledged failing to act on his reports made in June 2023. There were some failures in its handling of the damp and mould repairs, and it offered to arrange a new inspection appointment. It had found no evidence to support the resident’s claims of racism. It offered the resident £450 compensation. Of this, £200 was for its handling of the streetlight repairs, £150 for its handling of the damp and mould repairs and £100 for complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he alleged the landlord did not undertake a further damp and mould inspection. As an outcome, the resident wants the landlord to apologise and pay him further 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	Concerns about staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. It is not within our remit to determine if the conduct of a landlord’s staff member did or did not happen as described in a complaint. Instead, it is our role to determine how the landlord responded to the allegations.

What we did investigate

7. The resident informed the landlord that the during the damp and mould inspection appointment on 27 February 2024, the staff member asked him, “very personal and intrusive questions from a form” and was dismissive and rude.
8. Within the landlord’s complaint responses:
   1. It said as part of its investigation it had spoken to the staff member involved.
   2. It clearly explained the purpose of the damp and mould survey and why it included such questions (particularly those around vulnerabilities and personal information).
   3. It said it could find no evidence that the resident was “coerced” into answering any of the survey questions, noting that several questions had been left blank.
   4. It concluded that the staff member had followed the correct procedures during the visit.
9. We find the landlord’s response in relation to this matter reasonable and based on the evidence available to it at the time. Nothing seen in this investigation suggests that the landlord reached any unreasonable conclusions.
10. For the reasons outlined above, we have found no maladministration.

Complaint	Brightness of the streetlight
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

11. In September 2024, the resident raised concerns about the brightness of a different streetlight. This occurred after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.
12. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the streetlight repair had negatively impacted on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

13. The policies and tenancy agreement provided by the landlord do not explicitly state that it is responsible for repairing the streetlights. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it is, as it ultimately carried out the repairs via a contractor.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe or carry out a temporary repair. An emergency repair is classified as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident. The landlord will carry out all other repairs within 28 calendar days. This includes communal repairs. It further states that any mechanical and electrical maintenance are excluded from the responsive repairs service and installations are maintained by specialist contractors.
15. The resident provided copies of emails dated 27 February 2024 and 25 March 2024, in which he reported that the brightness of the streetlights outside his bedroom window was affecting him and asked for the “tubes” to be replaced. However, there is no evidence that these emails were sent directly to the landlord. Without confirmation that the landlord received them, we cannot conclude that it acted inappropriately during this period.
16. On 30 April 2024, the resident informed the landlord that the streetlight had not been repaired. The landlord responded the same day requesting further details, and after receiving the resident’s reply, it confirmed on 9 May 2024 that the repair had been logged and passed to the relevant team. It also advised that, as it was a communal repair, the contractor might not contact him directly. This appropriately managed the resident’s expectations.
17. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that its contractors had inspected the streetlight in “early May” and identified the need for a deflector to be installed. However, no evidence of this appointment has been provided, indicating poor repair record keeping.
18. The landlord’s contractor fitted the deflector on 10 June 2024, 40 calendar days after the landlord was first notified. As the landlord had referred the repair to its mechanical and electrical team—and such works fall outside the standard responsive repairs service—it is reasonable to conclude that this repair was not subject to the 28-day target for non-emergency and communal repairs. In this context, the landlord’s position in its stage 1 response that the attendance was in line with its repairs policy, was fair.
19. After the stage 1 response, the resident informed the landlord on 14 June 2024 that the streetlight had not been repaired and alleged that the contractor had incorrectly reported the issue as resolved. The landlord appropriately referred the matter back to the contractor, who reattended on 11 July 2024 to adjust the deflector and apply additional tape to minimise the brightness. The landlord informed the resident of the action taken within its stage 2 response and we have seen no evidence that the resident reported the issue again.
20. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to address the resident’s reports about streetlight issues in June 2023. However, the landlord has not provided any repair records to support this, which is further evidence of poor record keeping. Nonetheless, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident and offered him £200 compensation as a way of putting things right. Although we have not had sight of the landlord’s compensation calculation matrix, we find this was a reasonable offer and in line with our remedies guidance.
21. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

22. The landlord’s LCDM policy says that it will carry out any repairs identified within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It will keep residents informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues, and the timetabling of works, where these are required.
23. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 27 February 2024 to undertake a damp and mould inspection. This was following a recommendation that we made on previous determined case in January 2024 (202109858).
24. During the appointment, the landlord provided the resident with an information leaflet. This was in accordance with its damp and mould policy which states it will provide residents with clear and accessible information to help raise awareness on the causes of damp and mould.
25. The next working day, the landlord appropriately raised the required work that was identified during the inspection. This included:
    1. Mould wash under cistern and end of the bath.
    2. Renew bath panel.
    3. Upgrade fans in bathroom and kitchen.
    4. Install heat alarm in kitchen.
26. The same day, the landlord noted internally the resident’s request for a bathroom replacement, but stated the existing bathroom was in a “safe and working condition”. The records show that the landlord informed the resident of this during the appointment, but the resident disagreed with its decision. Nothing seen in this investigation suggests that the landlord reached any unreasonable conclusions and it was entitled to rely on the assessment of its suitably qualified contractors.
27. On 29 February 2024, the landlord left the resident a voicemail with appointment dates for several of the repairs (excluding the bathroom and kitchen fan upgrades). These were appropriately scheduled between 11 March and 12 March 2024, within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It is noted that the landlord was unable to gain access for several of these appointments.
28. On 1 March 2024, the landlord also left the resident a voicemail to advise it would attend to upgrade the fans in the bathroom and kitchen on 11 March 2024. However, it had actually arranged this appointment for 13 March 2024. The landlord’s repair records also show that it had cancelled the repair after the “no access” visit on 13 March 2024 and stated it had been unable to gain access on 3 occasions. This was incorrect. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation for this failure, within its stage 2 response.
29. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it was scheduled to attend under job number WOR100445637 on 18 March 2024, following a no‑access visit on 11 March 2024. However, the appointment was moved to 21 March 2024, and there was no evidence that it had informed the resident of this change, meaning it arrived unannounced. However, this is confusing as this job number was in relation to the inspection undertaken on 27 February 2024. From the evidence provided, it is likely that the landlord was referring to WOR100458545 (to renew bath panel). Nevertheless, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation for the error.
30. Although we have not had sight of the landlord’s compensation calculation matrix, we find the landlord’s offer of £150 for the above failures, reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.
31. As the resident reported that further repairs were needed beyond those identified in the February 2024 inspection, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer to arrange a new inspection appointment, in its stage 2 response. As mentioned earlier, the resident informed us in March 2026 that the landlord did not undertake an inspection. While we do not dispute the resident’s comments, the available evidence shows that:
    1. The landlord attempted to contact the resident several times between 25 July 2024 and 11 September 2024 to arrange a convenient appointment.
    2. On 11 September 2024, the resident requested an appointment for 19 November 2024, which the landlord confirmed the same day.
    3. On 2 October 2024, the landlord attempted to contact the resident via telephone to remind him of the upcoming appointment.
    4. The landlord attended the property on 19 November 2024 but was unable to gain access. The surveyor who attended noted that the resident said, “he had no damp issues”.
32. We have seen no evidence that the resident has made any further reports about damp and mould to the landlord.
33. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint	Reports of alleged discrimination
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

34. The resident reported an allegation of racist comments by the landlord’s contractor. We may not consider complaints which concern matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. If the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against, he may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on his options. Our investigation is limited to how the landlord responded to the concerns expressed.

What we did investigate

35. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights (published in January 2024) explains why it is important for landlords to consider allegations of bias and investigate them accordingly. It says failure to do this can compound a resident’s existing view that they are being treated unfavourably. It also says that investigating this type of allegation will help landlords ensure they are providing a fair, equitable and lawful service. Ultimately, we expect landlords to investigate this type of allegation through their formal complaints process.
36. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will challenge and prevent all forms of discrimination in line with the protected characteristics defined by the Equality Act 2010 and will fully investigate complaints about discrimination.
37. On 30 May 2024, the resident requested to make a complaint about the contractor who had attended his property that day, stating that they were “disrespectful”. We will assess the landlords lack of response at stage 1 within the complaint handling section of the report.
38. On 25 June 2024, the resident told the landlord that it had not properly investigated his concerns about the contractors and that he had experienced racism. The landlord appropriately contacted the resident on 10 July 2024 (during its stage 2 complaint investigation) to discuss his allegations. He told it that he had heard the contractor refer to him as a “coloured man”. He also said that they had acted “coldly” towards him.
39. As the landlord has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 not to unlawfully discriminate against a person based on their protected characteristics, it could have gone further by specifically discussing the resident’s relevant protected characteristic(s) and asking how its contractor’s actions had affected him in relation to this.
40. As part of the landlord’s investigation, it spoke to the contractor on 10 July 2024, which was a positive and reasonable action. The contractor confirmed it had a “thorough conversation” with the operative involved, and the landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was on this basis that it was unable to substantiate the resident’s claims. However, it is unclear from the records whether the discussion with the operative covered the racism allegations. More detailed notes of the conversation and clearer evidence of appropriately challenging the contractor for detail specifically around the allegation would have demonstrated that the landlord had carried out a fully robust investigation.
41. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation. This has been calculated in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

42. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024.
43. The resident complained about the conduct of the landlord’s staff member on 27 February 2024. As the landlord had failed to respond, we instructed it to open a complaint about the matter on 11 June 2024. It acknowledged the complaint on 12 June 2024 and provided the stage 1 response on 14 June 2024. Although it responded promptly once notified by us, the overall response time for this issue was 75 working days, significantly exceeding the timescales set out in its complaints policy and the Code.
44. The resident first raised his complaint about the streetlight repairs on 10 May 2024. He also emailed on 13 May and 21 May 2024 requesting to make a complaint, although it is unclear whether these were sent directly to the landlord. He made a further request on 30 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 June 2024, 17 working days after it was first raised by the resident. This exceeded its complaint handling timescales.
45. The resident made a complaint about the “disrespectful contractor” (which later transpired to be the alleged discrimination complaint) on 30 May 2024. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to this aspect of the complaint at stage 1. Under the Code, if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, it must explain why, but no such explanation was provided. As a result, the resident contacted the landlord on 25 June 2024 to inform it that he had not received a response.
46. We have seen no evidence that the resident had raised any dissatisfaction directly with the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould repairs. Therefore, once we notified the landlord on 11 June 2024, its timescales to responding to this element of the stage 1 complaint was appropriate.
47. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 14 June 2024. We also informed the landlord that he wished to do so on 21 June 2024. The landlord appropriately sent the resident an acknowledgement email on the same day.
48. On 19 July 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it needed to extend the deadline for the stage 2 response, which was permitted under the extension timescales set out in its complaints policy and in the Code.
49. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 July 2024 and awarded £50 for the 5 working day delay. This was a reasonable offer, in line with our remedies guidance.
50. At stage 2, the landlord also offered the resident £50 in compensation for providing incorrect information at stage 1 about the staff‑conduct concerns. At stage 1, it had stated that the damp and mould survey was not completed during the appointment, but at stage 2 it clarified that it had been and apologised for the error. For this failing alone, the compensation offered was appropriate.
51. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to also review its handling of the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. However, the landlord did fully not assess its complaint handling, which meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation.
52. While there were some positive elements to the landlord’s complaint handling, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident we have ordered the landlord to pay him an additional amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance and is in recognition of the multiple failures identified.

 

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

53. The landlords repair records were often missing or unclear, including no evidence of a contractor visit it claimed took place, confusion over job numbers, incorrect “no access” entries, and a lack of documentation to support earlier reports about streetlight issues. The landlord should endeavour to keep contemporaneous repair records.

Communication

54. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was inconsistent. While it sometimes responded promptly and provided clear explanations (for example, after our involvement or during stage 2 investigations), there were repeated failures to acknowledge complaints, delays in responding, and instances where the resident was not informed of repair appointment changes. The landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.