Clarion Housing Association Limited (202413276)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413276

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about service charges for:
  1. Ground maintenance.
  2. Pest control.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 1-bed ground floor flat within a block which contains one other flat on the first floor. Each flat has its own garden. Within the garden area is a footpath which the landlord is responsible for maintaining. The resident pays a service charge for ground maintenance and pest control.
The landlord has recorded that the resident has several physical health conditions including COPD and asthma.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 4 December 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould over a 20-year period.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 December 2023 and said it would respond within 20 working days.
On 18 February 2024 the resident complained about service charges for pest control and ground maintenance. She said rats were entering her property due to disrepair and she received no ground maintenance services. On 20 February 2024 the landlord said it would add these issues to the existing stage 1 complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 May 2024. It said:
1. Following her most recent report about damp and mould it had carried out a survey. It had cleared the gutters and gulleys and carried out repairs to cracked pipework in the drains.
2. It had installed dehumifiers and had agreed to pay for the cost of running these.
3. The resident had advised no work was required to address the mould.
4. It carried out weed spraying to the communal footpath twice a year. The service charges for ground maintenance were correct and would not be amended.
5. It completed “block wide” pest control treatment in 2022. There was no visible sign of pest activity.
6. It offered her £1,450 compensation for its handling of her reports of damp and mould and £100 for the delay in its complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 3 May 2024. She said she remained dissatisfied with the service she had received from the landlord and felt the compensation offered was insufficient.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 June 2024. It said:
1. It could have escalated the damp and mould to a surveyor sooner.
2. It had responded promptly after her reports of damp and mould in September 2023 but it took too long to complete the required repairs.
3. It increased its offer of compensation for the damp and mould to £2,000.
4. In relation to the ground maintenance charges it repeated its stage 1 response.
5. It should not have charged her for a disinfect clean following removal of rats. It would remove this charge and credit her service charge account accordingly.
On 2 July 2024 the resident made a further stage 1 complaint about ground maintenance charges. She said she was paying for a service she was not receiving. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to this complaint.
The resident brought her case to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and the compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
We acknowledge that the resident first reported damp and mould in the bedroom in 2005 and made further reports in 2013 and 2015. However, she did not raise a formal complaint until December 2023.
Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from December 2022 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.

Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

In September 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in her living room. The landlord carried out a mould treatment 8 days later. This was within its policy timeframe.
Following the mould treatment the operative requested an inspection by a surveyor as he suspected rising damp. He also raised a repair to clear the guttering and downpipe. This was reasonable.
The landlord ordered a surveyor inspection on 9 October 2023. The inspection took place 33 days later.
The landlord’s leaks damp and mould policy does not specify timeframes for carrying out an inspection. However, its response to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould states it would respond in an “urgent and timely manner” and it was introducing a “new faster response time” for such cases. It is reasonable therefore to consider it would respond urgently. That it did not do so was a shortcoming, particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The surveyor inspection noted that there was high humidity and “extreme moisture levels” in the property. He said the level of saturation indicated several issues were ongoing at the same time and ordered investigations of the drains, rainwater goods, and internal pipework. This was reasonable.
After the inspection the surveyor said it was “of concern” that operatives had “dismissed” the resident’s previous reports as being caused by condensation.
The landlord cleared the gutter and downpipe on 20 December 2023. This was outside the 28-day repair timeframe outlined in its policy and was therefore unreasonable.
The landlord’s contractor carried out a CCTV survey of the drains on 26 January 2024. It found a large crack in the gulley and open joints in the pipework.
The resident contacted the landlord several times throughout February and March 2024 asking for an update on the damp and mould works. She said she had been running a dehumidifier constantly and this was causing increased utility costs. She stressed she had health issues including breathing difficulties and that they were being impacted by the damp and mould. That she had to invest unnecessary time and trouble in chasing for updates was unreasonable.
The landlord installed an industrial dehumidifier in April 2024. The records show it has made several payments to the resident to reimburse her for the cost of their use. This was appropriate.
The landlord completed the drain works on 24 April 2024, 89 days after the CCTV survey identified that repairs were required. It replaced the guttering on 20 May 2024, 80 days after it said it would raise the works. The landlord has acknowledged that it took too long to complete these repairs.
The landlord did not fully resolve the damp and mould during its internal complaint process. A month after its final complaint response it noted that the moisture readings in the property were still very high. A year later it identified further broken drainage pipework from the WC which was causing water to leak under the property. It is not clear why it took so long to identify this issue.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £2,000 for the period September 2023 to June 2024. However, as it did not resolve the damp and mould within its internal complaint process, this did not provide reasonable redress. We therefore find maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £342 in addition to the £2,000 it offered in its complaint responses in relation to its handling of damp and mould. We have explained our calculation below.
We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation for the full period that the drainage issues remained unresolved (September 2023 to July 2025). The resident has paid approximately £8,712 in rental payments during this period. In the circumstances it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s enjoyment of the property was reduced by damp and mould. Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay £1,724 compensation (20% of the total rent during the period in question). We acknowledge that this is not a precise calculation. However, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.
The resident experienced distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble because of the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould. She described the property as uncomfortable to live in and smelling strongly of damp and mould. She also explained that she felt the repair issues were repeatedly dismissed by the landlord as being condensation. This caused her to feel ignored. The landlord also failed to address her repeated concerns about the impact on her health. Our remedies guidance suggests an awards of £100 to £600 is appropriate where a failure adversely impacted the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £600 compensation which we consider to be proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble she experienced.
The total compensation in relation to the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould is £2,342. This replaces its previous offer of compensation.

Response to the resident’s concerns about service charges for ground maintenance.

In February 2024 the resident asked the landlord why she was paying a service charge for grounds maintenance when she received no ground maintenance services. She repeated these concerns several times between February and April 2024.
In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses the landlord stated the ground maintenance service charges were correct. It said this was for weed spraying twice a year completed by its contractor.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord carried out any investigations during the complaint period to verify that its contractor was completing the services it was charging the resident for. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to make enquiries of its contractor and to carry out inspections of the area. That it did not was a failing.
We acknowledge that the landlord contacted its contractor in July 2025 to ask for evidence of its visits. However, this was over a year after the resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable. We also note that the contractor did not provide evidence it had attended or carried out any works.
Overall, the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns regarding the ground maintenance service. It has not demonstrated that the service is being provided. We therefore find maladministration in its response to the resident’s concerns about service charges for ground maintenance.
We have ordered the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns properly. This should include gathering evidence to demonstrate whether its contractor has been carrying out any ground maintenance. If it cannot evidence that the service has been carried out, it should repay the resident the charges she has paid. It should also consider the impact on any other neighbours.
In addition, the resident has experienced time and trouble due to the landlord’s response to her concerns about service charges for ground maintenance. Our remedies guidance suggests awards from £100 to £600 should be considered where there was a failure which adversely impacted the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation which we consider to be proportionate to the time and trouble she experienced.

Response to the resident’s concerns about service charges for pest control.

In February 2024 the resident raised concerns that she was paying a service charge for pest control. She said she should not have to do so as rats were entering her property due to repair issues with the drains and brickwork.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord outlined pest control visits that it had carried out. This did not address the resident’s concern that she should not have to pay the charge as the rats had entered the property due to repair issues.
In its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged that it should not have charged the resident for a clean and disinfect it carried out after clearing rats from under her bath. It agreed to remove this charge and credit her account. This was appropriate. However, it has not removed the pest control service charge altogether. The landlord continues to charge the resident for pest control treatment.
The resident has reported that she continues to experience issues with rats. She states that the rats are entering through gaps in the brickwork and a missing vent cover.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to repair the structure and exterior of the building. This includes brickwork and installations for drainage.
The evidence suggests rats gained access through structural deficiencies. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether it was fair to charge the resident for services to treat the infestation.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered whether it was fair and reasonable to continue charging the resident. We have therefore found maladministration in its response to her concerns about service charges for pest control. We have ordered it to review its handling of the resident’s concerns. It should consider whether it is reasonable to charge her for this service given the property’s structural repair issues.
The resident has experienced time and trouble due to the landlord’s response to her concerns about service charges for pest control. Our remedies guidance suggests awards from £100 to £600 should be considered where there was a failure which adversely impacted the resident. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £300 compensation which we consider to be proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble she experienced.

Complaint handling.

At the time of the complaint the landlord was operating an ‘interim’ complaints policy. It aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days. The interim policy was put in place after the landlord experienced a serious cyber-attack. This policy doubled the response timeframes outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
In April 2024 the landlord implemented a new complaints policy which complies with the timeframes outlined in the Code.
It took the landlord 104 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This greatly exceeds the timeframes in both the Code and the landlord’s interim complaints policy. This was unreasonable. It did however apologise for its delay and offer the resident £100 compensation.
The landlord has stated that it did not receive the resident’s second complaint made in July 2024. This is not correct, the evidence shows it received the resident’s email but failed to acknowledge or respond to the complaint. This was a failing.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonably slow and not in accordance with the Code or its own interim complaints policy. The landlord has also failed to respond to the resident’s second complaint. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord offered offer of £100 compensation for its complaint handling went some way to put matters right. However, taking into consideration the time it took to respond, and its failure to respond to the second complaint, the amount offered was not proportionate. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay a further £100 compensation for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about service charges for ground maintenance
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about service charges for pest control.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,974 which comprises:
  1. £1,724 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £600 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble due to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. £150 for time and trouble due to its response to the resident’s concerns about service charges for ground maintenance.
  4. £300 for time and trouble due to its response to the resident’s concerns about service charges for pest control.
  5. £200 for time and trouble due to its complaint handling.
  6. This replaces the landlord’s offer of compensation in its final complaint response.
3. Investigate the resident’s concerns regarding ground maintenance fully. This must include gathering evidence to demonstrate whether its contractor has been carrying out any ground maintenance. If it cannot evidence that the service has been carried out, it should repay the charges she has paid. It should also consider the wider impact on any other neighbours.
4. Review its handling of the resident’s concerns about the pest control charges. It must consider whether it is reasonable to charge her for this service given the property’s structural repair issues. If it determines it is unreasonable to charge her for the service it should repay the charges she has paid. It should also consider the wider impact on any other neighbours.