Clarion Housing Association Limited (202416331)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat with her children. She is dyslexic and prefers verbal communication rather than written correspondence. In 2024, she reported ongoing damp and mould in her home, which she said had persisted for several years. She asked the landlord to provide a permanent solution or consider rehousing because she believed the conditions were affecting the household’s health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in how the landlord response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord took some steps to investigate and carry out repairs to address the damp and mould. It also offered proportionate redress for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. However, it did not evidence the basis of its decisions or demonstrate that it gave targeted advice. It also did not assess the home’s suitability while reports continued. This gap in its approach amounts to service failure.

The response to the associated complaint

5. The landlord acknowledged the complaints promptly and adapted its communication to the resident’s needs. Although it issued its stage 2 complaint responses outside the timescales set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it acknowledged this delay and awarded reasonable compensation.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported damp and mould in late March 2023. This followed a series of leaks in the home, which were resolved by that stage. It inspected and treated the mould within the 28-day non-emergency timescale set out in its repairs policy. This was appropriate because, based on the information recorded, the issue did not meet the criteria for a more urgent response. As the resident did not report any further issues at that stage, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the treatment had been effective, and the damp and mould related to earlier leaks.
7. When the resident reported damp and mould again in late February 2024, the landlord inspected within its non-emergency timescale. It noted that the bathroom needed an extractor fan but also recorded that it was unsure of the underlying cause. It then raised follow-on works to treat mould in several rooms, which indicated the problem was wider than bathroom ventilation alone. Given this uncertainty, the landlord needed to build a clearer picture of the factors affecting the home. Its damp and mould policy says that where issues may arise from a combination of factors, it should carry out further investigation to diagnose the cause.
8. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord returned in April 2024 to carry out a more detailed inspection. During this visit, it checked the windows, gutters and brickwork and recorded these as in working order, which showed it was considering potential property-related factors. This helped narrow down the possible causes and was a reasonable next step.
9. The landlord also noted that the flat was not adequately ventilated and said that it gave the resident advice on reducing condensation. However, the records do not show what observations led it to decide this or how this linked to condensation being the cause of mould across several rooms. The landlord should have carried out an assessment in each room and created a record of the advice given. This would have provided clear evidence of how it reached its view and what the resident was asked to do in response.
10. Without this detail, the landlord has not shown that its advice was targeted, as its damp and mould policy requires. That policy says it should explain inspections findings clearly, state the likely cause of issues, and give clear guidance to help residents manage moisture levels. The absence of recorded observations and tailored advice made it unclear whether the resident was being asked to take reasonable steps or whether the condition of the home itself limited her ability to improve the situation. This gap in information also appeared in her complaints, where she expressed her concerns were not being fully understood or acted on.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also said that leaks were the cause of condensation and mould build-up in the home. This explanation was not supported by the records. Given the 10-month gap since the last reported leak and no evidence of further leaks during this later period, the landlord had no clear basis to rely on historic leaks when responding to the resident’s new reports of damp and mould. This suggests the landlord needed to take a more structured approach to its investigations so it could reach a clearer, evidenced-based view.
12. The landlord completed 3 mould treatments between April and August 2024, which showed it took some action to address the symptoms the resident reported in this period. This aligned with its damp and mould policy, which says it will carry out repairs and remedial works to rectify problems. The resident declined installation of the extractor fan in the bathroom, so we recognise this limited the landlord’s ability to progress that specific action. However, as the tenancy obligations require the resident to allow reasonable access for inspections and works, the landlord should have reminded her of this. This would have demonstrated that it was taking all reasonable steps to meet its own duties.
13. In her stage 1 complaint, the resident said the mould in her home posed a health risk to her family. Despite this, the landlord did not assess whether the home was safe to live in. Its damp and mould policy requires it to support residents’ safety and wellbeing and to carry out a risk assessment where issues are severe or recurring.
14. The policy also refers to the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018, which places an obligation on landlords to ensure their properties are fit to live in. A home may be considered unfit if it contains a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, such as damp and mould. In this context, the landlord had clear reason to consider the safety of the home. Because it did not do so or explain its position to the resident, she was left uncertain about the risks in her home and without reassurance about her family’s wellbeing.
15. Furthermore, because the landlord had not assessed whether the home was safe to live in, it could not be confident that the rehousing advice in its stage 1 complaint response met the resident’s circumstances. It was reasonable to explain the options available, but these routes depend on whether the property itself is suitable to occupy. Without that assessment, the landlord’s suggestions did not feel meaningful or helpful to the resident, as she explained when she referred her complaint to us.
16. Finally, the landlord offered the resident £515 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her damp and mould reports. This amount also recognised the increased impact on the resident due to her children’s additional needs and included reimbursement for a tracksuit. We consider the financial offer reasonable in the circumstances and broadly in line with what we would have ordered the landlord to pay the resident. Considering this, we will not order further compensation.
17. However, the evidence shows that the underlying cause of damp and mould has not been fully established and the landlord could do more to investigate it. The resident continued to report damp and mould in October 2024, March and August 2025, which indicates the pattern of damp and mould reappearing remains unresolved. The landlord also did not assess whether the home was suitable to live in. Taken together, these factors have led us to determine service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould, and we have included orders to address the outstanding concerns.

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the Code’s timescales.
    2. The resident raised both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints through our Service, and we notified the landlord. Within a few days of each notification, the landlord called the resident to discuss her concerns and understand the outcome she wanted. This met the Code’s requirement to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
    3. Because the landlord knew the resident is dyslexic and prefers verbal communication, calling her also showed good complaint handling. It respected her reasonable adjustments and supported her access to the complaints process, which aligns with the Code.
    4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement, which also met the Code’s requirements.
    5. Although the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response outside the 20-working day timescale in the Code, it apologised, explained the delay, and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused. This was in line with the Code’s requirement to acknowledge failings and provide redress where appropriate. The landlord should pay this compensation to the resident now if it has not done so already.
19. In light of the landlord’s acknowledgment and compensation, we find reasonable redress in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s records were detailed and showed good practice. They captured the full repair journey, including notes explaining why works were cancelled or delayed. This level of detail supports transparency. However, the landlord now needs to record the reasons behind its observations and any advice it gives to residents, to demonstrate evidence-based decisions and support residents’ understanding of an issue.

Communication

21. The landlord showed good practice in how it communicated when it adapted its approach to the resident’s dyslexia, which helped her access the complaints process and feel supported.