Clarion Housing Association Limited (202418621)

Decision
Case ID	202418621
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	20 November 2025

Background

The resident complained about the landlord’s response to their report of damp and mould in the property. They asked us to investigate as they were not satisfied with the landlord’s response. They have confirmed that since the landlord’s response, the issue was resolved after the property and tenancy was transferred to a different landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The report of damp and mould.
2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Report of damp and mould in the property

The landlord delayed following the inspection recommendations in an attempt to remedy the mould in the loft. It did not keep the resident updated about the issue and did not set out explanations as to why the recommendations to mitigate the mould had changed from the first inspection. It had not kept records of key milestones that made it difficult to determine if had done as it said, such as removing insulation with mould from the loft.

Complaint handling

The landlord delayed acknowledging the complaint and delayed providing the resident their complaint responses. It had not kept the resident updated or set out an extension to reply in the interim.

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 18 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould in the loft, as offered in its complaint response £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 18 December 2025
3	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	No later than 18 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 September 2023	The resident reported damp and mould in the loft. They asked for this to be remedied as soon as possible because of their child’s allergies.
8 September 2023	A contractor visited the property and found mould on the felt and insulation in the loft. It recommended to replace the insulation, complete a mould treatment on the felt, and for a surveyor to assess the issue.
19 October 2023	The surveyor inspected the property for damp and mould. It found no mould in the living spaces but found mould, or mould staining, in the loft. It recommended added ventilation in the loft and to top-up the insulation.
21 February 2024	The landlord installed ventilation in the loft, upgraded the bathroom vent, but had not topped up insulation. The resident declined this work as they thought it was ineffective to add insulation on top of mould.
29 April 2024	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. They said the landlord had not replaced the insulation and had not treated the roof felt and beams.
8 May 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
3 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident. It apologised for the delay to respond to the complaint. It said the surveyor had removed insulation that contained mould when it had previously visited the property and agreed an inspection of the loft and whether timber treatment would be needed on 6 June 2024. It offered the resident: £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay handling the complaint £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its delay to remedy the damp and mould, taking account for vulnerabilities in the household
27 and 28 June 2024	The resident escalated the complaint as mould was in the loft, and they had not updated about it.
10 July 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
26 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response and reiterated what it said at stage 1. It said it was probably staining on the roof felt and timber, instead of live mould. It said it was not necessary to remove the insulation and that it would arrange a surveyor to check in the issue in 6 months’ time.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that they felt the landlord forgot about their report of damp and mould and prioritised budget over repairs. They felt frustrated by the delay and that they had to chase the landlord about it. They said a different landlord took over their tenancy and resolved the issues. The resident said the landlord paid them £450 and they now want a meaningful apology.

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	Report of damp and mould in the property
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported mould in the loft on 4 September 2023. They were concerned this could affect their daughter’s allergies. The landlord responded the same day and arranged an appointment for 8 September 2023.
On 8 September 2023 the contractor found there was mould on the roof felt and insulation. It recommended that a surveyor assess the issue, treat the mould and install new insulation. It was appropriate to inspect the property to diagnose the issue and set out recommendations in line with its repair policy and leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy (damp and mould policy).
The resident chased the landlord for an update about the issue on 8 October 2023. The lack of proactive updates to the resident about a further inspection from a surveyor was inappropriate and not in line with its damp and mould policy to keep the resident updated. There is also no evidence the landlord treated the mould as recommended. This was inappropriate and was not in line with its Damp and Mould policy to deliver effective solutions in a timely and effective manner.
On 12 October 2023 the landlord arranged an appointment with a surveyor for 19 October 2023. The surveyor found that there was evidence of mould, or mould staining, in the loft. The surveyor recommended installing ventilation in the loft, and to top up the existing insulation to the recommended amount. It was appropriate to further inspect the property and set out repairs to mitigate the issue.
However, the delay to arrange this was outside of its timescales set out in its repairs policy. The resident waited for the landlord to resolve the issue whilst concerned about the impact on their child’s allergies.
On 21 February 2024 the landlord installed a vent in the loft and upgraded the bathroom ventilation. The resident declined that it placed insulation over the mould. It was appropriate and in line with the surveyor’s recommendations to try to remedy the issue. However, the delay of nearly 6 months was inappropriate.
On 8 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord what it would do about the mould on the roof felt and beams, and why it had not replaced the insulation. The landlord had not explained to the resident why the remedy to treat the mould had changed from the first inspection. The landlord acted inappropriately and failed to follow its damp and mould policy to keep residents updated on changes to the remediation of the issue and why.
On 3 June 2024 the landlord said it had removed insulation with mould when it visited the property in February 2024. It said it would arrange for a surveyor to reassess the loft on 6 June 2024 to see if mould treatment to the timber was required. It was appropriate to provide an explanation. However, there is no evidence it removed the loft insulation. This is a failure of its record keeping. There is also no evidence it had previously explained this to the resident prior to, or during, the attempt to top up insulation in the loft to mitigate the issue. This was inappropriate.
On 6 June 2024 a surveyor visited the property. In the landlord’s complaint response, it said it had spoken to the surveyor and that although the roof felt and timber may appear to have mould, it was probably staining of inactive mould.
There is no evidence of the surveyor’s report from 6 June 2024, what the surveyor assessed, what the findings were, and whether it concluded there was mould in the loft or if it was staining. This is a failure of the landlord’s record keeping and has made it difficult to assess whether the landlord followed any recommendations. This was unreasonable.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it recognised there was a delay to resolve the report of damp and mould and paid compensation to the resident.
Whilst the landlord took some steps to put things right, it did not recognise all of the failures we have identified, as set out under the Summary of Reasons of this report. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
We found that the landlord’s offer of £400 was in line with what we would have ordered for the overall failings found in this report. However, it had not set out learnings from the failures identified in the summary of reasons and had not apologised for the failures set out in this report. There are other steps needed to put things right for the resident as set out in the order section of this report.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 May 2024, 6 working days after the complaint was made. This was not in line with the timescales set out in the Code to acknowledge a complaint and was a shortfall of its service.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 3 June 2024. This was 17 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was not in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
The resident escalated the complaint on 27 June 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge it until 10 July 2024 and issued its stage 2 response on 26 July 2024. This was not in line with the timescales set out in the Code. This was a failure of its service.
The landlord apologised for the time taken it had taken to respond to the complaint and offered £50 compensation for this. Whilst the landlord took some steps to put things right, it did not recognise all of the failures we have identified, as set out under the Summary of Reasons of this report. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
We found that the landlord’s offer was not in line with what we would have ordered for the failings found in this report. We have therefore made orders to put things right for the resident, which includes an apology and compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord had not kept key records of the inspection findings and its actions to mitigate mould in the property. This meant it would have been difficult for it to understand what it had done and what it may have needed to do to remedy the issue.

Communication

The landlord had not proactively kept the resident updated following their report of mould in the property where there had been significant delays. This may have undermined the relationship between the resident and the landlord.