Clarion Housing Association Limited (202424933)

Decision
Case ID	202424933
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed maisonette with her son. She complained to the landlord that the property was cold and had condensation which was causing damp and mould. She said she was concerned about the impact on her son’s health. The resident also complained about blown plaster in her hallway. The resident has stated that the issue with condensation, damp and mould remains unresolved.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Condensation, damp and mould.
2. Damaged plaster.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged plaster.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Condensation, damp and mould.

While the landlord has carried out some investigations and works, it delayed in carrying out several agreed actions. It has failed to resolve the condensation, damp, and mould and as a result the resident and her son continue to live in a property which is uncomfortable.

Damaged plaster.

The landlord delayed in raising repairs to the damaged plaster, it also failed to adhere to its repair policy timeframes. While it apologised for its failings and offered compensation, it did not complete follow-on works until prompted by the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman.

Handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed. While it offered proportionate compensation for this, it then failed to monitor the follow-on works.

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 failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 06 January 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the whole of the property and produces a written report with photographs. The landlord must then set out in writing to the resident: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the condensation, damp, and mould. Whether it is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 06 January 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 made up as follows: £600 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of condensation, damp, and mould. £250 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of damaged plaster. £150 for time and trouble in relation to 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 06 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 September 2024	The resident complained that the property had damp and mould. She said the issue was particularly bad in her son’s bedroom and she was concerned this would impact his health. She also complained that the plaster in the hallway was “falling apart”.
17 December 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It acknowledged delays in completing repairs. It said that while its last inspection in June 2023 had found no visible damp or mould, it would carry out a further inspection. It also agreed to carry out plastering works. The landlord acknowledged that its communication had been poor, particularly around the resident’s concerns about her son’s health. It offered her £600 compensation: £500 for delays in completing repairs (including repairs not considered in this investigation). £100 for complaint handling delays.
21 January 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she remained dissatisfied and wanted the landlord to: Resolve the damp and mould. Review the insulation in the property. Fix the plastering in the hallway.
14 February 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It reiterated the findings from its stage 1 response and added: It had carried out a further inspection. This found no visible mould but identified incorrectly installed loft insulation. It would carry out a heat loss survey. It had inspected the plastering carried out after its stage 1 response. This was satisfactory. It had agreed to complete further plastering. It offered a further £200 compensation for delays to the repairs.
July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she remained unhappy as the issue with damp and mould had not been resolved. She said her son was unable to sleep in his bedroom due to cold and mould.
2 September 2025	In its evidence submission the landlord acknowledged that, following its stage 2 complaint response, it had not: Reviewed the results of its heat loss survey. Applied a mist coat to the plastered hallway. Replaced the hallway radiator which was removed for the plastering works. It offered the resident a further £150 for these delays.

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	Condensation, damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident first reported concerns about condensation, damp, and mould within 6 months of moving into the property. She said there was water running along her ceilings and down the walls. She added that she was struggling to keep the property warm, and her son’s bedroom had black mould on the windows.
The resident raised concerns about condensation, damp, and mould in February 2023 and June 2023. On both occasions the landlord promptly carried out a survey and completed identified works including replacing the living room window and installing additional insulation in the loft.
In May 2024 the landlord raised an inspection of the insulation in the resident’s son’s bedroom. It is not clear whether this was in response to further reports from the resident. The records show the landlord completed the inspection within 2 weeks but we have not seen the inspection’s findings. This indicates gaps in the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident made a formal complaint about the condensation, damp, and mould in September 2024. She said she was concerned about the impact the mould was having on her son’s health. In its stage 1 response the landlord did not note any failings in its handling of the issues but agreed to carry out a further inspection and to check the loft insulation. It raised an order for the survey on the same day it issued its response. This was reasonable.
The landlord completed its survey promptly. It noted no damp and mould but noted the resident had been cleaning the mould to concerns for her son’s health. The survey stated that the walls were cold and that there was too much insulation in the loft which was preventing air flow and causing damp in the corners of the ceilings.
The landlord raised a repair to remove some of the insulation. However, it cancelled this repair noting that it would await the results of a heat loss survey before acting. Given the concerns about the temperature of the property, this was reasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint as she continued to experience damp and mould. In its complaint response the landlord noted that the loft insulation was incorrectly fitted but said the resident had declined an appointment to resolve this until it had completed the heat loss survey.
The landlord carried out its heat loss survey within 3 weeks of its final response. However, it did not follow up on the results until 5 months later when prompted by the Ombudsman. This was unreasonable.
The heat loss survey showed that all rooms met the required temperature levels except the living room and hallway. The landlord said it would refit the hallway radiator which it had removed to complete plastering works 8 months earlier. While this would likely address the temperature in the hallway and as a result, the condensation issue, it has not evidence that it considered action to address low temperatures in the living room.
Since the events considered by this investigation the landlord has carried out repairs to the roof and has carried out further inspections. However, the resident reports that she continues to experience cold temperatures, condensation, damp, and mould.
We acknowledge that in some circumstances the cause of condensation, damp, and mould may be unclear and the landlord will need to carry out investigations. We also recognise that sometimes a landlord will need to carry out a process of elimination to identify a resolution. In such cases we would expect to see it develop an action plan and monitor this to ensure it remedies the issue at the earliest opportunity. We have not seen such a plan or monitoring in this case.
Our Spotlight Report on damp and mould states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Landlords are not obligated to adhere to the recommendations in our Spotlight Reports however, had the landlord done so in this case it could have avoided the failings identified.
Overall, while the landlord has carried out investigations and several works, it delayed in carrying out several agreed actions. It has failed to resolve the condensation, damp, and mould reported by the resident. As a result, she and her son continue to live in a property which is cold, damp, and uncomfortable. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp, and mould.
The landlord has offered the resident compensation for delays in its handling of other repairs within the complaint. However, it has not specifically offered any compensation for its handling of the condensation, damp and mould.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of this issue. This is in line with our remedies guidance which states where there has been a failure which had an adverse effect on the resident, compensation of £100 to £600 is appropriate. In this case the resident and her child have been living in a property which is cold and damp for over 2 and a half years. She has repeatedly expressed concern about the impact on her son’s health.
We have also ordered the landlord to arrange an independent survey. This is because the landlord has carried out several surveys which have failed to identify the cause of the issues. Therefore, it is reasonable to order a survey by an independent professional.

Complaint	Damaged plaster.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident first reported blown plaster in her hallway in March 2023. The landlord took no action following this report.
The resident reported the blown plaster again in January 2024. The landlord did not raise a repair until May 2024. The reason for the delay is unclear.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had carried out “unsuccessful” plastering repairs in June 2024. It is not clear from the records what repairs it carried out or why they were unsuccessful.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint in September, the landlord raised a new repair to replace the blown plaster. It completed this in December 2024. This exceeds its repair policy timeframe of 28 days for non-emergency repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint as she stated the landlord had only replastered the bottom of the wall and the top also required replastering. In February 2025 the landlord agreed to reskim the top of the wall. It completed this around 6 weeks later. This again exceeded its 28-day policy timeframe.
In July 2025 the landlord applied a mist coat to the plaster and reinstalled a handrail which it had removed to complete the plastering. It did not do this until prompted to do so by the resident escalating her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord has offered the resident compensation for delays to its handling of her concerns about damaged plaster. However, it did not complete the required follow-on works associated with the plaster repairs until prompted by our involvement. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damaged plaster.
However, we have not ordered additional compensation for the landlord’s handling of this issue. This is because the £850 compensation offered by the landlord for its repair handling failings is reasonable. We have ordered it to pay the compensation it has offered if it has not already done so.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

It took the landlord 65 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It did not contact her to agree an extension to the timeframe in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it apologised for the delay within its response and offered £100 compensation. This was proportionate.
In its stage 2 response the landlord agreed to carry out several actions. The Code recognises that landlords will not always have completed all outstanding actions by the time it issues its final complaint response. In such cases the complaint response should contain an action plan with timelines which the landlord should monitor and keep the resident updated until actions are completed. In this case, while the landlord provided dates by which it would complete the outstanding actions, it failed to monitor these actions. The Code requires landlords to track any actions outlined in complaint responses through to completion. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not do so.
Overall, the landlord failed to monitor the required follow-on actions as required by the Code. We therefore find maladministration in its handling of the complaint.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation for time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling failings. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

The landlord should have a mechanism within its complaint handling process to ensure follow up works are monitored and completed.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We noted insufficiencies in the landlord’s record keeping in relation to inspections and repairs.

Communication

On several occasions the resident had to chase the landlord for updates. This caused her to invest unnecessary time and trouble.