Clarion Housing Association Limited (202431663)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431663

Clarion Housing Association Limited

6 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the residents’ reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 2 June 2023. The property is a new build 1-bedroom maisonette, built in May 2023.
On 5 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord’s Customer Care and Quality Team to report ‘several areas’, ‘which looked like damp patches’, in her property. The resident said:
1. This was more visible on the back of her kitchen units, where there was ‘black mould and bubbling’ on the wall.
2. She had spoken to her upstairs neighbour who told her they had the same ‘bubbling and mould marks going up the stairs from the entrance of their home.’ The resident said her neighbour’s stairs were ‘directly adjoined’ to the walls where the damp was visible in her home.
3. She was worried about her health as she had had a continuous cough for ‘some weeks’ and was starting to wonder whether this might be related to the damp and mould in her property.
On 19 February 2024, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about ‘extensive’ damp and mould in her property, missed and cancelled appointments and damage to her personal items. The resident also complained that a radiator which was supposed to be replaced, as it was too small, had been going ‘back and forth’ between its defects and heating teams.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 April 2024. In summary the landlord:
1. Said it had identified ‘a few areas’ where it had failed to resolve matters within the timescales. The landlord apologised for the delays this caused and offered £50 compensation for its lack of communication, the resident having to chase for a response and for being passed between teams and being given the incorrect information.
2. Said the damp and mould had been inspected in February 2024. Its Customer Care and Quality Team had passed concerns regarding cold bridging to the developer, who had arranged for the insulation installers to inspect. No issues were identified and no further works were required.
3. Said, an appointment for damp readings and a surface thermal test of her bedroom had been arranged for 26 April 2024.
4. Said, with regards to the radiator, whilst its heating contractor said the radiator was undersized, the developer inspected it and advised it was deemed fit for purpose.
5. Apologised for the lack of communication and wrong information provided by its heating contractor. It also acknowledged that the resident should have been referred to its Customer Care and Quality Team as her property was still in the defect period. The landlord confirmed this failure was included in the £50 compensation previously offered.
6. Apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response, explaining that this was due to high customer contact at that time. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for this failure.
7. Advised, in regard to the damage reported to the resident’s personal property, to make a claim with her home contents insurer or if this is not possible to make a claim to its Liability insurers, whose details the landlord included in its response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 April 2024. In summary the resident said:
1. Although, action was now being taken to establish the underlying issue, this remained a problem and the mould and damp was still spreading to the furniture in her bedroom.
2. She appreciated the compensation provided but this was not sufficient for the ‘psychological anguish’ she and her husband had experienced when actions were not taken by the landlord.
3. The situation with the property was impacting their mental and physical health. She had informed the landlord several times that her husband had asthma and that she was undergoing IVF treatment from January 2024.
4. She was ‘very concerned’ about the mould issue and despite the landlord stating the insulation was ‘fine’ and that the heating was adequate, the continuing growth of damp and mould showed there was a serious underlying issue.
5. She wanted the landlord to landlord support them in finding alternative accommodation.
The landlord issued its final response on 1 July 2024. In summary, the landlord said:
1. It had identified no failure on its part with regards to the resident’s reports. However, there had been a delay in it providing its final response, which it said was due to the ‘cross-team collaboration work’ required. The landlord offered the resident a further £75 for this delay, this being in addition to the £50 offered for the delay in its stage 1 response.
2. The developer had been made aware of the resident’s concerns in the defects period and had supplied dehumidifiers to remove excess water/moisture from the environment. The developer had also offered to cover the additional electricity costs in relation to the dehumidifiers.
3. Its Development Manager and surveyor who attended the resident’s property were both very experienced. If there were any concerns or if they felt there was a risk regarding the damp and mould, they would have recommended further actions.
4. The assessment was that the issues raised by the resident were caused by the property drying out from the build process. There were also some other factors such as furniture up against walls for which advice had been provided.
5. It would continue to support the resident and appreciated the concerns that leaks, condensation, damp, and mould can pose.
6. The resident’s request for rehousing was not part of her original complaint but it was happy to provide her with advice. It went on to explain that, as its inspections had not identified a need for her to move out of her home for it to be repaired, and as it was not considered uninhabitable or unsafe, it would be unable to consider her for a priority move. However, there were other options the resident may wish to consider, which it provided information about.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. The 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.

Scope

It is acknowledged that the resident has raised concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her and her husband’s health. Whilst we empathise with the resident, we do not have the expertise to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or inaction had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s actions or inaction.
It is also acknowledged that the resident asked the landlord in her escalation request to be moved. However, this matter did not form part of the original stage 1 and, as the landlord made it clear in its stage 2 response, the information it provided was only for advice. This matter has therefore not exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process and so cannot be considered further in this investigation.

Response to the residents’ reports of damp and mould in her property

The existence of defects alone does not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service. During the defects period, the developer is responsible for dealing with any defects. As the developer is not a member of the scheme, we cannot consider its actions. However, during this period residents are reliant on the landlord to pursue the developer to ensure the defect works are completed within a reasonable timescale and to a reasonable standard. The landlord would also be expected to ensure that there is effective communication between all parties.
In the period covered by this report, the landlord’s Customer Care and Quality Team completed 2 defects orders which it submitted to the developer on 29 August 2023 and 17 January 2024.
There was a significant delay in the first defects order being raised. This is because the resident’s initial report was made on 5 July 2023 and the defects order was not raised with the developer until 29 August 2023, over 6 weeks later. This delay meant the resident had to chase the landlord, which she did on 6 and 23 August 2023. It was only after her contact on the 23 August 2023 that the landlord responded, at which point it apologised for its ‘very delayed’ response.
Having raised the defects order on 29 August 2023,the landlord’s Customer Care and Quality Team advised the resident that she should be contacted by the developer within 7 days, with an expected completion date of 5 September 2023.
Following the defects order being raised on 29 August 2023, the developer:
1. Carried out an inspection of the property and arranged for dehumidifiers to be delivered to the resident on 1 September 2023. The developer said these would need to be in place for 6 weeks, running 24 hours a day. They also said they would take readings after 3 weeks and then again after another 3 weeks to ensure the property was drying out as it should.
2. Asked the landlord for the details of the resident in the flat above so they could arrange for a dehumidifier to be delivered to them as well.
3. Arranged, with the resident, for their engineers to visit on 7 September 2023 to cut some holes in the walls which they said would help with the drying out process. They also said their engineer would return to make good any damage on 30 November 2023. This was subsequently changed to 20 December 2023.
4. On 7 November 2023, offered the resident £273.35 to reimburse her for the costs of running the dehumidifier.
We have seen no evidence of the landlord’s Customer Care and Quality Team contacting the resident during this time.
In addition to carrying out the above works the developer:
1. Advised the landlord it believed the reason for the damp and mould was the properties had been constructed in the wet. They explained that this meant moisture had been trapped and was now coming out ‘via the dabs’ in the external walls. The developer told the landlord this was ‘a fairly rare occurrence’ but had seen it before, and had found the best way to solve it was to have dehumidifiers running for a period of a few weeks.
2. Advised the resident ‘the drying out process’ was ‘ongoing’, could take up to 2 years and provided the resident with advice as to how to reduce condensation and prevent mould growth. In contrast to what it told the landlord; the developer told the resident this was ‘perfectly normal.’
Two years appears to be an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for her property to ‘dry out.’ However, this appears to be consistent with the NHBC’s ‘Moisture in New Homes – A Guide for Occupants.’ This states ‘a newly built home will contain a lot of construction moisture. Over time this moisture will gradually disappear and you should expect your new home to reach a moisture balanced state within 18 months to 2 years’.
Given that was the case, the landlord would have been expected to evaluate what mitigations they might put in place to support resident during this potentially 2-year period and to satisfy themselves they are taking all reasonable steps.
The NHBC’s guidance sets out a number of steps that could be taken in such situations. These include:
1. Re-positioning furniture to allow the air to move freely around each room.
2. Adjusting or fixing any problems with the ventilation system.
3. During cool or cold weather increase ventilation and/or heating.
It is evident that the resident was provided with advice about moving furniture away from her walls to allow air circulation. However, it this was initially provided by the developer and not the landlord. Further:
1. We have seen no evidence of the ventilation in the property being raised by the landlord as something for the developer to inspect in the time period covered by this report. It was not until after the end of defects inspection in April 2025, some 9 months after its final response, that it was noted the extractor fans needed attention. In response to the end of defects report, the developer said its electrical contractor had visited in August 2024, set up the fans to the appropriate ‘boost and trickle speeds’, and reported that the fans were functioning correctly. We have seen no evidence to corroborate this.
2. With regards to heating, the resident told the developer on 30 November 2023 that her bedroom did not get warm regardless of the heating being on at a high temperature. The resident said she had escalated this to ‘the company who deals with the heating’ and they would be coming to do a heat survey on 7 December 2023. The developer responded to the resident on 4 December 2023 to advise that once she had the heat survey report, she should refer this to the landlord so it could raise an order, if necessary.
The landlord’s repair records note that its heating contractor had attended the resident’s property on 11 December 2023 and found the radiator in her bedroom was ‘undersized’. We have seen no evidence of the landlord’s Customer Care and Quality Team responding to this report until 15 January 2024. This being in response to an email from the resident saying she had heard nothing from the landlord about what action it was going to take to provide ‘adequate’ heating in her bedroom.
In their response on 15 January 2024, the landlord’s Customer Care and Quality Team told the resident they would not install another radiator as this was not considered a defect. The resident was advised to discuss this with the landlord’s repairs team.
However, despite having told the resident on 15 January 2024, that the radiator would not be considered a defect, the Customer Care and Quality Team then submitted a new defect works order to the developer about this issue. The resident was advised of this on 17 January 2024. We have seen no evidence of any action taken by the developer following this new defect works order.
On 25 January 2024, another landlord’s operative attended the resident’s property to carry out an inspection. The inspection template confirmed that remedial works were required, but did not specify what these were. It also noted a surveyor referral was required.
The resident contacted the landlord’s Customer Care and Quality Team the same day to ask whether they had received the operative’s report. However, it was evident that the Customer Care and Quality Team member was unaware that the landlord’s operative had attended and recommended a surveyor referral. Instead, and despite being aware that the property was within defects period, they simply told the resident that if the visit related to damp and mould, she would need to speak to the landlord’s repairs team.
It is unclear why the Customer Care and Quality Team member would have told the resident to speak to the repairs team when they knew her property was within its defects period and the developer would be responsible for addressing the damp and mould issues. As with their response with regards to the radiator, these mixed messages would have understandably caused unnecessary frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
Having taken the Customer Care and Quality Team member’s advice, the resident contacted the landlord’s repairs team. Following this an inspection was carried out by the landlord’s Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould (LCDM) Delivery Manager and surveyor. Whilst these appointments were missed on 2 occasions, and whilst their report repeated that these issues were for the developer to resolve, it is noticeable that following the involvement of the LCDM team, the developer was more rigorously pursued with regards to the damp and mould.
It has been noted that the landlord emailed the resident on 23 February 2024, to say it had credited £30 to her rent account for the missed appointments.
Internal emails between the LCDM Delivery Manager and surveyor refer to:,
1. Their believing the radiator was providing sufficient heat but having concerns about the ‘unusually cold, external wall.’
2. That the ‘defect contractor’ appeared ‘reluctant’ to attend without a number of questions being answered.
3. From the measurements it was ‘clearly apparent that the bedroom external walls were thermally cold’.
4. ‘This coupled with warm air within the property gives rise to a high likelihood of water condensing onto the wall surfaces (dew point).’
5. In their ‘professional surveying opinion,’ this was ‘why there (was) condensation-based mould growth to the external walls. A lack of insulation to the external walls (low surface temperature) and/or lack of adequate ventilation to disperse the warm/humid air within this room’
We have not seen evidence that the landlord forwarded the above to the developer. However, the landlord’s records noted on 8 April 2024 that the developer had arranged for the insulation installers to return to the property to check if there were any anomalies to the insulation causing cold bridging. The landlord noted that the developer had confirmed that ‘everything was fine’ and that no further investigations were required. They also noted that the bedroom radiator had been inspected and was ‘fit for purpose.’
On 9 April 2024, the developer also emailed the resident, copying in the landlord, to advise that an appointment had been made for its engineer to carry out damp readings and a ‘surface thermal test’ to her bedroom on 26 April 2024. However, no one attended. A further appointment was made for 9 May 2024, which was cancelled by the resident and rearranged for 30 May 2024. However, we have seen no evidence that the thermal test of the resident’s bedroom was completed.
At the time of the final response of 1 July 2024, over a year had passed since the resident first report the damp and mould in her property and it had still not been resolved.
The complaints process provided the landlord with the opportunity to identity and apologise for any failures, to take steps to make things right and to learn from its findings.
In its stage 1 response of the landlord apologised to the resident for its lack of communication, for her having to chase for a response, for being passed between teams and being given the incorrect information. However, the £50 offered fell significantly below the amount we would expect to be offered given the level of failings in this case.
In its final response of 1 July 2024, the landlord said it had identified no failures on its part with regards to the resident’s reports, saying:
1. It had and would continue to support the resident, which as set out in this report we are not satisfied that it did.
2. If its Delivery Manager and surveyor had any concerns they would have recommended further action, which as set out above they did. Why the landlord did not share the findings of its Delivery Manager and surveyor remains unclear.
3. The developer had been asked for further information including ‘a thermal survey for later that year when the cooler weather would give the best results.’ However, it made no mention of the ‘surface thermal test’ that the developer had arranged with the resident to take place on 30 May 2024, over a month earlier, whether this had been done or what the outcome of that was.
Given the failures identified in this report, the landlord’s failure to fully acknowledge those failures, and the compensation offered not being proportionate to the level of those failings a finding of maladministration has been made.
To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her an additional £700 bringing the total payable to £750. This figure being in line with amounts set out in our remedies guidance in situations where the landlord’s failings have had a significant impact on the resident and it has failed to fully acknowledge its failings nor taken sufficient steps to put things right. It also takes into account that it was the developer and not the landlord who was responsible for dealing with any defects.
The landlord has also been ordered to review its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in this case. This review must include, but is not limited to its coordination and communication between the developer and the resident and the effectiveness of its cross-team collaboration in this case. Having completed its review the landlord is to provide us with a copy of its findings and what actions it intends to take as a result.
A further order has also been made for the landlord to arrange for an independent, suitably qualified surveyor to carry out an inspection of the resident’s property. The reasons for this being:
1. At the end of the complaints there were issues that remained outstanding, including the thermal test of the resident’s bedroom.
2. The lack of transparency by the landlord in its final response as to what the findings of its Delivery Manager and surveyor were.
3. The resident having advised us on 19 June 2025, 2 years after moving into the property, that she still has damp and mould in her living room and bedroom.
Once completed, the report is to be shared with us and the resident. If any recommendations are made, the landlord is to provide us and the resident with an action plan as to what it intends to do in response to those recommendations and when.

Handling of the associated complaint

The resident logged her formal complaint with the landlord on 19 February 2024.
In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and then issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement.
The landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint on 27 February 2024 and sent an acknowledgement email the same day. This noted that the response date was 5 March 2024. However, the stage 1 response was not issued until 18 April 2024, a delay of some 32 days.
Both the landlord’s complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code allows for situations where the landlord may need more time to provide its response. In such circumstances it would be expected to notify the resident of this and confirm a date by which its response will be issued. The landlord is not expected to extend this by more than 10 working days. However, in the case of its stage 1 response, no such contact was made.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for this delay, explained the reason for the delay, and offered the resident £50 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 April 2024. In accordance with its complaints policy the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and then issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
Again, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within the required timescales. However, there was then a significant delay in its providing its stage 2 response, which it did not do until 1 July 2024, a delay of some 22 working days.
However, in this case the landlord did write to the resident on 29 May 2024 to apologise that it had been unable to resolve her complaint at that time. The landlord explained that the process of being checked by the Heads of Service involved and once this was completed, it would be able to provide its final complaint resolution. The landlord said that it would aim to do this by 26 June 2024, which it did not do.
This meant that the resident had to chase it for its response, which she did on 26 June 2024. The landlord replied to the resident the following day, apologising for the further delay and explaining that this this was due to further discussions taking place between various teams regarding the complaint. The landlord said it would update the resident the following week, which it did, issuing its final response on 1 July 2024.
Again, the landlord apologised for the delay in providing its response. It explained the reason for the delay for which it offered the resident a further £75.
Overall, we are satisfied the apology, acknowledgement, explanation and total of £125 compensation offered by the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress for the delays in its handling of the complaint, and the unnecessary distress and inconvenience this would have understandably caused her.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £750 in respect of the impact its failures in response to her reports of damp and mould had on her. This figure includes the £50 previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in this case. This review must include, but is not limited to its coordination and communication between the developer and the resident and the effectiveness of its cross-team collaboration in this case. Having completed its review the landlord is to provide us with a copy of its findings and what actions it intends to take as a result.
2. Arrange for a specialist damp and mould inspection to be carried out at the resident’s property. If the landlord has had a specialist damp and mould inspection carried out in the last 2 months, it does not need to arrange for another one to be done. However, in either case:
  1. The completed specialist damp and mould inspection report is to be shared with us and the resident.
  2. If any recommendations are made, the landlord is to provide us and the resident with an action plan as to what it intends to do in response to those recommendations and when.
The landlord is to confirm compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already, the landlord is to pay the resident the £125 it previously offered her in regard to its acknowledged complaint handling failures. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on the landlord doing so.