Clarion Housing Association Limited (202432689)

Decision
Case ID	202432689
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	24 November 2025

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord that it had not resolved damp and mould throughout the property where she lived with her 4 children. She raised concerns about the health impacts of this. She asked the landlord to urgently rehouse her. She was unhappy with its final response to the complaint and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s housing arrangements.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the housing arrangements.
6. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of damp and mould

7. The landlord did not resolve the damp and mould in a “timely and effective manner” as required by its policy and its communications with the resident were poor.

Handling of the resident’s housing arrangements

8. The landlord’s records do not evidence that it risk assessed the resident’s living arrangements in line with its policy. It delayed in responding to her initial request to be rehoused. It then delayed in sourcing suitable temporary accommodation.

Handling of the complaint

9. The landlord did not raise a stage 1 complaint in line with its policy when the resident first complained.

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 22 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of the damp and mould. £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of the housing arrangements. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and is in addition to the £700 compensation it has already paid. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 22 December 2025

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 September 2024	The resident reported that damp and mould had appeared on several walls and ceilings in the property following a leak the previous month. She said it smelt bad and she was worried about her family’s health.
30 September 2024	The landlord inspected the property and then raised a works order for mould treatment.
7 October 2024	The landlord attended the property to carry out the mould treatment. However, given the extent of the mould, it raised a works order for a surveyor’s inspection instead of completing the mould treatment.
18 October 2024	A surveyor inspected the property and identified the damage in the property from the leak was “extensive” and there was a “lot of moisture” present. He ordered 2 dehumidifiers to address the moisture and raised a works order for a plasterer to assess the damage to ceilings and walls.
4 November 2024	The resident emailed the landlord and said she was making a formal complaint about the condition of the property. She said her family’s health had suffered and lots of belongings were ruined by the damp and mould. She asked the landlord to rehouse her urgently as the property was “uninhabitable”. She attached photographs to show the extent of the damp and mould and damage it had caused to household items. The landlord did not acknowledge or register this as a formal complaint.
11 November 2024	A plasterer was scheduled to inspect the property but the inspection did not go ahead due to an administrative error.
13 December 2024	The resident sent a further formal complaint email to the landlord about the “severe mould” in her property. She said she had reported it “multiple times” and it was widespread, but the landlord had taken “no effective action” to resolve it. She asked the landlord to compensate her for damage to her family’s health and belongings, and to rehouse her urgently as the property was “completely unliveable”. The landlord registered this as a stage 1 complaint.
16 December 2024	The landlord raised a works order for the surveyor and plasterer to carry out a joint inspection.
16 January 2025	The surveyor and plasterer carried out a joint inspection. They found the mould had spread and advised the landlord to move the resident into temporary accommodation while it carried out the required repairs.
17 January 2025	The landlord moved the resident and her family into a hotel.
24 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It was sorry for the distress the “widespread mould” had caused. The property was not uninhabitable when it inspected it in October 2024. It only considered alternative accommodation necessary from January 2025 onwards as the situation had deteriorated by then. It did not yet have a completion date for the remedial works and it may need to involve insurers, but it would keep the resident updated. It did not consider permanent rehousing was necessary but the resident could ask its housing team to reassess her case. The resident could submit a liability claim for personal injury and loss of belongings through its insurers. It advised her how to do this. It offered her £150 compensation due to its “repeated visits to assess and treat the damp and mould”, and a further £50 as it had not issued the stage 1 response within its policy timeframes.
12 February 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said: Had it resolved the damp and mould sooner, “much of the damage, distress, and disruption could have been avoided”. The compensation it offered at stage 1 was not adequate. She had been in a hotel for almost a month but the landlord had not told her how much longer she would be there. She had repeatedly asked for a management move but she was “passed from person to person, with no clear resolution”.
Between 25 February 2025 and 1 April 2025	The landlord liaised with its insurers due to the costs involved with the remedial works. The insurance company’s loss adjustors inspected the property and determined the scope of works. The landlord also asked the insurer to source temporary accommodation through the Insurance Claims Accommodation Bureau (ICAB).
2 April 2025	The landlord added the resident to its management transfer list as a priority case for permanent rehousing. It gave approval for this due to the extent of work required to the property.
10 April 2025	An ICAB temporary property became available. The resident and her family moved out of the hotel and into this property.
1 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged: There were some delays in its handling of the damp and mould prior to it passing the case to the loss adjustors. Its communications with the resident about permanent rehousing was poor up until it informed her of its decision to add her to the management transfer list in April 2025. It offered the resident £400 compensation for its delays (£250), poor communications (£100) and delayed stage 2 response (£50).
11 September 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident and said it had reviewed its handling of her complaint and recognised it should have raised a formal complaint sooner than it did. It apologised and offered her £100 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She explained that the situation had been “incredibly stressful, overwhelming, and upsetting” for her and her children. She wanted the landlord to fully acknowledge this and fairly compensate her as she did not feel it had done so in its complaint responses.

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	Handling of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

10. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had delayed in resolving the damp and mould in the resident’s property. However, the only specific failures it referred to within the response were that:
    1. Its plasterer did not attend an appointment in November 2024 due to an administrative error.
    2. It re-raised the works order for the plasterer to attend along with the surveyor in December 2024, but the appointment did not take place until January 2025 due to operative availability.
11. The landlord was correct to identify that these delays were not in keeping with its repairs policy and damp and mould policy. However, we have found a number of other failures in its handling of the damp and mould which it did not acknowledge in its complaint responses. For example:
    1. Following the resident’s initial report of damp and mould on 9 September 2024, it took the landlord 15 working days to inspect the property. Given she told it the mould was growing on walls and ceilings in several rooms, it was getting “very bad”, and that she had a baby in the house, it should have responded sooner. Its repairs policy requires it to provide an emergency response where there is an “immediate danger” that could damage health. In our view, it should have treated this as an emergency in the first instance and it could then have re-prioritised its follow on action depending on the findings of its initial inspection.
    2. It carried out 4 inspections in the 4 month period between the resident’s initial report (September 2024) and its decision to move her into a hotel (January 2025). During this time the only action it appears to have carried out to mitigate the damp and mould was to provide dehumidifiers. It did nothing to treat the mould or limit its spread while it came up with a longer-term plan to fully resolve the issue. This was not in keeping with its damp and mould policy which required it to act in a “timely and effective manner” to “minimise damage” to the property. Its inaction meant that for 4 months the mould was continuing to spread throughout the property while the resident and her 4 children remained living there.
    3. It is evident from the resident’s communications with the landlord during that 4 month period that she was highly distressed by the situation and her living conditions. She was understandably concerned about the impact on her family’s health. She repeatedly told the landlord the situation was getting worse. She formally complained in November 2024 and attached photographs to her complaint email showing significant amounts of mould on walls and ceilings throughout the property. The photographs showed mould had grown on furniture, clothes and other belongings, including a pram and children’s car seats. The landlord did not respond to this complaint or re-prioritise its response. It provided her with no advice at that time on managing the situation and gave no clear indication of when and how it would resolve the issue. This was not in keeping with its damp and mould policy which requires it to communicate clearly with residents and offer them support.
    4. It was only when the resident complained again in December 2024 and involved an elected representative, that the landlord re-raised the works orders for a plasterer and surveyor to inspect the property. It is unclear why it had not already re-raised the works order over a month previously when the plasterer did not complete the inspection originally booked. That it took for the resident to complain again before it re-raised the works order demonstrated it had not “tracked and managed” the case as required by its damp and mould policy.
12. Given the above, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
13. The resident told us that she and her family were “traumatised” during the 4 months they lived in the property with untreated and significant levels of mould, and that this has had a lasting impact on their emotional wellbeing. As a single parent of 4 children, she had to deal with the upheaval alone of moving the family out of the property, and with the inconvenience of disposing of and replacing damaged possessions. This overall impact would likely have been mitigated had the landlord acted sooner and provided her with appropriate advice and support when she first reported the issue.
14. Given this impact, we do not consider the £400 compensation offered by the landlord in its complaint responses (£150 at stage 1 and £250 at stage 2) for its delay in resolving the damp and mould is enough. In line with our Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration where there has been a significant impact on a resident, we order it to pay her an additional £400 compensation.
15. We note that the landlord appropriately advised the resident in its complaint responses about how she could submit a claim to its public liability insurers for personal injury and loss of belongings. She subsequently made a claim which remains with the landlord’s insurers. She should contact the landlord or insurer directly if she wishes to discuss this.  

Complaint	Handling of the resident’s housing arrangements
Finding	Maladministration

16. The landlord said in its complaint responses that when its surveyor inspected the property in October 2024, he did not consider it was necessary to move the resident and her family into temporary accommodation. It suggested this decision was made “at the time” as the damp and mould was “not assessed to be severe enough to render the property uninhabitable”. It said this decision was made in line with its policies. However, we have seen no contemporary evidence to support this.
17. The landlord’s contemporary repair records of the October 2024 survey reflect that there was “extensive” damage to the property and “a lot of moisture” present. The records show the landlord then placed dehumidifiers in the property and raised a works order for a plasterer to inspect “mouldy plasterboard”. However, the records do not show that the landlord specifically considered whether alternative accommodation was necessary and ruled this out. There is also no evidence that it carried out a risk assessment in line with its damp and mould policy. This was despite it assessing the damage as “extensive” and knowing there were 4 children in the house. We are therefore unable to conclude with certainty that the landlord gave proper consideration to the suitability of the resident’s housing arrangements when it surveyed the property in October 2024.
18. When the resident made a formal complaint in November 2024, she asked the landlord to permanently rehouse her and she referred to the property as “uninhabitable”. If the landlord had specifically considered and ruled out the need for alternative accommodation the previous month, it should reasonably have responded to the resident to assure her she did not need to move out. It should have offered her advice about managing the problem while she remained in situ. Additionally, given the resident reported the situation had deteriorated, it should have arranged a prompt follow up inspection during which it reassessed the risk of the family remaining in the property.
19. The landlord took none of these actions. It did nothing for 6 weeks until the resident raised a further complaint in December 2024. It then raised a works order for an inspection, although the inspection itself did not take place for another 5 weeks. The records of this inspection in January 2025 are the earliest contemporary piece of evidence we have seen that show the landlord considered whether the family should remain living in the property. It is also the first time that it appears to have responded to the resident’s request, which she initially made in November 2024, to be permanently rehoused. That it took over 2 months to engage with her on this issue was unreasonable, particularly as it knew she was worried the property was “uninhabitable”.
20. The landlord decided on 16 January 2025 that the family should move out of the property temporarily due to its deteriorating condition and the length of time it would likely take to complete the remedial works. It moved them into a hotel the next day. This was in line with its decant policy which stated a hotel stay was appropriate in cases where an immediate move was necessary and there were no suitable void properties available.
21. Importantly, however, the decant policy caveated the position on hotel stays by stating they should not last for more than 4 weeks. Given this, the landlord should have been looking for a suitable temporary property for the family from the outset to minimise the length of their hotel stay. We have seen no evidence it did so. It does not appear to have looked for any temporary properties until mid-March 2025 when it asked its insurer to source a suitable ICAB property.
22. The landlord’s failure to promptly source a temporary property was aggravated by the fact it knew the resident was adversely impacted by the hotel stay. She contacted it multiple times between January and April 2024 to ask how long she would remain at the hotel. She explained it was having a negative impact on her family. For example, all 5 of them were living in 2 hotel rooms and she was unable to prepare fresh, home-cooked meals for her children. They were required by hotel policy to move to a different floor every month of their stay, meaning she had to repack all their belongings each time. That this contact from the resident did not lead to the landlord prioritising its search for a temporary property was unreasonable.
23. In both her complaint and her escalation request, the resident asked the landlord to permanently rehouse her. It told her in its stage 1 response in January 2025 that it did not consider permanent rehousing was required, but that she could contact its housing team and ask it to re-assess her case for a management transfer. The resident attempted to do so on numerous occasions in the months that followed, but she received holding responses rather than substantive replies, and she was passed to different teams. The first substantive response she received was on 2 April 2025 when the landlord told her it had agreed to offer her a management transfer. The landlord appropriately identified this as a communication service failure in its stage 2 response and offered the resident £100 compensation which was reasonable.
24. Although the landlord acknowledged this communication failure in its stage 2 response, it did not acknowledge all the other failings we have highlighted. Given this, we have found there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s housing arrangements. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order it to pay her an additional £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused.
25. We understand the landlord has since removed the resident from the management transfer list. The resident told us this was because she declined a property it offered her due to it being unsuitable to her family’s needs. The landlord intends to end the temporary arrangements and return the resident to her original property in January 2026 as it will have completed the works by then. The resident told us she has raised a formal complaint about this. If she is unhappy with its final response to that complaint, she may refer it to us for investigation.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

26. The resident first complained to the landlord about its handling of damp and mould in an email she sent in November 2024. She stated she was making a “formal complaint”. She sent 2 follow up emails the same month asking it to respond to the complaint.
27. Despite this clear request, the landlord failed to register a stage 1 complaint in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It only did so when the resident complained again and involved an elected representative in December 2024.
28. The landlord identified this complaint handling failure when it was gathering information for our investigation. It wrote to the resident in September 2025, apologised and offered her £100 compensation. While it was positive the landlord acknowledged this mistake, it did not do so until 4 months after it issued its final complaint response. It is unlikely it would have identified the failing, but for our involvement. Given this, we are unable to find it offered reasonable redress through its complaint process and have instead found this to be a complaint handling service failure.
29. Our Remedies Guidance suggests that £50 to £100 would be reasonable compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this failure. As the landlord has already paid the £100 offered, we have made no further compensation order.
30. Once the landlord acknowledged the resident had made a stage 1 complaint in December 2024, its policy and the Code required it to respond within 10 working days. When it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request in February 2025, it was required to respond within 20 working days. It did not comply with these timeframes at either stage. However, it appropriately apologised for this within each complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation for each delay which was in keeping with the guideline amounts set out in our Remedies Guidance.

Learning

31. Awaab’s Law was not in force at the time the resident complained. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s actions in this case against the requirements of this new legislation. However, based on the landlord’s policies which were applicable at the time, we found failings in its:
    1. Adherence to policy timeframes.
    2. Management of inspections and repairs.
    3. Prioritisation of the case based on risk – even when the resident reported the mould had become worse and her family’s health had deteriorated (i.e. there had been a “material change” in the situation), it did not consider re-prioritising its response.
    4. Record keeping, particularly around key decisions such as whether it should move the resident into temporary accommodation.
    5. Communications with the resident.
32. Given these are all central components of Awaab’s Law, it may be helpful for the landlord to use this complaint as a case study and consider how it should respond if the same set of circumstances arose today.