From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202434138)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202434138

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of asbestos, damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom first-floor flat. She lives in the property with her 3 children, all of whom have sensory or mental health conditions. Her youngest child also has asthma, which the landlord is aware of. The resident’s support worker raised the complaint on the resident’s behalf – both will be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
  2. On 26 September 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord attended the same day and found mould in the kitchen and on the doors. On 13 November 2023, after a leak from the flat above, the landlord inspected again. It said that extractor fans were needed in the kitchen and bathroom. It also noted cracks and peeling materials in areas that required mould treatment and recommended that an asbestos survey be carried out. On 15 December 2023 the landlord carried out mould treatment in the bathroom and on the bedroom ceiling.
  3. On 22 January 2024 the resident reported ‘black’ mould on her child’s bedroom ceiling. The landlord carried out another mould wash on 25 January 2024. In February 2024 the resident reported large cracks and holes in the kitchen and toilet ceilings and walls. The landlord removed broken tiles from the toilet wall. Then, on 26 June 2024, the resident reported another leak affecting the kitchen ceiling.
  4. On 20 September 2024 the resident made a formal complaint. She said the damp and mould were affecting her family’s health, and she was concerned about asbestos exposure. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to rehouse her. On 9 October 2024 the landlord inspected the property. It recommended a full mould wash throughout and that extractor fans be installed in the kitchen and bathroom.
  5. On 14 October 2024 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It included a timeline of events, and said:
    1. It made a mistake by trying to visit the property on 13 October 2023 instead of the scheduled 12 October 2023 appointment. The job was then closed. This was a service failure.
    2. It booked a 3-stage mould treatment for 28 October 2024.
    3. Works would take place once it removed the asbestos. And the property was safe to live in.
    4. It had made significant progress with the asbestos removal and the resident could stay at home during the process.
    5. It would offer £215 compensation, made up of £200 for the time taken to resolve the damp and mould and £15 for attending the property on the incorrect date.
  6. On 25 October 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint. She said her home was not safe to live in due to the asbestos and mould and again asked the landlord to rehouse her. She also said the property was overcrowded and poorly ventilated and the landlord knew about her family’s health needs.
  7. On 16 November 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. In summary, it said:
    1. It apologised that its stage 1 response had not acknowledged that no work had happened until 15 December 2023, which was outside its repair policy timescales.
    2. The asbestos work needed was ‘flagged’ in February 2024, however, the issue was not progressed as it should have been.
    3. It now had everything in place to enable it to undertake the repairs, and it had booked a 3-day decant for the asbestos removal for 14 to 18 November 2024.
    4. It had booked follow-up works, including extractor fan installation, for 19 November 2024.
    5. It was unable to agree to a permanent move but would refer the case for housing advice.
    6. It would offer a further £600 compensation, made up of £100 for information missed from its stage 1 response, £250 for mould wash delays, and £250 for asbestos removal delays.
  8. The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint. She wanted the landlord to move her to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that the damp and mould had been a problem in the property since she moved in 13 years ago. However, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (usually within 12 months) of the matters arising. Therefore, this investigation is focused on the landlord’s actions and handling of reports from September 2023 to the landlord’s November 2024 final response.
  2. The resident has also advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in the health of the household. We cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
  3. As an outcome of her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to move her. It is not within our jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord should rehouse someone. However, we can consider how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint and whether it acted fairly in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of asbestos, damp and mould

  1. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. After the resident first reported mould in September 2023, the landlord acted promptly and arranged a mould wash. However, it attended on the wrong date and then closed the job. This was inappropriate. Particularly as the landlord was aware of the family’s circumstances, with its records noting there was a young child with asthma in the property. Additionally, it failed to keep to its 28-day repair policy timescales. The landlord did not carry out a mould treatment until 15 December 2023, over 2 months later. Nevertheless, the landlord appropriately recognised this delay in its stage 1 response and acknowledged the distress and inconvenience this would have caused the resident.
  3. The landlord’s records showed it identified asbestos after its 13 November 2023 inspection. On 29 November 2023 its repair log stated that a plasterer was required to remove the ‘damaged’ asbestos on the ceiling in the kitchen and the wall in the bathroom and toilet. However, no action was taken for 2 months, and it only tried to book work in mid-January 2024. Even then, it failed to follow up when the resident asked to rearrange the appointment, due to safety concerns about the work being done while her family was in the property.
  4. On 22 January 2024 the resident reported’ black mould’ in her child’s bedroom. In response the landlord did a mould wash quickly. However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment or a check to identify the source of the mould. This was contrary to its damp and mould policy, which says that where there are severe or recurring damp and mould issues, it will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment.  We recognise that mould washes can be an effective tool to prevent the spread of mould. However, landlords must deal with the cause and consequences of damp and mould, not simply treat the symptoms.
  5. In February 2024 the resident reported large cracks and holes in the kitchen and toilet ceiling and wall. Although the landlord took some action by removing broken tiles in the toilet, it did not follow up on the asbestos removal. Indeed, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 final response that the asbestos removal work had not progressed as it should have. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as the landlord left the household in poor conditions for longer than necessary, and this failure likely delayed the required remedial works from being undertaken.
  6. In addition, it is unclear whether an asbestos survey was carried out as recommended in November 2023. This is concerning as the landlord acknowledged the asbestos needed removing, but there is no evidence that the asbestos removal was linked to a specific survey. And the evidence showed that the resident asked for a copy of the asbestos survey. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request.
  7. If the resident remained unhappy about existing asbestos, the landlord could have referred her to its survey to satisfy any concerns. As the landlord has not supplied evidence that a survey was completed, it is unclear how it concluded that the asbestos needed to be removed. This may indicate issues with the landlord’s record-keeping. In this case, we are not making any orders or recommendations, as record-keeping orders relating to similar issues have been made in other Ombudsman cases.
  8. The landlord’s internal records from November 2023 stated that the property needed a ‘total overhaul’. And photographs seen by us show that the mould was extensive. Therefore, it knew that the damp and mould was significant. The landlord also knew as early as September 2023 that extractor fans were needed. However, the landlord did not install these until over a year later. Apart from mould washes, no other meaningful work took place for a prolonged period. Further, when the resident reported a leak from the property above in June 2024 the landlord failed to act. Instead, it told her to ‘slip a note under her neighbour’s door’. This was inappropriate. Given the historical context and the household circumstances, this should have alerted the landlord to promptly re-inspect the property.
  9. However, this did not happen. The landlord only inspected the property again on 9 October 2024 after the resident raised a formal complaint. It then took appropriate steps by arranging mould treatments and installing fans. However, it should have taken these steps much sooner. These were significant delays and considerably outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales.
  10. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in her property for a long time because of the landlord’s inability to progress the removal of the asbestos sooner. Had it done so, it would have likely diagnosed the cause of the damp and mould much earlier.
  11. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of asbestos, damp and mould was poor. The landlord knew about the family’s health needs but still did not act with the urgency required, and it failed to follow its own repair timescales. The £250 compensation offered for mould wash delays was reasonable. However, the £450 for the delays in asbestos removal and resolving the damp and mould did not go far enough to put things right for the failures identified in this report. The landlord missed chances to repair things sooner, and its actions demonstrated that it did not consider the potential health implications of mould, particularly given her child’s health condition.
  12. This amounts to maladministration. In line with our remedies guidance, awards of up to £1,000 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which significantly affected the resident. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.
  13. The resident told us that there is currently no damp and mould in the property and the landlord has carried out the promised works. However, the landlord’s records showed that further repairs were needed in the property in January 2025. These included replastering the bathroom wall and ceiling. Its records also suggest there may have been delays installing a bathroom extractor fan. The resident also told us that the bathroom flooring and some plastering works were only completed this month.
  14. The evidence also showed that more mould treatment and a possible decant were being discussed in January 2025. The landlord should consider whether any additional compensation is needed to reflect any delays in completing repairs from the date of its stage 2 response until the date it completed the works. We have included this in our orders below.
  15. The resident also told us that she recently noticed that ‘flooding’ had damaged kitchen cupboards, and she is concerned about asbestos in the hallway and toilet, which the landlord has said it will not remove. Although we are not assessing these matters as they have not been through the landlord’s complaints process, we have made a recommendation below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of asbestos, damp and mould.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,315 comprised of:
      1. £815 as offered across its formal responses, if it has not already done so.
      2. A further £500 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of asbestos, damp and mould.
    3. Share evidence that it has assessed whether there is asbestos present in the property, including the toilet and hallway and explain its intentions regarding this to the resident and us.
    4. Consider whether any additional compensation is due to reflect the delays in completing repairs from the date of its stage 2 response until the date it completed the works. It must write to the resident and us to confirm its decision.
  2. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to acknowledge her recent concerns about the damage to the kitchen cupboards and, if needed, arrange a repair.