Clarion Housing Association Limited (202438681)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438681

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the shared-ownership leaseholder of the property. The property is a detached new-build house, built in 2021, and the resident moved in on 30 April 2021. The landlord is the freeholder of the property. The landlord recorded that the resident was asthmatic on 6 August 2024.
The resident reported damp and mould issues in his property on 7 May and 8 October 2021. We have not seen evidence of further reports until the end of defects inspection, which took place in March 2023 after the developer carried out a mould wash at the property. The resident then resumed reporting damp and mould, which he said was a defect in the construction of the property, from 15 May 2023 onwards. On 3 July 2023 the landlord asked if the issue had been reported during the initial 2-year defects period. It said the developer may not consider the damp and mould to be a latent defect. The resident continued to chase the landlord for its position on the matter over the next 6 months. He asked to make a formal complaint on 12 February 2024. There was no evidence the landlord acted on this.
The landlord inspected the property on 21 March 2024 and highlighted a concern over the property’s damp proof course. The resident chased the landlord for updates from this inspection until 5 July 2024 when he raised a stage 1 complaint about its unresponsiveness.
On 1 October 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for its late complaint response and offered £100 compensation for this. The landlord said the first report of damp and mould it received was on 15 February 2024 and acknowledged it failed to act promptly to address the reports. It offered £600 compensation for its delay in addressing the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 3 October 2024. He said:
1. He had reported damp and mould since moving in, in 2021.
2. He wanted confirmation of whether the landlord would replace radiators in the property which had become rusty from the damp.
3. It had not offered proportionate compensation.
4. He wanted to know the outcome of inspections of the property.
The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 3 December 2024. It acknowledged he had been reporting damp and mould since moving in. The landlord said it had no repairing responsibility for the property but would work with the developer to move the repairs along as a latent defect. The landlord confirmed that the developer had carried out inspections of the property and it was awaiting the outcome of these. It offered the resident £1,950 compensation made up of:
1. £600 that it offered in its stage 1 complaint response for delays in responding to his reports of damp and mould.
2. £100 that it offered in its stage 1 complaint response for responding late to the stage 1 complaint.
3. £50 for its delayed final stage complaint response.
4. £1,200 to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident since the end of defect inspection in March 2022 when it said it should have investigated the repeated reports of damp and mould.
The landlord has provided evidence of regular contact with the developer and the resident since the final stage complaint response. This showed it had prompted the developer to reimburse the resident for damaged flooring and consider replacement of damaged fittings.
The resident told us on 11 July 2025 that he remained unhappy with the slow pace of repairs and updates. He said the landlord had verbally agreed to carry out any interior repairs caused by the damp which the developer refused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that we may not investigate complaints which were not made to the landlord within a reasonable period of time. This would normally be within 12 months of the issues arising. However, we have used discretion to consider events from March 2023. This was the end of the defects period in which the developer was obligated to fix any issues in the property. Prior to this date there is insufficient evidence of the resident reporting the damp and mould regularly. Although he had reported it in 2021 there is no evidence of further reports until March 2023. Further, the landlord has acknowledged the historical events from March 2023 and taken this into account in its offer of redress to the resident. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Ombudsman to consider the same period which the landlord considered through its complaints process.
The developer is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it is not a member of the Scheme. The landlord is not responsible for the developer’s delays or poor workmanship. However, the landlord should liaise with the developer on the resident’s behalf to resolve any repair issues that he reports. This report has therefore focused on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The resident said that the damp and mould in the property affected his family members’ health, leading to them having persistent coughs. We acknowledge his account. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health, specifically to those with breathing conditions such as asthma. We can consider this general risk, however, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to determine if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any negative effect on his household’s health. This is a matter better suited to a personal injury claim through the courts or through liability insurance. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making such a claim if he wishes to pursue this. We will, however, consider if any failings by the landlord led to him experiencing distress and inconvenience as well as the landlord’s response to his health concerns.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property

The lease agreement sets out that the landlord is only obliged to carry out repairs and maintenance to communal areas. It has no repairing responsibility for the interior of the individual property and the resident is responsible for this.
The resident started making reports of damp and mould in his property from 7 May 2021 onwards. There is a gap in the evidence between October 2021 and May 2023 when he made further reports. However, it is not disputed that the damp and mould issue remained unresolved. There is no evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident until 12 July 2023 when it proposed to inspect the property and to consider whether the damp was a latent defect. It did not carry out this inspection until 21 March 2024 approximately 8 months after agreeing to do so. The landlord significantly delayed in inspecting the damp and mould issue. This caused inconvenience to the resident in needing to regularly clean and remove mould and redecorate affected areas.
While the landlord had no repairing responsibility for the interior of the property, it was responsible for dealing with the developer to prompt it to carry out repairs, if there was a latent defect. It was also responsible for keeping the resident updated on progress while the repairs were unfinished. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not attend to inspect the damp the resident reported, until the resident had been reporting it for 12 months since the end of the defects period. Given that he had been repeatedly reporting the same issue, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the damp and mould sooner. It could have considered sooner whether there was a latent defect and whether it needed to deal with the developer to resolve the repair.
There was also delay of 4 months between when the landlord first highlighted concerns over the damp proof course in the property on 21 March 2024 and it confirming to the resident on 24 July 2024 a follow up inspection was needed. During this time, the resident spent time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide any substantial update to the resident during this time.
The landlord’s first note of involving the developer was on its internal records on 6 August 2024. The subsequent delays in the developer inspecting the property, diagnosing the problem, and carrying out repairs were largely outside of the landlord’s control. It would be unreasonable to criticise the landlord for these delays, however, it would still be expected to maintain regular contact with the resident and chase the developer for updates. It is positive that the evidence shows that the landlord was in regular contact with the resident to update him about the repairs from November 2024 onwards.
The resident asked the landlord in his complaint and escalation request for confirmation of what would be done to repair fixtures and fittings in the property which had been damaged by the damp. The landlord would not be responsible for repairing these as it was not responsible for resolving the damp. It is positive that the evidence shows that it dealt with the developer, after the final stage complaint response, to seek reimbursement for damaged carpets. However, the landlord has not clarified its position to the resident on the other damaged items. Its complaint responses failed to answer this issue. This is discussed further below.
The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 13 December 2024 reasonably acknowledged that it delayed in progressing the repairs with the developer. It also appropriately acknowledged that it did not communicate effectively or provide a clear action plan to the resident. The landlord increased its offer of compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould to £1,800, which included consideration of the vulnerabilities in the household. Its offer demonstrated that it considered that he may have been disproportionately inconvenienced by its failings because of his health conditions.
Our remedies guidance, which is available to view on our website, sets out that awards of compensation of over £1,000 are appropriate when the landlord’s failures have had a severe and long-term effect on a resident. The landlord’s offer of £1,800 proportionately recognises the time and trouble spent by the resident, and his distress and inconvenience due to its errors in not progressing the investigation soon enough. As this offer of compensation was broadly in line with our remedies guidance, we consider this represented a reasonable offer of redress for its failings. We will recommend that the landlord pays this amount to the resident, if it has not already done so.
The resident asked the landlord on 13 December 2024 to review its compensation offer because a household member had been experiencing health issues because of the damp and mould. It was appropriate that the landlord directed him to make a personal injury insurance claim and provided its insurance details to him. As above, matters of liability for health damage are outside our remit to investigate so we will not comment on this aspect of the complaint further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy says, “If you are dissatisfied with our response to a service request, then we will consider this to be a complaint and we will follow the process laid out in this policy.” Its policy sets out a 2-stage complaints procedure. At both stages it should acknowledge a complaint or complaint escalation within 5 working days. At stage 1 of its procedure, the policy confirms it should provide a written response within 10 working days. At the final stage of the landlord’s procedure, the policy says it will respond within 20 working days. If the response is delayed at either stage, the policy says it should contact the resident to explain and provide a new timeframe.
The timeframe and procedure set out above mirrors the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). All landlords who are members of the Scheme must follow the Code, which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints handling practices. The Code also states that a landlord must also accept complaints made by residents and respond to all points raised in a complaint, unless there is a good reason not to. If there is a valid reason for not accepting a complaint, it should explain why.
On 12 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about its lack of action in addressing the damp and mould in his property. He explicitly said he wanted to raise a complaint, however there was no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this. This was a failure by the landlord to accept the resident’s complaint which delayed the complaints process. This may have also given the resident the impression that the landlord was not listening to him.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that it had delayed in responding. However, it failed to recognise that the resident attempted to raise a complaint on 12 February 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response incorrectly said this was when he reported the repairs as a service request. It was positive that the landlord offered £100 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by its delay. However, this only recognised the delay between 15 July and 1 October 2024. The landlord failed to follow its policy and the Code by not recognising the complaint earlier, which caused inconvenience and uncertainty to the resident. Also, the stage 1 complaint response acknowledged that the resident wanted fixtures and fittings and radiators damaged by the damp to be repaired, however it failed to confirm its position on this. This would have led to uncertainty and distress for the resident.
It was positive that the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for its delayed final stage complaint response. It took 52 working days to issue its final stage complaint response to him, which was longer than the timeframe in its policy and the Code. However, the resident asked, in his complaint escalation request on 1 October 2024, for the landlord clarify whether his radiators would be replaced as part of remedial work. It did not answer this in its final stage complaint request. This led to further inconvenience and uncertainty for the resident in needing to chase the landlord for an answer to this. This was a failure to follow the Code by not addressing all the issues raised in a complaint.
On 7 January 2025 the landlord told the resident that he would have to wait 8 weeks before he could refer his complaint to us. This was incorrect and outdated advice. The 8-week wait was previously required by the democratic filter. However, this was removed in 2022. We will recommend the landlord carry out staff training with its complaints handling staff to ensure that they provide accurate and up to date information to residents.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint amounts to service failure. While it did attempt to provide redress to him for its complaint handling failures, it did not recognise all of its failures. We will order it to pay an additional £100 compensation to recognise the resulting inconvenience the resident experienced. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £250. This is in line with our remedies guidance, mentioned above. This sets out that awards of £100 to £600 are reasonable when there has been a failure by the landlord which had a negative effect on the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the failure.
Since the landlord failed to set out its position on repairs to the resident’s radiators, we will also order the landlord to write to the resident to set out its position on these. It is noted that, since the final complaint response, he has also highlighted other repair issues and damage to his fixtures and possessions in the property. The resident told us that the landlord had verbally agreed to fix any issues the developer refuses to. We have not seen evidence of this, and the landlord should also set out its position on these in writing. Whilst we do not doubt what the resident has said, we would not order the landlord to carry out other repairs without seeing evidence that it had agreed to do so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer to redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint concerning its response to his reports of damp and mould in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for the further failings in complaint handling identified in this investigation, bringing the total compensation for complaint handling to £250, taking into account the landlord’s previous offer.
2. Write to the resident to set out its position on the radiators and other repair issues he has queried. This should confirm which repairs will be done by the developer or the landlord and provide him with an approximate timeframe for completion.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the £1,950 compensation it offered him in its final stage complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord paying this compensation to him. This was made up of:
  1. £1,800 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to act on the resident’s reports promptly.
  2. £150 for its complaint handling delays.
2. Contact the resident to agree a schedule of contact while the repairs remain unfinished.
3. Carry out staff training with complaints handling staff to ensure that they provide accurate up to date information to residents concerning referring complaints to the Ombudsman.
4. The landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household. However, he reported having a vulnerable child and having asthma in his complaint escalation to the landlord. The landlord should contact the resident to obtain information about the vulnerabilities in the household and, with his consent, update its records.