Clarion Housing Association Limited (202439386)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202439386

Clarion Housing Association Limited

12 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.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 10 September 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the evidence shows she has asthma and anxiety.
During November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in the property. On 21 December the resident advised the damp was outstanding.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 22 December 2022. It acknowledged the resident’s assertion that damp was outstanding and advised her to report it to its repairs team.
It issued a stage 2 complaint response on 17 February 2023. It said the damp issue had been reallocated to its specialised team who had been trying to arrange an appointment.
During February and April 2023 the resident reported that the damp was ongoing. The landlord inspected the property on 5 July with follow on works taking place during August and September.
In response to its ongoing investigation into the cause of the damp the landlord carried out further works between November 2023 and January 2024.
On 1 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint because she was having to chase the issue. She was also concerned about the conduct of its operatives and set out the impact caused to her by the substantive issue.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 12 March 2024, the main points being:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response which it said was due to high customer contact.
2. The resident first reported damp and mould in February 2023. It had completed external works. It would now schedule internal works and monitor progress.
3. It signposted the resident to make a claim through its insurance. It said it would consider any evidence she was able to provide of increased heating costs.
4. It said information was not passed from its Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould (LCDM) team to repairs in a timely manner to allow repairs to be completed within time. This worsened the damage caused.
5. It had liaised with managers about its poor communication. It would also ensure steps were taken to provide training and development to avoid these types of issues happening in future.
6. It offered £900 compensation comprised of:
  1. £800 for poor communication and failure of service.
  2. £50 for repairs completed out of time.
  3. £50 for its complaint response being out of time.
On 13 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord setting out her dissatisfaction with its response. This was partly because it contained inaccurate information. She said she’d “lost faith” in the landlord and that her mental health was at an “all time low.” She felt forgotten about and that the compensation offered was not enough.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 April 2024, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response which was due to high customer contact.
2. Its stage 1 response was inaccurate because it was first put on notice of the damp and mould in November 2022.
3. When the landlord attended the property in December its operative only investigated the plumbing issue and not the mould.
4. It apologised and upheld the complaint.
5. LCDM treatments were completed in February. A repair to the roof was booked for 23 April to relay/replace the roofing insulation.
6. It reiterated its advice for the resident to make an insurance claim and offered an additional £600 compensation comprised of:
  1. £150 for the inaccuracies in its stage 1 response.
  2. £50 for miscommunication.
  3. £400 for the delay to the roof repairs.

Events post internal complaints process

The landlord completed insulation works to the flat roof on 4 October 2024.
On 7 January 2025 the resident contacted us to report that she had lived in her living room for the past 2 winters because the mould made her ill. She said her furniture had been ruined and felt no one was listening to her.
The landlord fitted thermal boarding to the bedroom walls on 27 March 2025.
In the landlord’s update to us dated 12 June 2025 it said it had reviewed the case. It said it had not addressed the resident’s request for compensation for the cost of running dehumidifiers because it had grouped it in with the insurance claim. It had subsequently offered to pay the resident £200 to cover the cost.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Scope of the investigation

We do not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions but are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions. This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.
In her call to us on 28 July 2025 the resident confirmed works to the roof and walls had been carried out however she was dissatisfied with the quality. The works were carried out after the landlord issued its final complaint response. Therefore, the resident may wish to raise a fresh complaint with the landlord so it can address these issues.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy says it will respond to non-emergency repairs within 28 working days of the repair being reported. Its LCDM Policy says it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner.
On 30 November 2022 the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord. However, on 21 December the resident advised it was outstanding. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 22 December said that it attended on 19 October but was unable to gain access so the appointment was rebooked. We have not seen any records made at the time which set out the circumstances of the visit.
On 15 February 2023 the landlord raised a works order to carry out a mould treatment which was carried out on 25 February. Its records noted that a roofer needed to attend to resolve issues with the guttering which was causing damp in the living room wall.
The resident’s email to the landlord of 1 April 2023 set out her concerns about the ongoing damp and the impact on her health. She said her bedroom was “soaked” and despite chasing there was no progress. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response. This was inappropriate because it suggested it did not take her wellbeing seriously.
Furthermore, it caused her time and trouble when she emailed again on 11 April 2023 to say she had returned from holiday where her health had improved. Having arrived home she’d had asthma attacks and was struggling to breathe. She said both she and her son had been admitted to hospital and her anxiety was increasing. She asked the landlord to respond as an emergency because she felt the property was “not safe.”
On 15 April 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had escalated the repair on 13 April and requested an update. It also said it had raised a follow on repair to clear the guttering. Considering 3 months had passed since the issue was first noted it is concerning that this had not already been done.
A file note dated 12 July 2023 confirmed that it attended the property on 5 July. It said there was no evidence of damp and mould however the resident had reported that the walls were cold. There were no leaks identified from the roof or gutter however they were blocked with debris. It raised a works order to clear them and attended on 11 August. It took 6 months to inspect and resolve the issue with the guttering which was significantly outside its 28 day response time.
On 18 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to follow up its email of 15 April. She said the mould was getting worse. She explained that her bedroom had 2 exterior walls and the roof which was a roof terrace. Consequently she asked that it insulate the roof terrace because the walls were “soaked” and the room would not heat up even with the heating on full.
She said her son had been hospitalised due to low oxygen levels. Furthermore, she said there were financial implications because she was running dehumidifiers, turning the heating up and her furniture was being damaged. The landlord raised a works order that day to carry out a mould treatment.
The landlord attended the property on 25 September but was unable to gain access. The resident advised she had not been notified of the appointment but said she was available from the following day. The landlord attended on 26 September but could not carry out the works as the resident’s father was unclear as to why the reason for their attendance.
There is no evidence that the landlord attended by appointment on these 2 dates. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so to try to prevent any further delays.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded. This was inappropriate because it showed an ongoing lack of regard to the resident’s health and wellbeing. This impacted the landlord and resident relationship.
On 12 November 2023 the landlord raised a works order for a mould treatment which was carried out on 14 November.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s email of 18 September 2023 caused her further time and trouble when she emailed again on 13 November. She reported the damp and mould continued to get worse. She again set out how the issue was impacting on her health.
On 14 November 2023 a health visitor wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They confirmed that both the resident and her son had been in hospital for respiratory events. They said the situation was also impacting on her stress levels and anxiety.
The landlord carried out a survey on 14 November 2023. The report noted that roofers were required to check the guttering or brick work that may cause damp in the lounge. It also noted there was possible damp on the wall in the back bedroom.
The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to apologise that it had not provided an update to its email of 11 April 2023. Its offer to arrange to telephone her was positive however it came late in the process. This is because it had taken 7 months to respond which was unreasonable.
On 15 November 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the outcome of their conversation earlier that day. It provided an action plan and said it had arranged for a surveyor to visit on 20 November. It also raised a works order to inspect the roof terrace and the chimney. While this was positive its response to the resident’s concerns about the roof terrace took 2 months from the date it was put on notice.
The landlord’s survey report of 20 November 2023 requested an inspection of the roof terrace. However, as set out above this should’ve already been in hand and was therefore duplication. It also advised follow on works should be carried out to install an extractor fan in the bathroom and to strip and replaster the rear and right hand walls.
The works order to fit an extractor fan was raised on 28 November 2023 and the landlord attended on 8 December. However, due to its location the operative requested that a surveyor determine the installation method and viability of the fan. Given that it was a surveyor who raised the original order this was duplication because it should reasonably have been addressed during the first inspection. This delayed the repair and caused inconvenience to the resident.
On 29 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the ceiling felt wet and there was a new crack. On 5 December the landlord raised a works order for repairs to damp plaster. The file note says it attended on 5 January but there was no access. There is no evidence that the landlord notified the resident of the appointment which would have been reasonable.
The landlord instructed an independent engineers’ survey which was carried out on 11 December 2023. It confirmed the cracks were not caused by subsidence and that they were not evidence of instability.
On 20 December 2023 the landlord raised a works order to inspect the roof. As set out above this should have been done on 15 November so this was evidence of further duplication and delays. The records show it initially attended on 2 January 2024 but was unable to gain access however, there is no evidence that it attended by appointment.
The landlord carried out a survey on 26 January 2024 but was unable to detect a roof leak. Works orders were therefore raised to carry out a mould treatment to the bedroom walls and check the insulation. It also requested that the paving in the roof garden be lifted and vegetation cleared from the guttering.
The landlord carried out the mould treatment on 1 February 2024 which was reasonable. However it did not attend to clear the guttering until almost 2 months later, on 11 March, which was outside of its repairs response time.
On 14 February 2024 the landlord phoned the resident to discuss her complaint. She was unhappy that it was taking too long to resolve the damp and mould. She said communication was inconsistent and she was having to chase. She was concerned about the impact on the health of her and her son. She said her furniture was “ruined” and she was experiencing increased utility bills because of the heating and the cost of running dehumidifiers. She said she was sleeping on the sofa because of the mould and cold conditions in the bedroom.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 8 March 2024 she said its operative had attended the previous day. They had lifted the slabs on the roof and cleared all areas to allow for free flow of rain water. However, she said they had indicated they did not believe this to be the cause of the damp and mould. She asked for a plan of action because the bedroom was not getting above 11 degrees unless she “pushed” the heating and then to no more than 15 degrees.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 12 March 2024 appropriately referred the resident to make a claim on its insurance for damage to her possessions. It also appropriately advised it would consider her request for compensation for increased heating costs if she provided evidence. However, it is unclear if the resident provided this information. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the cost of running dehumidifiers which was inappropriate.
It noted that a member of the household had vulnerabilities. However, it failed to provide a meaningful response that demonstrated an understanding of the impact on the resident and her son. It also failed to consider the resident’s assertion that she was unable to sleep in her bedroom. This was inappropriate, further eroding the resident’s trust in the landlord.
It appropriately identified what had gone wrong and said it would take steps to prevent a reoccurrence. However, it failed to set out the changes it would make to do so which was a key part of its learning.
In her email to the landlord of 12 March 2024 the resident said she had been told works had been approved. However, when she spoke to the contractor they advised this was not the case. Her frustration with the landlord’s response was evident in her email.
An internal email dated 14 March 2024 set out the landlord’s conversation with the resident. It said she had “endured some horrendous damp and mould issues in her property over the past 18 months.”
It had laid a new protective covering over the flat roof. However it queried whether the damp and mould might not be caused by an issue with the roof but something else, such as lack of wall insulation. It acknowledged that the resident was living in 1 room due to the mould and suggested it might fit thermal boards to the internal walls.
A further internal email dated 25 March 2024 set out the landlord’s intention to carry out thermal imaging of the rear extension. It considered the possibility of carrying out works to improve insulation and heating.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 17 April 2024 said that works to relay/replace the roofing insulation was booked for 23 April. However, the works order for that date shows that it only carried out partial works. This was because it returned the job to the landlord to resolve the insulation and tiles for the roof which was not completed until 4 October. Thermal boards were fitted to the walls of the bedroom on 27 March 2025.
On 12 June 2025 the landlord advised us that it acknowledged and tried to put right its failure to consider the resident’s request for compensation for running the dehumidifiers.
We welcome the landlord’s decision to revisit its offer of compensation. However, it did not revisit it for over a year after its final complaint response. This means we do not consider the offer of compensation was made as part of the complaint process. This has impacted on the degree to which the offer puts right the evident failing.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. There were repeated failures in service caused by duplication and delays. The resident first reported the issue in November 2022 and works were finally completed during March 2025.
Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord acknowledged some of its failures and identified where things had gone wrong. It also offered a total of £1,300 compensation to try to put things right. This was a reasonable level of redress for distress and inconvenience. However, it failed to consider compensating the resident for the loss of use of her bedroom which would have been appropriate.
If the landlord had not taken steps to identify its failures and provide reasonable redress for distress and inconvenience, we would have made a finding of severe maladministration.
During 2023/24 the rent was £646.49 per month. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the loss of use of the bedroom. The period considered for this calculation is 1 April 2023 when the resident reported the bedroom was “soaked” to 17 April 2024 which was the date of the final complaint response. This is a period of 12 months. We have also taken into account that there are 5 rooms in the property.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £1,551.57 compensation. This figure has been calculated as an amenity loss calculation for the bedroom £646.49 / 5 = £129.29 x 12 = £1,551.57.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the date of acknowledgement.
The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 1 February 2024. The landlord called the resident on 14 February to discuss the complaint. It sent a formal acknowledgement on 29 February and provided its response on 12 March. The acknowledgement was 15 working days out of time which delayed the landlord’s overall complaint response.
Its complaint response acknowledged the delay and provided an explanation. It also offered £50 to try to put things right.
The resident’s email of 13 March 2024 set out her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response. On 18 March the landlord appropriately acknowledged receipt of the complaint. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 April which was 21 working days later. The response was 1 day out of time however the delay was minimal therefore the impact on the resident was low.
In her email to the landlord of 13 March 2024 the resident said its stage 1 response contained incorrect information. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its error and offered £150 compensation to try to put things right.
The landlord offered a total of £200 for its complaint handling failures. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
  2. Confirm what steps it took to stop its communication issues reoccurring as referred to in its stage 1 complaint response.
  3. Contact the resident to see if she requires any further support to make a claim on its insurance for damage to her furniture and belongings.
2. Pay the resident £1,551.57 for loss of the use of her bedroom.
3. Pay the resident the £1300 compensation it offered during the complaints process if this has not already been paid.
Evidence of compliance with the orders above must be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £200 it offered during the complaints process if it has not already done so.