Clarion Housing Association Limited (202440508)

Decision
Case ID	202440508
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in the property which is a 2-bedroom bungalow. He lives with his wife and son.

What the complaint is about

The resident has complained about multiple outstanding repairs in his property. This includes repairs to his flooring, garden wall, kitchen and bathroom, and porch tiles.
The resident has also complained about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp, mould, and associated repairs.
2. Asbestos and associated repairs.
3. Staff conduct.
4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the multiple repairs in the property.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of asbestos.
4. The complaint about staff conduct is outside of our jurisdiction.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of multiple repairs in the property

There were repairs and hazards in the property which the landlord did not respond to appropriately or in line with its policy. The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation to put things right. However, it was unclear how much compensation it had awarded for each failing and it did not evidence that it had put everything right.

Damp and mould

The landlord did not complete the associated works promptly or in line with its policies. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It is evident that the landlord took some steps to address the issue. However, as there were further delays and the issue is ongoing, we are not satisfied that the landlord has learnt from this or put everything right for the resident.

Asbestos

The landlord acknowledged some of its failures and offered compensation to put things right for the resident, but it did not identify all its failures. It should have acted sooner following the concerns raised in March 2024 and it should have shown more learning regarding its previous management of the asbestos. In not carrying out these actions, it did not fully consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the issue.

Staff conduct

There is no evidence of the resident escalating this part of his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, it did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint process and we have no power to investigate.

Handling of the complaint

There were failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint which the landlord appropriately acknowledged and awarded compensation for. The landlord should breakdown its compensation offers to make it clearer regarding what it awarded the compensation for and why.

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 17 November 2025
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the whole of the property and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 01 December 2025
3	Completing the works to the wall Explain the steps it took to ensure the works were completed following its stage 2 response and provide supporting evidence. If the works are outstanding, it must provide the likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	No later than 17 November 2025
4	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,515 made up as follows: £1,015 it previously offered in its stage 2 response. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures related to the outstanding repairs in the property. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures related to the damp and mould. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures related to the asbestos. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 17 November 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
It is recommended the landlord update the resident on the replacement of his kitchen and bathroom, if it has not already done so.
It is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with information regarding when a claim can be brought against its insurance for both personal injury and damages to belongings.
It is recommended that the landlord ensures it is breaking down its compensation offers to evidence how they are fair and proportionate to the failures identified.
It is recommended the landlord pay the £100 it offered for its complaint handling failures if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the payment of this sum.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 June 2024	In a call with the landlord, the resident raised a number of issues within the property and outstanding repairs which he was not happy about. These included damp and mould, cracks in the ceiling, issues with flooring, and that his son had tripped over the flooring which the landlord had left in the bathroom. The landlord noted that it was unable to list all the problems raised. It arranged a survey for 2 July 2024.
02 August 2024	The resident made a formal complaint. This was in relation to the time taken to complete repairs in the property. He said the landlord had taken his flooring up and left it in a state which was dangerous. He said there had not been an asbestos check for 10 years despite disturbance of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) during works completed in the property. The resident was concerned that his 7 year old son had potentially been exposed to asbestos throughout his whole life. The resident also complained about the conduct of a surveyor who attended the property.
20 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It stated: It was sorry for the conduct of the surveyor and would respect his request for them to no longer attend his property. The resident first reported concerns of asbestos in 2016 but it could not determine what works it completed at the time. It had notified operatives of the asbestos concerns and the repairs would be completed on 25 October 2024. It carried out damp and mould treatment on 19 September 2024. It would attend in November to fit a “vericon cube” to identify the root cause of the problem. It outlined the outstanding repairs and dates for completion. It apologised for missed appointments and delays. It offered a total of £565 in compensation.
20 September 2024	The landlord’s records show that it had inspected the loft, it said the insulation was full but there were wet spots which required further investigation. It said it had carried out works to the internal doors and supplied a draught excluder. The notes confirmed that follow on works were required for it to fit double glazing units and 2 external doors.
27 September 2024	The resident escalated his complaint as he felt the appointments made were too far away. He also said he could not use the light in his kitchen and he was concerned that the roof was still leaking. The landlord confirmed that it booked an appointment for the roofing for 12 November 2024.
14 November 2024	The landlord carried out a further survey which identified multiple works to address the damp, cold spotting, and possible leak it observed during the inspection.
28 November 2024	The landlord issued its final response, in which it: Outlined the steps it had taken in relation to the repairs so far. Agreed there had been several service failures in resolving the repairs. This included unacceptable delays and not progressing tasks as instructed. It offered a further £550 compensation, bringing the total compensation to £1,115.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said the landlord either did not complete the outstanding repairs or it had not completed them to a satisfactory standard. The resident said there was still damp and mould in the property and the landlord had not found the cause of the issues. He would like the landlord to move him to another property. He felt the compensation offered did not reflect the costs to him over the years and the impact that the issues had caused.

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	Multiple repairs
Finding	Maladministration

The resident has stated that the issues have been ongoing since he first moved into the property. He has also raised a number of concerns which were not included within the landlord’s internal complaints process. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, we have not seen evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint prior to the one in August 2024. As such, this investigation will only consider events which took place 12 months prior to the formal complaint. We will also only consider issues which we can see were raised within the internal complaints process and which the landlord had the opportunity to respond to. This is in line with our Scheme.
The landlord has not disputed that its handling of the multiple repairs was not appropriate. In its complaint responses it apologised for its failings and offered compensation in recognition of them. Where there are identified failings, as is the case here, we will consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.

Flooring

The resident experienced a leak in his property on 17 April 2024, this resulted in his vinyl floor becoming saturated with water. The resident raised this with the landlord, it noted that the flooring was very slippery and cracked which was a hazard for his son. The landlord raised an emergency repair on 24 April 2024 and made an appointment for 28 May 2024. The time taken for the it to attend to the flooring was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s repair policy for emergencies.
The landlord raised a subsequent repair on 14 June 2024, it said it had removed the vinyl so the floor could dry out but the old flooring was now lifting. It said the resident’s son had tripped over and cut himself. It acknowledged that it should have booked in the replacement flooring as follow on works but it had not done so.
In its complaint response the landlord confirmed it completed the flooring on 7 October 2024, almost 5 months later. This was not appropriate or considerate to the hazards presented in the property. There is also no evidence of the landlord visiting to inspect the flooring following the incident with the resident’s son and making it safe. The landlord acknowledged the delay and said it would be considering it in its overall compensation value. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have outlined how much of the additional £500 it offered was attributed to the flooring.

Garden wall

The landlord said the works to the boundary wall were first raised by the resident on 29 August 2024 and then inspected by a surveyor. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident described the issue as the wall collapsing and being a hazard. It is unclear from the records when the surveyor inspected the wall but it arranged works to repoint the wall on 4 October 2024. These were completed on 17 October 2024.
In the absence of the date of the inspection and the findings, it is difficult to determine whether the landlord’s response was reasonable. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord offered £450 compensation for both the delay in repairing the ceiling and for the “collapsing perimeter wall”. As the compensation was not broken down further, we will assume that the landlord offered £225 which was half of the amount for any delays to addressing the wall and the likely impact caused to the resident. This amount was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident.
The resident raised concerns with the workmanship of the wall. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it would complete the missing pointing in its upcoming visit. However, its records do not evidence whether this took place or that a repair was raised for the missing pointing. As such, we cannot conclude that the landlord put everything right in relation to the complaint.
The resident has confirmed he remains dissatisfied with the work carried out on the wall, therefore, the landlord must confirm with the resident what steps it took following the stage 2 response in relation to the missing pointing or what steps it intends to take if it remains outstanding.

Kitchen and bathroom

In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had added the resident’s kitchen and bathroom replacement to its 2025/26 planned investment programme, which was based on an earlier stock condition survey. This was reasonable and in line with its asset investment policy. However, we would still expect the landlord to carry out interim repairs to the kitchen and bathroom as part of its responsive repairs service.
In his stage 2 escalation the resident said he had not received any update in relation to the repairs needed in his bathroom. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that the resident had been waiting over 4 months to resolve the works. It said it fitted a new mixer tap on 25 April 2024. It said it fitted a new bath panel and repaired the waste leak on 22 October 2024.
In relation to the kitchen, it said it would complete the kitchen back boards on 18 December 2024. It apologised for missing the initial appointment made, as well as the inconvenience caused and it said it would consider the failures in its compensation value.
While its responses were reasonable, the landlord’s records suggest it completed repairs for the kitchen back boards on 6 September 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that it had previously raised the repair and to have considered why it needed to raise it again. In the absence of this information, we cannot conclude that its handling of the repair was appropriate.
In his stage 2 escalation, the resident raised concerns about the safety of the light in the kitchen if there was an ongoing leak. The landlord had previously attended the day before to make the light safe. However, the notes stated that a roofer needed to check the roof for water ingress as the light was flickering and the resident had heard dripping noises. The landlord made an appointment for 12 November 2024 and advised the resident to use a lamp in the meantime.
The appointment provided was outside of the landlord’s repair timescales and given the concerns raised, it should have taken place sooner. It is a further failing that there is no record of the landlord checking the roof on 12 November 2024. The lack of action is concerning and suggests the landlord did not pay consideration to its obligations under the housing, health, and safety rating system (HHSRS). Specifically, those related to its management of the hazards presented from the poor lighting, leaks, and damage to electrics.
The landlord’s records show it inspected and carried out testing on the roof on 14 March 2025. The landlord’s responses went some way to putting things right by acknowledging some of its delays and offering compensation. However, it is unclear how much of the additional £500 offered it apportioned to these failings and there were further delays in its handling of the repairs for which it had not accounted.

Porch tiling

The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2024 regarding damage to his porch area. The damage appeared to be a result of the external excavation works which were ongoing. The landlord said it attended to firstly complete the excavation works on 8 November 2024 but further works were then required. It said it attempted access on 23 November 2024 but that had to be re-arranged due to heavy rainfall. The landlord’s records stated that it completed the works on 30 November 2024, which was reasonable.
We consider that while the resident reported that he sustained a leg injury due to the damage caused in the porch, we cannot see where this was raised with the landlord during the complaints process. We are also unable to assess the reported injury. If the resident wishes to purse this aspect of his complaint, it may be more appropriate to contact an insurer or to submit a personal injury claim against the landlord.

Conclusion

To conclude, the landlord has identified that there were failings in its handling of the repairs, it has now completed most of the required works and awarded compensation, but there were still some failings in its approach. These include a lack of consideration and urgency to the risks posed by the hazardous leaks, lighting, and flooring. It also failed to show that it had fully resolved the repairs to the wall. It was unclear what proportion of the compensation it awarded for its identified failures and in the absence of that information we cannot conclude that the landlord put each one right.
As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the multiple repairs in the property. We will consider the compensation later in the report.

Complaint	Damp, mould, and associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Following the survey and works completed in August and September 2023, there is no evidence of the resident raising an issue with damp and mould again until 23 February 2024.
The landlord’s leaks, damp, and mould policy states that where it identifies recurring damp or mould issues, it will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment. The resident had a 7 year old child. He also advised the landlord that the damp and mould had returned following its previous treatment, therefore it would have been appropriate for it to conduct a risk assessment. As outlined in its policy this would have helped identify if it needed to carry out further actions for the household depending on their circumstances. In not doing so, the landlord did not show consideration to its responsibilities under its policy and the HHSRS.
The landlord completed a survey on 6 March 2024 and raised follow on works. The works were to check the ventilation system and to check the roof space for leaks. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord should have carried out the repairs within 28 days but there is no evidence of it doing so, which is a failing.
The resident continued to report damp and mould on 19 June 2024. The landlord then conducted a further survey on 2 July 2024. The follow on works recommended sealing the windows, removing the damp proof course, servicing the extractor fans and ventilation unit, and replacing the gutters. The records show that it checked the ventilation system on 25 August 2024 and there is a record from 27 August 2024 which states that the guttering work could not go ahead due to the weather. The landlord has provided records from January 2025 and April 2025 which stated that the guttering was in good condition.
It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property following the resident’s concerns. And it was positive to see the landlord had taken some steps to address the damp and mould in the property by its stage 1 response. However, the delays were again not appropriate and we have not seen evidence that the guttering, further inspection of the loft, or installation of the vericon cube took place when stated.
Similar to the kitchen works, there were repairs related to the damp and mould which the landlord raised in August 2023. These included the trench works for the damp proof course and sealing the windows. The repair records suggest the landlord should have completed those works in September 2023. It is not appropriate that the records do not detail what happened with the repairs.
The landlord’s stage 2 response referred to some outstanding repairs for the ventilation system but it did not make reference to the latest inspection it carried out on 14 November 2024. It would have been reasonable for it to address what action it was taking in relation to the repairs outlined from the inspection.
The stage 2 response stated that it had resolved the roof leak on 27 September 2024, however, the resident’s stage 2 escalation the same day and later inspection suggested the leak was ongoing. The lack of clarity regarding the action it had taken would not have reassured the resident that the landlord had oversight of the repairs or that it would complete the repairs in a timely manner.
The resident confirmed the landlord carried out works to his windows and doors but he does not feel it completed them to a satisfactory standard. He said all the windows had “blown” and water was leaking into them. He feels the damp proof course was not correctly installed and remains inefficient. The landlord’s records do not sufficiently outline what steps it took in relation to the repairs and ensuring they were completed satisfactorily.
Taken altogether, it is not appropriate that the landlord did not carry out all the repairs in line with it repairs policy. The issue remains ongoing for the resident and despite the many appointments and surveys carried out in the property, the landlord has not shown that it identified the root cause of the damp and mould. As such, we order the landlord to arrange an independent damp and mould survey in the property to establish the cause of the issues and what steps the landlord must take to remedy it.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. We will consider the compensation later in the report.
In bringing his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident requested compensation for damages to his belongings over the years as a result of the damp and mould. We have not seen evidence of the resident raising this with the landlord within the complaints process. We recommend the landlord confirm with the resident what his options are for such claims.

Complaint	Asbestos
Finding	Service failure

In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it first became aware of the potential asbestos in the property after an appointment on 31 July 2024. It then conducted an asbestos survey on 22 August 2024. However, its records show the resident informed it of asbestos in the property on 8 March 2024. Given the works identified in the survey on 6 March 2024 which could have potentially disturbed any ACMs in the property, it was not appropriate that it did not conduct the survey sooner.
In his formal complaint the resident was concerned that there had not been an asbestos check in the property in 10 years. He referred to works previously carried out in the property which could have disturbed any ACMs, as well as the potential risks to the household, especially his son.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it could see the resident raising concerns about asbestos in 2016 but it was unclear what it did in relation to those concerns and the subsequent works carried out. The landlord has provided repair records for the property from 2016 with notes attached which reference ACMs in the property. This suggests that the landlord had previously undertaken an asbestos survey but the details of it were no longer available.
In line with its asbestos management policy, the landlord should have records available which contain all asbestos surveys. They should be available to all relevant stakeholders to ensure appropriate control measures are in place for safe working and to reduce the risk of accidental exposure. Its response would not have reassured the resident that it had properly managed the ACMs in his property. It would have been reasonable for it to have acknowledged its failings and outline what steps it had taken to ensure it did not repeat the same failing in future.
The asbestos survey on 22 August 2024 identified ACMs in the property, however, they were all low risk. The landlord’s internal emails on 30 August 2024 show that its health and safety team assessed the issues and confirmed it could complete the outstanding works safely. The landlord’s actions following the survey were reasonable and showed consideration to the findings and works required in the property. There was no clear evidence to show that there had been unsafe exposure to asbestos at the property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained this to the resident in its complaint responses.
The records show that the landlord initially arranged the repairs to the ceiling for 9 September 2024 but recorded that there was no access. The repair did not go ahead on 25 October 2024 due to the resident needing to remove belongings out of the room. The repair took place on 28 October 2024. The landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the survey and repairing the ceiling, it also offered compensation of approximately £225 in recognition of the delays.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s reports made in March 2024 and the lack of response at the time was not appropriate. It is positive that the landlord eventually took steps to manage the concerns and offered compensation for the delays. However, the landlord should have considered why it did not have sufficient records regarding its management of ACMs in the property and it did not show what it would do differently in future. The lack of reassurance likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos. We will consider the compensation later in the report.

Complaint	Staff conduct
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident has raised complaint issues which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The landlord responded to the concerns regarding staff conduct at stage 1, but there is no evidence the resident escalated that part of his complaint to stage 2. As such, the landlord did not include this within its stage 2 response and it is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
2. The landlord’s response at stage 1 was within 35 working days which was not compliant with the Code. The landlord acknowledged the delays and offered £50 compensation which was reasonable.
3. The landlord took 44 working days to respond at stage 2 which was not compliant with the code. The landlord offered £50 for this failure too, which was reasonable.
The landlord identified its failings and offered compensation for them which was in line with our remedies guidance. As a result, we have found reasonable redress.

Compensation

In calculating the compensation in this case, the landlord has not sufficiently shown how it had considered each failing and the impact caused to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have broken down the payments offered in more detail, this would have enabled us to consider if it was fair in each circumstance.
However, overall, the landlord did aim to put things right for the resident for the failures it identified and offered a proportionate amount of total compensation. It offered £1,015 which was in line with our remedies guidance for where there were failures accumulated over a period of time which combined would have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
As this investigation has identified additional failings which the landlord did not fully account for in its complaint responses, we have ordered further compensation in recognition of those. These were:
1. £100 to put right the failures related to its lack of urgency and consideration to the hazards presented in its handling of the multiple repairs in the property. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for where the landlord made an offer of compensation but it does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident.
2. £100 to put right the failing to evidence that it had fully repaired the garden wall as it said it would in its stage 2 response. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which the landlord did not put right.
3. £200 to put right the ongoing delays and failure to fully resolve the damp and mould in the property. The landlord also did not consider the risks presented to the household. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which the landlord did not put right.
4. £100 to put right the likely distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its failure to evidence the steps it had taken to manage the asbestos in the property. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which it did not fully acknowledge.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Upon investigating the individual repairs, it was unclear at times what the status of the repairs was, what action the landlord had taken, and whether follow on works were required. This made it difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances and likely caused difficulties for the landlord in having oversight of the repairs. The lack of records regarding its management of the asbestos in the property was not appropriate. If it has not already done so, the landlord should reflect on the record keeping issues raised in this report and what action it can take to ensure its records are accurate and detailed.

Communication

The resident was assigned a resident liaison officer (RLO) throughout the duration of the complaints process. Such actions can assist with cases similar to the residents where there are multiple repairs and departments involved but the resident has just 1 point of contact. The communication from the RLO was good overall. While there were still failures in the handling of the repairs, it was evident that having an RLO was beneficial in this case.