Clarion Housing Association Limited (202444545)

Decision
Case ID	202444545
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 April 2026

Background

1. The resident experienced damp and mould in multiple rooms, as well as condensation around the windows at the property. The landlord considered this was caused by a roof leak and carried out repairs. It also treated the damp and mould. The resident remains unhappy with the condition of the windows at the property, and with the standard of works carried out in the main bedroom when treating the damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a roof leak, damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
   2. Concerns about the condition of the windows.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a roof leak, damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
   2. Concerns about the condition of the windows.
4. The landlord made offers of redress which, in our opinion, resolved the errors in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould, and the associated repairs

5. There were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould, and the associated repairs. The landlord failed to adequately make good the resident’s bedroom wall or take steps to put right the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows

6. There were delays, poor communication, and a lack of clarity in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows. The landlord has not provided a suitable remedy to recognise the detriment that has been caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

7. While there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, its award of compensation was proportionate in the circumstances.

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 18 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould and the associated repairs. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows. This must be paid directly to the resident, and 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 made for these aspects of the resident’s complaints.	later than 18 May 2026
3	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 a suitably qualified person 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 it inspects: The walls in the main bedroom. The condition of the windows at the resident’s property. The survey report must set out: The condition of the main bedroom wall and identify any works required to make good to ensure the wall is in the same decorative condition prior to the damage caused by the roof leak. Any outstanding repairs to the windows in the property. Confirm whether there are any hazards related to the condition of the windows or the main bedroom wall. 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 works.	No later than 18 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Compensation We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £50 it awarded for its delays in its handling of his complaint. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding the above offer was/will be paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 January 2025	The resident complained about delays in the landlord’s response to his reports of issues with the roof, guttering, as well as damp and mould.
31 January 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response that said: In November 2024 it inspected the damp and mould at the property which its operative suspected was caused by a roof leak. In December 2024 its contractor repaired the roof tiles and cleared the gutters. The contractor said the felt in the loft space needed to be replaced and this was completed in January 2025. It replaced a double-glazed window unit and the hinges. It arranged to treat the damp and mould on 31 January 2025. The landlord accepted it had taken over 3 months to resolve the roof leak and the damp and mould. It also apologised its communication had been poor, and that it had failed to call the resident back multiple times. The landlord awarded the resident £150 compensation.
10 February 2025	The resident escalated the complaint and said: He asked the landlord to raise the complaint 3 times before it did. The damp walls had caused the wallpaper to lift in the bedroom. Its operative had painted over the peeling wallpaper with antimould paint. The resident wanted the landlord to plaster over the antimould paint and apply a base so he could wallpaper. The landlord cancelled an appointment to repair the felt lining in the loft space which was to prevent water ingress. The window unit needed to be replaced not just the glass pane. His complaint remained unresolved and he wanted an increase in compensation to reflect the damage to his personal belongings and for the detriment caused to him.
27 March 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response that said: In November 2024 it inspected the windows. It then replaced 1 double glazed window unit and its hinges in December 2024. In January 2025 its contractor said there were no leaks in the roof and the only works that could be done would be to fit felt below the tiles or install a new roof. In February 2025 it treated the damp and mould in the property during which its operative said the windowpanes needed to be replaced in the main bedroom. In March 2025 another operative inspected the main bedroom window and said there were no repairs they could do and the whole window unit needed to be replaced. It confirmed it would adjust the mechanisms and fit draught excluders to the bedroom window in April 2025. The landlord apologised for its delay and repeated visits in dealing with this repair. The resident’s property would be included in its investment programme for a new roof and new windows between 2026 and 2028. Its repairs and maintenance team would be responsible for repairing the windows until they could be replaced. The resident could submit a liability claim for damage caused to his personal belongings. It provided information about how to do this. It would not plaster over its remedial works. This was because it had treated the damp and mould which the resident could paint or repaper over. It awarded the resident £100 as a gesture of goodwill towards the cost of these works. It increased its overall award of compensation to £300. This included £50 for its delay in sending its final complaint response, and its £100 goodwill gesture.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. He said the landlord had not addressed the internal damage caused by the leak. The resident wanted the landlord to: Plaster the impacted areas damaged by the leak and its painting. Increase its offer of compensation to reflect his time and effort, and the replacement of soft furnishings that he said had been damaged as a result of the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Acknowledge the internal condition of the property and rectify it.

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	The handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak, damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

8. On 21 October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord about damp and mould on the walls and ceilings in the bedroom. He also said there was condensation around the windows in the bedroom and black mould in the bathroom.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to non-emergency repairs by appointment within 28 calendar days of a repair being reported.
10. The landlord’s operative visited the property and inspected the damp and mould within its published timescales, on 4 November 2024. The operative recommended:
    1. Its specialist contractor should investigate the roof leak into the main bedroom and address the guttering to the rear of the property which was cracked.
    2. The landlord should treat the damp and mould within the main bedroom and the living room once the leak was resolved.
11. The landlord’s contractor fixed the leak and cleared the guttering 32 days after it raised its inspection to investigate the leak. The contractor also recommended the felt under the roof tiles should be replaced. We have not been provided with the exact date, but the landlord has said this work was completed in January 2025. Roof leaks and their associated repairs may be considered complex repairs and can exceed published timescales, especially during winter months. We have seen nothing to suggest that the time taken by the landlord to complete this repair was disproportionate. However, would expect the landlord to keep the resident updated during any delay, and to provide an explanation with a timescale to complete any works. We have not seen any evidence the landlord did this.
12. The resident said he made repeated calls and attempted to chase the landlord during these works. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this within its stage 1 response.

13. The landlord applied antimould paint to the impacted areas of damp and mould 59 calendar days after it had repaired the roof leak. It would not be reasonable to carry out the treatment before the leak was repaired. In addition, there would have been a period after the roof repair was complete during which it would need to be monitored to ensure that a lasting repair had been carried out. However, this should not have prevented the landlord from carrying out a mould wash/mould treatment if required.
14. The resident has also told us his health has suffered as a result of the landlord’s delays in responding to his concerns about damp and mould within the property. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
15. The resident said he was unhappy with the operative’s workmanship in treating the damp and mould. The roof leak had caused the walls to become damp which resulted in some of the wallpaper peeling from the wall in the main bedroom. He said the operative had painted over the peeling wallpaper with antimould paint in one corner of the room. We have seen a photograph of this. He asked the landlord to put it right and make the area good including plastering over the damage caused and over the antimould paint.
16. The landlord declined to plaster or carry out any decorative works. The landlord was not obliged to wallpaper the resident’s property as he had asked. However, the works had left the resident with white coloured antimould paint applied to the corner of a purple wallpapered wall. It is established good practice that in such cases that further work may be required to ensure that an area has been made good following a repair. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not make good any damage to decorations consequential to the repair. The landlord should have ensured after applying the antimould paint that the bedroom wall was made good and left in a decent condition, including being of the same colour – or as close a match as possible.
17. The landlord offered the resident £100 towards the decoration works in its final complaint response. The resident said this was not enough to cover the cost to put things right. The landlord should have listened to the resident’s concerns, and it would have been reasonable if it had offered one of the following to make good the main bedroom wall:
    1. Used its own contractor to do the works.
    2. Advised the resident he could obtain a quote from a private contractor, and it would then cover the cost of the works.
18. The landlord’s final response showed a lack of empathy and was dismissive to the resident’s situation when it refused to make good the repair. The landlord should have investigated the resident’s concerns by completing a post inspection after he reported the issue of poor workmanship by its operative. We refer to this in our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance where we explain that failures such as this can be avoided when landlords gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure its work is satisfactory. We have ordered the landlord to put this right.
19. The landlord appropriately advised the resident how he could submit a liability claim for any damage caused to his personal belongings which he believed was as a result of its handling of these repairs. As we cannot determine liability, this matter is best considered by an insurer or via the courts.
20. The landlord rightly apologised for its overall delays, 2 cancelled appointments, and poor communication in its final complaint response. However, its offer of £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience did not go far enough to put things right. We have therefore made an order for further compensation taking into account the principles as set out in our guidance on remedies, and our compensation guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows.
Finding	Maladministration

21. The landlord visited the property on 4 November 2024 as part of its inspection into the damp and mould and condensation around the windows. The operative recommended the replacement of mouldy hinges and sealing to a window in the main bedroom.
22. On 3 February 2025 the landlord visited the resident’s property. Its operative recommended the windowpane in the main bedroom be replaced, and that a trickle vent also be fitted. In March 2025 another operative said the repairs could not be done and the whole window needed to be replaced. While it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the windows to determine the best course of action, the repeated visits over a period of approximately 3 months delayed matters and compounded the resident’s feelings of distress.
23. The landlord completed some of the repairs to the main bedroom window 210 days after its original inspection. This included the recommendations raised in November 2024. During this significant delay, the landlord’s repeated visits and its operatives different opinions inconvenienced the resident who wanted the landlord to resolve the ongoing issues with the windows.
24. The landlord needs to be financially responsible with its limited resources in managing its properties. Therefore, it was fair for the landlord to explain it intended to replace the windows within the resident’s building as part of its planned programme of works within 3 years (by March 2028).
25. However, in the meantime it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure the windows in the resident’s property were in good working order. This includes replacing any window that is deemed beyond repair. It should not refer to a potential future programme of works unless those works are guaranteed and within a reasonable timescale.
26. The landlord’s overall handling and its communication about the condition of the windows was poor. It is also noted that its responses had also referred to replacing a double-glazed windowpane in the living room – as opposed to main bedroom – in December 2024. This, understandably, would have caused the resident concern as to whether there was adequate oversight of the situation.
27. We have also been unable to determine if all the repairs to the windows have been adequately addressed based on the information given by the landlord. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to address this aspect of the complaint.  Together with compensation, we have also ordered the landlord to inspect the windows at the resident’s property.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

28. The landlord’s complaints policy timescales comply with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. However, these responses were issued 11 working days and 13 working days late.

29. Our compensation guidance suggests an apology and awards of up to £50 for situations where the complaint response was delayed by several days and where the resident was compelled to chase the landlord to respond. The landlord’s apology for its delays and award of £50 compensation in its final response to the resident’s complaint was reasonable and in line with our guidance.
30. The resident said he asked the landlord to raise a complaint 3 times before it did. The resident’s comments are acknowledged. However, we have not seen any evidence to corroborate what the resident has said. Where there is a lack of evidence, we as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened during these earlier communications between the resident and the landlord.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The evidence provided by the landlord was not as complete or thorough as we would expect it to be. Landlords should ensure that accurate audit trails are maintained. Not only does this help to ensure that evidence is available in the event of a complaint, but it also helps to ensure that repairs are adequately managed and monitored.

 Communication

32. In this case, the landlord failed to return the resident’s calls and keep him regularly updated. This left the resident chasing the landlord whilst he was left feeling frustrated and dissatisfied. This may have been avoided if the landlord had provided regular updates and communicated its actions and decisions in a clear and timely manner.
33. The records also suggest thatthe landlordalso failed to listen to the resident’s concerns. This resulted in his frustration and dissatisfaction which may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team had followed our spotlight report recommendations.