Clarion Housing Association Limited (202447855)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202447855

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 in July 2024. The property is a 1 bedroom first floor flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident is asthmatic and experiences issues with her mental health.
During October and November 2024 the landlord carried out mould washes in the bathroom.
On 2 December 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that mould treatments had not resolved the problem. She did not agree with its assessment that the damp was caused by condensation and asked it to investigate damp in the wall. She was also dissatisfied with the standard of workmanship when fitting new vents.
Further works were carried out in the property during December 2024 and January 2025.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 January 2025 as follows:
1. It set out its list of related repair jobs and confirmed that, except for one, they had been completed within time. It apologised for that failing.
2. It said there appeared to have been a “miscommunication” regarding a surveyor’s note on filling gaps around the vents. Replacement of the vents was completed without setting out any follow on works. This contributed to its “oversight.”
3. It had booked to attend on 14 January 2025 to treat affected areas. It said this would help determine if there were more significant issues with the wall.
4. It acknowledged that delays had caused frustration for which it apologised.
5. It offered compensation of £250 comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delay in its complaint response.
  2. £50 for the right to repair.
  3. £150 for the delay in resolving damp and mould. This included repeat visits, having to chase and inconvenience.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 29 January 2025 she said the damp was still an issue. She once again asserted there was an underlying issue and that it was not caused by condensation. She escalated the complaint the same day.
On 24 February 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being that:
1. There had been several appointments to investigate the root cause. It accepted this may have caused frustration and inconvenience as works were still unfinished. While it believed the time taken and number of visits was “excessive” it was satisfied with its stage 1 complaint response.
2. It would attend on 25 February to replace the vent. It would reinspect on 10 March to see if the water ingress was ongoing.
3. It acknowledged its external and internal communication could have been improved. It identified the need to ensure actions were followed through and residents did not have to chase.
4. The purpose of surveyor involvement was to conduct a thorough survey and to raise works to resolve the issues, not to have 3 separate visits for different areas.
On 25 February 2025 the resident submitted an online complaint to us to express her concern the root cause had still not been addressed. She said that since moving in she had been diagnosed with asthma. She was often ill and was having to wipe down the walls. This was impacting on her mental health because she could not make any progress with the property when everything kept getting “ruined.”
On 16 April 2025 the landlord carried out a disrepair inspection including damp and mould.
On 8 May 2025 the resident’s disrepair claim was settled between the parties.

Assessment and findings

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

The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy says it will respond to non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould Policy (its damp policy) says it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. It will deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of the problem, not just the symptoms.
The repair logs show that on 1 October 2024 the landlord raised a works order to fit an extractor fan in the kitchen as the resident was experiencing condensation. While this was positive it is unclear when the work was carried out which is a record keeping failure.
On 10 October 2024 the landlord raised a works order to remedy reported mould growth in the bathroom. On 15 October and 4 November 2024 the landlord carried out mould treatments and painting works in the bathroom. An internal email dated 6 November 2024 queried next steps considering the ongoing reports and repeat mould washes.
A reply dated 9 November 2024 said it would carry out a multi trade visit and refer the matter to its surveyor if required. This was in line with its damp policy.
The landlord has provided a copy of a survey report dated 25 June 2024 which contains the resident’s details. However, she could not have been the tenant at that time because this was before her tenancy start date. In its response to us of 8 August 2025 the landlord confirmed the survey was carried out on 12 November 2024 and apologised for any confusion. This is a record keeping failure.
The survey noted the trickle vents were open however, there was “slight” mould in the corner of the bedroom. Damp readings taken were considered “normal.” It appropriately raised orders for follow on works to carry out a mould wash, install vents in the cupboard and renew the vent in the bedroom.
On 14 November 2024 the landlord carried out a mould wash and painted the bathroom, bedroom and bedroom cupboard. The file note stated that the “issue is clearly exterior by bedroom wall either down pipe or drainage.” The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 14 January 2025 said that it also replaced an existing vent and installed vents in the bedroom cupboard on 14 November.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould set out the impact caused by landlords diagnosing condensation without fully considering all possible causes. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the operative’s observation which was inappropriate and not in line with its damp policy to deal with the cause of the problem, not just the symptoms.
A file note dated 21 November 2024 set out a call from the resident who said she was unhappy with the outcome of the visit. The landlord booked a post-inspection survey for 29 November 2024. It also agreed to call the resident on 2 December 2024 to discuss any concerns she might have following the survey.
During the call the resident said she was dissatisfied that it had not considered the root cause of the issue. She did not agree it was caused by condensation. She was also unhappy that the surveyor had failed to record that follow on works were required to fill the gaps around the vent.
The landlord carried out a further survey on 2 December 2024. It noted the resident was not using the heating in her kitchen and that the back of the kitchen cupboards needed replacing due to mould.
On 10 December 2024 the landlord booked an appointment for the gaps around the vents to be filled on 19 December. This was 2 months after the vents were fitted. Its response was not in line with its timescale of 28 calendar days. Its stage 1 complaint response of 14 January 2025 acknowledged the delay was due to its “oversight.”
On 31 December 2024 the landlord attended to carry out works to the kitchen units and apply a mould wash.
An internal email also dated 31 December 2024 set out the resident’s dissatisfaction with the new vents which she said were contributing to “freezing” conditions in the property. She had asked for another survey to be carried out as she did “not feel heard.”
The landlord attended the property on 14 January 2025 to carry out works to remove the toilet, complete a treatment and water seal the brickwork in the bathroom. The operative did not think that a survey was necessary because they identified the root cause of the mould as lack of ventilation. An air brick that had been blocked up previously had been reinstalled. However the wrong type of vent had been fitted so a new job was raised to change it.
It was positive that works were carried out in the bathroom. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered carrying out property survey in line with the resident’s request. Considering its operative’s observation about the bedroom wall and the resident’s concerns this would have been reasonable.
On 29 January 2025 the resident reported that the damp and mould was ongoing. She again reiterated her concerns that it was not caused by condensation. She reported that dripping occurred on the inside of the external wall especially after it rained and that was mould behind the kitchen cabinets.
As part of a disrepair claim the resident made, her solicitor instructed an independent expert report and a survey was carried out on 31 January 2025. It identified a possible issue with the damp proof course being breached causing mould damage to the bedroom wall. It also noted that the pointing on the external walls may be degrading with rain penetrating through.
On 17 February 2025 the landlord raised an order to remedy an issue with the vent. The file note said that it would reattend on 10 March 2025 to reassess the situation. If the wall was still showing signs of water ingress it would refer the job to its surveyor.
It is unclear if it attended on 10 March however, it carried out a disrepair inspection on 16 April 2025. It concluded that the damp proof wall was breached which “could be contributing to the damp and mould issues along the wall in the bedroom.”
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 24 February 2025 set out what it needed to do differently. However, it failed to say what it would do to make sure it improved its service. This is reflected in the orders below.
The damp and mould was ongoing in 3 rooms. Therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed all the evidence regarding possible causes, particularly given the resident’s diagnosis of asthma. Had it done so it may have reassured the resident that it took the matter seriously and was committed to tackling the root cause in line with its damp policy. That it failed to do so damaged the trust between the resident and landlord, causing the resident to feel “unheard.” This caused her time and trouble when she raised the disrepair claim including issues with damp and mould.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report. Therefore it’s been ordered to pay the resident £400 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance. It may deduct the £150 it offered if this has already been paid.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 2 December 2024. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 5 December. However, it issued its response of 14 January 2025 which was 25 working days later and 15 working days out of time.
The landlord’s response appropriately apologised for the delay. It also offered £50 compensation to try to put things right.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 29 January 2025 was issued appropriately within time.
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 handling 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 the changes it has made to ensure it will do things differently as set out in its stage 2 complaint response.
  3. Set out its action plan for any outstanding work in relation to the damp and mould including timescales, if appropriate.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation for the failures in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It may deduct the £150 it has offered 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 £50 as offered in its stage 1 response if it has not already done so.