Clarion Housing Association Limited (202526155)

Background

1. The resident lives in a basement flat. She reported repeated leaks, sewage ingress, and damp and mould affecting several rooms to her landlord. She made multiple reports over several months as the issues continued to reoccur. She also raised concerns about the damage to her belongings and the impact of living with these conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the damp and mould and the associated repairs
   2. the residents concern about damages to personal belongings
   3. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. maladministration in the landlords handling of the damp and mould and the associated repairs
   2. no maladministration the residents concern about damages to personal belongings
   3. no maladministration in the landlords handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the associated repairs

4. In this case, the landlord did not show that it carried out full investigations or followed through on the damp, mould and sewage concerns it identified. It did not demonstrate that followed its Leak, Condensation, Damp and Mould (LCDM) policy which required a zero‑tolerance, proactive and cause‑led approach to repeat issues. Given the sensitive nature of sewage reports and the potential impact on residents’ health and wellbeing, the landlord should have considered a more thorough assessment, clearer recording of findings, and prompt action on recommended works.

The residents concern about damages to personal belongings

5. The landlord gave clear information on how to claim for damaged belongings via its insurer.

The associated complaint

6. The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident told us that the situation impacted her family’s physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for an 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconveniences.
8. We may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has said the issues have been ongoing for several years. She raised a formal complaint on 26 June 2024. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she became aware of the issue.
9. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. It is fair and reasonable that the investigation focused on issues arising 12 months prior to her complaint up to the date of the final response of 17 September 2024 plus any commitments it made in that response.
10. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint 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. There is no evidence the resident raised concerns about the dehumidifier cost in her complaint of 26 June 2024. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

What we investigated

11. The landlord’s LCDM policy required it to diagnose and resolve damp and mould promptly and to carry out risk assessments for serious or recurring cases.
12. The resident first reported damp and mould on 2 March 2023. The landlord said it attended on 15 March 2023 but cancelled the job for no access. It is not clear whether the resident knew about the appointment prior to its attendance.
13. The landlord re‑raised the works on 15 March 2023 and completed them on 23 March 2023. It also made good the bathroom ceiling following a leak on 27 March 2023. These attendances were within its 28‑day target and reasonable.
14. The resident reported further damp and mould on 30 June 2023. The landlord attended within its timeframe, completed a mould wash and raised follow‑on works. It began the follow‑on works on 14 July 2023 and identified areas that needed time to dry out. Its response at this stage was in line with its policy and reasonable.
15. The landlord inspected the property on 25 July 2023 and identified the need for repointing and extractor‑fan checks. It confirmed on 26 July 2023 that the fan did not require further action. It completed the repointing and making‑good works on 31 August 2023, which was within its policy timeframe.
16. During the 31 August 2023 visit, the landlord identified more serious building issues, including damp linked to separation of the front wall from the structure, cracking around windows and waterlogging to the side and rear walls caused by disconnected sewer elements. The operative advised that an architect should inspect the front wall. The landlord raised downpipe repairs the same day, but these were not completed until 11 October 2023. This exceeded the expected timeframe for routine repairs.
17. The landlord’s records also show wider structural and drainage concerns identified on 31 August 2023. There is no evidence that it investigated the disconnected sewer elements or escalated the recommendation for an architect’s assessment. These were important issues under its LCDM policy, which required it to diagnose causes of damp and mould, take reasonable steps to protect the building fabric, maintain accurate records and communicate planned actions to the resident.
18. On 10 May 2024 the resident reported sewage backing up into her bathroom and water rising through the floor. The landlord attended within 24 hours, which met its emergency repairs target and was in line with policy. It cleared the blockage and recommended further works for a CCTV survey.
19. On 13 May 2024, the landlord raised further works for a CCTV survey but cancelled the job after 3 unsuccessful calls to the resident. However, it is not clear why the landlord cancelled the repair when no appointment had been arranged or attended. Given the seriousness of the sewage report, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to try alternative contact methods to schedule the appointment before deciding to cancel. Cancelling the repair at that stage was unreasonable.
20. In May 2024 the landlord’s records noted a “potential Category 1 HHSRS hazard” due to leaks and mould. The landlord has not provided a detailed inspection report, so it was not clear whether this was a confirmed finding or a recommendation. The landlord’s LCDM policy requires it to diagnose issues effectively, record findings and set out next steps. The lack of clear records was in this case was not appropriate.
21. On 14 May 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom and bedroom. The landlord inspected on 28 May 2024. This was timely and in line with its LCDM requirement to address damp and mould promptly.
22. The inspection found that the toilet pans connector and bath waste pipe had detached, causing significant damage. The landlord attended on 31 May 2024 to carry out temporary repairs, provided a dehumidifier and agreed to schedule the remaining repairs. This was in line with its LCDM requirement to minimise further damage.
23. On 17 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and it carried out an inspection the next day, which was appropriate. However, the landlord had already committed on 31 May 2024 to schedule a full‑day reinstatement job to rebuild the boxing, reinstall the toilet and refit the bath frame. In line with its agreement, it should have progressed these planned works. It did not do so, which was unreasonable.
24. The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 June 2024, and an inspection took place on 9 July 2024. Between July 2024 and 30 August 2024, the landlord carried out several visits to address leaks, drainage and reinstatement works, including escalating a shared‑drain issue to Thames Water. These actions were appropriate.
25. Both the landlord and the resident dispute who installed the bathroom. The limited evidence provided by both parties is unclear therefore we are unable to comment on this further. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate this, but also fair in the circumstances for it to carryout remedial works to address the issue.
26. On 19 and 20 September 2024, the landlord completed internal works it had committed to at stage 2, and it carried out the delayed CCTV survey on 24 September 2024. The reinstatement works completed on 19 and 20 September 2024, renewing the bathroom framework, boxing, skirting, and adjusting doors, were the same works the landlord had identified on 31 May 2024, meaning it took around 16 weeks to carry them out.
27. The landlord also said the delayed CCTV survey was due to difficulty contacting the resident, but its records showed regular contact and multiple visits.
28. Given the long history of damp, mould and drainage concerns, including issues first raised in 2023, the landlord should have considered this historic information and used it to inform its decisions and approach. In line with its policy, where particularly severe or recurring issues are identified, the landlord is required to carry out a comprehensive risk assessment. There is no evidence that the landlord undertook this level of assessment in this case or used the earlier findings to guide its response.
29. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the bedroom was habitable based on an inspection it said took place on 30 August 2024. The only record for that date was an external CCTV survey, and there was no evidence of an internal inspection.
30. Under the LCDM policy, the landlord must diagnose issues effectively, keep clear records and explain its assessment of any damp‑related risks. Without an internal inspection record, it is unclear how the landlord reached its conclusion about habitability, which was not in line with its policy and was unreasonable.
31. Throughout her contact with the landlord, the resident repeatedly said that damp affected several rooms, and she later told us she still has damp and mould in the bedroom and hallway and she has been unable to use the bedroom. As the landlord did not provide evidence on how it reached its conclusion that the bedroom was habitable an order has been made for it carryout a further inspection.
32. It’s early actions to address the reports were reasonable and in line with its policy. However, later there were avoidable and unexplained delays which would have caused distress and inconvenience. It also could not evidence how it reached conclusion that rooms were habitable despite what the resident was telling it. This would have likely undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord
33. The complaint was an opportunity for the landlord to put things right. Under our Dispute Resolution Principles, landlords should offer redress and show learning from complaints. Here, the landlord did neither. It missed the chance to recognise the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and to demonstrate any learning.
34. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £450 for distress and inconveniences caused in its handling. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there has been failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident and it failed to address the detriment to the resident.

35. The landlord’s guide on insurance says that any claim for damaged personal belongings should be made through the resident’s home contents insurance. If a resident does not have contents insurance or wishes to pursue a public liability claim, the landlord said the claim must be made in writing and sent by email. It explained that written claims must include the required information so they can be passed to the landlord’s insurers and handled under the appropriate insurance policy.
36. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 17 September 2024 advised the resident to claim through her home contents insurance. It also provided details to the resident to make a claim through its insurance.
37. As the resident said the damp and mould damaged her personal belongings, it was appropriate that the landlord invited her to claim for this through its public liability insurance.

38. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord had a published complaints policy that was compliant with the Code.
39. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 July 2024, 7 working days from the residents complaint on 26 June 2024. This was in line with the Code and its policy.
40. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 3 September 2024, 10 working days later (from 20 August 2024).
41. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 September 2024, 10 working days from the acknowledgement. Although the acknowledgement was late, the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued 20 working days from receiving the escalation and therefore in line with the Code and its policy.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. In this case, gaps in the records meant key information was missed or not shared, which delayed action and placed extra burden on the resident. Clear, accurate and up‑to‑date records would help staff understand the history of the issue, track follow‑on actions, and ensure that damp and mould cases are progressed without the resident needing to chase for updates.

Communication

43. The landlord should reflect on how gaps in its communication and record‑keeping contributed to delays and uncertainty for the resident and consider how more effective information sharing and clearer explanations of next steps would improve its handling of similar cases in future.