Clarion Housing Association Limited (202530136)

Decision
Case ID	202530136
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 March 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her children. The household has vulnerabilities, including asthma, which the landlord knows about. She told the landlord that there was damp in the kitchen and a smell coming from the drains, which was making her family unwell.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Drainage issues in the property.
2. Damp in the kitchen.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of drainage issues in the property.
We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the kitchen.
We found reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Drainage issues in the property

There was a further delay in resolving the issue after the landlord issued its final response, showing a lack of learning and commitment to rectify the issue.

Damp in the kitchen

The damp and kitchen repairs are still outstanding, and there is no evidence that the landlord has taken any active steps or communicated with the resident to resolve the issue, despite its commitment to provide updates on any required repairs.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s apology and award of compensation were a reasonable and proportionate way to put right the detriment caused by its delayed stage 1 response.

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 09 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a further £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of damp in the kitchen. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 09 April 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 someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. 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 damp in the kitchen and any associated repairs 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 A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue 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 The landlord must share the survey report with both the resident and this Service.	No later than 09 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 July 2025	The resident made a formal complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication. She said the landlord had not resolved the damp in the kitchen or the ongoing drainage smell in the property. She said the smell had made the household unwell and had led to her daughter being admitted to hospital again.
28 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and explained the actions it had taken. It said that it would review the surveyor’s findings for the kitchen and arrange any required work, monitoring it through to completion. It explained that it had instructed its contractor to jet the drains, but they had not done so. The landlord apologised for this and said it had followed up with its contractor to confirm the next steps. It paid £100 for failures in the kitchen repairs, £250 for failures in the drain repairs, and £50 for the late stage 1 response.
2 September 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. She said that the drainage problems had been ongoing since 2022 and repeated the effect this had on her family. She also said the landlord’s response did not address the damp in the kitchen, which she stated had been an issue since 2017.
10 October 2025	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It acknowledged that its stage 1 response had incorrectly stated that the drainage problems began in February 2025, when the resident had reported them since March 2022. It also accepted that the stage 1 response did not reflect the full timeline or the seriousness of the issue. The landlord provided a timeline of the resident’s reports from 2023 onwards about the damp in the kitchen and recognised that this problem had been known for many years. It said the issue had been inspected several times but was still not resolved. It said that a CCTV survey of the drains took place on 6 October 2025 and that it would update the resident on this and on any outstanding kitchen repairs by the end of the month. The landlord paid a further £800 compensation, £600 for the time taken to resolve the damp and mould, £150 for the drainage repair failures, and £50 for the right to repair.
Referral to the Ombudsman	She said the landlord had still not resolved the damp in the kitchen and had not given her any updates. She explained that the drainage survey had found 4 cracks in the sewage pipe, which had since been repaired. However, she was unhappy with the delay in resolving the issue and that the landlord had not told her what the CCTV survey had found. In January 2026, the landlord reviewed the complaint. It acknowledged that the kitchen works were still outstanding and that the drainage repairs were delayed after its stage 2 response. It paid a further £300 compensation in recognition of these issues.

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	Drainage issues in the property
Finding	Service failure

The landlord accepts that there were failings in how it handled the resident’s reports. When this happens, we assess if the complaint was resolved fairly and if the landlord offered suitable redress. We also look at whether the landlord followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s final response confirmed that the resident had repeatedly raised concerns about drainage problems and foul odours since 2022. The evidence showed that the landlord carried out some work in 2023 and 2024, including replacing the waste pipe and draining the tank. However, the records also showed that the landlord often took too long to respond to the resident’s reports. This lack of urgency was concerning, especially given the household’s circumstances and the resident’s warnings that the issues were making her family unwell.
In February 2025, the resident reported an “overpowering” sewage smell coming from the utility room sink. Despite this, the landlord did not attend until 21 May 2025, around 3 months later and outside its own repair timescales. In its final response, the landlord accepted that there had been several missed or rearranged appointments.
During the May 2025 visit, the landlord recorded that it could not identify the source of the smell and advised carrying out a CCTV survey of the main drain. However, it took no further action until July 2025, and this only happened after the resident chased for an update in June 2025. This caused her unnecessary time and trouble. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 response.
During its July 2025 inspection, the landlord advised that the drains should be jetted. However, it did not explain why it failed to carry out the CCTV survey it had recommended in May 2025. In fact, the CCTV survey did not take place until 6 October 2025, over 4 months after its May 2025 visit. This delay was unreasonable, given the long history of the issue and the effect it was having on the household. The evidence showed clear failures in progressing the required works.
The landlord acted fairly by recognising most of its failings, acknowledging the impact on the resident, and identifying learning from the complaint, including the need for timely follow-up and clearer communication. It also took steps to put things right by paying £400 in compensation across its formal complaint responses for the detriment caused. This offer was broadly in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards starting from £100 where a resident has been adversely affected.
However, the landlord did not follow through on the commitment it made in its final response. It had said that after the CCTV survey, it would update the resident by the end of October 2025. There is no evidence that it provided this update. This showed that the landlord had not learned from its earlier failings, and it caused the resident further distress due to the continued lack of communication.
The landlord’s records indicate that the repairs to resolve the drainage issues were completed in November 2025, and the resident confirmed in early December 2025 that the work had been finished. In January 2026, the landlord paid a further £300 in compensation. Part of this amount was for delays to the drainage works after its final response. While it was appropriate for the landlord to try to put things right for these further failings, it only made this offer after becoming aware of our involvement.
Although the landlord’s compensation offers were reasonable and consistent with our remedies guidance, we have still made an adverse finding. When a landlord offers compensation only after its complaint process has ended, it is harder for it to show that it will act fairly and consistently in all cases. The landlord should also use such situations to support future learning, especially when repeated mistakes cause detriment to a resident.
The resident also told us that she was concerned that the landlord did not share the CCTV survey findings with her. While this was not a specific failure by the landlord, it would have been reasonable for it to provide this information. Doing so would have shown transparency and given the resident assurance that her concerns were valid, especially given the ongoing nature of the issue. We have highlighted this as a learning point below.

Complaint	Damp in the kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

There was no evidence of proper follow-up after the resident reported in April 2024 that damp had returned in the kitchen. This was concerning because the landlord’s repair records contained multiple references to ongoing damp and water ingress dating back to at least 2017. In its final response, the landlord accepted that it had known about this issue for many years and that, despite repeated inspections, it had not resolved the problem.
The landlord’s records show that it carried out an inspection in May 2024. Although it found no mould, it noted water staining and recommended checking the vent and either bricking it up or covering it with uPVC. However, while there is evidence that the landlord repaired a hole in the side brick wall in August 2024, there is no evidence that it inspected the vent or carried out any work to it. This lack of action would have caused significant distress to the resident, given her household circumstances and the long‑standing damp problems in the kitchen.
It was not until May 2025, around a year later, that the landlord took any further action, when it inspected the kitchen again. On this visit, it noted that the kitchen needed either repair or replacement. However, there was no progress until the resident chased the landlord in June 2025, causing her additional time and inconvenience. There is also no evidence that the landlord identified or repaired the root cause of the damp. Furthermore, it did not follow its damp and mould policy, which requires it to keep residents informed about any diagnosis and the timetable for works.
The landlord again acknowledged most of its failings. It apologised for not properly addressing the specific damp issue in its stage 1 response and paid £700 in compensation for the damp and kitchen repair issues across its formal responses. This amount was in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards from £600 where failings have had a significant adverse effect on a resident.
However, it is unclear if the landlord followed through on the commitments it made in its final response. It acknowledged that the damp issues and rotting kitchen cupboards were still outstanding and said it would update the resident on any remaining repairs by the end of October 2025.
The resident told us that a landlord surveyor visited in late October or November 2025 and identified several repairs, but she has not received any update since. We have not seen evidence of this or a copy of the surveyor’s report. She told us that the kitchen wall feels “sweaty” to the touch and that mould is forming under the work surfaces.
Although the landlord provided further compensation in January 2026, the issue remains unresolved. This shows a lack of learning from its previous failures and has caused the resident additional distress. For this reason, we have ordered further compensation and an inspection to help move this issue toward a full resolution.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days, in line with its complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it did not provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement, as per its policy. Although it informed the resident of the delay, the landlord took 37 working days to issue its stage 1 response, which was outside its policy timescales. It apologised for this and paid £50 in compensation. This was reasonable and put right the detriment caused to the resident.
There was a minor 1-day delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. However, this did not cause any detriment. The landlord then issued its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement, in line with its policy and the Code.
Overall, the landlord’s remedy for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response was fair and proportionate.

Learning

The landlord should provide residents with the findings of relevant investigations, such as CCTV surveys, where doing so would offer reassurance, increase transparency, and help residents understand the steps being taken to address ongoing issues.
The landlord should ensure that damp and mould reports are followed up promptly and consistently, with clear actions, documented outcomes, and timely communication. This includes identifying the root cause, monitoring progress, and honouring any commitments or inspection findings.

Knowledge information management (record–keeping)

Although there were some small gaps in the landlord’s repair records, such as missing details about actions taken after inspections and visits, its overall record-keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

The landlord acknowledged that its communication fell short. It should communicate clearly and proactively, making sure residents understand what repairs are being carried out and when they will take place. The landlord should also ensure that it keeps residents updated on the actions it intends to take.