Clarion Housing Association Limited (202536326)

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of reoccurring damp and mould in her property. She expressed concern that it had treated the mould but had not addressed the underlying cause of it. She said it had adversely affected her asthma and mental health. She also raised concern about the health impacts on her 2 children who lived with her.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of damp and mould

6. The landlord delayed in treating damp and mould and associated repairs. It committed in its stage 2 response to complete all outstanding work but failed to follow through on this.

Handling of the complaint

7. The landlord responded to the complaint at both stages in line with its complaints policy.

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.

8. The resident told the landlord in November 2024 that there was damp and mould throughout her property. The landlord’s initial response was prompt. It inspected the property the following week and treated some mould. It identified that it should replace 2 extractor fans and carry out further mould treatment. It then took almost 6 weeks to complete this follow-on work. This exceeded the 28 day target timeframe for completing works set out in its repairs policy.
9. The landlord suggested in its stage 1 response that it was not at fault for this timeframe and had complied with its repairs policy when arranging appointments. It said it had intended to complete the follow-on work in late December 2024 but the resident cancelled the appointment. However, that only accounts for why it took until 2 January 2025 to attend the property and carry out mould treatment in the bathroom. It does not explain why it was only after this appointment that it then raised a works order to replace the extractor fans and treat mould in the bedrooms. It should have raised this works order a month previously following its inspection. Had it done so it may have completed all the follow-on works within the 28 day target timeframe.
10. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it had not treated the mould effectively as its operative had only wiped walls down. It apologised but did not offer any compensation. It would have been reasonable for it to do so given it caused the resident inconvenience in having to facilitate a further appointment.
11. The landlord attended the property in March 2025 to put right its failure to effectively treat the mould. During this appointment it carried out a 3 stage mould treatment in the bedrooms. It is unclear from its records why it did not also treat the bathroom during this appointment given it was a room it had treated previously. It had also identified during a survey in February 2025 that the bathroom required further treatment, as did the living room and patio doors.
12. The landlord acknowledged this lack of coordination in its stage 2 response. It explained this was due to a delay in it raising works orders following its February 2025 survey. It apologised and offered the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay. This was a reasonable amount of compensation for that specific failure.
13. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that to put things right, it would complete all the mould treatment and repairs identified in its February 2025 survey. It had raised works orders as follows:
    1. Works order 1 – damp and mould treatment to walls, ceilings and windows in the bathroom and living room and to the patio doors.
    2. Works order 2 – renewal of various window seals and double glazing throughout the property. Renewal of sealant to the bath and wash hand basin.
14. The landlord completed the mould treatment outlined in the first works order 12 days after it issued its stage 2 response. However, it did not complete the remedial work outlined in works order 2. On 23 October 2025, which was 6 months after it issued its stage 2 response, it carried out a further survey of the property. This was in response to a letter from the resident’s solicitor issued under the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims. The survey confirmed the remedial work outlined in works order 2 remained outstanding and it identified some other repair work.
15. The resident raised a new complaint with the landlord earlier this year about its ongoing delays in completing the remedial works. It issued a stage 1 response in April 2026 in which it reviewed its handling of damp and mould from the date of its previous stage 2 response (16 April 2025) onwards. Within the response it acknowledged several “delays, missing updates and lack of follow-through on planned works”. It said it would compensate her for these through her legal claim. It recently advised us that it is now investigating the complaint at stage 2.
16. The Housing Ombudsman encourages landlords to use their complaints process to acknowledge failures and put things right. To give the landlord an opportunity to do so, we have only awarded compensation in this investigation for failings we identified up to its stage 2 response on 16 April 2025.
17. Our compensation guidance suggests we may order payments of up to £600 in cases of maladministration where there was a significant emotional impact on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay £600 for its failings up to 16 April 2025, which included delays and ineffective treatment, for the following reasons:
    1. It was evident from the resident’s communications with the landlord that she was very distressed by the damp and mould which had impacted most rooms. This included the bedrooms in which she and her 2 children slept. Given she had asthma she was understandably worried about the health implications.
    2. She spent time and trouble raising her concerns with the local authority which led to the landlord accepting its initial mould treatment was ineffective.
    3. She was inconvenienced by having to facilitate additional appointments due to the landlord’s delays in raising works orders and completing effective treatment.
18. The £600 we have ordered includes the £200 the landlord offered in its stage 2 response.
19. Following contact from the resident, we notified the landlord in March 2026 that there had potentially been a material change. This could trigger the prescribed requirements for Awaab’s Law under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. This was because the resident told us the damp and mould had returned and her health had deteriorated.

20. The landlord has a complaints policy that aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy requires it to acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt. It must then issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.
21. The landlord complied with these timeframes at stage 1. There was a short delay of 2 working days at stage 2 in it acknowledging the escalation request but we are satisfied this caused no detriment. It then issued the stage 2 response within 20 working days.
22. The resident sent the landlord an email during its stage 2 investigation in which she asked it to compensate her for “financial losses” and “health impacts”. The landlord did not address this in its stage 2 response. Given she did not raise this within her original complaint or escalation request, we consider this to be a shortcoming rather than a complaint handling failure. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to:
    1. Ask her to clarify what her financial losses were. It could then have considered compensating her for any loss it accepted was caused by a failure in its service. This would have been in keeping with its compensation policy. Alternatively, it could have referred her to its insurance team or liability insurers.
    2. Explain to her that in line with its complaints policy, it did not deal with personal injury claims through its complaints process. It could have referred her to its insurance team or its liability insurers.

Learning

Complaint handling

23. We understand the landlord is currently investigating the resident’s second complaint at stage 2. In doing so, we encourage it to consider offering compensation as part of its complaint response rather than relying on the resident pursing the pre action protocol process. She has not to date filed a claim in court. The landlord therefore has an opportunity to resolve the matter through its complaints process. If the resident is unhappy with its stage 2 response once issued, she may refer it to us for investigation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. This case highlights the importance of keeping accurate inspection records. It was unclear from the landlord’s December 2024 inspection report which areas of the property it treated for mould and which areas required further treatment. This may have been the reason it did not treat all relevant rooms at its next visit and had to return a second time to do so. It also failed to prepare a survey report in February 2025 which contributed to its subsequent delay in raising works orders.

Communication

25. The landlord’s initial communication with the resident in relation to its February 2025 survey was poor. It took almost 2 months to inform her of its findings and only did so after she chased it for an update. It should be proactive in its communications with her going forward and ensure it keeps her updated as it completes the outstanding works.