Clarion Housing Association Limited (202421320)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421320

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 June 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Pests in her property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her two children. One of her children has ADHD and autism and the landlord is aware of this.
The resident first reported damp in her home to the landlord on 4 October 2023. The landlord attended on 11 October 2023 and completed an inspection. It did not find mould, but it did identify wet patches in the son’s bedroom. The landlord returned on 20 October 2023 and identified a large area of wet patches to the chimney breast area. It recommended its roofing contractor attend to inspect the roof and complete repairs.
The landlord’s roofing contractor attended on 8 January 2024 but said it could not gain access to the property. It attended a number of times after, first reporting that it needed access to a neighbouring property only to find the loft hatch it needed access through was sealed. On another occasion it said it was prevented from completing the work due to weather conditions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 February 2024 via its online complaints form. She said that her home had a problem with damp, and she was waiting on roofing works to be complete. She said the damp had started to impact her and her son’s health and that she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and resolve the issue. She said if it could not, she would like it to financially compensate and move her.
The contractor completed work to the roof on 18 March 2024.
On 12 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to make another complaint. She said there had been a lack of communication and she was seeking for it to complete the repairs and for the damp to be resolved. She also requested compensation for delays and the need to chase the landlord for updates. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
The landlord re-visited the resident’s property in May 2024 to inspect the damp and told the resident to wait a few months for the bedroom to dry out following the completion of roof repairs. It provided her with a de-humidifier to help with this.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 21 May 2024. It:
1. Apologised for the delay in completing the roof repair and acknowledged it had not provided the resident with timely updates.
2. Told the resident to make a claim regarding any damage caused to personal items due to mould under her own contents insurance policy. It said if she could not, its own liability insurance team could advise her, and gave her guidance on how she could do this.
3. Offered £400 compensation comprising of £350 for the repair delays and lack of communication and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 September 2024 to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. She said that despite works being carried out, there had been no change in the situation. The issue of damp in her son’s bedroom had not been resolved by the landlord and as a consequence, he was sleeping in her room, and she was sleeping in the living room. She said she was concerned with the impact on her son’s health and believed it was having an impact on his allergies and asthma. She also said the issue had put a strain on her own mental health. She requested that the landlord carry out further repairs to resolve the issue.
On 8 October 2024, the landlord attended to remove the plaster work to the affected areas. Its surveyor attended on 30 October 2024 to carry out an inspection and recommended the landlord install an air brick, conduct a drainage survey, and cap the chimney.
On 13 October 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that there were bed bugs in the property. She also told it the damp was spreading to the second bedroom and that her and her children had suffered with a number of stress related health problems. She said this had led to her taking time off work and her children being too unwell to go to college. She said there was a lack of space and privacy in the flat due to the now limited living space. She requested the landlord pay her £3000 compensation for the issues she had experienced and £2000 for loss of damaged items. She also requested a rent reduction backdated to October 2023 on the basis that she had not had use of one of the bedrooms.
The landlord’s pest control contractor carried out treatments for bed bugs 3 times between October and November 2024.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 29 November 2024. It apologised for the lack of repairs completed following the stage 1 complaint. It also said it could have taken a more proactive approach to the resident’s reports of pests and that it had failed to respond to a communication from the resident on the matter within its 5 working day service level agreement. It offered the resident an additional £200 for the service failures which it later clarified to the Ombudsman as comprising of £150 for its failures relating to its handling of the resident’s report of pests, and £50 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.

Events after the complaints process

The landlord completed a drainage survey on 4 December 2024. It found no drainage issues relating to damp in the property. The landlord also completed work to cap the chimney on 29 December 2024.
On 19 December 2024, the landlord discussed an action plan with the resident regarding the damp. It agreed to the type of contact, frequency of contact and provided the resident with a named member of staff who would be her point of contact going forwards.
The resident has continued to experience damp in the property and the landlord has since visited to remove the plaster and expose the brickwork in efforts to dry the area. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 1 May 2025 and confirmed the walls in the affected room were partially dry but needed additional time to dry out. The surveyor organised for a dehumidifier to help with the process and has planned a follow-up inspection at the end of May 2025. We have not been told whether the inspection took place.
The resident has not reported any further instances of pests in her home since November 2024 and had confirmed this issue is resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her and her children’s health. We acknowledge this has been a difficult time for her and her family. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. The Ombudsman can consider the general risk as well as the likely distress and inconvenience any identified failings may have caused, but we cannot determine the specific effect of the landlord’s action or inaction on the health of the resident and her family. Any such claim would be more appropriately progressed through liability insurance or as a civil action through the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim, she can seek independent legal advice.
The resident did not raise the issue of pests at the time of her initial complaint as her first report came shortly after she requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. In this situation, the landlord may choose to either respond alongside the current complaint at stage 2 or as a separate stage 1 complaint. In this case, the landlord has decided to incorporate the pest issues into its stage 2 response and so we will also include this within the scope of our investigation.
The landlord issued its final complaint response in November 2024. At the time of its stage 2 response the damp and mould in the case was outstanding. For fairness, we have increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states non-emergency repairs should be completed as soon as possible and this should be within 28 days.
The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy states it will inform the resident of the findings of investigations following inspections. This will include identifying the possible causes of the issue, recommending effective solutions, details of all necessary remedial works and the estimated timescales to complete works.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will log complaints within 5 working days of receipt and operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.

Reports of damp and mould

The landlord responded to the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould appropriately by raising an inspection in a timely manner in line with its policy for non-emergency repairs. It was reasonable for it to act on the recommendations of the inspection and organise for its roofing contractor to carry out a further inspection and to complete repairs to the roof and chimney.
The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in completing the roofing works. The first roofing appointment was booked 53 working days after it was raised. This fell outside of its own published timescales for repairs of this nature. After this, it had difficulties accessing a neighbouring property, adverse weather conditions, and the loft hatch was sealed, all of which delayed the repair despite the landlord’s efforts to progress it at the time. Whilst this had an impact on the resident, this was not a failure by the landlord.
The landlord has also acknowledged the lack of communication regarding the roofing repair as it did not give the resident updates, and she had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions during this time. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (2021), states that landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken to resolve reports of damp and mould. The landlord’s lack of communication caused the resident distress, made worse by the impact that damp was having on her use of the property and the fact she had concerns for her and her children’s health.
After the roofing works were complete, the landlord asked the resident to wait for the interior of her property to dry out and provided her with a de-humidifier to help with this process. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord as it believed its roofing contractor had found the underlying cause of water ingress and taken steps to resolve it.
When the resident later reported that the damp issues had not been resolved, the landlord carried out another inspection. This took 39 working days which was outside its published timescales for non-emergency repairs. Given the resident had raised concerns about the impact of damp on her and her family and given the continuous nature of the issue, the landlord’s response did not reflect the urgent nature of the situation.
The landlord raised the recommended works to carry out a survey of the drains and to cap the chimney the day of the inspection and, whilst there were unavoidable delays such as access issues and the need for scaffolding, overall, these repairs were completed in a timely manner. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not raise works to install an airbrick as it had recommended at the same time as the other works. This was unreasonable. If the repair was no longer necessary, the landlord should have communicated the reasons why to the resident and given evidence of this to the Ombudsman.
The landlord agreed an action plan with the resident in December 2024 with a single point of contact whose role was to update the resident regarding the progress of damp and mould repairs. This was positive as the landlord had previously failed to communicate with the resident regarding repairs and a single point of contact can help with this as they can co-ordinate updates from different departments.
Since its stage 2 response, the landlord carried out further works to remove the plaster in the bedroom to allow the walls to dry. The landlord’s surveyor visited in May 2025 and noted the walls had partially dried and organised for a dehumidifier to help with the process. It is encouraging that the landlord continues to work towards resolving the damp issues in the property and we understand that it can sometimes take time to find the right solution. Sometimes different repairs must be attempted before the issue is fully resolved.
However, the landlord has not provided a clear explanation into what it believes to be the current underlying causes of damp or why the resident has continued to experience the issue since October 2023. This is not in keeping with its own leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy. This lack of clarity is reflected in the resident’s more recent expression of dissatisfaction and in her request to the landlord that it completes an independent survey of the property. The landlord should be clear with the resident regarding its actions and provide her with its reasoning behind them. It has provided no evidence that it has done this, despite having a single point of contact for the damp and mould. Given the length of time the resident has experienced damp and the impact on her and her family, the lack of clarity on the underlying causes and associated lack of communication with the resident is a failure by the landlord.
The landlord identified failings in its handling of the damp and mould at stage 1 of its complaints process and offered the resident £350. When the landlord has made an offer, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether the offer is fair and reasonable. Our approach to compensation is set out in our remedies guidance published on our website. The amount the landlord offered is in line with what the Ombudsman might consider ‘maladministration’ by the landlord. The compensation offer was reasonable at the time when it was made.
However, given the delays of a further inspection following the stage 1 complaint, the failure to explain why a recommended repair was not carried out, along with the lack of clarity regarding the underlying causes of the damp, the Ombudsman finds further compensation is necessary to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident since the landlord issued its stage 1 response.
Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance, we have made an order below for the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation in recognition of its overall failings. This should replace its original offer of £350 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid. The landlord should also apologise to the resident for the further failings in regard to its handling of damp and mould as well as providing the resident with a clear explanation on what it believes to be the underlying causes of damp and a schedule of works for any planned repairs.
The resident has requested a rent rebate on the basis that one bedroom has been unusable due to damp since her first report in October 2023. The landlord has not made an assessment on whether the room was uninhabitable and neither has it responded to the resident’s request for a rent rebate. It is concerning that the landlord has not sought to understand the impact of the damp on the resident’s living situation, and it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns that she could not use the bedroom when she first made it aware in October 2024. At this time, the landlord should have investigated the resident’s concerns as an urgent repair.
The Ombudsman has also seen evidence of more recent works carried out by the landlord to the bedroom in January 2025 which include stripping back the walls to brick. Given the obvious disruption, the resident continues not to have reasonable use of the room.
Although the resident reported the damp and mould in October 2023, there is no record that she told the landlord she could not use the bedroom until October 2024. On this basis, the Ombudsman finds it reasonable to take October 2024 as the starting point for the resident’s request for a rent rebate and orders the landlord to pay compensation equal to 30% of the total rent from this point until now. This includes 20% for the resident’s inability to use the bedroom and 10% as the living room was also restricted as the resident had to sleep in there, although it was partially useable. We also recommend that the landlord consider reducing the rent by 30% until it deems the bedroom habitable. This decision should be made by its surveyor and confirmed in writing to the resident.

The resident also asked the landlord to award compensation for her belongings which she says were damaged due to mould. In its stage 1 complaint response to the resident, the landlord advised her to make a claim under her own contents insurance policy. It also referred her to its liability insurer at the same time. In the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman considers this an appropriate response to the resident’s request for the landlord to award compensation for damaged belongings. Landlords are entitled to rely on insurance to cover the cost of such claims, and the landlord would not be obliged to consider a claim itself, outside the insurance process. The Ombudsman will not comment on the outcome of a claim if one is made to an external insurer as insurers are separate organisations from landlords and we can only look at the actions of social landlords.

Reports of pests

The landlord acknowledged its failure to respond to the resident’s contact on 7 November 2024 regarding her pest report within its expected timeframe of 5 working days. It failed to keep her updated and could have been more proactive from the date of her first report. However, the landlord ultimately resolved the pest issues by the end of November 2024. At stage 2 of its complaint process, it offered £150 compensation for its failings. The landlord’s offer adequately reflects the distress and inconvenience that the resident would have experienced as a result of the failures identified with regards to pest control. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made an offer prior to our involvement which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint about its handling of pest control issues.
The resident also reported that the second bedroom was unusable due to bed bugs. Although we acknowledge the distress this caused to the resident and her family, there is not enough evidence to confirm the severity of the pest issue or that the room was unusable due to this. On this basis, we will not order the landlord to provide the resident with a further rent rebate for the impact of the pest issue to the second bedroom during this time.

Complaint handling

There were delays by the landlord in its response to the complaint at both stages. It took 26 working days to respond at stage 1 and 61 working days at stage 2. It acknowledged the delay at stage 1 and offered the resident £50 in recognition of its failure. At stage 2, it offered an additional £50. The total sum of £100 adequately reflects the distress and inconvenience the resident would have experienced as a result of these delays.
However, the resident submitted an online complaint form to the landlord regarding the damp in her property in February 2024 and there is no evidence the landlord logged the complaint at this time. This was not in keeping with its own complaints policy and prevented the resident from accessing its complaints procedure at the time. Therefore, in line with our remedies Guidance, we have made an order below for the landlord to pay the resident additional £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by this error. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident a total of £200 compensation in recognition of its overall failings in complaint handling. This should replace its original offer of £100 for complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to involvement, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of pests.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings highlighted by this investigation in its handling of the damp and mould. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould.
  2. A rent rebate of 30% from October 2024 to the date of this decision.
  3. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.
  4. If the landlord has already paid the resident compensation it offered in its complaint responses, this may be deducted from the overall total. However, additional compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account, unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
3. Provide the resident with a clear explanation in writing as to what it believes to be the underlying causes of damp and a schedule of works for any planned repairs.
The landlord should provide this service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendation

We recommend the landlord reduce the resident’s rent by 30% from now until it deems the bedroom habitable. The decision regarding when the bedroom is considered to be habitable should be made by its surveyor and confirmed in writing to the resident.