Clarion Housing Association Limited (202342516)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342516

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 July 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:
1. The resident’s request for a new kitchen, bathroom, and windows.
2. Repairs to the kitchen.
3. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
4. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom ground floor flat and he has lived there since June 2015.
On 5 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and asked to raise a complaint about issues with his kitchen and bathroom, and these not having been replaced. The landlord acknowledged the email but did not raise a formal complaint.
On 8 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to raise a complaint about the condition of the property. He said the kitchen was outdated, the doors and windows were inadequate, and there was damp in the bathroom.
The landlord raised and acknowledged a complaint on 11 January 2024. It sent its stage 1 response on 16 April 2024, in which it said:
1. the block was last inspected in 2016 but it was unable to confirm whether the resident’s kitchen and bathroom were inspected at that time
2. his property had been added to the future programme for window replacement
3. it had attended to inspect the bathroom in line with its policy
4. it acknowledged delays in resolving issues with the kitchen, including missed appointments
5. it had filled a hole left by contractors, after the resident had reported seeing mice – since the hole was filled he had not reported further sightings
6. he had declined a kitchen pod and a decant into an alternative property
7. it had provided food vouchers as an alternative – the resident asked for an increased amount due to dietary requirements, however it declined this as it was outside of its policy
8. it provided the resident with details of its liability insurance for him to make a claim for his damaged washing machine
9. it offered compensation of £775, broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the late complaint response
  2. £50 for the delay in raising a formal complaint
  3. £350 for repair delays
  4. £140 goodwill gesture
  5. £75 for non-attended appointments
  6. £50 for right to repair
  7. £10 for loss of amenities
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 19 April 2024. He said he should not have been asked to go through his own insurance and then the landlord’s. He said repairs took too long and the landlord lacked understanding of his religious dietary requirements.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 May 2024, in which it said:
1. it had undertaken a new stock condition survey (SCS) and recorded this on its system – due to economic circumstances replacing bathrooms and kitchens was low priority
2. works to replace windows had been provisionally booked for 2025/26 – subject to approval from the local authority due to restrictions in the area
3. the resident was responsible for insuring his belongings – if he did not have insurance he could claim via its liability insurance and the correct details were provided at stage 1
4. its compensation offer at stage 1 was fair
The resident spoke with us on 7 January 2025 and confirmed that he wanted us to investigate the complaint. He said that there had been mould issues in the bathroom for over 10 years. He was unhappy with the repairs that had taken place in the kitchen and the fact that the landlord would not replace the kitchen and bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

When raising his complaint, the resident said the landlord told him when he moved into the property that the kitchen and bathroom would be replaced soon. He also told this Service that there had been mould issues in the bathroom for over 10 years.
The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2022 onwards, when the resident first raised his concerns to the landlord that the kitchen and bathroom had not been replaced.
This is because the landlord’s complaints policy states that it will not investigate complaints about issues that happened more than 12 months before the complaint was raised with it. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Resident’s request for replacement kitchen, bathroom, and windows

The Government’s decent homes standard sets out the following component lifetimes when considering disrepair:
1. windows – 30 years
2. external doors – 30 years
3. kitchens – 30 years
4. bathrooms – 40 years
The landlord’s records show that the kitchen in the property was last renewed in 1998 and the bathroom was last renewed in 1991. Both are therefore within a reasonable lifetime in line with the decent homes standard. The landlord’s records show that it has carried out repairs when the resident has reported issues and we have seen no evidence that the kitchen and bathroom are not fit for purpose.
The landlord’s records show that the resident’s external doors were last renewed in 1991 and the windows were last renewed in 1951. While these both fall outside of what would be considered a reasonable lifetime, the landlord has already confirmed the windows have been added to its programme of improvements for 2025/26. This is a reasonable step for the landlord to have taken. The landlord has not been clear in its complaint responses about whether this programme includes the doors. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to clarify this with the resident.
We appreciate that the resident does not feel that budget constraints are a good reason for the landlord not to upgrade his kitchen and bathroom. However, landlords have finite resources and it is reasonable for them to make decisions on how to prioritise upgrade works as long as properties do not fall into disrepair.
For these reasons, the Ombudsman considers there to have been no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen, bathroom, and windows.

Kitchen repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy says that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours to make safe or carry out temporary repairs. Follow-up work and non-emergency repairs should be carried out as soon as possible and within 28 days.
On 2 October 2023, the resident reported that the floor in the kitchen was slanting. The landlord contacted him to discuss the issues on 27 November 2023 and booked in to do the repairs on 9 and 10 December 2023. It is unclear from the landlord’s records why it took 6 weeks to contact him to arrange the repairs, and this was not in line with its policy.
In the meantime, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 8 November 2023, as he was unhappy with the condition of the property.
The landlord’s contractor did not turn up on 9 and 10 December 2023, and the resident called it to report this on 11 December 2023. A survey was booked in for 14 December 2023, which went ahead, and repairs were booked in for 16 and 17 December 2023. Again, the contractor did not turn up and the resident said he was not notified in advance, which was not appropriate.
A contractor carried out work on 18 and 19 December 2023, which left the resident with no cooking facilities. On 20 December 2023, the boiler stopped working, which the resident suspected was due to a leak caused by screws from the new floor. An engineer attended on 22 December 2023 and found a leak. There is no evidence the landlord offered the resident temporary heaters, which was not appropriate given the time of year.
On 7 January 2024, the resident found that his washing machine was damaged due to excessive vibration from the floor. On 15 January 2024 he informed the landlord that his washing machine had started to leak from the door. On 22 January 2024, the landlord attended to inspect the kitchen and identified that some units needed to be changed. It said the earliest availability for the floor repairs to be completed was 13 February 2024, which represented an unreasonable delay.
On 9 February 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to say that he had seen mice in the property, which he believed were entering through holes left by the landlord’s contractors. On 14 February 2024, the landlord carried out an inspection which found that the floor was still slanted. It confirmed the washing machine was damaged and the oven did not fit correctly. It said the standard of repair was not acceptable and the floor needed to be re-laid.
During this visit the landlord’s contractor filled the holes and the landlord has since said it received no further reports of mice sightings. Given that the access for the mice was likely a result of the contractor’s workmanship, it would have been more reasonable for it to have treated filling the holes with more urgency, given the distress this issue caused the resident.
On 18 February 2024, the resident reported again having no heating or hot water. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether it attended to carry out work at that time. On 19 February 2024 it attended to inspect the kitchen again and said work would be carried out within 28 days. As the repairs had already been ongoing for several months, this was not an appropriate timeframe.
On 25 February 2024, the resident’s boiler lost pressure again. A contractor attended on 4 March 2024 but could not repair it as they did not have the necessary parts. They attended again on 14 March 2024 but were unable to do the repair because they did not have the correct tools to cut the floor back. The landlord’s lack of planning here caused further unnecessary inconvenience to the resident.
A joint visit was booked for 26 March 2024 to allow for the floor to be cut back to enable the boiler repair, however one of the contractors did not arrive. The repair was then completed on 28 March 2024. The landlord’s records do not show that it provided any alternative heating or hot water facilities. The landlord’s policy does not state whether it considers a loss of heating and hot water as an emergency but we would expect it to repair this urgently. From the evidence provided, it took 4 weeks for the landlord to complete repairs, which was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 April 2024. It said that the resident had initially reported the problem with the floor in October 2023 and acknowledged that it had taken too long to resolve. It accepted that it had missed appointments and failed to notify the resident when it was unable to attend.
The landlord said it had offered to decant the resident and his family into temporary accommodation, or provide a kitchen pod, and he had declined both options. These were reasonable options for the landlord to offer. It said it had provided him with food vouchers, however he was unhappy it would not increase the amount to accommodate his religious dietary requirements.
The landlord’s policies do not say that it will provide increased amounts to accommodate dietary requirements. We have seen no evidence that the resident was disadvantaged by this decision, so we find the landlord did not act unreasonably in declining to increase the value of these vouchers.
The landlord offered £625 compensation to the resident in relation to the delayed repairs. While it did offer this compensation, and offered solutions to mitigate the resident’s inconvenience, this redress was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family. The resident told this Service that the kitchen was left in an unsafe condition and his family still had to pass through the room to use other rooms in the home.
The landlord provided the resident with its insurer’s details for him to make a claim for his washing machine. We understand that the resident feels he should not have to go through the process of making an insurance claim. However, this is a normal process and what we would expect the landlord to signpost a resident to do, so it acted reasonably in this respect.
Work to finish the repairs to the kitchen floor started on 22 April 2024, more than 2 months after the landlord said they would be completed within 28 days. On 3 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord with a list of items that remained outstanding, and work was fully completed on 13 May 2024. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 23 May 2024, it said that it found its stage 1 response was fair.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the kitchen. The repairs were not completed until 7 months after the resident reported the problem. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy and it has not provided any reasonable explanation for the delay. Its communication with the resident was poor, and it repeatedly missed appointments, or failed to prepare correctly for appointments, causing further inconvenience for the resident. The kitchen was left for prolonged periods in an unsafe condition and he was left without a working boiler on several occasions due to poor workmanship.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the significant delay in it carrying out the repairs. This award has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It brings the total compensation for kitchen repairs to £1,125.

Damp and mould in the bathroom

The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy says that it will:
1. diagnose damp and mould in a timely and effective manner
2. carry out appropriate works where necessary to minimise damage to the structure, fixtures, and fittings of the property
3. reduce the number of preventable condensation related jobs by managing initial repairs
4. train and equip staff to diagnose potential causes of damp, mould and condensation and leak tracing so they can advise residents and provide solutions
When the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint on 8 November 2023, he said that the previous tenant had painted the bathroom tiles and this was causing a damp problem.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom again on 19 December 2023. He said there was not enough ventilation as there was no window and the extractor fan was not strong enough.
The landlord’s records show that at this time it carried out a mould wash treatment. However, there is no evidence it carried out a full damp and mould inspection or checked whether the extractor fan was providing sufficient ventilation. Its actions at this time were not in line with its damp and mould policy.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 16 April 2024, it said that it had completed mould treatment within 28 days of the issue being reported, which was in line with its policy. It said no further work was required at that time. Its stage 2 response of 23 May 2024 made no further comments in relation to this issue.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident again raised the mould issue in September 2024 and a further mould treatment was carried out in October 2024. When the resident contacted us in January 2025, he said the mould was still an ongoing issue.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould in the bathroom. This is because the landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it made any attempt to identify the underlying cause of the mould in the bathroom. Its records only show that it carried out work to treat the mould, even when it reoccurred after treatment.
The resident told the landlord he thought the issue was with ventilation due to the lack of a window. However, there is no evidence the landlord investigated the performance of the extractor fan or tried to identify any further ways to reduce condensation in the bathroom. Its actions were not in line with its damp and mould policy as it did not diagnose the underlying cause of the damp and mould or take action to prevent further damage.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to identify the underlying cause of the damp and mould.
An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out a damp and mould inspection, including an assessment of the ventilation in the property. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of this report, as well as a schedule of any required works with a timescale for completion.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means a landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from its mistakes, and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy in place prior to April 2024 said that it would acknowledge a complaint within 10 working days and send its stage 1 response within 20 working days. When a resident requested for a complaint to be escalated the landlord would acknowledge the request within 10 working days and provide a response within 40 working days.
The landlord updated its complaints policy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, in April 2024. This said it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. When a resident requests for a complaint to be escalated the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide a response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.
The resident contacted the landlord via email on 5 January 2022 and asked to raise a complaint about issues with his kitchen and bathroom. The landlord responded the next day to say it had raised his concerns with its contractors, who would respond directly. The resident replied the same day to say that he had done this before, with no response, and asked to raise a formal complaint. He chased this up on 9 February 2022 as he had received no response.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord raised or responded to a complaint at that time. This was not in line with its complaints policy, and it did not act reasonably.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 November 2023 to raise a complaint about the condition of the property. He referred to his previous complaint from 5 January 2022 and said this remained unanswered. As he had not heard further from the landlord, he contacted it again on 10 December and 18 December 2023.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 10 January 2024 to confirm the full details of the complaint he wanted it to investigate. It sent a written acknowledgement on 11 January 2024, in which it incorrectly stated that it had received his complaint on 3 January 2024.
The resident chased a response on 10 February 2024, however we have not seen evidence the landlord responded at this time. It contacted him on 15 March 2024 and apologised for its delayed response, but did not provide an expected date for it to send its response, which was not appropriate.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 16 April 2024, in which it said the delay was due to it needing to liaise with different business areas to provide an action plan. This response was sent more than 5 months after the resident raised the complaint in November 2023, which represented an unreasonable delay. The landlord’s explanation of the delay was also unreasonable, and this should not have prevented it from responding in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord did apologise for the delayed response and offered £100 compensation. It also offered £50 for its delayed raising of the complaint. However, it failed to acknowledge that the resident had raised the same complaint in January 2022, and that it did not respond to that. The redress offered was not proportionate to its failings at that time.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 19 April 2024 and it acknowledged this request on 24 April 2024. It sent its stage 2 response on 23 May 2024. At this stage, its acknowledgement and response were both in line with its updated complaints policy, which was reasonable. However, the stage 2 response was unclear on whether the doors were included in the programme of works to replace the windows. The landlord should have been clear on this.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because it failed to raise a complaint at the resident’s request in January 2022. When he complained again in November 2023 it took almost 2 months for it to log and acknowledge the complaint and a further 3 months for it to send its stage 1 response. It did not handle the complaint in line with its policy and its response did not go far enough to put matters right.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £300.
An order has also been made for the landlord to carry out a case review to understand why it failed to log a complaint in 2022 and was delayed in logging a complaint in 2023.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen, bathroom, and windows
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the kitchen
3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom
4. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £1,675, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
1. £1,125 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of kitchen repairs
2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp and mould
3. £300 in relation to complaint handling
A senior manager at the landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
The landlord to provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to carry out a damp and mould inspection, including an assessment of the ventilation in the property. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with a copy of this report, as well as a schedule of any required works with a timescale for completion.
Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord to carry out a case review to understand why it failed to log a complaint in 2022 and was delayed in logging a complaint in 2023. A copy of the review should be provided to this Service.

Recommendation

The landlord to write to the resident to confirm whether the improvement programme for the windows, scheduled for 2025/26, also included the external doors.