Clarion Housing Association Limited (202231720)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231720

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 March 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy started in March 2010.
3. The landlord has vulnerabilities listed for the resident’s household. The resident has reported to the landlord that his daughter has asthma. Additionally, that she has previously suffered from pneumonia.

Summary of events

4. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 September 2023 and reported that his roof was leaking. He said this was causing damp in the property.
5. The landlord attended on 16 January 2024 and identified that previous damp proofing works had been completed so it referred it to its surveyor for consideration. It arranged a follow up appointment for 9 July 2024 to complete a damp and mould assessment, but the landlord failed to attend.
6. This appointment was rescheduled for 10 July 2024 and the records state the landlord attended and said it would instruct a specialist damp contractor to assess the rising damp. During the appointment the landlord confirmed it was not aware of any effective allergy and chemical free mould treatment that would not trigger or aggravate the resident’s daughter’s asthma.
7. The resident complained to the landlord on 26 June 2024. The resident said he was withholding his rent as he had been having issues with damp and mould for 7 years. The resident said he had a further landlord visit on 19 March 2024, but he had not heard from the landlord since. He explained that the lack of resolution had significantly impacted his family’s quality of life due to the lack of communication.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 August 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and for the level of service it delivered. Its complaint investigation identified several service failures where works had been booked but not completed. This included that it failed to communicate with the resident and update him on the progress of works.
9. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £815 made up of £600 for its delay in resolving the damp and mould issues. Additionally, £15 for a missed appointment regarding the cracked wall rending, £50 for its delayed complaint response and £150 in delay in completing roof repairs.
10. In an email from the resident to the landlord on 31 July 2024 he advised that previous damp proofing works completed by the landlord had affected his daughter’s asthma. Therefore, the resident was seeking clarity on whether further works would be beneficial.
11. A surveyor completed an inspection on 6 August 2024. At this time, the surveyor recommended an upgrade to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom extractor fans to humidistat fans to help with condensation. The fans were replaced on 1 November 2024.
12. The resident called the landlord on 22 August 2024 and requested it escalate the complaint to stage 2. The resident said he was unhappy with the level of compensation offered.
13. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 September 2024. The landlord said it reviewed its stage 1 response and found it was an accurate response to the complaint. However, it increased its compensation offer to £1,600 to include its handling of damp and mould from January 2021 to September 2023.

Post complaint process

14. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 17 September 2024 to complete interim mould treatments. However, the resident did not want this to take place.
15. The landlord arranged an appointment for 18 December 2024 to review the outstanding repairs required. Also, to provide a long term solution to the damp and mould in the property. The surveyor said there was damp and mould present in the kitchen and mould in 2 bedrooms and in the bathroom. The surveyor recommended remedial work which included a 3 stage mould treatment in the affected areas and that the loft needed more insulation as it had insufficient insulation thickness. The surveyor recommended a full damp survey and report to be carried out.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

16. As part of the resident’s complaint, he has said the mould issue at the property had been ongoing for around 7 years. In such circumstances the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised such issues as a formal complaint within 12 months. Issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time have not been considered within this report. In relation to the complaint about damp and mould in the property, it has been decided that the complaint will be considered from September 2023 onwards. This is due to the fact that the resident previously issued the landlord a letter of claim and this was settled pre–litigation in January 2021. Therefore, we are unable to consider matters prior to September 2023.
17. The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on his family’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman sympathises with the resident and his family. It is understandable that he has concerns about the impact of their living conditions on their health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider any impact that resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

18. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
19. Landlords are expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing. This requires housing to meet the current statutory minimum standards. Landlords are obliged to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS. They are expected to carry out monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Hazards include damp and mould.
20. The landlord’s leak, condensation, damp, and mould policy (LCDM) states that it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. Further, where necessary, it will carry out repairs, remedial works or improvements to rectify any problems.
21. The landlord’s repair policy sets out target times for repairs. This states it will complete immediate repairs within 4 hours which includes uncontrollable leaks. Also, emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
22. The landlord was initially proactive in response to the resident’s concerns regarding his roof leaking. The landlord attended on 14 September 2023 and found the roof had broken tiles and guttering was blocked. The landlord cleared the gutters during this appointment. It completed works to the roof on 28 September 2023. This included replacing the broken roof tiles.
23. The landlord attended within 48 hours and completed remedial works by clearing the gutters on the roof. Additionally, it identified that roof tiles needed replacing and the landlord replaced the tiles within 16 days. This was in line with its repair obligations to attend within 28 days to complete routine repairs.
24. The landlord raised an order to complete damp, and mould works on 31 October 2023. This was over 6 weeks after it found that damp and mould was present in bedrooms, loft, and on the stairs on 14 September 2023. This was not reasonable as the landlord was aware that damp and mould was a long standing issue needing prompt action. Additionally, it was outside of the landlord’s repair timescales to complete repairs within 28 days. Also, it was not inline with its LCDM policy to carry out timely and efficient repairs.
25. The landlord attended on 22 November 2023 and added further ventilation to the roof space. It attended a further appointment on 28 November 2023 regarding the wall render being cracked in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom causing water penetration. However, the records do not state what action was taken, if any. This level of detail was not an appropriate record of key steps in its investigations into a longstanding matter of damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) dated May 2023 highlighted the importance of accurate and robust records. Further, the report says that without accurate records it hinders the landlord’s ability to keep progress of works and also effectively respond to complaints.
26. There is evidence that the landlord was proactive in January and February 2024 in attempting to complete remedial works by way of completing mould washes. This included that the landlord attended on 5 January 2024 but was it unable to gain access. It contacted the resident on 10 January 2024, but the resident said he was not available for an appointment that week. Further, the landlord arranged to attend the property on 15 February 2024 to complete mould washes. However, the resident cancelled this as he said he did not see the purpose in further mould washes taking place until the cause of the damp was identified. Additionally, the resident was concerned about the impact mould washes and damp proofing had on his daughter’s asthma.
27. Given the resident’s reservations it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider alternative remedial measures. This could have included decanting the resident and his family until damp and mould works could been completed as noted within its own LCDM policy. There is no evidence that the landlord considered alternatives as such, it lacked oversight of the ongoing impact on the family. Particularly, the resident’s daughter who continued to sleep in a room suffering from asthma where damp and mould was present.
28. The records show that in May 2024 its surveyor reviewed works with a damp specialist. However, for reasons unknown to this Service and the landlord, works were not raised following this survey. This was not reasonable as it prolonged the resident’s distress. Also, it was not in line with its LCDM policy which states investigations and root cause treatments will be urgent and timely.
29. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould detailed the need for landlords to assess risk and recognise the negative effect of damp living conditions on health and well-being. The photographs given by the resident to the landlord and from its inspections showed extensive mould and damp within living areas and bedrooms.
30. The landlord was aware that the resident’s daughter had asthma. However, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed the ongoing risk to the resident and his family from living in damp and mould conditions. This was not in line with its own LDCM policy which states that in cases of recurring damp and mould it will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment. This could have resulted in the landlord taking action to support the resident. This was not reasonable as the landlord was aware of the presenting health conditions with the household and should have considered if it could do anything differently. Additionally, there is no evidence which showed that the landlord recognised the impact its suggested remedies were having on the family. 
31. The landlord completed multiple investigations between September 2023 and August 2024. It is unclear why the landlord attended the resident’s property on a number of occasions. As well as the landlord attending a number of times its surveyor also attended in February 2024 and in July 2024. The evidence provided shows that the surveyors recommended for the loft to be insulated, for the roof to be repaired and changes to fans in the kitchen and bathroom during this time. Additionally, for further mould treatment to take place. Due to the complexity of the damp and mould it confirmed it would refer the case to a damp specialist a further time in July 2024.
32. This was appropriate as landlords should seek specialist advice to obtain a long term solutions to damp and mould. Particularly, given the resident was concerned about interim works which included it completing mould washes and others works that had not resolved the issue. Whilst this Service recognises that it can be a complex process identifying the cause of damp, it should balance this by not being over intrusive or repeating the same investigations. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that it made limited plans for resolution in the meantime.
33. There was a failing in the landlord’s handling of repair works to upgrade the resident’s fans in the kitchen and bathroom to humidistat fans. The records show this was recommended by its surveyor on 6 August 2024 to help with condensation. However, the fans were not replaced until 1 November 2024. This was not in line with the landlord’s repair obligations to complete routine repairs within 28 days.
34. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed that it had contacted a specialist damp contractor to contact the resident to arrange a full damp survey. It said once the survey had been completed it would book in any recommended works. This was originally requested in July 2024, and at the time of issuing its stage 2 in September 2024 this had still not take place. This delay was not appropriate, and the landlord has not provided any clear evidence that this has taken place since. 
35. In contact with this Service the resident confirmed that the damp specialist attended in February 2025. This was 7 months after the landlord confirmed that a damp specialist would attend the property. The resident has confirmed that as of March 2025 no works had taken place. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence that it completed the survey sooner. The lack of prioritisation by the landlord to arrange a specialist damp report earlier in the process was not reasonable. The landlord has not provided a reason for its delay in arranging the survey despite its reassurance at stage 1 that it would be arranged.
36. As such, the resident and his family were living with damp and mould in multiple rooms of the house for a prolonged period of time. The length of the delay fell outside of the target time set by the landlord’s repairs policy of 28 calendar days for non-emergency repairs. It represented a failure to complete repairs within a reasonable time or reduce or remove hazards. Considering the extent of delay, this failing was significant.
37. This left the resident in a place of uncertainty for 11 months between September 2023 and August 2024. The landlord failed to provide regular updates to the resident. The records show the resident sought updates on 19 December 2023, 14 February, 12 March, 26 June and 31 July 2024. Although the landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact it should have ensured it kept the resident informed of the progress of damp and mould works as outlined within its LCDM policy. As this did not happen, the landlord’s actions were not reasonable or customer focused. Also, it caused the resident time and trouble chasing the landlord for an update.
38. The landlord apologised in both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses for the level of service it delivered and its delays in completing works. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £765 at stage 1 and £1,600 at stage 2. However, the compensation offered at stage 2 relates to January 2021 until September 2023. This did not form part of the landlord’s complaint investigation at stage 1 or this investigation.
39. Whilst this investigation has not considered the events from 2021 until September 2023 the landlord took positive steps to try and put things right in offering compensation for this period in its stage 2 response. However, as the compensation offered at stage 2 relates to a period that we did not investigate this will not form part of our consideration.
40. Whilst the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response identified some of its failings, it did not identify all of its failings, this included that it failed to consider the household circumstances, and any risks associated with damp and mould. Additionally, it did not acknowledge its failings regarding its communication.
41. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould was not appropriate. It failed to act in line with its policy or its wider obligations. The damp and mould was extensive and across living areas and the resident’s daughter’s bedroom. The landlord failed to consider the household’s vulnerabilities and the distress and risk this caused the family being exposed to mould and damp. This included that the landlord failed to complete a comprehensive risk assessment to identify how it could support the resident. Also, it failed to consider decanting the resident and his family or other options available to support the family given the risks presented by damp and mould. The landlord’s communication failings meant that he had to contact the landlord for an update. This added to the resident’s time and trouble. The living conditions impacted the resident and his family’s enjoyment of their home for an extended period of time.
42. Given that works remain outstanding as of March 2025 the landlord missed opportunities to put things right following issuing its stage 2 complaint response. While the stage 2 response made some attempt to put things right with its offer of compensation, it did not recognise all of its failings. The matter then remained outstanding for a prolonged period of time.
43. The landlord missed opportunities to put things right sooner. There was unreasonable delays in the landlord completing works and arranging a specialist damp proofing survey. The landlord’s failings caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident and his family. Due to the failings identified the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property amounts to severe maladministration.
44. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service has considered our remedies guidance and the landlord’s own compensation guidelines. This states compensation of £700 plus will be awarded where there has been a significant effect on the resident. Therefore, further compensation has been awarded.
45. The Ombudsman also considers it appropriate that the landlord provide additional compensation to recognise the resident’s day to day experience living among damp conditions. This sum represents the loss of enjoyment of his home and is made with reference to the rent payable but is not intended as a rent refund, as permitted by our remedies guidance. A percentage of 20% of the rent payable across the relevant period is appropriate in view of the rooms affected and the nature of the issue. The period of calculation has been taken to begin 28 days from 12 September 2023 in line with the scope of this investigation. It ends on 18 December 2024 when the landlord was proactive in its attempts to review outstanding damp works.
46. The calculations for loss of enjoyment are set out below:

47. It is important to explain that the below calculation is not exact. The amount awarded is in addition to what the landlord has previously offered in its complaint process.

The associated complaint

48. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
49. In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 20 working days. It will also acknowledge the complaints within 5 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
50. The resident initially complained to the landlord on 26 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 July 2024 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on over a month later on 6 August 2024. This is not in line with its own complaint procedure or the Code.
51. The resident requested that the landlord progress to stage 2 of its complaint process on 22 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged its stage 2 response on 29 August 2024 and provided its stage 2 response on 6 September 2024. This was in line with its own complaint procedure and the Code.
52. The landlord apologised for its delay in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord explained that the delay was due to it waiting for responses from its repairs team. The landlord also offered compensation of £50 as its complaint response fell outside of its service level agreement. The compensation offered was in line with its compensation guidelines to award £50 for failing to meet its service standards. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Determination (decision)

53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
54. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

55. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. The chief executive to apologise to the resident for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Pay the resident £1,951.72 in compensation in addition to what has already been given at stage 1 and 2 of the complaint process. This covers the resident’s loss of enjoyment of his home. 
    3. The ordered compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.
    4. Within 6 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
       1. Carry out a risk assessment taking into consideration the vulnerabilities within the household. Following this, it should discuss this with the resident and provide evidence to this Service on how it will mitigate any risks identified.
       2. Meet with the resident to discuss the outcome of the damp and mould specialists survey. During the meeting the landlord should explain how it will address the issues and provide measures it will take to reduce any impact to the household’s health.
       3. Contact the resident to address and arrange appointments for outstanding repairs.
       4. Agree and provide the resident and this Service with a schedule of any identified works.
56. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

57. The landlord should pay the resident £50 it offered at stage 2 of the complaint process for its complaint handling failings.