Clarion Housing Association Limited (202303875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303875

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 May 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. Damp and mould in the property, and the subsequent damaged caused.
2. The resident’s decant.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the property which was a 1–bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has multiple health conditions. These include sleep apnoea, breathing problems, heart disease, and osteoarthritis.
The resident first contacted the landlord regarding black mould and a pest infestation in his property on 7 February 2023. The resident made a formal complaint on 8 February 2023. His complaint was in relation to the member of staff he had spoken to the previous day and the poor service he had received from them. He reported that he would be sleeping in his car as he said he was not willing to risk his health due to the black mould. The resident said he had sent the landlord a list of his medical conditions. He said he used a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine at night due to sleep apnoea.
The landlord visited the property on 9 February 2023 and advised that it was in a poor state. It said there was damp, mould, and possible rodents. It said it would get pest control in first to evaluate the conditions. It said it arranged a decant from 9 February 2023 to 28 February 2023. The notes said no further visits or removals were required at that stage.
On 2 April 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord. He said he was on his fifth extension of his decant with no end in sight. He said he was required to give pest control access to the property and they informed him that was the first visit of many to eradicate the infestation. The resident said there was scaffolding set up outside his block in early March 2023 and he wanted to know the outcome of any checks of the roof. He said he also wanted to know the findings from pest control and who would be removing the black mould. He said he had sent in receipts from his expenses during the decant but he had not received any payment.
On 4 April 2023, in an internal email the landlord said the recent issue with the roof had been a slipped tile which had since been replaced. It said there was nothing to suggest it was affecting the resident’s home. It said it did not know what the cause of the damp and mould was due to the volume of possessions in the property and the pest issue.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing a response. It said the property was cluttered and for pest control to carry out treatment, it would need to be cleared. It said items would need to be disposed of or stored dependent on what the pests were identified as. It said following the pests being addressed, it would complete a survey and raise all the required works.
The landlord said the plan was delayed as the resident did not want to re-enter the property. It said its tenant specialist was working with the resident to arrange decluttering the property to move the action plan forward. It said it did not uphold the complaint. It awarded £50 compensation for the delays in responding.
The landlord offered the resident a discretionary move and he moved into his new property on 1 June 2023. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 June 2023. He said he wanted compensation for his personal possessions which were not salvageable. He said there were delays due to his concerns not being listened to. The resident said he had an ongoing complaint against a staff member who was unhelpful and caused him to leave his flat on health grounds. He said in the 4 months he was decanted, it took 7 weeks for someone to enter the flat and spray chemicals. He said that was the extent of the work carried out by the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged that it had not included the staff interaction the resident had reported in its first response. It said the recording was no longer available to listen to but it noted that the resident called 9 times on 7 February 2023. It noted that the final call lasted over 33 minutes which suggested it was an important matter for the resident. It said it accepted his recollection of events and apologised that its customer service was not as expected. It awarded £50 compensation for the resident feeling unsupported by the interaction. It also awarded £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
On 4 July 2023, this Service contacted the landlord and asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaints about its handling of his reports of black mould in the property and the level of compensation offered. The resident wanted reimbursement for the distress and inconvenience caused to him and his damaged personal items.
The landlord provided a further stage 1 response on 19 September 2023. It stated the following:
1. It said the decant was extended 9 times while the mould issues were addressed. It said this was due to various delays with pest control and clearing the property. It said the decant ended in June 2023 when the resident was offered a permanent move. The landlord identified service failure due to the delays in addressing the mould and awarded £250 to reflect any inconvenience caused. It said going forward it would ensure residents with vulnerabilities were offered help and support to prevent situations becoming unmanageable.
2. It said there were no service level agreements for decant processes as the length of the decant is dependant on surveyors providing updates and extensions when required. It said the resident had to move 3 times due to the availability of the accommodation he was in. It confirmed that it had offered the resident food allowances. It said it reimbursed the resident £175.40 for food in April 2023 and £1,100 for food and parking in July 2023.
3. It said the resident had made a claim with its insurers in relation to his belongings. It confirmed the email address for all claim correspondence to go to.
4. It noted the resident raised a complaint in June 2023 which had not been allocated by a worker. It confirmed there was service failure for that. It awarded £50 for any inconvenience caused and its failure to follow its process. It awarded a further £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint on 24 September 2023. He said he was still out of pocket regarding his food allowance and car park charges. He said nearly every complaint he had lodged that year had been responded to outside of the landlord’s timeframes. He questioned whether that was normal practice.
The resident provided medical information and said his CPAP machine and medical dispenser had been contaminated by the silverfish. He said it was the same for his clothing too and he had pictures of the damage. The resident said there were not delays in addressing the mould, more so that the landlord never addressed it.
The landlord provided its second stage 2 response on 16 November 2023. It said the stage 1 response it provided was fair and accurate. The landlord confirmed that a further £574.60 should be paid to the resident in expenses. It apologised for the delays in him receiving full payment.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had received the outcome of the insurance claim and that it had been rejected. It acknowledged the resident was dissatisfied with the decision and wished to appeal it. It said its regional engagement team were investigating his claim and would consider if there were any alternative options for him. It provided the details of a separate service which could help residents with budgeting and debt support. The landlord awarded £150 for the delays in completing the food allowance payment and £50 for the delays in responding to the complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord suggested the delay in dealing with the black mould was due to him not attending the flat to decide what was salvageable. He said that was not true.
The resident said he submitted the insurance claim for over £7,000 which was rejected. He said the landlord later offered £1,500 as a goodwill gesture which he accepted. But only if it did not stop him pursuing a fuller and more equitable payment for the losses incurred. He said he did not believe he should be out of pocket for the damage caused by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. This Service 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. Although, we will consider any impact that resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s insurer determined that the landlord was not liable for any losses that the resident incurred as a result of the damp, mould, and infestation. We understand the resident was dissatisfied with the decision made. Complaints about insurance claims are not within our jurisdiction because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and not a member of our scheme. This Service can only consider the actions of the landlord as a member of the scheme. Additionally, and as stated above, we would not consider matters better suited to a court or via an insurance claim. As such, we will be unable to consider the resident’s complaint that the landlord was liable for his losses.

The landlord’s obligations.

Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord’s decant policy states that in deciding whether a decant is necessary it will consider the household composition, any vulnerabilities, needs and preferences, the likely time periods involved, the suitability of the alternative accommodation and the level of disruption. It says where a tenant cannot stay with friends or family and the decant is for less than 4 weeks it will arrange bed and breakfast, hotel, or hostel accommodation.
The decant policy says that it may provide additional assistance to tenants who are elderly, particularly vulnerable, and in need of additional help and support. It uses examples of practical assistance such as contacting utility companies or procurement of items. It says in extreme circumstances where a decant causes an initial period of financial hardship it will consider whether to make a referral to the tenancy sustainment or welfare benefits team.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time applied a 2 stage procedure. It states that at stage 1 of its procedure a complaint must be acknowledged and logged within 10 working days. It says it must be responded to within 20 working days of it being logged. The policy states that following the stage 1 response a customer can request a peer review. It says it will acknowledge peer review requests within 10 working days and aim to resolve them within 40 working days.
The complaints policy stated that if it were unable to resolve the complaint within the timeframe outlined at peer review stage it would contact the resident and explain why it was unable to resolve the peer review. It says it would provide a timescale of what is involved in order to resolve the review and if possible, approximately how long it will take. It said it would agree with the resident a frequency of keeping them updated.
The landlord’s compensation policy suggests awarding compensation in the range of £50 and £250 for service failures resulting in some impact on the complainant. It gives the following examples:
1. Repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls.
2. Not having regard to a complainant’s preferred method of contact or contact requirements.
3. Failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
The landlord’s compensation policy suggests that to award compensation in the range of £250 and £700, there would have been a considerable failure but no permanent impact on the resident. It gives the following examples:
1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes.
2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
3. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint, or failing to address relevant aspects of the complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving the issue.

Damp and mould, and the subsequent damage caused.

The resident first reported the mould and infestation in his property on 7 February 2023. The landlord did not provide the records from the call, but it appeared that the resident was told he would receive a callback within 24 hours. The resident did not receive the callback which led to his formal complaint the following day. The landlord attended the property on 9 February 2023 and assessed the situation. The landlord then decanted the resident on the same day.
The landlord’s initial response was appropriate. While it did not callback when it said it would, the landlord reasonably addressed the issue in its stage 2 response. Aside from this, it attended the property, assessed the situation, and decanted the resident within 2 working days. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and reports that he was sleeping in his car, the landlord’s actions were in line with its obligations.
While the landlord addressed the risks to the resident by decanting him. We would still expect the landlord to have a plan of action. This would be to ensure the decant was not for longer than necessary. And to prevent any further damage to the property. The landlord’s plan was to address the pest issue first and clear any unwanted possessions from the property.
On 14 February 2023, the pest control contractor confirmed the landlord had raised a job for them to attend. They said when contacting the resident, he informed them he was decanted from the property, and that he had mobility issues. The records show the landlord discussed arranging access for pest control internally, but with little progress.
On 8 March 2023 in an internal email, the landlord discussed the need to clear the property to allow the works to be undertaken. On 17 March 2023, it noted that the resident did not want to enter the property due to his health conditions and wanted his uncontaminated belongings to go into storage. The internal and subsequent correspondence with the resident suggested that the pest control contractor could attend and make a recommendation on what should be disposed of. It said it would then confirm with the resident before disposing the items. This was a reasonable solution to the resident’s concerns.
The pest control contractor eventually attended on 29 March 2023, 7 weeks after the resident was decanted. The resident let them in. The report stated that the visit was in relation to silverfish. It said no silverfish were seen but it carried out a pesticide spray treatment. It said the damp and mould should be treated as soon as possible as it was a breeding site for the species.
Given the concerns raised by the resident in relation to the property and his vulnerabilities, it was not appropriate that he was responsible for providing access for appointments. This, and the lack of internal organisation by the landlord, unnecessarily delayed pest control accessing the property. The resident already had a key safe installed at the property. Therefore, it would have been reasonable at the time of the decant to have made arrangements for contractors to use the key safe. It was a failing that it did not do so.
On 4 April 2023, the landlord confirmed that pest control had visited the property and stated that no items were contaminated and therefore nothing needed to be disposed of. It said they advised the property would need to be cleared of large items to carry out effective treatment. The landlord arranged for the resident’s items to go into storage on 11 April 2023. The appointment was subsequently cancelled as the resident stated that he would not be attending. He said pest control had advised that there was no sign of silverfish. But he disputed this based on the condition of the items he had taken on the day of his decant.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine the condition of the resident’s belongings or the property. While we do not dispute the resident’s account, we must rely on the information presented. The landlord provided the resident with the opportunity to determine what items were salvageable. While the reasons why he did not want to attend were understandable, it was then reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractor’s expert opinion. It was also reasonable for it to arrange to put the items into storage, in line with its decants policy, and to progress the repairs.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not uphold the complaint as it said the delays were due to the resident not wanting to re-enter the property. While the dispute on 11 April 2023 would have contributed to some of the delays, the landlord should have considered its own failings and delays in arranging access for pest control. In not doing so, its response appeared dismissive and led the resident to escalate his complaint.
The landlord’s second stage 1 response acknowledged the delays in addressing the mould issues in the property and offered £250 compensation for the impact of that failure. The Ombudsman finds the amount offered was reasonable and in line with the compensation range in its policy for failures over a considerable period of time.
The landlord also stated that going forward it would ensure that it offered residents with vulnerabilities support to prevent situations becoming unmanageable. While there is no evidence to suggest the issues found in the resident’s property were foreseeable prior to his reports on 7 February 2023. It was positive for the landlord to consider what proactive steps it could have taken.
As already stated, we cannot assess the claims that the delays in addressing the issues led to further damage to the resident’s belongings. The landlord had advised the resident to ensure he had sufficient insurance in place at the time of the decant. Following the resident’s claims that the landlord was liable for the damage to his belongings, it then provided details for the resident to claim via its insurance. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s approach regarding the resident’s reports of damage to his belongings was appropriate.
It is clear there were challenges for the landlord in managing the condition of the property during the decant and there was room for improvement in its handling of the issues. The evidence shows that it acted with urgency when it realised the impact of the damp, mould, and infestation on the resident. There were delays in its handling of the issues. The landlord acknowledged them and awarded compensation which was in line with its compensation policy. It also considered what learning it could take from the resident’s case.
However, the landlord failed to follow its policy in relation to the resident accessing the property during the decant. It was not appropriate to expect him to provide access for appointments and this likely cause distress and inconvenience to the resident who explained why he did not want to enter. It also caused unnecessary delays in arranging access for pest control. The landlord did not fully acknowledge this failing in it complaints responses and as such, it did not put this right for the resident.
As a result, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, and the subsequent damage caused. The landlord must pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation for the identified failure. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for where a landlord did not appropriately acknowledge its failure or put it right.

Decant.

The landlord’s initial actions in arranging a decant for the resident were appropriate and in line with its decant policy. It completed a decant questionnaire with the resident which listed his health conditions and requirements. It noted that the resident required a disability adapted room on the ground floor and that due to his mobility issues, he was unable to walk very far. The initial booking made showed that it had booked a hotel with the necessary requirements. It also issued a letter setting out the terms of the temporary move.
It is unclear when the resident first raised an issue with being out of pocket for his food and parking expenses. On 2 April 2023 the resident said the landlord told him to send in receipts which he did on 14 March 2023. He said he was told that the payment would be expedited. He said he had to contact the landlord again on 27 March 2023 and he was emailed £105 worth of vouchers. In an internal email, the landlord confirmed that it did not usually pay expenses until the end of the decant, but it was agreed an interim payment would be made as an exception.
It appears that the resident could not have the food options provided by the hotel as he was unable to make it on time for breakfast and because of his dietary requirements. It was reasonable therefore for the landlord to then agree to reimburse the resident for his meals. It would have been reasonable for it to have been clearer regarding the timeframe when it said it would be expedited. The decant policy does not specify when the landlord should reimburse residents, however, given the resident reported that he had no money at the time, it was fair to consider an interim payment. It was also appropriate for it to provide the resident with food vouchers.
There were delays in fully reimbursing the resident. The landlord recognised this in its complaint responses, paid the outstanding amount, and offered £150 compensation in recognition of the time and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays. The Ombudsman finds this was reasonable and the compensation was in line with its policy.
The landlord extended the resident’s decant 9 times and it was 4 months from the day the resident was decanted until the landlord permanently moved him to another property. The landlord’s decants policy states that where a decant will last for less than 4 weeks it will arrange bed and breakfast, hotel, or hostel accommodation.
It was therefore understandable that the initial booking was not made for longer than initially anticipated. However, it would have been reasonable after 4 weeks to have seen evidence of the landlord reviewing the situation which could have helped to progress the repairs. As no work or visits had been carried out in the resident’s property within that timeframe, this unnecessarily delayed the decant.
While it is out of the landlord’s control what availability a hotel has, the resident had to move hotels 3 times. He said it was extremely strenuous moving his belongings between hotels. His belongings included his CPAP machine, a microwave, and a toaster. There is evidence of the landlord supporting the resident with the moves. Although, based on the resident’s needs and dietary requirements, the landlord could have considered other decant options where the resident could have his own cooking facilities.
Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and reported financial hardship, it was reasonable and in line with its policy for the landlord to refer the resident to its tenancy sustainment team. The landlord referred him on 20 April 2023. Given the reports made from the resident prior to that, it would have been reasonable to have referred him sooner. However, with the involvement of the tenancy sustainment team, they assisted the resident in obtaining food vouchers during the decant, and the interim expense payments.
The team also helped the resident get a discretionary offer to move. They then arranged for essential items such as a bed and mattress, wardrobe, and chest of drawers to be delivered to his new property. They also applied for a welfare grant for a cooker, fridge, and freezer. They helped with initial appointments at the property, housing benefit, and council tax. They also helped the resident to self-refer to an occupational therapist. The actions of the team were clearly beneficial to the resident. The actions show consideration was made to disturbance payments and vulnerable residents, as outlined in its decant policy.
Overall, the landlord showed that it acted reasonably and demonstrated customer focus. There were delays in reimbursing the resident and the decant was longer than initially anticipated. However, as stated by the landlord in its complaint responses, it had no service level agreements with regard to how long a decant should last. It was positive to see that a discretionary move was offered to the resident and he was supported with that.
The landlord’s second stage 2 response acknowledged that the resident had not received full reimbursement of his expenses. It apologised, reimbursed the expenses, and offered compensation to reflect the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we have found that the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman has therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the decant.

Handling of the complaint.

In all 4 complaint responses provided as part of this investigation, the landlord acknowledged its delays in responding and offered £50 in recognition of each delay. As the approach and amount offered for each response was the same, it is difficult to conclude that the landlord fully considered the impact of its failures and that some responses took significantly longer than others. An example of this is the landlord took 50 working days to respond to the first complaint at stage 1, and 55 working days to respond to the second complaint at stage 1. The lengthy delays in handling the resident’s complaint likely caused him additional distress and inconvenience. The delays also prevented the resident from referring his complaint to this Service sooner.
The landlord also failed to show any learning from its earlier delays nor did it evidence that it kept the resident updated when it had exceeded the expected timescales. This would have been in line with its policy. In his second stage 2 escalation, the resident queried whether it was normal practice for the landlord to respond to him outside of its timeframes. While the landlord acknowledged the delays and offered compensation, the Ombudsman considers that further compensation should be awarded to reflect the repeated failures to follow its policy.
It was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failure in relation to resident’s complaint raised in June 2023 and that it awarded compensation for that in line with its policy. Similarly, it was positive that the landlord acknowledged its failing in not addressing the resident’s complaint regarding a call handler’s actions. In the absence of the call recording, it showed it fairly considered the resident’s version of events and the impact caused to him. It offered £50 compensation for the resident feeling unsupported. The landlord appropriately outlined how it had addressed the issue with the staff member in question, as well as the wider team.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is due to the failure to follow its complaints policy in updating the resident, not providing the reasons for the delays, and not showing any learning from its previous handling of the complaints. Its acknowledgement of the delays and the compensation went some way to put things right, but it was not proportionate to the likely detriment caused to the resident.
The landlord should therefore pay a further £100 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures which might not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. But likely caused a loss of confidence in the landlord and delays in resolving the matters.
The landlord has since updated its complaints policy which is now in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The code became statutory from 1 April 2024 meaning that landlords are obliged by law to follow its requirements. Therefore, no further orders will be made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and to provide a better service to residents.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould in the property, and the subsequent damaged caused.
2. The complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the decant.

Orders

The landlord must pay the resident a total of £200 in compensation, this is broken down as:
1. £100 for the landlord’s failure related to the resident accessing the property during the decant and the likely impact caused to the resident as a result.
2. £100 for the landlord’s failure to fully put right its complaint handling failures and the likely detriment caused to the resident as a result.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.