Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202314060)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314060

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 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 reports of damp and mould in the property, and the associated repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The residents are assured tenants of a 2-bedroom flat. They live there with their children. The mother and one of the children have asthma. The mother also has Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).
  2. On 10 February 2020, the residents reported a damp and mould issue. They said there was mould in the property due to a broken gutter which was leaking water on the outside of the property. They said that someone had come to clean the guttering but not to fix the issue. They advised this was affecting their health.
  3. The residents contacted the landlord on at least 4 further occasions regarding the guttering prior to the national lockdown taking place, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The landlord did not fix the guttering before the lockdown.
  4. A repairs note on the 9 March 2021 stated that a leak in the bathroom ceiling needed to be investigated. There are no further records until 10 March 2023 when the landlord noted that the guttering needed repairing. On 6 April 2023, the landlord recorded that the damp and mould in the property was bad. It had offered to clean the mould, but the resident had refused this due to her health condition.
  5. On 12 May 2023, the resident stated that the landlord had repaired the guttering on the previous Wednesday, but that the mould was everywhere. She sent pictures, which showed areas of mould in the home.
  6. On 17 June 2023, the resident sent an original complaint that she had raised in 2020 to the landlord. She requested that the landlord resolve her complaint. She advised that it had repaired the guttering, but that the landlord needed to investigate the ceiling leak. She said that her and her daughter had health conditions and that she was experiencing breathing issues. The resident raised the complaint again on 17 July 2023 and said that she had several visits to the property, but that the landlord informed her that it could not take action as there was a planning issue.
  7. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 23 October 2023. It said that it did an inspection in early June 2023, and it had raised follow on works. It confirmed that it needed to remove the bathroom ceiling to trace the leak. It confirmed this would require a decant. The landlord said that it had previously tried to call the resident but had not had any answer. It offered £350 for delays to the repair and £100 for the delays to the complaint response.
  8. On 23 November 2023, the resident said that the complaint should have been at stage 3 as she had already raised a complaint in 2020. She advised that there was financial loss of more than £6,000 due to damage. She also advised that being decanted had caused distress.
  9. The landlord responded to the stage 2 response on 4 December 2023. It said it did not have a copy of the complaint in 2020 but due to the number of times the resident contacted the landlord, it agreed the resident had a cause to complain. It acknowledged that between 19 November 2019 and January 2020 there were three missed appointments. It confirmed it repaired the guttering on 10 May 2023. It confirmed the resident had been decanted since 9 October 2023. It said the resident would need to claim for any damaged belongings through insurance. The landlord increased its compensation. It offered £1,000 for its handling of the damp and mould, £45 for missed appointments in 2020, and £100 for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response. This was in addition to the £450 offered at stage 1.
  10. The landlord completed the works, and the resident moved back into the property on 1 December 2023. They have said that the mould problem has not returned. However, they remain unhappy with the landlord’s response to their complaint and the compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. Under paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we would not usually consider complaints which were not bought to the members attention within 12 months of the matter arising. However, in this instance, the landlord has considered events back to January 2020 and acknowledged that the resident complained at this time. We have therefore extended the scope to include events which occurred from January 2020.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs.

  1. The resident made the landlord aware of a mould problem on 10 February 2020. The resident also made the landlord aware of a health condition which affects breathing. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) considers mould to be a risk. It is also known that it can cause breathing difficulties. The Ombudsman will not make any determination on causation of health conditions. However, we consider that the landlord should have considered the risk when the resident reported the mould. We have not seen evidence that it did this.
  2. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord offered to wash the mould when the resident first raised the concern. We are aware that the resident refused as they felt this was something they could do themselves. We consider it appropriate that the landlord offered a mould wash. However, the resident’s primary concern was the underlying cause of the damp, which was a broken gutter leaking into the external brickwork. Whilst a mould wash is a positive step in addressing the immediate mould, tackling the underlying cause was essential to prevent reoccurrence. We have seen several communications from the resident chasing the landlord to get the guttering repair completed. While the landlord said it had raised the repair, the landlord did not complete this until after the resident raised the matter again in 2023.
  3. We are aware that the COVID-19 pandemic caused delays to many repairs. We recognise that some delay to the repair was unavoidable. However, the landlord was aware of an underlying cause of damp and mould. The guttering works were also external and as such, even with the COVID-19 pandemic, could have been addressed. We consider it unreasonable that the landlord did not complete the repairs.
  4. A repairs note on 9 March 2021 said that the bathroom ceiling needed to be cut and investigated for a leak. There was no follow-on action from the landlord in relation to this note. Again, we recognise that there may have been some challenges around arranging the repair, given the COVID-19 pandemic. We are also aware that the landlord experienced a cyber-attack in 2022 which may account for the landlord having limited records until 2023. However, it is known from the complaint’s responses, that the leak investigation did not take place, until the resident was eventually decanted. We consider this to be an unreasonable timeframe to address a possible underlying cause of damp and mould.
  5. On 10 March 2023, the landlord noted that the guttering needed repairing. It issued a text message to tell the resident of an appointment for 6 April 2023. The operative who attended the property reported back that the mould was “bad throughout the flat.” They had offered to clean the property, but the resident had refused due to her health condition. While it is positive that the operative offered to clean the mould, on receiving the report the landlord should have urgently considered the extent of the mould and any risk to the resident. We have seen no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident at this time. The landlord has not provided us with evidence that it considered the risk to the resident.
  6. On 12 May 2023, the resident sent an instant messenger to the landlord. They said that the landlord had fixed the guttering but there was black mould everywhere in the property. On 7 June 2023, the landlord sent an email to the resident offering to do a damp and mould assessment on 9 June 2023. It is unclear if this took place.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 June 2023 to chase up a response to her report of mould. She forwarded her original complaint from 2020. She said that her ceiling leak needed investigating. She told the landlord both her and her daughter were asthmatic and that she was under investigation for breathing issues. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2023 and 18 July 2023. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded or contacted the resident between 9 June 2023 until 24 July 2023. The Ombudsman considers this to be a significant failing, as the landlord was aware that there was extensive damp and mould and that there was vulnerability within the household.
  8. When the landlord contacted the resident on 24 July 2023, it was to establish the complaint. Despite the resident informing the landlord again, that her the situation in the property was affecting her health, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took any meaningful action to address the resident’s concerns.
  9. On 29 August 2023, the resident advised the landlord that the bathroom light needed fixing as the damp and mould had caused this to break. She advised that she was undergoing lung function tests. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident at this time to discuss the ongoing issues. Whilst the Ombudsman will not make any finding on causation of health issues, we are concerned by the landlord’s lack of response to the resident reporting that her health was deteriorating.
  10. On 9 October 2023, the landlord decanted the resident. The landlord has noted in its stage 2 response that there were a few missed appointments during October 2023, due to not getting access to the property. However, we have also seen that the landlord had internally acknowledged that it needed to install a key safe, to allow access to the property. While we would usually expect a resident to provide access, we recognise that when a decant has happened the resident is often not responsible for providing access. This is due to health and safety as the property is usually an active work site during a decant. The landlord spoke with the resident on 16 October 2023 as not getting access was preventing it from starting the works. It subsequently sent an internal email asking for a key safe to be installed and for the keys to be collected from the resident. This would indicate that the landlord was not expecting the resident to provide access. When the landlord clearly communicated with the resident, that she needed to provide access for an appointment on 20 November 2023, the resident attended the property. We consider it likely that if the landlord had communicated correctly with the resident, or if it had completed its own suggested action of installing a key safe, access issues could have been avoided.
  11. In its stage 1 response the landlord addressed the residents’ concerns that there was a lack of communication from the landlord. It said that it had attempted to keep the resident informed throughout. The landlord advised that on each time it called the resident, the phone rang out and on occasion there was no option to leave a voicemail. It acknowledged that it should have followed up with emails. We find this response concerning, as there is an inference that the resident was not engaging in the complaint. As we have already noted throughout the report, there were multiple occasions when the resident contacted the landlord through different means. Further, the landlord spoke with the resident on 12 October about the no access appointments and agreed it needed to install a key safe. It was inaccurate for the landlord to suggest that there was no communication from the resident. It is concerning that the landlord did not acknowledge its own communication failings.
  12. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said that most of the stage 1 response was accurate and reasonable. However, it did acknowledge that the length of time to complete the repairs was unreasonable. It offered additional compensation for this. We are encouraged to see that the landlord increased its compensation and recognised the length of time the repair was outstanding. However, it is extremely concerning that at no point in the complaints response, did the landlord acknowledge the failure to consider risk due to the damp and mould. It also did not acknowledge at any time the extent of the mould in the property and what impact this may have had on the resident. It has failed to provide an appropriate apology for poor communication, or for failing to consider the resident’s vulnerability.
  13. We recognise that the repairs are now complete, and that the landlord made a significant offer of compensation. In determining this case we have considered our remedies guidance. We consider that there was a considerable delay from the landlord which spanned over 3 years. The landlord did not assess risk despite being aware of vulnerability in the property and it did not acknowledge this failing in its stage 2 response. We consider that the landlord’s response to these failures undermined the landlord/resident relationship. We consider these failings to have had a significant impact on the resident. We have also seen no evidence that the landlord has demonstrated any learning from the complaint. Due to this there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
  14. The landlord made an offer of £1,000 compensation for the delay in completing repairs. As the guttering and the bathroom ceiling leak were outstanding for several years, we consider this element of compensation to be reasonable.
  15. It is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation for loss of enjoyment of the property. The records show that the landlord received a report on 6 April 2023 that the mould was bad throughout the property. The landlord took no meaningful action until the resident was decanted on 9 October 2023. We have not been advised of the loss of any specific room and instead have considered the loss of enjoyment of the property has a whole. We consider 50% of rent to be a reasonable compensation award. This equates to £1,677.
  16. The landlord should also pay the £45 it offered in its stage 2 response for missed appointments. The total amount of compensation for the landlord’s handling of damp and mould is £2,722.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The resident first raised a complaint on 10 February 2020. The landlord did not respond to this complaint. In not following the complaints process, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns, and as noted above, the matter went on for more than 3 years.
  2. The resident forwarded her original complaint on 17 June 2023. She said the issues remained outstanding. On 21 June 2023 she asked the landlord to confirm that it had logged the complaint. The landlord did not respond to this and on 18 July 2023 the resident logged the complaint again. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it acknowledged the complaint on 24 July 2023 which was within its timescales. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 10 working days. It therefore was within its timescales, however it has not addressed the resident’s concerns that she made two earlier attempts to complain.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. It took 69 working days from the time it logged the complaint until it issued its response. This is significantly out with the timescales.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It took 6 working days, which was within the timescales.
  5. The landlord offered £100 for the delay to the stage 1 response. It also offered £100 for the delay to the stage 2 response. It is unclear why it made an offer for the stage 2 response, as this was not delayed. However, given that the landlord did not log the complaint in 2020 and did not log it on 2 separate occasions in 2023, we consider that £200 is an appropriate award for complaint handling failures. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that a senior member of the landlord’s staff should issue an apology to the residents. The apology should address the failings identified in this report, including the time taken to complete the repairs, the failure to consider the vulnerability of the resident, and the failure to take responsibility for its actions during the complaints process.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £2,722. We have broken this down as:
    1. £1,000 for the delays to the repairs. If the landlord has already paid this, it does not need to pay it again.
    2. £1,677 for loss and enjoyment of the home. 
    3. £45 for the missed appointments. It may deduct this from the total if it has already made this payment.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.
  4. Due to the number of failings identified in this report and the failure from the landlord to demonstrate learning, we are ordering the landlord to undertake a review of this case. It should consider the case in line with its current damp and mould policy. It should highlight areas of learning, and where appropriate implement this through policy changes or training. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of this review within 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £200 for complaint handling failures.