Clarion Housing Association Limited (202322273)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322273

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 April 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The works to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s report of damage to 2 wardrobes and their TV during their decant.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident lives at the property with her husband and 4 children.
The landlord has advised that it first raised an order, with regards to the damp and mould in the resident’s property, on 28 November 2022. The landlord received a warning letter from the local authority about the damp and mould on 28 December 2022. Following the local authority’s warning letter, the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 17 January 2023. A decant was arranged on 18 January 2023 and the landlord instructed a removals firm to clear the property and place the resident’s belongings in storage. A mould wash was undertaken and the resident moved back home on 10 February 2023.
On 12 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about the standard of the works carried out while they were decanted. They also complained about damage to their belongings. The resident said:
1. The operatives had painted the windows and not cleaned the paint off. The resident said that this could have been avoided if the operatives had used masking tape. They said that the tiles had been painted with what seemed like matt paint and so they could no longer be wiped clean.
2. Mould spores were still clearly visible in their kitchen and the works that the surveyor explained were going to be carried out had not been done. The resident described the works as having been carried out in a ‘haphazard slapdash unprofessional rushed style.’ The resident asked for an explanation as to why they had been treated in this way.
3. 2 wardrobes had been damaged which would cost £550 to replace. The resident said that they could not afford the cost to replace these and that their children’s TV was also damaged. The resident said that the TV had cost them £300 about 5 years previously. The resident said that they needed the landlord to reimburse them for all these items, especially the wardrobes, as their children’s clothing was still in removal boxes.
4. They had attached photos of their property and their housing officer also took some photos when they moved back home. The resident said that they wanted this matter considered as a formal complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 March 2023, in which it said:
1. During an inspection in March 2023 its surveyor identified that the tiling works in the bathroom fell short of the expected standard. Due to the poor workmanship carried out in the bathroom it had agreed to remove all the tiling from around the bath and basin and replace these with new tiles. It had also addressed the workmanship with the employees involved and would continue to monitor their progress to ensure its standards were met. The flaking paint on the bathroom ceiling would be scraped back, filled, sealed and a two-coat bathroom mould resistant paint would be used.
2. Its surveyor noticed that the toilet was leaking, which would be resolved but it would need to remove the toilet initially, including the cistern to facilitate a thorough mould wash to all painted and mould affected surfaces within the bathroom. The landlord said that the toilet would be reinstated the same day and that it would install a new bath panel and ‘Polysafe’ flooring. The landlord said that these works had been arranged for 17 April 2023 and reassured the resident that ‘measures (had) been put in place to ensure this appointment (was) adhered to’.
3. During its surveyors inspection, it was identified that areas in the resident’s kitchen required further mould treatment. The landlord said that it attended in March 2023 and treated the mould above the kitchen cabinets. It had also treated a wall, by the window, in the living room. The landlord said that it was sorry this was not completed while the resident was decanted.
4. It planned to replace the front door once the mould wash was completed. The landlord said that the replacement of the front door could be carried out once the other works had been scheduled.
5. It apologised for the delay in its response and for the poor workmanship carried out during the decant, for which it offered a total of £150 compensation. This was made up of £50 for the delay in its response and £100 for the poor workmanship.
6. With regard to the resident’s request to be compensated in full for the 2 damaged wardrobes and TV, the landlord said:
  1. Its compensation policy did not cover damage to personal possessions.
  2. It would usually advise residents to claim on their own contents insurance. However, it was aware that the resident did not have this.
  3. It recommended that the resident raise this issue with its removal company, who were insured for any damages caused when moving their personal belongings. The landlord said that this would be the same for the resident’s television, which they had said had not worked since being returned from storage.
  4. As a goodwill gesture it was willing to offer the resident a £100 contribution towards the damage to the wardrobes.
The resident escalated their complaint on 27 March 2023 stating that they did not accept the landlord’s findings.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 May 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing its response, explaining that this was ‘due to higher customer contact’ at that time. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for this delay and went on to:
1. Say that the repairs during the resident’s decant had been carried out by a new operative. It acknowledged that the quality of the repairs fell below its service standards. The landlord apologised for this and said this had been addressed during an internal meeting with the operative involved. The landlord offered a further £50 in recognition of the inconvenience to the resident as a result of the poor standard of works carried out during the decant.
2. Say the only outstanding works remaining were for the guttering, which the resident had agreed to provide access for the week commencing 22 May 2023. The pointing repairs had been scheduled for 18 May 2023. The door replacement had yet to be scheduled as it was waiting for the delivery of materials. Once this had been received, an appointment to install the new door would be arranged with the resident.
3. Confirm that the wardrobes needed to be removed for works to be carried out in the bedrooms. The landlord said the wardrobes fell apart and were placed in the garden. It had explained that it would usually advise residents to claim through their own contents insurance. However, as the resident had advised that they did not have any insurance, it had recommended that they raise this issue with its removal company. The landlord said that this was because the removal company would be insured for any damages caused when moving residents belongings. The landlord said its compensation policy did not cover damage to personal possessions, however, a discretionary compensation of £100 had been offered in its stage 1 response to support the resident with the replacement of the damaged items.
4. With the exception of the delay in it providing its responses at stage 1 and stage 2, the landlord said there were no other service failures in relation to the concerns raised by the resident.

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s final response.

The landlord’s contractor confirmed that the guttering works were completed on 9 June 2023.
On the 12 June 2023, the landlord contacted the local authority to advise that the required works had been completed and post inspected by one of its surveyors. The landlord also confirmed that it had raised an order for a new front door and was awaiting delivery of this. The landlord asked whether, as it had confirmed that all the damp and mould works had been undertaken, the local authority would now close the case. The local authority responded to the landlord the same day to confirm that its case regarding the resident’s property would now be closed.
On 13 February 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident, following our request for evidence for our investigation. The landlord said that, on review, the compensation awarded during the complaints process did not consider; the time taken to fully resolve the damp and mould issues, the repeat visits to the property, the inconvenience caused to the resident and her household, or the time taken to chase the outstanding repairs. The landlord apologised for these failings and offered the resident an additional £300 compensation, bringing the total offered for its overall handling of the repairs to £450.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
In their complaint the resident referred to the impact the matters raised had on their family’s health, most especially that of their daughter who has asthma and their youngest child who has ‘significant congenital heart defects.’ We do not doubt the resident’s concerns, but it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the health of the resident and their family. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if they consider their health, or that of their family members, to have been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of service failure by the landlord. We have also considered the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household and whether these would mean that they were likely to be more adversely affected by the landlord’s failings.
During the complaints process, the resident raised concerns about being overcrowded and said that they needed a transfer to a larger property. The issue of overcrowding was also raised by the landlord in its correspondence with the local authority in January 2023. We would encourage the landlord to actively explore solutions such as management moves and mutual exchanges and to ensure the resident is registered with the relevant housing authority. Should the resident be dissatisfied with how the landlord has handled their request for a transfer, they would need to contact the landlord to raise a separate complaint, if they have not already done so.
We are aware that, following the landlord’s final response to this complaint, the resident reported in November 2023 that the damp and mould had returned. As we are only able to make a determination on matters which the landlord has been given the opportunity to address through its internal complaint procedure, its actions following the resident’s report of November 2023 have not been considered in this investigation. Should the resident be dissatisfied with how the landlord handled their report of November 2023, they would need to contact the landlord to raise a separate complaint regarding these matters, if they have not already done so.

Handling of works to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property

The landlord is obliged under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs for which it is responsible. Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable inquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
Damp and mould are health hazards, as confirmed by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004. Under the act the landlord had an obligation to identify and mitigate any such hazard, including damp and mould growth. The landlord would also have been expected to inspect the property and to ensure that its response reflected the urgency of the case.
The landlord temporarily decanted the resident and her family in January 2023 in order to carry out a mould wash in their home.
The resident’s complaint of 12 February 2023 did not include the decant, nor matters that lead to this taking place, but rather the standard of works that were completed during the decant. The resident also complained about damage to 2 wardrobes and their TV by the removal company engaged by the landlord to remove their possessions so that the decant works could go ahead.
The landlord’s Leaks, Condensation, Damp and Mould (LCDM) policy states that once the works are complete and before the resident returns, all appropriate checks will be carried out at the property. This it did, with its surveyor inspecting the works on 9 February 2023, prior to the resident’s return.
In an internal email of 9 February 2023, the landlord’s surveyor confirmed that they had visited the resident’s property that day. The surveyor noted that, whilst ‘the work in the bedroom looks great,’ the mould wash was not carried out throughout as requested. The surveyor noted that the resident’s decant ended the following day and asked that the mould team return to the property ‘to complete the wash as a matter of urgency.’ The surveyor noted that the front door and kitchen walls and ceiling needed attention. They also noted that the mould team should ‘make sure all other areas’ had been completed.
The resident returned home on 10 February 2023 and was visited by their Neighbourhood Response Officer (NRO). Following their visit the NRO sent an internal email setting out the resident’s concerns. These included:
1. That the job was done very quickly and was not thorough.
2. Tiles that had been removed or had fallen off the bathroom wall were not put back.
3. Parts of the wall above the kitchen cabinet still had mould on it.
4. There was mould behind the cabinet in front room and on the inside of front door.
5. The damp wall in the kitchen (leading to the back door) still needed plastering.
In its complaint responses the landlord apologised to the resident for the poor standard of works carried out during the decant, for which it offered a total of £150 compensation. This was an appropriate position for the landlord to take. However, having acknowledged this, it would then have been expected to complete any outstanding works within a reasonable period of time, which it did not do.
On 6 March 2023, the landlord’s Regional Maintenance Manager, asked that an ‘urgent’ re-inspection of the property be carried out. The landlord’s records note that the inspection was arranged for 8 March 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange the inspection as a matter of urgency given its failure to complete the decant works to a satisfactory standard, and the distress and inconvenience this would have understandably caused the resident. However, that the landlord took over a month to arrange this, following the email from its NRO, was a further failure on its part.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord’s Regional Maintenance Manager confirmed the outcome of the inspection of 8 March 2023 and what follow up actions were required. These included:
1. Carry out a mould wash to areas in the lounge, kitchen, and bathroom to ensure all mould was removed.
2. Repair a leak to the toilet, renew all tiles to the bathroom, scrape back all loose flaking paint and fill as required. Paint and seal all painted surfaces with 2 coats of antifungal bathroom paint and renew the ‘polysafe’ floor covering.
3. Renew the front door and make good the frame.
4. Scrape back flaking paint in kitchen either side of back door and leave ready for decoration.
The landlord raised a job to mould wash the walls above the kitchen cabinets front window wall to lounge and all affected surfaces to the bathroom the same day, 8 March 2023. The landlord’s repair records of 15 March 2023 noted that the damp and mould had been stain blocked and an appointment had been booked for 16 March 2023 to carry out the mould wash. It was also noted that the damp problems would not be resolved until the gutter blockage was cleared and sealed to the front and back of the house. The pointing to the back of the house also needed addressing as did the front door which was wet and needed replacing. The windows also needed resealing. It is unclear whether these works went ahead.
On 18 April 2023, the landlord raised jobs to clear the gutters to the front and the rear of the property and to look at the pointing to the rear of the property as ‘this was causing water ingress’.
In an internal email on 26 April 2023, the landlord’s repairs team confirmed that:
1. The works to replace the bathroom tiles, to repair the plaster surfaces and mould wash the kitchen, and to replace the tiles under the boiler, had been completed.
2. The damp and mould had been stain blocked and an appointment had been booked for 18 May 2023 regarding the guttering and the pointing.
On 18 May 2023, a contractor attended the resident’s property to inspect the pointing. The landlord’s records note that the contractor reported that the pointing seemed ‘ok’ but that there may be an issue with the balcony above. The landlord noted it would arrange a visit to the flat above to inspect the balcony. It is unclear whether this inspection went ahead.
At this point, the resident had been waiting 3 months for the works to be completed since returning to their property on 10 February 2023. It is therefore understandable that this delay would have caused them further unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The complaints process provided the landlord with the opportunity to review its handling of the damp and mould in the resident’s property, to put any failures right, to recognise the detriment any failures caused the resident and to learn from the outcomes.
In its complaint responses the landlord offered a total of £150 compensation. This was made up of £100 at stage 1 for the poor workmanship carried out during the decant plus a further £50 at stage 2. The landlord said that it had addressed the poor quality of the works carried out during the decant in an internal meeting with the operative involved.
In its final response, the landlord confirmed the outstanding works remaining were for the guttering, pointing repairs and door replacement. However, it failed to either acknowledge or apologise for the delay in completing these works, which by the time of its final response, of 31 May 2023, was almost 4 months. Given its failure to complete the decant works to a satisfactory standard and that there were still outstanding works some 4 months later, the landlord would have been expected to ensure that it completed all the works as a matter of urgency.
However, there were then further delays in the landlord doing so:
1. The guttering works, were not completed until 9 June 2023
2. The pointing was not completed until 4 July 2023.
3. The front door was also not replaced until 13 September 2023.
Had the landlord taken prompt action to resolve any outstanding works following the resident’s decant, its apology and offer of £150 compensation would have been considered proportionate. However, in light of its failure to put right the outstanding works within a reasonable period of time, it is our view that the apology and £150 compensation offered by the landlord in its complaint responses did not provide the resident with reasonable redress.
On 13 February 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident, following a request for evidence from us. The landlord acknowledged that the compensation awarded during the complaints process did not consider the time taken to fully resolve the damp and mould issues and repairs. It also acknowledged that this did not take into account the repeat visits to the property and the inconvenience caused to the resident and her household, including the time taken to chase the repairs. The landlord apologised for these failings and offered the resident an additional £300 compensation, bringing the total offered to £450.
However, considering the length of the delay in completing the repairs and the impact this had on the resident and their family, we do not consider the £450 offered by the landlord was sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress.
It was also unreasonable that it did not fully recognise the level of its failings until significantly after the conclusion of the complaint process, and until evidence was requested by us for our investigation.
In light of this a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident a further £300, bringing the total payable to £750.
We have had sight of a health centre letter of November 2020 which states that the resident’s daughter has asthma and that her youngest child has ‘significant congenital heart defects’. However, as the landlord has advised it has no medical vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and her family it is unclear whether this information has been shared with the landlord.
Nevertheless, it is evident from its email to the local authority on 27 January 2023, that the landlord was aware that there were 4 children living in the property. As such, it was crucial for it to respond quickly, which it did not do.
To ensure that its records accurately reflect the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household going forward, a further order has been made. This is for the landlord to liaise with the resident or a representative of her choice within 2 weeks of this report to ensure that its records accurately reflect the level of vulnerability in the household.
As it is also unclear whether the inspection of the balcony above, and the resealing of the resident’s windows, were completed, a further order has been made for the landlord to review its response to these 2 issues. It is then to provide both the resident and us with the outcome of that review. If these works remain outstanding the landlord is to provide the resident and us with a copy of an action plan, with timescales, as to what actions, if any, it intends to take.

Resident’s report of damage to 2 wardrobes and their television during their decant.

The landlord instructed a removal company to place the resident’s belongings in storage whilst they were decanted from their home. Having returned to their home following the decant, the resident complained to the landlord on 12 February 2023 about damage to 2 wardrobes and her television.
Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns and took them seriously.
2. It explained that its compensation policy did not cover damage to personal possessions and explained that it would normally advise resident’s to claim against their contents insurance. It is noted that under the tenancy terms and conditions, the resident is responsible for taking out their own contents insurance.
3. As it was aware that the resident did not have contents insurance it recommended that she approach the removal company, who it said were insured for damaged caused. Again, this was in accordance with its compensation policy which states that it may not offer compensation in situations where the fault was caused by a third party, in this case the removal company.
4. Whilst it was not obliged to do so, it offered the resident a £100 discretionary payment towards the wardrobes.
The above approach by the landlord was both fair and reasonable. There was a minor oversight on its part not to have offered to assist the resident were she to have any concerns or difficulties in contacting its removal contractor. However, as this would be a discretionary approach for the landlord to have taken, this alone would not change our view that overall, there was no service failure by the landlord in respect of this element of the resident’s complaint.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord introduced an interim complaints policy on 17 June 2022. This was following a cyber-attack. For complaints received after 17 June 2022, the landlord’s complaints policy stated that it operated a 2 stage complaints process and that:
1. At stage 1 it would log and acknowledge the complaint within 10 working days of receipt. It would then issue the stage 1 response within 20 working days.
2. At stage 2 it would acknowledge the escalation request within 10 working days and would then aim to resolve the complaint within 40 working days.
The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 12 February 2023. In accordance with its interim complaints policy the landlord would have expected to have acknowledged the complaint within 10 working days. It would then have been expected to provide its stage 1 response by 6 March 2023. This being 20 working days from the date the complaint was logged.
In this case we have seen no evidence of the complaint being acknowledged, and the stage 1 response was not issued until 27 March 2023, 15 working days outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
The resident escalated their complaint the same day. Having done so, the landlord would have been expected to have acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 10 working days. It would then have been expected to provide its stage 2 response by 22 May 2023. This being 40 working days from the date the complaint was logged.
Again, we have seen no evidence of the resident’s escalation request being acknowledged and there was a further delay in the response being issued. This is because the stage 2 was not issued until 31 May 2023, 7 working days outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
The landlord acknowledged the delay in its responses at both stage 1 and stage 2, for which it apologised and offered a total of £100 compensation. This being £50 for the delay at each stage.
Given the relatively short duration of the delay in the landlord providing its responses, it is our view that the £50 compensation offered at each stage was proportionate to the extent of the delay. However, this does not take into account the landlord’s failure to acknowledge either the initial complaint or the resident’s escalation request. For this reason, a finding of service failure has been made and the landlord ordered to pay the resident an additional £50, bringing the total compensation for its complaint handling failures to £150.
It has been noted that the timescales set out in the landlord’s Interim Complaints Policy were not in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, no order has been made for the landlord to review its policy. This is because, since the resident’s complaint, the landlord has done so and its complaints policy now complies with the 10- and 20-day timescale set out in the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of works to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of damage to 2 wardrobes and their television during their decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 2 weeks of this report the landlord must liaise with the resident or a representative of her choice to ensure that its records accurately reflect the level of vulnerability in the household.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £900 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £750 in relation to its handing of works to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property. This includes the £450 previously offered, if this has not already been paid. If it has been paid, the landlord can deduct this sum from the amount ordered.
  2. £150 compensation in relation to its handling of the associated complaint. This includes the £100 previously offered, if this has not already been paid. If it has been paid, the landlord can deduct this sum from the amount ordered.
2. Review its response in respect of the re-sealing of the resident’s windows and the report from its contractor that there may be an issue with the balcony above. It is then to provide both the resident and us with the outcome of that review. If these works remain outstanding the landlord is to provide the resident and us with a copy of an action plan as to what actions, if any, it intends to take. If the landlord intends to carry out any works it is to confirm the date by which the works will start.
Confirm compliance with the above orders in line with the timescales given.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord now pay the resident the £100 it offered towards the cost of replacing their damaged wardrobes.