From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202331868)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331868

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. reports of a pest infestation.
    2. reports of damp and mould.
    3. the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a fixed term tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The property is a ground floor flat where the resident lives with her young child. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, including that she is diabetic and asthmatic. During her complaint, the resident also told the landlord that her child has ADHD.
  2. The resident made a report to the landlord of cockroaches at the property at the end of January 2022. In response the landlord arranged for a pest control contractor to attend February 2022.
  3. In September 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about cockroaches in her home. She said that her son was emotionally distressed by the issues and that she wanted to move. She also said that there was damp and mould in the property and she had needed to replace furniture due to this.
  4. The landlord’s pest control contractor attended again on 8 September 2023 and found no evidence of pest activity within the resident’s flat. In October 2023 an officer for the landlord noted they had spoken to all the residents in the block and to the neighbouring properties. They said that none had reported issues with cockroaches or other pests.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 9 October 2023. It said it had found no evidence of failing in its handling of the resident’s reports of cockroaches. It noted the resident’s desire to move. It said it would collaborate with the local authority if the resident was awarded higher priority. It awarded her £50 for delays in its complaint handling.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 8 October 2023. She said the bait boxes the contractor had used were not effective. She also disputed that the landlord had spoken to her neighbours about issues.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2023. It said:
    1. it had contacted residents in the block, and immediate neighbours, but could not share details due to data protection.
    2. its pest control contractor had attempted to arrange another visit since her further report in October 2023 but had been unable to contact the resident.
    3. there was no recommendation that there was serious risk to the resident and so she did not qualify for a management transfer.
  8. The landlord said it had found its stage 1 complaint response to be reasonable. However, it said it had not identified the resident’s concern about damp and mould in that response, and it apologised for this. It said it had since booked an inspection for 25 October 2023 and 20 November 2023 but could not gain access.  The landlord also noted it had not considered what the resident had said about her son’s vulnerabilities in its initial complaint response. It awarded her compensation of £150 for failings in its service, which was in addition to the £50 awarded during its stage 1 consideration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s handling of issues had negatively impacted her health. We acknowledge her comments about this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter which is more appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer. It would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such a claim should she request this.
  2. The resident said during her complaint to the landlord that she wanted to be rehoused. In response, the landlord explained the circumstances when it would consider a management transfer. We cannot decide upon or direct that a landlord should rehouse the resident. This would be a matter for it to consider in line with its policies and procedures and with consideration to her circumstances.
  3. Since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint of November 2023, it has attended the property in respect of the resident’s damp and mould concerns. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord has addressed this issue, it would be appropriate for her to raise this as a new complaint. This is because it is fair to allow the landlord the opportunity to address any ongoing concerns she has about this matter. Should she remain dissatisfied after exhausting the landlord’s complaints process, she may then refer the complaint back to the Ombudsman.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy outlines that responsibility for preventing, reducing and eradicating pests is shared between the landlord, residents and the local authority. The landlord says it will eradicate any infestations and pests in communal areas it owns or manages, or those caused by its own action or inaction.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out a range of compensation awards it may consider when there has been a failing in service. It says that awards of between £50 and £250 may be considered where it has failed to meet its service standard but there was no significant impact. It outlines that higher awards may be considered where it has found considerable failure.
  3. Following a cyber-attack in June 2022 the landlord introduced an interim complaints policy which was in place until March 2024. It aimed to acknowledge new complaints within 10 working days and respond in within 20 working days. At stage 2 it aimed to log requests within 10 working days and respond within 40 working days. Since April 2024 it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Reports of a pest infestation.

  1. The resident reported her concerns about cockroaches to the landlord at the end of January 2022. It acted to by arranging for its pest control contractor to attend twice in February 2022.  At this time its contractor noted it had found no live insects but had laid gel baits and monitors.
  2. After the resident complained to the landlord about pests in September 2023, it arranged for its pest control contractor to attend again. The contractor noted that the resident had shown them a recording of a cockroach on the outside of her front door. However, the pest control contractor detailed that it had found no evidence of live insects in the resident’s property. It laid monitors in the resident’s property and recommended that the landlord contact neighbours to check for any issues in other properties in the block. The landlord officer later noted they had done so, and that none had reported issues with cockroaches. The landlord also explained in its complaint response that it had no pest control reports from other in the resident’s block.
  3. The resident made a further report to the landlord in October 2023, and it raised work for its pest control contractor to attend again at the end of October 2023. It later noted in its complaint response that the contractor had tried to contact the resident to arrange a further visit but had difficulty doing so. However, we note the contractor attended again in December 2023 to lay detector traps and it reported then and in January 2024 that it had seen no obvious signs of cockroaches. 
  4. We acknowledge the resident remained concerned about cockroaches following attendance by pest control. However, we have found that the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was both reasonable and appropriate. We have found no maladministration in its handling of the matter.

Reports of damp and mould.

  1. The resident told the landlord in her complaint of her concerns about damp and mould. While records from early October 2023 show it was in contact with the resident to arrange a mould treatment, it should have addressed her concerns in its stage 1 complaint response. It did not do so until the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord subsequently arranged for its operative to attend in respect of damp and mould on 25 October 2023. It was unable to gain access for this appointment or a subsequent one in November 2023. However, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for not addressing the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in its earlier complaint response.
  2. The landlord awarded a further £150 in its stage 2 complaint response for the service failings it identified. It did not breakdown what aspect of this was to recognise its failure to address the resident’s damp and mould concern. It would have been better had it done so. However, with consideration to all the circumstances, it was a reasonable award. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The complaint

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy following a cyber-attack. Under this, it aimed to provide stage 1 complaint responses within 20 working days. Its initial complaint response to the resident was just outside this timeframe. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its eventual response. Its award to the resident of £50 was appropriate.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response to the resident was within its interim target of 40 working days. While that was the case, this timescale is longer than it would normally aim for under normal circumstances. It was reasonable that it apologised to the resident for the delay in its eventual response.
  3. The resident set out in her complaint how her son was distressed by issues. The landlord identified in its stage 2 complaint response that it should have addressed this concern in its earlier response. Records show the landlord spoke to the resident in early October 2023 about her concerns. However, it was appropriate that it acknowledged its failure to address this matter in its stage 1 complaint response. It did not set out what part of the £150 further award it made was in recognition of this. However, with consideration to all the circumstances and with reference to both the landlord’s own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, it was a fair and reasonable award. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. reports of damp and mould.
    2. the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation it previously awarded in recognition of failings in its handling of her complaint and her reports of damp and mould.