Clarion Housing Association Limited (202416357)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416357

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

The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 2-bed flat which the resident shares with her son. Both her and her son are asthmatic, and the resident has mental health issues.
The resident reported black mould throughout the property on 15 March 2023. On 14 June 2023 the landlord attended the property and repaired a leak from the roof. On 28 June 2023 the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection. On 18 September 2023 the landlord raised works to:
1. Renew the kitchen extractor fan.
2. Replace the insulation in the roof.
3. Stain block the black marks (ghosting) on the walls and ceilings.
4. Redecorate walls and ceilings.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord replaced the kitchen extractor fan. On 27 September 2023 the resident called the landlord to advise she had removed the contents of the loft to allow it access to replace the insulation. On 23 October 2023 she chased the loft works and explained that the property was freezing cold. She also advised that the roofers who visited in June 2023 had advised that she needed cavity wall insulation throughout the property. On the same day the landlord rescheduled the works for November 2023 due to contractor illness.
On 17 November 2023 the landlord replaced the loft insulation. On 21 November 2023 the resident called the landlord and advised that she was having difficulty accessing her loft as “insulation [was] everywhere”. On 1 December 2023 she called and complained that she was no longer able to use the loft as a storage space.
On 6 December 2023 the landlord emailed its contractor and asked it to contact the resident to book in the works to stain block the ghosting and redecorate. The contractor responded the same day and advised the works were on hold because “the property is suffering from very poor insulation on both walls and ceiling. We recommend cavity wall and loft insulation before any work takes place.” On 2 January 2024 the landlord cancelled these works and noted it was looking to complete a “joint inspection in the new year” before deciding on further works.
On 1 March 2024 the landlord raised works to complete a mould treatment. The resident raised a complaint on 11 April 2024 about a lack of progress in diagnosing and rectifying the damp and mould issues. She explained the front door allowed significant draughts into the property and that cold and associated mould were impacting her and her son’s health.
On 15 April 2024 the landlord cancelled the mould treatment. On 19 April 2024 the landlord contacted the resident and advised that it had booked a surveyor’s visit and “some follow [up] work” for 2 May 2024. On 22 April 2024 the landlord raised works to renew the bathroom extractor fan. On 23 April 2024 it asked its contractor to carry out a survey “with a view to installing a PIV system.” It also raised works to inspect the front door for draughts. The following day it raised works to:
1. Complete a heat–loss survey and test radiators.
2. Consider installing a new radiator and door by the stairwell.
3. Review “thermo-boarding” once all other aspects had been considered.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 April 2024. It explained that it had Identified a cold spot in the stairwell leading from the front door to the living area. For this reason, it had offered to install a radiator in the lower part of the stairwell and a door to the top of the stairs, which the resident declined since she considered the issue lay with the front door.
The landlord recognised that the resident was unhappy that she was no longer able to use her loft as storage space, but explained that her tenancy agreement prohibited this. It also explained that it would not at this stage offer cavity wall insulation. It elaborated that it was following a process of elimination in attempting different measures to resolve the damp and mould, and that it would only consider insulating the walls if all other measures failed. It explained that it had not found any service failures in its handling of the damp and mould reports. However, it committed to the following works:
1. Complete a heat loss survey on 1 May 2024.
2. Inspect the front door on 16 May 2024.
3. Inspect the black shadowing (ghosting) throughout the property by 23 May 2024.
On 26 April 2024 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and observed high humidity and poor ventilation. They recommended a new front door, a heat loss survey, and new double-glazing units (DGUs). They also noted that the property did not require increased insulation. On 30 April 2024 the landlord replaced the bathroom extractor fan. On 1 May 2024 the resident chased the outstanding works. On 10 May 2024 a surveyor visited the property and raised works to take measurements to install new DGUs and renew the front door. On 16 May 2024 the landlord overhauled the front door and fitted draught excluders.
On 20 May 2024 the landlord raised works for new ‘trickle vents’ for the windows. It advised the resident of this and that it had ordered her new front door. On 21 May 2024 it replaced the trickle vents throughout the property. On 4 June 2024 the landlord completed a mould treatment. Over the next month the resident complained several times that she was still waiting for the completion of works to address the damp and mould.
At some stage in early July 2024 the landlord completed a heat-loss survey and determined that the radiators in both bedrooms produced sufficient heat output. On 12 July 2024 the landlord “measured and ordered” the new front door. On 17 and 18 July 2024 the landlord raised the following works:
1. Install cavity insulation below staircase.
2. Install perma-vent anti condensation kits to both bedrooms and lounge.
3. Install a ‘tube-heater’ at the bottom of the stairwell.
4. Complete a mould treatment.
On 23 July 2024 the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident then declined to permit the perma-vent installation on 25 July 2024.
On 5 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that it was satisfied its stage 1 response was reasonable and fair. It also set out the repairs it raised on 17 and 18 July 2023. It explained that it would complete all these works, except the perma-vent installation since the resident had declined it, by 22 August 2024.
The landlord completed the mould wash on 16 August 2024. On 22 August 2024 the resident declined the installation of the tube-heater as she wanted to see if the repairs to the front door and stairs resolved things. On 22 August 2024 the landlord cancelled the insulation of the cavity stairwell because the stairs “are concrete.” On 23 September 2024 the resident declined the installation of vents in the walls.
On 7 October 2024 the landlord noted that the damp and mould case was closed as all follow up works had been completed. On 6 November 2024 the resident complained via the Citizen’s Advice Bureau that works remained outstanding. On 13 November 2024 the landlord raised a damp and mould inspection. On 15 November 2024 it inspected and did not observe any mould. However, it raised works to replace the radiator in the resident’s son’s bedroom. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 November 2024 and advised her of this, that it had not observed any mould, and that the humidity throughout the property was low.
On 26 November 2024 the landlord raised another damp and mould inspection. A different surveyor attended the property on 3 December 2024. They observed that the property was suffering from “interstitial condensation” and that this was causing the ghosting throughout. They recommended:
1. Installation of a PIV unit.
2. Redecoration and washdown of the property.
3. Clearance of the gutters and downpipes.
On 3 December 2024 the resident complained that the landlord should also offer to replace the radiator in her bedroom. On 16 December 2024 the resident advised the landlord that she was unhappy with the other radiator it had installed because it did not cosmetically match those in the property.
On 30 December 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that she was still waiting on the following works:
1. Installation of 2 new radiators.
2. Cavity wall insulation.
3. Insulation under the stairwell.
4. Redecoration of the property including painting and repairing cracks.
On 3 January 2025 the landlord advised the resident that she had exhausted its complaints process and that she should bring her complaint to the Ombudsman. On 8 January 2025 it advised her it was waiting on an update for the PIV system. On 6 February 2025 it advised the resident it was unlikely to offer to replace the radiator it installed just because it did not cosmetically match the others. On 10 April 2025 the landlord wrote to the Ombudsman and advised that:
1. It had allocated the PIV unit installation to its contractor, and it would contact the resident to confirm the installation date as soon as possible.
2. It was in the process of scheduling the gutter clearance with the contractor and resident.
3. It was struggling to source a decorating contractor as it did not typically provide this service. However, it was in the process of awarding the works to a contractor and would contact the resident with timescales as soon as possible.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. To resolve her complaint, she would like it to provide compensation and complete the works which she considers are outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This Service has been provided with records relating to repairs at the property from 2017 to 2024. However, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
As the resident made a formal complaint on 24 April 2024, this investigation will not consider the events that occurred from 2017 to 24 April 2023 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint. This assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould from 24 April 2023 up to its final response in August 2024. It will also consider its actions following this insofar as these relate to the issues addressed and commitments made in this response.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states: “where particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issues are identified, [the landlord] will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment which may result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstances. Actions may include providing and funding dehumidifiers, installing ventilation systems, dry lining walls, or applying mould resistant coverings, as appropriate, on a case by case basis.”
It also sets out that it will “keep residents informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues, and the timetabling of works. This includes explaining what work might be needed and why. If any changes to the programme of works are needed, [it] will keep residents informed. Where work is not required, residents will be advised, and [it] will explain the reason why and any steps they should take.”
The landlord’s repairs policy obligates it to complete routine non-emergency repairs within 28 days. Its policy on vulnerable residents sets out that it will take vulnerabilities into account and tailor its repairs service appropriately to these needs.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord attended the property and fixed a leak coming from the roof. However, we note the resident first reported damp and mould 93 days earlier on 15 March 2023. It is unclear why it took the landlord 93 days to complete these repairs, and it did so 65 days past the timescales in its repairs policy. Given there is no explanation of this delay in the records, we consider it was unreasonable.
On 16 June 2023 the resident advised the landlord that, while the leak was fixed, there was black mould throughout the property which was impacting her and her son’s health. We can see the landlord then booked a damp and mould inspection for 28 June 2023. We consider this was a prompt and appropriate step to take to address the resident’s report.
Internal emails indicate the inspection went ahead on 28 June 2023. However, there is no direct record of the inspection. There is also no evidence that the landlord raised any works following this inspection or communicated with the resident about the outcome of it. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
On 18 September 2023 the landlord raised the following works orders:
1. Replace loft insulation (contaminated by a previous pest infestation).
2. Stain block black marks (ghosting) on walls and ceiling and redecorate.
3. Renew kitchen extractor fan.
The landlord also renewed the extractor fan on 20 September 2023. However, given that it appears it raised these works raised based on the observations made at the 28 June 2023 inspection, it is unclear why it took 82 days for it to do so. The landlord classified these repairs as routine, and therefore it should have addressed these, or at least raised the necessary works to do so, within 28 days of identifying the issues at the inspection. We cannot see any reason for the delay in raising these works, and therefore we consider this was unreasonable. It also failed to communicate with the resident during this period of delay to manage her expectations. We consider this likely caused the resident distress and delayed a resolution of the damp and mould issue.
On 27 September 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that she had cleared the contents of the loft to allow the insulation replacement. On 23 October 2023 the landlord called the resident and advised it would need to delay the loft works until 17 November 2023 due to contractor illness. We accept that staff illness is not possible to fully mitigate against, and we consider the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to reschedule these works.
The landlord then attended on 17 November 2023 and reinsulated the loft. We note this was 60 days after the landlord raised these works. We recognise that, had the contractors not fallen ill, then the works likely would have gone ahead as planned on 23 October 2023. This would have been 35 days after it raised the order, which would have been 7 days past its repairs timescales. However, given the residents vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete a risk assessment and seek to expediate these works and complete them sooner than it did.
On 6 December 2023 the resident called the landlord to chase the works to ‘stain block’ the ghosting and redecorate the walls and ceilings. On the same day, the landlord’s contractor emailed it and advised it to put these works on hold and consider “cavity wall and loft insulation.” The landlord then cancelled these works on 2 January 2024.
However, there is no evidence to indicate that it explained this decision to the resident or communicated with her about the other works it decided to progress following her call on 6 December 2023. This was not in keeping with the damp and mould policy. As per the policy, it should have contacted her and outlined a revised schedule of works. Given how long she had waited for it to complete these works by this stage, its failure to do so likely caused her further distress.
On 1 March 2024 the landlord raised a mould treatment. The resident then complained on 11 April 2024. She advised that the damp and mould issue was worsening and that it was impacting her and her son’s health. She advised that there was a significant draught from her front door which she considered was contributing to the issue. She asked the landlord to provide cavity wall insulation throughout the property. She also complained that, since the loft had been insulated, she was no longer able to use it as a storage space.
On 15 April 2024 the landlord then cancelled the mould treatment it booked and noted “longer time waiting for surveyor report” as the reason for this. It is unclear from the records what this refers to, and therefore we are unable to determine whether this was a suitable reason for cancelling the treatment or not. In any case, there is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about its decision to cancel the treatment, and this was not in line with its damp and mould policy. We also note that the landlord failed to suitably consider any other interim actions to mitigate the impact of the ongoing damp and mould. For instance, it could have considered providing a dehumidifier as per its damp and mould policy. This would have gone someway in improving the resident’s situation while she waited for a resolution of the issues.
The landlord called the resident on 19 April 2024 and explained that “some works” had been booked for 2 May 2024. Over the following 3 days the landlord raised a surveyor’s visit and works to renew the bathroom extractor fan. On 23 and 24 April 2024 the landlord asked its contractor to complete a review of suspected mould and a heat loss survey with a view to install a PIV unit. It also raised works to offer a new radiator and door in the stairwell area where it had identified a cold spot, and review “thermo-boarding.”
In its stage 1 response on 25 April 2024 the landlord offered a suitably detailed explanation of these works and their intended impact as per its policy. However, it also noted that the resident had declined its offers to install a radiator and door in the stairwell area to address the cold spot it identified there because she considered a new front door would be sufficient to resolve things. Though there is no record of this conversation, there are records of later conversations where the resident declined these works on that basis. Therefore, we consider that this conversation likely took place as the landlord described.
The landlord also explained that it intended to address the damp and mould via a process of elimination, and that it would only consider cavity wall insulation once all other avenues had been exhausted. Installing cavity wall insulation throughout the property would be classed as an improvement, and the landlord’s repairs policy does not obligate it to make improvements to address repairs issues. Therefore, we consider the process of elimination it set out here was an appropriate strategy. We also consider it explained this suitably to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident was no longer able to use the loft as a storage space but explained that her occupancy agreement prohibited her from doing so. Having reviewed the resident’s tenancy agreement, this advice was correct. However, the resident first complained about this on 1 December 2023, and we do not consider it was reasonable to wait until the stage 1 response to address this. This was likely frustrating for the resident.
Finally, the landlord committed to the following schedule of works:
1. Inspect the front door for draughts on 16 May 2024.
2. Complete a heat loss survey on 1 May 2024.
3. Inspect the black shadowing (ghosting) throughout the property by 23 May 2024.
We consider the landlord acted as per its policy here by offering the resident a series of works, explaining what each action would achieve, and setting out relevant timescales.
On 26 April 2024 the landlord’s surveyor completed a damp and mould inspection. They noted that the property had high humidity throughout. To address the damp and mould issue, they recommended new DGUs, a new front door, and a heat loss survey. They also noted that the property did not require further insulation.
Though this survey was completed within the timescale it committed to in its stage 1 response, we consider it should have been raised and completed before this point. We accept that the process of elimination strategy meant it was reasonable to complete a fresh survey after each round of works to assess the impact of these and determine what further steps could be attempted. However, the most recent repair was the loft re-insulation on 17 November 2023. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord regularly over the coming months to complain that the mould was still an issue, but it took until 19 April 2024 schedule a new survey. This delay was unreasonable and likely further delayed a resolution of the issue.
On 30 April 2024, the landlord renewed the bathroom extractor fan. It raised these works on 22 April 2024, and so it completed this well within its repairs timescales. On 10 May 2024 the landlord inspected the front door and took measurements for new DGUs. On 16 May 2024 it overhauled the front door and fit draught excluders. It acted positively here by completing these works within the agreed timescales.
The landlord called the resident on 20 May 2024 and advised it had ordered a new front door. The records do not afford any insight as to why the landlord ordered a new front door given it had completed repairs to the existing door on 16 May 2024. In any case, the landlord should have explained to the resident why it did so and given timescales for this.
The landlord also advised that its contractor would be in touch to organise a heat loss survey. It acted positively and as per its policy here by keeping the resident informed. However, it had agreed to complete a heat loss survey on 1 May 2024, and so it had already exceeded the timescale for these works by 19 days at this stage.
The landlord completed a mould wash on 4 June 2024. Given the issue was ongoing, it was appropriate for the landlord to do so while the resident waited for the outstanding works. On 5 June 2024 the resident complained about a lack of progress and asked the landlord to update her on the outstanding works. She then called again to chase this on 12 June 2024 and 4 July 2024. There is no evidence the landlord addressed any of these communications by offering her meaningful updates as per its damp and mould policy.
Repair logs from 28 June 2024 note “visit completed FOW [follow on works] raised and DGUs scheduled for [7 July 2024]”. It is unclear what these follow-on works were, as the landlord has not documented them. It should have done so and communicated about these works with the resident. We consider this repeated failure to keep the resident meaningfully informed likely compounded her distress.
The landlord’s contractor completed a heat loss survey on 4 July 2024 and determined that the heat produced by a radiator in 1 of the 2 bedrooms was insufficient. It then appears that it reinspected the radiators on 11 July 2024 and determined that both radiators were sufficient, and so the landlord did not raise works to replace either. The calculations of the actual heat output versus the required heat output differed at each visit. Ultimately, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine which of these sets of figures was correct, and the landlord was entitled to act based on the latest calculations from its contractor. However, this change of stance must have been confusing for the resident, and there is again no indication that the landlord kept her informed about the outcome of either visit or of any decisions made as a result. This was not in keeping with the communications obligations outlined in its damp and mould policy.
Repairs records note that the landlord then ordered the front door on 12 July 2024. This contradicts its previous advice to the resident on 20 May 2024 that it had already done so. The records do not offer us any insight into why it took the landlord until this point to order the new door, or why the new door was required following the previous repairs. In any case, we consider the landlord delayed unreasonably here and failed to keep the resident meaningfully informed.
On 17 July 2024 the landlord inspected the ghosting throughout the property and determined that this was likely “soot”. In its stage 1 response, it agreed to inspect this by 23 May 2024, and so it was almost 2 months late in doing so. Following this visit, it raised routine works to:
1. Install cavity insulation below stairwell.
2. Complete a mould wash.
3. Install a heater at the bottom of the stairs.
4. Install perma-vent anti-condensation kits in both bedrooms and the lounge.
On 5 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that it would complete works (a) to (c) by 22 August 2024. The landlord acted appropriately here by outlining timescales for the new works. However, it did not give any timescale for the installation of perma-vents despite raising these works on 17 July 2024.
On 16 August 2024 the landlord inspected the property. It identified mould in 1 of the bedrooms and completed a mould wash as per its stage 2 commitment. On 22 August 2024 the resident declined its attempt to fit a heater below the stairs as she wanted to see first if the repairs to the front door and stairwell would prove sufficient. We recognise the resident’s view that the heater under the stairs would be heating “dead space”. We consider that this has likely contributed to some degree in the overall delay in resolving things. However, this was beyond the landlord’s control.
On 22 August 2024 the landlord cancelled the works to install cavity insulation under the stairwell as it noted the stairs were made of concrete. It is unclear from the records why this prohibited insulation, as there is no further detail recorded about this decision. In any case, the landlord should have updated the resident about this. It failed to do so, missing an opportunity to keep her informed as per its policy.
On 28 August 2024 it installed the new front door. Given it appears to have ordered this almost 2 months after telling the resident it had done so, we consider it could have ordered and installed the door sooner than this.
On 29 September 2024 we can see the resident declined the landlord’s attempts to install perma-vents in the walls as per the commitment it made at stage 2. There is no reason documented for the resident’s decision in the records. We consider this likely contributed to the delay in resolving things, and this was beyond the landlord’s control.
On 7 October 2024 the landlord closed the damp and mould case on the basis that it had completed all the outstanding works. We can see by this stage that the landlord had successfully completed many of the works it agreed to. We can see that it did not instal perma-vents or a heater under the stairwell since the resident declined these works. However, at least from the resident’s perspective, the works to install insulation under the stairwell remained outstanding as the landlord had failed to advise her of its decision to cancel this. Therefore, we do not consider it was reasonable to close the case before it had informed the resident of this and determined the relative impact of the works so far completed.
On 6 November 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that the damp and mould persisted and works remained outstanding. Given it had failed to keep her informed on the status of the stairwell insulation, the resident was justified in her view. On 13 November 2024 the landlord raised another inspection which was reasonable given the resident’s report. It completed inspections on 15 and 18 November 2024. It did not identify any mould and found that humidity did not exceed 14% throughout the property. However, it found 1 of the 2 bedroom radiators was not sufficiently powerful for the size of the room.
On 25 November 2024 the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it had not identified any damp or mould. It explained it had therefore not raised any related works. However, it offered to fit the new radiator as per the outcome of its inspection. The landlord acted appropriately here by keeping the resident informed of the latest diagnoses and works.
The landlord also raised another damp and mould inspection on 25 November 2024. We consider it was an appropriate to complete another inspection given the resident’s insistence of the presence of damp and mould and to monitor the works it had previously undertaken to ensure they had been effective.
On 3 December 2024 a different surveyor inspected the property. They found the property was “suffering from interstitial condensation” which is when moisture laden air penetrates a building structure and condense on colder surfaces. They diagnosed this as the cause of the ghosting throughout the property. To resolve the issue, they recommended the landlord:
1. Install a PIV unit.
2. Complete a mould wash and redecorate the property.
3. Clean out all debris from all gutters and downpipes.
We can see no evidence that the landlord updated the resident about the outcome of this inspection or of likely timescales for pending works. This was another missed opportunity to keep the resident informed as per its damp and mould policy.
At some stage over the next 2 weeks, the landlord installed a new radiator in the bigger bedroom as per the 25 November 2024 survey recommendations, which was within its routine repair timescales.
On 16 December 2024 the resident complained that the radiator did not cosmetically match the existing radiators throughout the property. The landlord replied and advised her to raise another complaint about this.
On 30 December 2024 the resident complained that the landlord had failed to install insulation under the stairwell or perma-vents as per its stage 2 commitments. She also complained that the landlord had failed to:
1. Install cavity wall insulation.
2. Replace all the radiators throughout the property.
3. Redecorate the property.
The landlord then advised her on 3 January 2025 to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman as it concerned issues which had already exhausted its processes. Given that it had previously advised her to raise a new complaint, this would have caused frustration for the resident.
Nevertheless, on 6 February 2025 it advised her that, since the new radiator it installed was functioning correctly, it would not replace it despite the fact it did not cosmetically match the others. This advice was correct. The landlord is only obligated to maintain the functionality of the heating units within the property, and it did so by installing the new radiator.
While we recognise the resident considers that the landlord should install cavity wall insulation, it is not obligated to do so, especially given its most recent surveys have not recommended this. We also can see no indication that any of the heat loss surveys or inspections produced recommendations to replace all of the radiators throughout the property. The only related recommendation was to replace 1 of the radiators in the bigger bedroom, and the landlord did so in December 2024.
On 10 April 2025 the landlord advised the Ombudsman that the works recommended in the 3 December 2024 survey report were all outstanding, but that it was working to schedule them with its contractors. The landlord did not explain why the works had been delayed for 5 months. In the absence of any explanation, we consider this delay was unreasonable. To put this right, we have ordered the landlord to schedule the works and commit to timescales for each.
Ultimately, we consider the landlord delayed unreasonably at various stages in progressing damp and mould related works from 28 June 2023 to present. We also consider it failed at key stages throughout this period to communicate meaningfully with the resident and keep her informed of the progress of works. For this reason, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to reflect the impact this caused.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider awards of £250 to £700 to remedy considerable failure where there is no permanent impact on resident. It then cites the following examples of this type of failure:
1. Misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate, or incorrect information about complainant’s rights.
2. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses.
3. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy.
4. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint or failing to address all relevant aspects of the complaint.
We consider the omissions we have identified correlate with all of the above examples. In calculating the appropriate sum of compensation, we have considered how the landlord delayed in progressing works repeatedly for periods of several months from March 2023 to present. We acknowledge how the resident had to continuously chase updates and progression of the works throughout this period. We note the landlord’s repeated failure to improve its communication after each stage of the complaints process. We have also considered the likely distress these omissions caused the resident, and how her distress was likely felt more acutely than it would have otherwise been given her mental health vulnerabilities.
However, we have also taken into account that the resident declined some of the works that the landlord offered to resolve things. With all this in mind, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £700 for its omissions in handling her reports of damp and mould. This amount is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there his been a failure which has had a significant impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident £700 for its omissions in handling her reports of damp and mould.
The landlord is to schedule and provide timescales to the resident for the following works:
1. Clearing of the gutters.
2. Installation of a PIV unit.
3. Redecoration of the property.
The landlord is to evidence compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.