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 (202421448)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421448

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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The tenancy began on 5 April 2023.
  2. The landlord has confirmed that the resident has a respiratory disease. The resident told the landlord during the timeframe of the complaint, that he had issues with mobility, had to seek support from mental health services, and that his doctor had diagnosed him with asthma.
  3. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 30 December 2023. The landlord issued the final complaint response on 28 August 2024.
  4. During the complaint process:
    1. The resident:
      1. Said he was concerned that the landlord had allowed him to move into the property, without carrying out a damp check. He expressed dissatisfaction that it had taken 8 months for the landlord to resolve the issues with damp and mould in the property.
      2. Explained his mental and physical health had been significantly impacted by his living conditions, his furniture and his personal belongings had been ruined by mould, and it had cost him a fortune keeping the heating on 24 hours a day.
      3. Suggested that the landlord should pay him £27,000 compensation. Although later said he would be willing to accept £14,000, plus an additional £1,500 to clear his rent arrears.
    2. The landlord:
      1. Accepted there had been delays addressing the damp and mould in the property. And that it had not completed works to remedy the damp and mould within expected timescales.
      2. Apologised and offered £550 compensation for delays resolving the damp and mould, for resolving the damp and mould outside of its service level agreement, for inconvenience and disruption, for failure to follow its own procedures, and for complaint handling delay.
      3. Explained the process that the resident might follow if he wanted to progress an insurance claim for damage to his personal property and possessions.
      4. Explained the process that the resident might follow if he wished to purse a public liability claim for personal injury.
  5. The resident brought his complaint to us in September 2024 because he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. The resident told us on 7 April 2025 that he returned to the property on 24 June 2024 after the landlord resolved the issues with damp and mould. He clarified that there had been no further issues with damp and mould since then. But he wanted the landlord to accept responsibility for its failings, to apologise, and adequately compensate him.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. When the resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as sometimes there will be reasons why parts of a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows did not complete the landlord’s internal complaint process. Therefore, this complaint element falls outside of our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has suggested that the property may have experienced significant issues with damp and mould for several years, prior to his tenancy starting. We understand that the resident obtained this information from a member of the former tenant’s family. It is important to note that we cannot consider the landlord’s actions prior to the property becoming void. But it is reasonable for us to consider if the landlord acted in accordance with its policy obligations during the void period, in relation to any damp and mould that it may itself have identified.
  2. We are unable to determine liability for damaged belongings. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. But we may investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures when considering the resident’s request for compensation.
  3. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Again, this is a matter best suited for the courts. But this investigation may consider the likely distress and inconvenience cause to the resident by the situation.
  4. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between February 2023 and 28 August 2024. This being the period between the property becoming void and the date the landlord’s internal complaint process was exhausted. We have not considered any events that happened after this date.

Obligations, policies, and procedures

  1. The landlord had a contractual and statutory obligation under the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including any shared parts of the building. Landlords are expected to complete identified repairs within a reasonable timescale of being notified of a repair.
  2. The landlord had an obligation under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the property free of hazards, which were so serious that the dwelling would not be suitable for occupation in that condition. In accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), damp and mould growth are considered potential hazards. A property that is fit for human habitation would be free of damp and mould that could cause significant harm.
  3. According to the landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy, the landlord will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe or carry out a temporary repair. It will carry out all other repairs within 28 days.
  4. According to the landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy, the landlord will:
    1. Identify and remedy any leaks or other issues likely to cause condensation, damp, and mould when a property becomes void.
    2. When a resident reports any unresolved issue with leaks, damp, mould, or condensation, it may offer initial advice, followed by a property inspection to identify the cause of the issue(s). It may carry out further investigations to diagnose the problem if the issue is not straight forward or may be due to a combination of factors. It will carry out any repairs identified within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
    3. Carry out a comprehensive risk assessment, where severe or recurring damp or mould issues are identified, which may result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstances.
    4. Keep residents informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues, and the timetabling of works, where these are required.
    5. May move a resident out of the property on a temporary or permanent basis, where more intrusive building work is required and/or there is a health risk to the resident.
  5. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord will award compensation on a case-by-case basis. The landlord may award compensation where it has made mistakes, for repairs that have gone over target time, for loss of amenities, services, or rooms in the property, or where there has been a failure of service that has caused damage to a resident’s belongings and it would be unreasonable to expect that damage to be covered by the residents home contents policy. However, it will not offer compensation for personal injury or other public liability insurance claims, or where a resident can make a claim against their own insurance policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

  1. The resident believes that the landlord was aware of issues with damp and mould in the property at the time the property became void in February 2023. He maintains that the landlord should not have relet property to him, until it had fully resolved the cause of the damp and mould.
  2. The landlord did not provide us with a copy of its void inspection records, despite us requesting this. Therefore, we have not had sight of what repairs the landlord may have identified and completed prior to reletting if any. Or that it satisfied itself there was no damp, mould, condensation, or leaks, in accordance with its damp and mould policy. The landlord has provided evidence that it cleaned the property during the void period and that it tested the bathroom fan. The landlord has provided a selection of photographs taken after its operative had cleaned the property, which appear to show the property in a reasonable state of repair and decoration.
  3. The resident inspected the property with the landlord on 5 April 2023 prior to accepting the tenancy. This was good practice and would have allowed the resident to identify any matters of concern prior to the tenancy starting. No issues with the condition of the property are noted on the landlord’s tenancy sign up form, which the resident signed at the time of the inspection. The resident suggests that he did not carry out a thorough inspection of the property on the day of the letting, due to his poor mobility and because he was excited to be receiving the keys. But it is reasonable to assume that the resident would have noticed if there were any obvious signs of damp and mould in the property.
  4. The resident said he found it strange that the landlord’s Lettings Officer stated there was no damp and mould in the property at the time of the letting but then proceeded to offer him advice on how to prevent damp and mould from occurring. The landlord’s actions are in keeping with our 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould, which states that landlords should provide residents with customised advice about managing the environment in their home at the point of sign up.
  5. According to the landlord’s repairs log, the resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 17 April 2023. This was just 12 days after the tenancy started. The resident states that he did not move into the property straight away, as he had to arrange for someone to paint the walls and lay carpets. However, when his decorator applied the first layer of paint, the paint just slid down the walls. And the carpet fitter’s trousers became wet when kneeling on the floor.
  6. The resident said the landlord’s first reaction was to blame him for the damp and mould, suggesting that he may be drying clothes indoors and not ventilating the property. The resident told us this caused him a great deal of frustration, since he had not moved into the property and did not have a washing machine. We were unable to verify the resident’s account from the available evidence. But it is crucial that landlords avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language which infers blame on a resident. This can damage the resident and landlord relationship and result in missed opportunities to address problems.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it acted on the resident’s first report of damp and mould, by raising a mould treatment on the same day with a 28-day completion target. It also raised a damp and mould inspection a few days later with a 7-day target completion date. The landlord’s response was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. But we would have expected the landlord to have assigned greater priority to the damp and mould wash, given that mould is a hazard under the HHSRS.
  8. It is a concern that the landlord cancelled the damp and mould inspection because it did not have enough resources. We were unable to evidence that the landlord updated the resident concerning this or that it endeavoured to arrange another damp and mould inspection. This left the resident unclear of the landlord’s intentions and the cause of the damp and mould undiagnosed.
  9. The landlord’s operative attended the property on 23 May 2023 to complete the damp and mould treatment, which was within the target timescale the landlord had committed to. The landlord’s records state that the resident did not provide access, which was unhelpful. The landlord accepted in the stage 1 complaint response that its operative should have left a calling card but it was unable to evidence this happened. The landlord said this was a failing.
  10. The landlord’s operative attended the property again on 30 May 2023, to complete the mould treatment. But was unable to secure access to complete the treatment. It is unclear if the resident was aware of this appointment from the evidence seen. The landlord’s records show that it then cancelled the mould treatment. We would not expect a landlord to keep a job open indefinitely, but the landlord ought to have written to the resident before cancelling the job, given the potential risk to the resident and its own property from untreated damp and mould.
  11. The landlord’s records are then silent until 11 July 2023 when the resident reported an external leaking pipe, which he believed could be the cause of water ingress and damp in the property. The landlord responded promptly by raising a job to inspect and address the leaking pipe. The landlord’s operative attended in a timely manner on 13 July 2023, who said there could be an underground leak. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on this information, which it ought to have done.
  12. The landlord’s records are again silent between 14 July 2023 and 20 October 2023, when the landlord states it opened a priority damp and mould case. We have been unable to verify what prompted this, which suggests there may be an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
  13. The landlord’s Resident Liaison Officer contacted the resident on 24 October 2023. The resident explained there was thick mould in the property and on his furniture. He said there was condensation running down his windows, which was creating mould. The resident explained that he was unable to clean the mould off due to his disabilities. The landlord’s Resident Liaison Officer committed to arranging a damp and mould wash, and a damp and mould inspection, in line with its damp and mould policy.
  14. The landlord’s Resident Liaison Officer sent the resident a written action plan later the same day, setting out the steps that it would take to address the damp and mould, including timescales. This was good practice and is likely to have offered the resident some reassurance. Of particular note, the landlord agreed to:
    1. Contact the resident by his preferred method of communication, every 10 days, or sooner if there was new information. The resident told us that the landlord’s Resident Liaison Officer was supportive throughout and kept to this commitment. This is reflected in the evidence we have seen.
    2. Carry out a mould wash on 1 November 2023. This shows that the landlord was endeavouring to minimise the hazard in timely manner.
    3. Arrange a damp and mould inspection, following which it would complete any repairs identified. If it did not know when this inspection would take place, it might have given an anticipated timescale for this.
  15. The landlord raised an instruction for the damp and mould inspection in a timely manner, on the same day, with a reasonable target completion date of 7 days.
  16. The landlord’s operatives attended on 1 November 2023 to complete the damp and mould wash, as it had committed. The landlord’s operative reported that the resident was aggressive and declined access to complete the work, which resulted in the landlord cancelling the job. The resident said that the landlord’s operatives turned up in hoodies, spat on his wall, and did not show any identification upon their arrival. He explained that he did not feel comfortable letting its operatives into the property under those circumstances. While we would not expect a landlord to condone unreasonable behaviour, the landlord might have acknowledged in the stage 2 complaint that there may have been mitigating factors.
  17. The landlord’s surveyor arranged to carry out the damp and mould inspection on 2 November 2023 which was within expected timescales. However, the landlord rearranged this appointment for 6 November 2023 because the landlord’s surveyor could not keep the appointment. This delayed diagnosis of the cause of the damp and mould and an assessment of the living conditions within the property.
  18. The landlord carried out the damp and mould inspection on 6 November 2023, as it had committed. The landlord has not provided a copy of its inspection report, so it has not been possible to determine the severity of the resident’s living conditions or fully assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s next steps. The landlord ought to have carried out a comprehensive risk assessment at the time of its inspection, in line with is damp and mould policy. If it did do this, the landlord had not provided any evidence of this. However, the landlord’s records do show that it instructed its heating contractor to carry out a survey. It also instructed another mould wash, which was positive given that it had cancelled the previous job. It is unclear what priority the landlord assigned these jobs.
  19. The landlord’s heating contractor told the landlord on 21 November 2023 that it had identified no leaks. It was positive that the landlord’s Resident Involvement Officer contacted the resident the same day, arranging for its surveyor to revisit the property on 30 November 2023, given that the cause of the damp and mould was inconclusive. The resident explained during this conversation that he had been in hospital with chest pains, which his doctor attributed to damp and mould in the property. Given this new information, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have tried to bring the date of its damp and mould inspection forward. This would have allowed it could carry out a comprehensive risk assessment and provide appropriate support to the resident, in line with its damp and mould policy.
  20. We note that the resident also emailed the local authority environmental health team the same day, describing the adverse conditions in the property and asking for their intervention. The resident reported his bed sheets were wet with damp, his carpets were green, and his furniture was covered in mould. He said this was causing him serious health problems and had resulted in him considering taking his own life. He explained that he was struggling to breath, could not wipe away the mould due to his disabilities, and he was drowning in debt trying to keep the property dry. The resident did not copy the landlord into this email, so we cannot be sure it was aware of this at the time. But this email shows the impact the resident was reporting arising from his living conditions.
  21. The resident emailed the landlord’s Resident Involvement Officer on 24 November 2023, with a screen shot of his medical records, following an appointment with his doctor on 16 November 2023. This shows the resident had experienced an asthma flare up and that his doctor had prescribed him medication to control this. The doctor noted photographs seen of the property, showing damp and mould on the walls and on the carpet. The resident told the landlord that his doctor had recommended the mould be removed as soon as possible and asked the landlord to arrange this.
  22. The landlord’s Resident Involvement Officer responded to the resident on the same day, committing to update its surveyor. At this stage the landlord already had an inspection and mould wash scheduled for 30 November 2023 and 1 December 2023 respectively.
  23. The resident told the landlord’s Resident Involvement Officer on 29 November 2023, that everything in the property was wet which was impacting his physical health. The resident explained that he was also struggling with his mental health and was having suicidal thoughts due to his living conditions. The landlord’s notes show that it satisfied itself that the resident was receiving the support he needed for this mental health. And then helped the resident through the process of making a complaint. The Resident Involvement Officer did not make a commitment of further action. But this was understandable given that its surveyor was already inspecting the property the following day.
  24. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 30 November 2023 as it originally committed, with a second surveyor. The landlord has not provided any records from its inspection. But since the landlord made immediate arrangements to move the resident into a hotel “due to the resident’s health concerns”, it is reasonable to assume that the landlord did carry out some form of risk assessment. We understand that the landlord agreed to provide the resident with a food allowance for the duration of his stay, which would have been usual practice.
  25. The landlord moved the resident into the hotel later the same day, which shows that the landlord was treating the case as a priority. It was positive that the landlord’s Resident Liaison Officer phoned the resident the following day to see how he was settling in and to check that he was aware of its next steps. This is evidence of the landlord being supportive. The landlord’s Resident Liaison Officer stayed in regular contact with the resident for the duration of his stay in the hotel.
  26. The resident was displaced from the property for the next 6 months. During this time, the landlord investigated the likely cause of the damp and mould and carried out several repairs. This included:
    1. Roofing repairs, the renewal of a downpipe, clearing of a gulley, fitting of a new stack. The landlord passed this job to its contractor on 1 December 2023. It is unclear why the landlord did not raise a works order until 21 December 2023. The landlord’s contractor completed the job on 6 February 2024 which exceeded the landlord’s expected repairs timescale under its policy. The landlord’s contractor suggested that adverse weather conditions created some unavoidable delay in it completing this work.
    2. Installing dehumidifiers to help dry out the property on 14 March 2024.
    3. An overhaul of the windows, replacement of window gaskets, and resealing. The landlord raised a job for this on 15 January 2024. The landlord’s contractor completed the job on 27 March 2024 which exceeded the landlord’s expected repairs timescale. This was attributable to its contractor ordering the wrong gaskets and then being unable to complete the job until the landlord had completed the mould treatment. Ultimately, the landlord’s contractor did later change the gaskets before the landlord completed the mould treatment. But the landlord did have to raise a new works order on 1 May 2024, after receiving reports of water in the windows and condensation. The landlord completed this later job on 29 May 2024 within expected response timescales.
    4. The damp and mould treatment the landlord instructed in November 2023. The landlord’s operative completed this job on 19 April 2024 which significantly exceeded the landlord’s expected completion timescales under its policy. The resident refutes the suggestion made by the landlord in the stage 2 complaint response, that he was to blame for 2 failed attempts in December 2023 to gain access to complete this work. The resident states that the landlord’s operative could have accessed the property using the set of keys he had left in the key safe when he left for the hotel, as instructed by the landlord. This suggests that the landlord had not shared this information with its operatives. This was inappropriate and delayed completion of other repairs.
    5. Replacing the extractor fan with an enviro anti condensation fan. The landlord’s records show it raised a works order for this on 26 March 2024. The landlord completed this job with expected timescales on 24 April 2024.
    6. Removing an area of concrete around an external drain hole and resetting with a fall away from the building, to address water ingress into the property. The landlord raised a works order for this on 26 March 2024. It is unclear when the landlord received the quotation from its contractor, however, we note that this job was not authorised until 17 May 2024. The landlord’s contactor completed the job on 7 June 2024 several months after the landlord raised the initial works order.
    7. Repairs to a crack in the kitchen wall. The landlord raised this job on 1 May 2024. The landlord’s operative completed the job in a timely manner on 10 May 2024.
  27. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response concluded that its surveyor had carried out a full damp and mould inspection of the property on 19 April 2024, “that showed the property had minor mould issues around the window reveal which had been treated and was now free from mould issues, with no other mould or damp issues reported”. The landlord also suggested that it had “not received any further leaks, condensation, damp, or mould works since 19 April 2024”.
  28. While the landlord’s complaint handler noted that its surveyor was satisfied the property was free of mould when it reinspected the property on 19 April 2024, this was to be expected given that its operative had carried out a mould treatment on the same day. It was not accurate for the landlord to suggest in the stage 2 complaint response, that the cause of the damp and mould had been fully resolved by this date. It is noted that the landlord did not complete all of the repairs it had identified until 7 June 2024. It needed to engage in a period of proactive monitoring to be sure that the cause of the damp and mould had been fully resolved
  29. It is unclear what date the landlord posted inspected the works. The resident has confirmed that he returned to the property on 24 June 2024. He asked the landlord for help in arranging a clean of his carpet which was affected by mould. The landlord told the resident that it was not responsible for cleaning the carpet and to make a claim under his home contents insurance. While the landlord was entitled to tell the resident this, the landlord could have considered if there was any further support it could have provided. Given its responsibility to ensure the property was free from hazards and the resident’s health conditions.
  30. We accept that it can sometimes take several attempts to diagnose the cause of damp and mould and find a lasting resolution. However, we would expect a landlord, upon being notified of an issue, to progress any investigation and complete any identified repairs with some urgency. We accept there were some challenges gaining access to the property to complete a mould treatment. But the landlord failed to mitigate the risk arising from damp and mould in the property between May 2023 and November 2023. It is evident that the resident lost some enjoyment of the property over this timeframe. It is likely that the resident may have been able to return to the property in a timelier manner had the landlord managed the repairs it itself had identified more efficiently.
  31. The landlord accepted during its own complaint investigation, that there had been delay resolving the issues with damp and mould, and that these issues had been resolved outside of its service level agreement. The landlord tried to put things right by making a combined offer of compensation in relation to the substantive complaint and for failures in its complaint handling, amounting to £550. The landlord provided a table setting out its offer with headings but it was unclear how it had arrived at this figure. The landlord’s offer of compensation was on the low side and did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident by the failings we identified. Nor did it take into account the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the property between May 2023 and November 2023.
  32. However, the landlord’s compensation policy did not provide a mechanism for the landlord to award damages for personal injury or other losses, such as damaged belongings. The landlord appropriately explained within both of its complaint responses, that the resident would need to submit a personal injury claim if he believed there to be impact on his health. It explained that the resident would need to claim on his own home contents insurance for damage to his belongings. However, it also acted fairly by providing the details of its own insurer, in the event that the resident did not have his own insurance or his claim was over £10,000.
  33. The landlord’s records indicate that it made a one-off payment to the resident, outside of its complaint process, to replace the resident’s bed and to cover increased heating costs. We have been unable to make an assessment concerning this, as this was not mentioned in the landlord’s complaint responses and we do not know how much the landlord paid.
  34. Overall, the landlord acknowledged some of its failings and made some attempt to put things right. But its offer of compensation did not fully address the detriment to the resident identified by this investigation. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  35. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £850 compensation, in recognition of the loss of enjoyment of the property between 17 April 2023 and 30 November 2023. This is the period the resident first reported the damp and mould and the date the resident moved into the hotel. This calculation is 25% of the rent that was payable by the resident over this period.
  36. The landlord is also ordered to pay £600 compensation, which recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in addressing and fully resolving the damp and mould in the property. This may be reduced to £100 if the landlord has already paid the £500 compensation it previously offered.
  37. This compensation is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there have been errors by the landlord which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, which had a significant impact on the resident. In this case, delays addressing and fully resolving the damp and mould in the property, significantly impacted the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord was operating under an interim complaint policy at the time of the stage 1 complaint, which said the landlord should acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 10 working days. Whereas the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (Code), in operation at the time, stated that landlords should acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 5 working days.
  2. The landlord changed its complaints policy by the time the landlord issued the stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s new policy required the landlord to issue the full stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the stage 1 formal acknowledgement. The landlord was to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue the full stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. The policy states that the landlord needs an extension, this must not exceed a further 20 working days. The landlord’s revised policy is in line with the Code.
  3. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 30 December 2023. The landlord did not formally acknowledge the complaint until 97 working days later, which significantly exceeded expected response timescales under its interim complaints policy. This left the resident unclear of the landlord’s intentions and created additional time and trouble for the resident, chasing for a complaint outcome.
  4. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response within 28 working days of the formal stage 1 acknowledgement, which again exceeded the landlord’s response timescales under its revised policy.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge either of these failings in the stage 1 complaint response. While the landlord did offer £50 compensation for providing a “response outside service level agreement”, we were unable to verify that this payment related to the failures we identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 10 July 2024. The landlord issued an initial stage 2 acknowledgement 2 working days later. The formal stage 2 acknowledgement, which set out the landlord’s understanding of the complaint and expected timescale for issuing its response, was issued 6 working days after it received the complaint. We do not consider this delay caused any significant detriment to the resident.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 August 2024 in line with its policy, explaining that it needed more time to investigate the complaint. The landlord issued the stage 2 response 9 working days later, which was within the revised response timescale it had committed to.
  8. The landlord acknowledged within the stage 2 complaint response that it had needed additional time before it could issue the full complaint response. It apologised for this and offered £50 compensation to put things right. While our investigation found no significant failings in its handling of the stage 2 complaint, it was positive that the landlord made an offer for redress if it felt there had been some detriment to the resident.
  9. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because there was significant delay in the landlord’s handling of the stage 1 complaint, which it did not adequately acknowledge or put right.
  10. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience cause to the resident, arising from its failure to acknowledge and issue the full stage 1 complaint response within expected timescales. This compensation is made in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above in this assessment.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the:
    1. Landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
    2. Landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
  2. The landlord must pay £1,600 compensation directly to the resident, which may be reduced to £1,050, if the landlord has already paid the £550 compensation, it previously offered. This compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £850 compensation, for loss of enjoyment of the property between 17 April 2023 and 30 November 2023.
    2. £600 compensation, for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay to address and fully resolve the damp and mould in the property.
    3. £150 compensation, for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, arising from its failure to acknowledge and issue the full stage 1 complaint response within expected timescales.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.