Clarion Housing Association Limited (202422759)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422759

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 June 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 the landlord’s response to a damp and mould problem and related repairs.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She moved into the 2-bedroom, ground floor flat in 2014. At the time of the events complained about the resident’s 4 children, all under the age of 10, were also living with her. During the time we have investigated, the resident disclosed that she has several vulnerabilities, including fibromyalgia and anxiety.
On 10 November 2023, the resident reported that she had “severe” damp and mould in all rooms. After an initial inspection, a surveyor attended in mid-December 2023. They diagnosed the cause being condensation from overcrowding and advised her to move belongings away from walls. The surveyor also raised several repairs, including applying mould treatments in the affected rooms, renewing extractor fans, replacing a bedroom window, and clearing gutters on the roof.
The resident complained on 11 April 2024 that the mould problem had not been resolved. She later added to her complaint. In summary, she said she was unhappy that:
1. There had been 8 missed appointments up to that date.
2. She had been advised by a surveyor that a claim for damaged personal belongings would be submitted but she had heard nothing further.
3. An offer it had made to temporarily move her to complete the mould treatments was unsuitable because she has neurodivergent children.
The resident asked to be compensated for her damaged belongings and to be permanently moved.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 3 July 2024, it apologised that it had not completed all works identified to address the mould problem. It also said:
1. Only 1 of the scheduled appointments had been missed without informing the resident, but all others were either attended or rescheduled ahead of time by the resident or landlord.
2. An operative completed a mould treatment to the bathroom in late January 2024, but this was later found to have been ineffective.
3. A surveyor attended in March 2024 who advised the resident to keep the property heated and ventilated, and to move belongings away from the wall, but also noted the lack of space to do this.
4. An operative attended to apply treatment to other rooms but noted the resident had asked the work not to go ahead and made a referral to the housing team.
5. It had offered to temporarily rehouse her and, had she agreed to this, could have completed repairs much sooner.
6. The bathroom fan was replaced in May 2024, but the kitchen fan was not because the operative said they needed to order one.
7. Her request for a managed move had not been approved but it had increased her banding to “urgent”.
8. She could claim on her insurance or through its public liability cover for her damaged belongings.
The landlord confirmed the resident would be contacted about renewing the kitchen fan. It also advised it had asked for operatives to be given training and support to be proactive about repairs to avoid delays. The landlord also awarded compensation of £565, made up of:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience from the damp and mould.
2. £200 for the distress from the delay in completing repairs.
3. £50 for not meeting its repair timescales.
4. £50 for its complaint response being delayed.
5. £15 for the missed appointment.
On the same day as receiving the initial response, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said she was unhappy that the response suggested she was the cause of the damp and mould. The resident also disputed that she had refused access. She asked for more compensation, including for her damaged personal belongings and a refund of rent.
On 13 August 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it found its initial response was reasonable and offered appropriate remedies. However, it said:
1. It acknowledged the operative who recorded a “no access” appointment could have made clearer notes.
2. There had been further delays in installing the kitchen fan.
3. It had delayed in issuing the complaint response.
The landlord confirmed an appointment to replace the fan. It awarded further compensation of £400 for the distress from the unclear notes and further delay with the repair, and £50 for not meeting its complaints response time. The landlord also explained it was exploring a “less disruptive” way to complete the mould treatment. It said an officer would provide regular updates and feedback would be given to staff about the importance of making clear notes.
In September 2024, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman, by which time the kitchen fan had been replaced. She said she was unhappy that the landlord had not completed the mould treatments. She also complained that it did not address her request to be reimbursed a portion of rent. The resident initially advised she wanted to be compensated and to be permanently moved. However, the landlord has since offered her a larger property, which she was due to move into in early June 2025. As such, she is now only seeking further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said her living conditions caused her mental and physical health to worsen. She also said she wanted to be reimbursed for costs of replacing items damaged by mould. The courts or a public liability insurer are the most effective place to consider whether there is a link between damage to someone’s health or property and the actions of the landlord. In personal injury claims, both parties usually appoint independent medical experts to provide insights, which is not something we do. A court and/or insurer are also better suited to decide if a landlord is liable for costs. Consideration in this investigation will be given to any distress and inconvenience that any failings on the landlord’s part may have caused.
After the complaints process ended, the resident said she experienced further problems. This included her experiencing problems with electrics in November 2024 and her being injured from bathroom tiles coming away from the wall. She said she made a complaint to the landlord, but this was not dealt with formally. While the more recent events may be linked, they were not part of the original complaint the resident referred to the Ombudsman. Her concerns relate to a new set of circumstances. The landlord should have investigated this complaint separately. Therefore, it is asked to do so promptly following this investigation, unless it has already done so. The resident may then refer her concerns as a new complaint to this Service if she remains unhappy.

Response to report of damp and mould

Landlords are required to complete repairs to properties within a ‘reasonable’ time. This is usually based on the risk of the damage to the residents and property. Damp and mould are listed as potential hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. As such, landlords are required to, under the Housing Act 2004, assess for any faults to a property that may be causing it and to then take action to put this right.
The resident reported that damp and mould was affecting all rooms in early November 2023. A priority case was raised on the landlord’s repair system with a timescale set to inspect within 7 days. The initial inspection took place on 4 December 2023. While it was appropriate to assign the case as a priority, it did not meet its timescale by 17 days. This was inappropriate given the extent of the problem reported and that there were children in the house.
The operative who attended confirmed that the problem was affecting every room. They noted that there was a history of boiler leaks but were unable to find evidence of an active one. An instruction was raised on the repair log for a surveyor to attend within 28 days, its timescale for non-priority issues. This timescale was reasonable given there was no evidence of an active leak. The surveyor attended on 15 December 2023, within 11 days. It did therefore attend promptly and within its timescales, which was appropriate in view of the initial delay in inspecting the problem.

Handling of damp and mould repairs

According to the landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy (LCDM policy), it states its responsibilities include:
1. Diagnosing the cause of LCDM.
2. Carrying out effective repairs where a structural fault is found.
3. Giving residents advice to reduce condensation where appropriate.
4. Adhering to its legal and contractual obligations.
5. Keeping residents updated about what action it will take to address the problem and when.
The surveyor raised several repairs, which included:
1. Clearing gutters and valley on the roof.
2. Renewing a blown window in a bedroom.
3. Replacing a kitchen fan that was blocked by a fridge/freezer.
4. Servicing the bathroom fan.
5. Treating the mould in the bathroom, bedrooms, and lounge.
The surveyor also noted that the resident was advised to keep the property heated, ventilated, and to move furniture/belongings away from walls.
Based on the evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord followed its LCDM policy to establish the potential causes of the problem. These appear to have been, based on the surveyor’s report, mainly due to condensation from being overcrowded. However, it is also apparent there were some structural faults that were likely contributing to the problem. It also gave advice to the resident about practical changes she could make to reduce condensation, in line with its LCDM policy.
The repair logs show that the landlord raised all the repairs on 29 December 2023 to be completed within its routine repair timescale. On the same day it also spoke with the resident to explain the plan. The records show it advised her it would complete mould treatments one room at a time to allow her to move belongings away from walls. The resident asked for the bathroom to be treated first as this was the most affected room. We are satisfied the evidence shows the landlord was following its LCDM policy in keeping her updated. It also considered that the resident had limited space and offered a possible solution. There was no evidence, that we have seen, that the resident disagreed with this approach. Or that there were any vulnerabilities known or disclosed at the time of the initial inspections that would have meant it the approach was unsuitable.
According to the repair logs, by the time the resident complained in April 2024, the landlord had:
1. Completed mould treatment in the bathroom on 22 January 2024.
2. Measured up for the bedroom window replacement on 12 February 2024.
3. Cleared the roof on 21 February 2024.
4. Reinspected on 14 March 2024 and found not all the repairs had been done.
5. Also agreed at the re-inspection to arrange for 2 operatives to attend to move furniture, because of health problems the resident reported at the visit.
6. Attended on 26 March 2024 to treat the mould, but with only 1 operative who reported the resident refused access and needed “support” from the housing team.
7. Rescheduled an appointment for the bathroom and kitchen fan repairs from 23 March 2024 to 1 May 2024.
By the stage 1 response, from early July 2024, the landlord had also replaced the bathroom fan on the rescheduled date. However, there was still the mould treatments, kitchen fan, and window repairs to be completed. The landlord clearly exceeded its routine repair timescale in all but the mould treatment in the bathroom. Even then, the treatment was not properly completed. The evidence also shows that some appointments were rescheduled by the landlord, and one that the resident was not notified about. We recognise the landlord was not always responsible for appointments being moved. However, it was appropriate, in the circumstances, for the landlord to take accountability for not meeting its timescales.
According to the landlord’s complaints policy, its principles of complaint handling include:
1. Understanding and listening to the resident’s complaint and what they want to put things right.
2. Investigating a complaint “thoroughly” and take personal circumstances into account.
3. Putting issues right “quickly”.
The landlord offered, in April 2024, to temporarily rehouse the resident’s family while it completed the mould treatments. This was in line with the LCDM policy. This stated it may move someone temporarily based on the amount of work or the “individual circumstances” of a resident. We also agree with the landlord’s view, expressed in its initial response, that this would have given it an opportunity to complete the mould treatments. We recognise this was not a suitable option for the resident. It was appropriate, nonetheless, that the landlord considered this as a way forward.
The resident advised she wanted to be permanently moved as an outcome to her complaint. Where overcrowding is concerned, decisions about bandings for rehousing are made by local authorities. However, the landlord’s LCDM policy states that it will provide advice and “support” to overcrowded households. It is apparent from the available records that even before the resident complained the landlord was considering ways it could support her with moving to a larger property.
The landlord also considered, in response to the complaint, whether she qualified for a managed move. The policy states it may move someone if a property becomes uninhabitable from damp and mould, and the repairs would require a temporary move for more than a year. Its response, that she did not meet the criteria for this, is supported by the evidence. While the resident was not eligible for a managed move, the landlord did increase her priority which may have increased her chances of finding a more suitable home sooner. We have, therefore, found the landlord followed its policies when considering the resident’s request to move. It also provided appropriate advice and signposting to her housing officer for support.
To resolve her complaint, the resident had also asked to be compensated for her damaged belongings. We are satisfied that the landlord’s response, in advising her to claim under her own insurer or its public liability insurer, was reasonable. It was also in line with its compensation policy. This states it may not make awards for damaged items where a tenant could claim under their insurance policy or its public liability cover. The landlord also provided details about what information the resident would need to give for it to consider this. As such, we are satisfied the landlord considered and responded appropriately to this aspect.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it may make payments for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure. This ranges between £50-£250 where there has been “some” affect and between £250-£700 for “considerable” failings with a moderate impact. Serious, long-lasting impacts may be awarded compensation of £700 and above. These levels are broadly in line with those recommended in the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. The landlord’s compensation policy also states it will award a maximum of £50 for failing to meet repair timescales and £15 for each missed appointment (where 24 hours’ notice has not been given).
We are satisfied that the landlord followed its policy and awarded compensation that reflected the impacts of its failings on the resident. Namely it recognised she had been caused distress and inconvenience over the 9-month period. The total amount of £450 awarded for this impact was reasonable. It also appropriately compensated her (at £50) for the stage 1 response, which should have taken 15 working days, being delayed by 42 working days. The amount it awarded overall (at £565) was at the top of the range (£100-£600) that our guidance on remedies recommends for failings that have adversely affected a resident, as was the case here.
In her request to escalate the complaint, the resident said she wanted to be reimbursed some of the rent she had paid. The landlord’s stage 2 response from mid-August 2024 did not address this specifically. It did though confirm it had reviewed the outcomes offered in its initial response and found them to be fair.
The resident’s request to be reimbursed rent was a new outcome, and the purpose of a stage 2 was to consider if the initial response addressed the complaint robustly. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to give a position on the request. It was linked to her concern that the compensation awarded was not fair. In the circumstances, we have not found this was serious enough to constitute a failing. We have seen that the landlord’s compensation policy states it may reimburse rent only for loss of use of a room. And there is no evidence, that we have seen, that any of the rooms were deemed unusable. As such, the resident did not meet the criteria for a rent rebate.
At the time of the stage 2 response, in mid-August 2024, the kitchen fan and bedroom window were, based on the repair logs, still to be replaced. There had also been no mould treatments applied in the bedrooms and lounge. It would have been reasonable, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), to confirm when these would be completed.
Appropriately, the landlord advised the kitchen fan would be replaced on 21 August 2024. It also confirmed that it was exploring a “less disruptive” way of treating the mould with a specialist contractor and the resident would be updated. This was clearly a complex situation, but the landlord still had obligations to meet. It was reasonable that it was considering how it could do that while meeting the resident’s individual needs.
It also increased the compensation to recognise further failings, and the distress and inconvenience caused. This was that it had not yet installed the kitchen fan or completed the mould treatments. It also recognised that its operatives’ note about her not allowing access was not clear enough and had been misinterpreted. The amount it awarded at £400 was, in our view, sufficient to recognise the ongoing distress of the situation. The landlord also recognised it had not met its stage 2 timescale of 20 working days. It exceeded its timescale by 4 working days. While this was not a significant delay, it was reasonable to award £50 given this was the second time it had not met its complaint timescales.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it encourages a “culture…of learning and improvement.” This is a key principle of the Code. As such, it was appropriate for the landlord to take learning and improve from the resident’s case. It advised that feedback had been shared with a senior manager and that training would be given to staff about the need for timely action in LCDM cases. The landlord also confirmed it had highlighted to relevant staff the importance of making clear and accurate notes. We are satisfied that these show the landlord reflected on what went wrong and took appropriate steps to improve in the areas it failed in.
The landlord offered some appropriate solutions to put right some failings in its handling of the repairs. However, it did not provide any update on the bedroom window renewal in either of its responses. There was also no record that we have seen that the window was replaced. It is a failing that the landlord cannot demonstrate that it completed this repair. We will return to this issue when considering the landlord’s actions after the complaints process ended.

Action after the complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states that, where there are outstanding actions from a complaint, it “will continue to track and monitor through to resolution”. This is also in line with the requirement of the Code to ensure remedies are “followed through to completion.”
The landlord replaced the kitchen fan on the date it had given in the stage 2 response. This was appropriate given it had taken around 8 months longer than its repair timescale aimed to.
One of the reasons the resident referred her complaint to this Service, in September 2024, was because the landlord had not completed the mould treatments. The records show that the bathroom was re-treated in late November 2024. However, at the time of issuing this report, the mould treatments in the bedrooms and lounge had not been completed.
It is evident from the records that after its final response, the landlord had been exploring the alternative method for applying the mould treatments. It is unclear what the results of this were and that the landlord communicated these to the resident, as it said it would. We have though seen that the landlord reinspected the property in October 2024. Following this it tried to arrange an appointment for 2 contractors to complete the treatments over 2 days. However, according to the notes, the resident advised it was not possible because of lack of available space. The resident also advised this Service that she declined another offer the landlord made in early January 2025 to treat other rooms for the same reason. Overall, the evidence satisfies us that the landlord made some reasonable attempts to complete the mould treatments.
In response to our request for evidence for this investigation, the landlord advised us that it had reviewed its handling of the case. It told us that it was unable to evidence that the bedroom window had been replaced. The landlord also wrote to the resident again on 3 April 2025 advising it had decided to award a further payment of £500 because the situation was unresolved. It also visited the property again to inspect for any works it could undertake in the interim, but we are unaware what the outcome was.
As explained earlier, the landlord should have identified that the window repair was not recorded as being completed during the complaint. It is therefore unable to demonstrate that it met its repair obligations. Not considering this during the complaints process was a missed opportunity. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to recognise this when it later became known to it and to take steps to put this right.

Conclusion

There were clear and undisputed failings in the landlord’s handling of most of the repairs in this case. The delays in completing repairs would have contributed to the mould problem, and caused the resident added distress and inconvenience.
The complexities and sensitivities, however, are not lost on this Service. We recognise the resident’s living situation and the vulnerabilities in the household made it more challenging both for her and the landlord to treat the mould. We have seen that the landlord made reasonable attempts to accommodate her circumstances, such as offering to temporarily rehouse her. It also explored and offered alternative ways to treat the mould problem. Meanwhile, it increased her priority banding which may have made finding a larger home more likely. The landlord has also since offered the resident one of its larger properties.
The overall payment the landlord has offered, at £1,515, is in our view appropriate and reflects the seriousness of the cumulative impacts of the situation on the resident. It is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance for cases that have had a serious impact. We have therefore not awarded a further payment.
We have though still made a finding of service failure because the landlord did not identify its failure about the bedroom window during the complaints process. Additionally, we have asked the landlord to complete, or show us it has already completed, training or feedback to staff about the importance of record-keeping. This is because this was one of the main underlying causes of the failings in its handling of this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to a damp and mould problem and related repairs.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence to us showing it has:
1. Paid the resident the £1,515 compensation offered.
2. Given training to staff within the past 6 months about the importance of keeping clear and accurate repair and communication records. If it has not already done this, it must within the next 4 weeks.