Clarion Housing Association Limited (202432103)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432103

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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which started in February 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom ground-floor flat. She lives in the property with her 3 children. The resident has fibromyalgia and mental health difficulties. She and her children also have asthma. The landlord holds a partial record of these vulnerabilities.
The landlord has provided evidence which shows the resident’s earliest report of damp and mould was in November 2023. The landlord responded by arranging to attend the property to complete a mould wash.
In June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to advise the mould had returned. It responded by raising a further repairs order but upon attendance by the operative, it was recommended that a visit from a surveyor was required.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 August 2024. She said:
1. She had been struggling with mould since she moved into the property.
2. Mould washes were not working, and her dehumidifiers were quickly filling up. She asked the landlord to consider installing ventilation in the property.
3. Her asthma was worsening due to the damp and mould.
4. She had been waiting for a surveyor to attend since June which she had been chasing but had not received any update. She asked the landlord to arrange this as soon as possible.
5. Her belongings – including clothes, shoes, toys, curtains, bedding and a sofa – had been damaged by the mould. She asked the landlord to consider compensation for the damage to these items.
During telephone calls with the landlord on 21 August 2024 and 6 September 2024, the resident raised additional complaint points. She said:
1. She believed the landlord had concealed the damp and mould by painting over it before she moved in. The property should not have been let to her in the condition it was in.
2. She had tried to make a complaint over the phone on 14 August 2024 but was told by the call handler that they could not take her complaint.
3. She had waited in for a surveyor on 3 September 2024, but they did not attend in the timeframe she had been given which resulted in a missed appointment.
On 20 September 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It summarised the actions it had taken to date. It upheld the complaint based on how long the issues had been ongoing and the impact of this on the resident. It also recognised it had provided insufficient updates to her. It said:
1. It had reviewed the repairs history for the property and found no damp or mould issues had been reported during the void works carried out in 2022.
2. It had made an error by refusing to accept the resident’s initial complaint, which she had made by telephone. This would be addressed internally.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had waited in for the surveyor’s visit on 3 September 2024 and apologised for the frustration caused by this.
4. Its maintenance team was waiting for the resident to confirm a suitable date for a surveyor to attend the property. At her request, it agreed it would arrange a joint visit for the surveyor and another member of staff. It said it would contact her within 10 working days with an appointment.
5. It could not award compensation for damage to personal belongings, but it signposted the resident to her contents insurance or its insurance department.
6. It apologised for the delay in providing the complaint response and for the other failures it had identified in its complaint investigation. It offered £300 compensation to the resident, made up of £250 for delay and inconvenience and £50 for the delay in the complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 October 2024. She said:
1. Since her phone call with the landlord on 20 September 2024, she had not received any contact from it to make an appointment for the surveyor to attend.
2. The damp and mould was continuing to affect her and her children’s health.
3. She would contact the insurance team regarding her personal items, which continued to be damaged.
4. She appreciated the landlord’s apology but was unsure whether it had taken the issues seriously or recognised the impact it was having on her and her children.
On 10 December 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
1. It was satisfied that the stage 1 response was fair, reasonable and in line with policy at the time it was issued.
2. It referred to advice given in its stage 1 letter regarding damage to the resident’s personal items.
3. It had made several attempts to contact the resident on 21, 22 and 23 October 2024 to arrange a new appointment for the surveyor to attend. It noted that an appointment had since been scheduled for 10 December 2024.
4. It had ensured that the resident’s case was active with its leaks, condensation, damp and mould (LCDM) team. The LCDM team would be her main point of contact and would keep in contact with her.
5. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered a further £50 to the resident for the delay in the complaint response.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaint process

On 16 December 2024, the landlord raised a schedule of works for remedial works to the property.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 7 January 2025. She said:
1. When she had viewed the property before moving in, the mould was visible, but she had no choice but to accept it. Upon moving in, the mould had been covered by wallpaper and paint.
2. The landlord did not wait for the surveyor to attend on 10 December 2024 before closing the complaint.
3. She felt the landlord had not considered her physical and mental health difficulties.
4. She was concerned about the long-lasting impact of the damp and mould on her and her children’s health.
The landlord has provided evidence of further correspondence with the resident since the end of the complaints process. On 23 April 2025, it contacted her to say it had reviewed her complaint. It said there had been further delays in completing the works raised to its disrepair team and the repairs were scheduled for completion on 1 May 2025. It acknowledged the inconvenience caused while the repairs remained outstanding and offered a further £250 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould impacted her and her children’s health. We are not medical specialists, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident may choose to seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident has highlighted concerns that the landlord was aware that there were damp issues in the property when it was void. Her concerns are noted. However, our findings must be based on documentary evidence. We have not seen a schedule of works completed during the void period as part of our investigation, which would make it difficult for us to assess this aspect of the case. Our investigation will focus on the events following the resident’s first recorded report of a potential problem on 1 November 2023.

Reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy states it has 3 repair priorities (emergency, non-emergency and complex). It says it will complete complex repairs within 90 days.
The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp and mould (LCDM) policy says it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould “in a timely and effective manner” dealing with the cause of the problem, not just the symptoms. It states it will communicate with residents “clearly and regularly” informing them of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues and timetabling of works.
The resident first reported damp and mould affecting her property on 1 November 2023. She reported mould growth in her children’s bedroom. She informed the landlord at the time of her report that her children had asthma. The landlord responded on the same day by raising a 7-day priority repair and arranging an appointment to attend the property on 10 November 2023. This shows the landlord acted quickly. It was reasonable and appropriate for it to treat this as a priority given the potential health impact on the resident’s children.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that this job was completed on 18 December 2023 when it carried out a full mould treatment of the affected areas of the property. It is unclear why it was unable to complete the job on 10 November 2023, which points to a record keeping issue within its repair logs. However, its complaint responses indicate that this was because the landlord was unable to gain access, suggesting there were mitigating factors which contributed to the delay.
On 17 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to advise the mould had returned. The landlord responded by raising a 28-day repair. It noted on its repair records that a job for the same issue had been raised in the previous 12 months. It is unclear, given the circumstances, why this was not raised as a 7-day priority repair as it had been previously. However, it is noted that the landlord did attend on 27 June 2024, 8 working days later, which was appropriate given it was a reoccurring issue.
Due to the lack of detail in the repair records, we are unable to establish what the landlord did during its visit on 27 June 2024 and whether a further mould wash was completed. However, a timeline provided by the landlord for our investigation and its complaint responses indicate an operative attended and recommended a surveyor’s visit. It was reasonable and appropriate of the landlord to recommend a survey of the property. This showed that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and it was committed to identifying the cause of the damp rather than just treating the symptoms. This was in line with the approach of its LCDM policy.
Despite recommending a survey of the property, which was a positive step, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out a risk assessment at this visit. Its LCDM policy says that in cases of re-occurring damp and mould, it will undertake a “comprehensive risk assessment”. It apparently did not do this, which was unsatisfactory. The landlord should have assessed the circumstances of the household and used this information to prioritise the repairs accordingly.
Between 22 July 2024 and 16 August 2024, the landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it 4 times to request an update regarding an appointment for the surveyor to attend. It is unreasonable that this was necessary. The landlord should have kept the resident updated and booked an appointment for a surveyor to attended at the earliest opportunity. Its failure to communicate with the resident caused her uncertainty and distress. It also resulted in her having to make repeat calls, which added to her time and effort in trying to get the issues resolved.
On 29 August 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and booked an appointment for a surveyor to attend on 3 September 2024. This was a positive step given the complaint she had raised. However, the surveyor did not attend within the timeslot the resident had been given, leading to no access. A telephone call from the resident to the landlord on 6 September 2024 indicated that the surveyor arrived late and carded the property when she was not in, stating they had tried to call her. The resident said she did not receive a call and had waited in all morning for the appointment. This was not disputed by the landlord in its complaint investigation. While it is acknowledged that delays are sometimes unavoidable, the landlord should have communicated better with the resident on the day of the appointment. Given the length of time she had been waiting for the survey to be completed, this was unreasonable and led to avoidable distress and inconvenience.
On 16 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on her complaint and to enquire when the surveyor’s visit would be rebooked, as she had not received any further contact following her telephone call 10 days earlier. It was not appropriate or fair that the resident had to chase the landlord for a new appointment for the survey. It should have had oversight of the resident’s case and rebooked the appointment with her at the earliest opportunity, especially given the original appointment had been missed due to an error on the landlord’s part.
The lack of communication from the landlord to the resident contributed to its failings. The landlord’s LCDM policy states it will communicate with residents “clearly and regularly”. It did not do this, which was unreasonable. The resident was not kept informed, leading her to complain to the landlord. In its stage 1 response, it agreed to her request for a joint visit to conduct the survey of the property, which was reasonable, and said it would contact her within 10 working days. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records to suggest it did this, which resulted in the resident escalating her complaint. Throughout the timeline of her complaint, she repeatedly chased the landlord for progress updates. We find the landlord should have been more proactive in providing the resident with regular updates. If it had done this, it may have avoided additional time and trouble for the resident.
At the time of the landlord’s final complaint response, the survey to the property had been scheduled for 10 December 2024 but not completed. We have not seen a copy of the surveyor’s report, but we have evidence of a schedule of remedial works which the landlord raised on 16 December 2024. The landlord’s records indicate the following works were raised as complex repairs:
1. Install passive inwall vent in 3 bedrooms.
2. Complete mould wash in the kitchen, lounge and 3 bedrooms.
3. Overhaul windows throughout property to ensure wind and watertight.
4. Overhaul patio doors to ensure wind and watertight.
5. Install kitchen extractor fan.
On 2 January 2025, the landlord contacted the resident and booked an appointment for 25 February 2025 for completion of the remedial works, which was within its 90-day timescale for complex repairs. The landlord attended the property for the booked appointment but was unable to gain access. The evidence suggests that the landlord did what it reasonably could to try and complete the remedial works within its complex repairs timescale by offering the resident a cancellation, which was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. However, due to mitigating factors, the repair records indicate a new appointment was arranged for 1 May 2025. We are unclear of the current position regarding the damp and mould in the resident’s property. Upon request, neither party provided a further update to us at the time of our investigation. However, there is no indication that the landlord did not complete the required repairs on 1 May 2025.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.” The Ombudsman expects a landlord to resolve reports of damp and mould within a reasonable time. The landlord did not do this, as it took nearly 6 months to complete a survey of the property and raise necessary remedial works. While it is recognised that there were mitigating factors, the landlord’s actions contributed to the overall delay. Had the landlord followed these recommendations it might have prevented a service failure.
The landlord’s records also show it did not act with any urgency in responding to potential hazards caused by the damp and mould. Landlords are required to keep a property secure and safe using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould are hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but the landlord is required to consider potential hazards and how it can avoid or minimise these. While the landlord completed a mould wash following the resident’s initial report in November 2023, which was a positive step, it is unclear whether it completed another mould wash when she reported the mould had returned in June 2024. The mould wash raised as part of the remedial works in December 2024 should have also been raised separately to the other repairs and treated with more urgency. Ultimately, the landlord failed to identify the source of the issue and complete a long-lasting repair within a reasonable timeframe, which resulted in the resident’s household being exposed to potential hazards for a prolonged period.
The resident said that both she and her children suffer with asthma, which was exacerbated by the damp and mould in the property. The landlord was initially made aware of this on 1 November 2023 at the time of her initial report, and again on 14 August 2024, when she made her complaint. During the landlord’s complaints process, the resident frequently expressed concerns regarding how the damp and mould was affecting her and her children’s health. When we asked the landlord for details of any vulnerabilities or special circumstances, it responded with details of the household’s health conditions, but asthma had not been recorded. Therefore, it did not fully update its records to reflect the household’s circumstances, which was unsatisfactory.
This demonstrates poor record keeping in respect of updating the resident’s vulnerabilities, which resulted in the landlord failing to respond appropriately to her reports of damp and mould. We find the landlord should have acted with more urgency. It should have identified the household as vulnerable and prioritised the resident’s case on this basis. The length of time the resident was left waiting for the landlord to progress her case was unreasonable given the landlord was aware of the household’s health conditions and the impact of the living conditions on the resident and her family.
Overall, we find there were failings by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident and her children did not have full enjoyment of the property over a prolonged period due to the damp and mould. In its response to the resident’s reports, the landlord showed a lack of urgency and was slow to respond to potential hazards under HHSRS. It held information regarding the household’s vulnerabilities but failed to use it, leading to avoidable distress and inconvenience. Poor communication also added to the unreasonable delays that the resident experienced. Considering the above, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould.
The landlord offered £250 for delay and inconvenience at stage 1, which was proportionate at the time of its response, but no additional compensation for the substantive issue was offered at stage 2. On 23 April 2025, the landlord offered the resident an additional £250 compensation (increasing its total offer to £500 for delay and inconvenience). This shows an attempt by the landlord to address the detriment to the resident and to put things right, which was reasonable. However, given its subsequent compensation offer was 4 months after it had issued its final complaint response and was prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement, this alone is not considered proportionate to redress the failings identified in this investigation and cannot fairly be considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP).
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will consider compensation under certain circumstances, including a failure in its service. It does not provide any specific details of the awards it will make but states it will assess each case individually. It says it will consider “the extent, severity, and impact of the failure” and “consider any vulnerabilities or individual circumstances”. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards of £600 and above are considered appropriate where there have been failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.
Therefore, we consider an additional payment of £250 to be appropriate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional failings identified in this report. This brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident for distress and inconvenience to £750. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £500, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
The resident also asked the landlord to award compensation for her belongings which she said were damaged due to mould. In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised her to make a claim under her own contents insurance policy. It also referred her to its insurance department at the same time. In the circumstances of this case, we consider this an appropriate response to the resident’s request. Landlords are entitled to rely on insurance to cover the cost of such claims, and the landlord would not be obliged to consider a claim itself outside the insurance process. We will not comment on the outcome of a claim if one is made to an external insurer as insurers are separate organisations from landlords and we can only look at the actions of social landlords.

Complaint handling

The resident contacted the landlord by telephone on 14 August 2024 to request an update on the surveyor’s visit. At this time, she also asked to make a complaint regarding the ongoing damp and mould issues. It refused to accept her complaint on the basis that it was awaiting a reply from a chaser email that had been sent on 22 July 2024 to its LCDM team. This was not fair or reasonable, and obstructed the resident’s access to the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident’s call was reviewed as part of its stage 1 investigation. It concluded that the resident was incorrectly advised she could not make a complaint. Under section 1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), landlords are required to raise a complaint when a resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to their service request, even if the handling of it is ongoing. The landlord did not do this, which made it more difficult for the resident to raise a complaint, causing additional time and effort. The landlord recognised its error and apologised for this in its stage 1 response, as well as stating the issue would be addressed internally, but we believe this did not go far enough. The landlord should have considered awarding compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble it had caused in relation to this complaint handling failure.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Based on these timescales, there were delays in the landlord providing its responses at both stage 1 and 2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and escalation request within its 5-working-day timescale. However, its responses were 11 working days late at stage 1 and 20 working days late at stage 2. This led to a combined delay of 31 working days, which was unsatisfactory.
The landlord set out in its acknowledgement emails to the resident the timescales within which it would aim to respond (in line with its complaints policy). It said it would advise if an extension was required, but there is no evidence that it informed her at either stage that it expected its responses to be delayed, which was not fair or reasonable. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for the responses and contacting the Ombudsman for support prior to the completion of the internal complaints process. This was a failing by the landlord, as it added to her time and trouble in seeking a resolution to her complaint. It should have contacted her to advise an extension was required and to provide a new date for when it would respond. If it had done this, it would have likely avoided additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord did not effectively monitor the complaint and outstanding actions through its complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord agreed to arrange a joint visit from a surveyor and another member of staff, but this had not been completed at the point of its stage 2 response, 11 weeks later. Under section 6 of the Code, landlords are required to ensure any actions outstanding following its complaint responses are tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident. The landlord did not do this following its stage 1 response, which contributed to the delays the resident experienced.
The landlord’s final response also did not adequately review the stage 1 response and assess where things had gone wrong at this stage. As a result, it failed to acknowledge the full extent of its failings and offer adequate redress. It attempted to put things right by offering an apology for the inconvenience caused and offering assurances regarding future communication. While these were positive steps, we consider it did not go far enough when reviewing the complaint in its entirety. It made no offer additional offer of compensation at stage 2 for the substantive issue, which was insufficient. The landlord should have used its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right. It therefore should have reviewed the offer of compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble it had caused.
The landlord offered £50 at stage 1 and an additional £50 at stage 2 in recognition of the delayed complaint responses. It was appropriate that it considered its own complaint handling at each stage and addressed any delays accordingly. However, we find its compensation offer to be insufficient given the additional complaint handling failures identified in this report.
Considering the circumstances of the case, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s complaints policy does not provide any details of the awards it will make in the event of a failure in complaint handling. This Service considers a payment of £200 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100 for complaint handling, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This should be written by a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £950, which comprises:
  1. £750 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of the damp and mould.
  2. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified.
  3. This should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
  4. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £600, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
3. Share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.
4. Contact the resident to establish if there are any outstanding repair issues associated with damp and mould. If there are, the landlord should address these in line with its relevant policies and procedures.
5. Contact the resident to see if she requires any support or assistance with making a liability claim to its insurers for her damaged belongings (if she has not already done so).
6. Contact the resident to ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect her current household circumstances.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.