Clarion Housing Association Limited (202433894)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433894

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The resident’s request for a transfer.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat. Ther resident lives in the property with her husband and 2 children. The resident’s daughter has asthma.
The resident raised a formal complaint with her landlord on 15 March 2024. The complaint was regarding damp and mould returning to her home following works which the landlord completed as part of a legal disrepair case (LDR). She said the damp and mould prevented her from completing a mutual exchange.
To resolve her complaint, she requested full disclosure of all specialist reports and an independent inspection of the property, with an apology for any deficiencies found. She also wanted the landlord to fully resolve the damp and mould issues, with provisions for the landlord to decant the household during any remedial works. She said if the landlord could not resolve the damp and mould, she wanted assistance in relocating to another property via a managed transfer or through liaising with the local authority.
On 5 June 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord to amend her initial complaint. She referred to information she had received as part of a recent subject access request which she felt showed the landlord was aware of the poor quality of her rendering as far back as 2019. She said a surveyor had confirmed that the rendering was either completed to very poor standard or not done at all. She queried why the landlord had not rectified the rendering if it was aware of the issues. She said her family had to live with great distress and impact to their health in that time. The resident said due to the landlord’s negligence and her suffering, she wanted an immediate managed move.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 June 2024. It stated the following:
1. It referred to an email the resident had received as part of a subject access request which referenced the rendering not being completed to standard. It said it formed part of the settled LDR and it was unable to elaborate further on the internal email. It said the works were subsequently completed. It said it had shared all relevant information with her solicitor and if she was seeking any of the legal documentation, she should contact her legal representative.
2. It said it attended in April 2024 and the operative noted the rendering to the side of the home was in poor condition. It said the rendering to the side of the home did not form part of the LDR and its condition would not be impacting the recent mould growth. It said it was awaiting a quote to complete the works and would update the resident accordingly. It said it offered to complete a mould wash in affected areas but the resident said she could do it herself. It said a surveyor attended on 15 May 2024 and it attached a written summary of the findings and photographs taken.
3. It said it had raised a works order to inspect the chimney stack, replace broken roof tiles, and cement the valley. It confirmed that on the day of attendance and despite the resident confirming multiple times that the operative would have the equipment, the operative was unable to check the chimney. It said this was due to it needing to erect scaffolding. It then could not erect the scaffolding due to the neighbour’s behaviour. It said it had spoken to the leaseholder of the neighbour’s property who confirmed the work could take place undisturbed. It said it would notify the resident of the upcoming visits.
4. The landlord said it had installed a “vericon cube” in the resident’s property to monitor the humidity readings through the home. It said it had left it in the property between 8-12 weeks and then it would collect it for assessment. It said the resident rescheduled the appointment to complete a 3 stage mould wash to 20 June 2024. The landlord said it discussed moving furniture to allow better air flow through the room. It said it recognised there were limitations for the resident due to space restrictions.
5. It said it had assessed the resident’s case for a management transfer and visited the property on 15 May 2024. It said the presence of mould did not constitute the property as uninhabitable and requiring an urgent move. It said it had identified the repair concerns and detailed the steps taken and further actions to address the matters. It outlined the options available to the resident to progress a move.
6. It apologised for the resident’s experiences and outlined the follow up actions. It offered £100 for the time taken to respond to the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 30 September 2024. She felt the landlord should have included the rendering to the right hand side of her property in its initial scope of works. She said the delay had directly contributed to the persistent issues. She felt the recommendations given to her placed the burden of resolving the problem on her, rather than addressing the root cause of the damp and mould. The resident said the stage 1 response acknowledged delays and communication failures, but the compensation offered did not reflect the prolonged distress and inconvenience caused. She felt the landlord failed to communicate effectively with her neighbour which had led to significant delays in erecting the scaffolding and completing the works.
The resident said the landlord’s response failed to commit to an independent inspection and redirecting her to her legal representative was unsatisfactory. She said there were discrepancies regarding the completion of works in 2019 and the landlord needed to address and resolve it. She said the landlord failed to consider her daughter’s health and the impact of damp and mould which she felt was discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
On 7 October 2024, the resident raised a further complaint. This was in relation to incidents which had taken place with her neighbour over the years and how she felt the landlord had dismissed them. She referred to a recent incident in which the neighbour was aggressive, threatening, and repeatedly kicking her door, stating that her children were too loud. The resident said she felt unsafe and anxious about returning to her home. She said she had previously requested the landlord to move her because of the neighbour. The resident said she did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour unless it planned to move her immediately.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 December 2024. It said:
1. The resident had requested an independent inspection but she had not provided any specific commentary detailing what she disagreed with in the findings from the most recent survey. It said it was confident its findings were just and accurate and it was unable to progress her request.
2. Its position remained the same in relation to sharing information from either of the previous LDR cases.
3. It confirmed it had completed all the works and it had not received any further mould related reports.
4. It had provided a comprehensive response regarding the consideration of a management transfer. It outlined the steps taken regarding the resident’s reports regarding her neighbour. It said there may be an element of risk to the resident but it was not deemed high at that stage. It said it was possible that the issues could be resolved with positive intervention such as mediation or noise testing but it could not do so if the resident did not want it to speak to her neighbour. It outlined the process for appealing the decision.
5. It offered an additional £100 for the complaint response being provided outside of the service level agreement.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she was still experiencing damp and mould all over the property. She said the bathroom had slugs in it, her belongings had mould on them, and everything smelled. She said the landlord installed the “vericon cube” but never collected it or informed her of any findings, despite chasing it. The resident would like the landlord to resolve the damp and mould issue in the property and said if it could not do so, it should move her. She said she could not undergo a mutual exchange while the property still had mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has had 2 previous legal disrepair claims against the landlord. The latest claim was settled in January 2024. This Service cannot consider complaints which were the subject of court proceedings or where the resident had the opportunity to raise the subject matter as part of legal proceedings. As such, this investigation will only consider the landlord’s handling of the issues from February 2024 onwards.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on the household’s health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Although, we will consider any impact that resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident has also stated that the landlord’s failure to consider the impact of the damp and mould on her daughter’s health was discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. The Ombudsman cannot decide if a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010. Only a court can do that. However, we can look at how the landlord handled the issue and whether it acted fairly, based on its duties and policies.
The resident has referred to anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour. This complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and was not brought as a complaint to the Ombudsman. Therefore, we will be unable to investigate the landlord’s handling of the matter. Any reference to the reported ASB will be for contextual purposes only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord has a leaks, condensation, damp and mould policy. It states the purpose of the policy is to support the safety and wellbeing of residents in their homes. It says living with condensation, damp and mould can have serious health implications for residents.
It says where particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issues are identified, it will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment which may result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstances. It says actions may include providing and funding dehumidifiers, installing ventilation systems, dry lining walls or applying mould resistant coverings.
The policy also states that where appropriate the landlord will pay compensation in line with its compensation policy as a result of any failure to deliver the service it has committed to.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord has evidenced that its initial response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable. Following the settled LDR, it showed it had carried out investigations into the potential causes of damp and mould in the property and outlined actions it could take to further inspect and remedy the issues. This was in line with its policy.
It is understandable that the resident was concerned about the reported issues with the rendering, as she believed the landlord had previously addressed the issue. The Ombudsman has not investigated the action taken in relation to the rendering prior to the LDR settlement. The landlord’s stage 1 response concluded that the right hand flank was not part of the previous works. It also said it did not believe it to be impacting the mould growth in the resident’s home. The landlord’s response was not appropriate as it contradicts the information in its internal emails which suggested that the condition of the rendering could cause cold bridging and mould in the property.
The re-rendering was completed on 4 November 2024, this was almost 6 months after the inspection which took place on 15 May 2024. It appears some of the delays were initially due to the neighbour refusing access. The landlord appropriately contacted the leaseholder and confirmed there would be no further issues in its stage 1 response in June 2024. In its stage 2 response, the landlord states that some of the delays were also due to poor weather in October 2024. The landlord’s response did not sufficiently address the reasons for the delays between June 2024 and October 2024. Given the potential impact on the resident’s living conditions, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have completed the re-rendering sooner.
In her correspondence to the landlord on 15 May 2024, the resident said the prolonged exposure to mould had compromised her family’s respiratory health and wellbeing. On 20 May 2024, the landlord confirmed it had suggested it should carry out a mould wash every 3 months. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 5 June 2024 regarding her concerns for her children’s health and her mental wellbeing. On 15 August 2024, the resident referred to ending her live if she found she could no longer bear the living conditions. And in her stage 2 escalation she referred to her daughter’s health and that the landlord had discriminated against her under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord appropriately completed safeguarding referrals following the resident’s email on 15 August 2024. However, it has not evidenced that it responded to the reports of health concerns and potential risks posed by the damp and mould in the property. Its stage 1 response did not make reference to reported health concerns and its stage 2 response reiterated that she had not met the criteria for a transfer. But it did not comment on the resident’s health concerns or ask for any further information to support her claim. This is not in line with its obligations and its policy which states that damp and mould can have serious health implications for residents.
While the landlord had taken some actions to address the issue, it is clear the issue was recurring. The landlord’s suggestion to complete a mould wash every 3 months also indicated the landlord was aware of this and that the mould was likely to reoccur. Given the vulnerabilities in the household and the reported impact from the resident, a risk assessment would have assisted in considering if the property was habitable and if any additional actions were required such as those outlined in its policy. In the absence of this information, we cannot conclude that the landlord handled the resident’s concerns in line with its policy or obligations. It also did not show or evidence consideration to its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed the work it had completed which included the rendering and the mould treatment. However, it did not confirm the outcome of the inspection of the chimney breast or the “vericon cube” which it referred to in the stage 1 response. It said it would inspect the chimney to determine whether there was any water ingress resulting in dampness in the base of the chimney breast in the bedroom. It said the “vericon cube” would be left in the property for 8-12 weeks and then collected and assessed.
These would have been positive steps in identifying the cause of the issue if the landlord could evidence its findings, which it has not done so. As such, the landlord has not shown that it carried out the actions within a reasonable timeframe. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who is still reporting damp and mould in the property.
The landlord has referred in its correspondence to overcrowding and that the humidity levels could lead to condensation in the home. The landlord offered advice to the resident which was reasonable. As stated above, a risk assessment would have also assisted with considering if it should apply other remedies, such as dehumidifiers. In the absence of the findings from the inspection of the chimney breast and the vericon cube, it would be difficult for the landlord to confirm the cause of the issue and what would resolve it.
Overall, while the landlord was initially responsive and has evidenced that it has taken some positive steps to address the issues in the property. It failed to evidence that it had taken all the steps it could to identify the cause of the issue and consider the risks to the family in living with recurring mould. Its response regarding the rendering was confusing and the time taken to resolve the issues is not appropriate.
The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. Orders have been made to put things right. As per its policy, the landlord should pay compensation for where it has failed to deliver a service it has committed to. Therefore, the landlord must pay an additional £300 to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident and delayed resolving matters. It is broken down as:
1. £100 for the failure to evidence any findings from the chimney inspection and “vericon cube”. This has delayed reaching a resolution and likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
2. £100 for its failure to follow its policies and obligations in relation to assessing any risks posed to the household.
3. £100 for the confusion regarding the rendering and the time taken to carry out the repair.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer

The landlord’s leaks, damp and mould policy states that where homes are overcrowded it will work with residents to explore solutions which may include moving to a more suitable home if this is available and appropriate.
The landlord’s management transfer policy outlines the conditions for a management transfer as where a tenant is experiencing:
1. Anti-social behaviour or harassment that puts them at risk of serious harm.
2. Domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put, the tenant or a member of their household at serious risk of harm.
It states that in very exceptional circumstances it may utilise a management transfer where a property is uninhabitable or unsafe because of condensation, damp or mould issues. And when it cannot address the problems within a timeframe where a temporary decant would be reasonable.
As part of her complaint, the resident requested that the landlord relocate the household to an alternative property through a managed transfer or through advocating on her behalf with her local council. In its stage 1 response the landlord appropriately outlined the criteria for a managed transfer. It said based on its inspection on 15 May 2024 the presence of mould did not constitute the property as uninhabitable or requiring an urgent move. It outlined the options available to the resident and the latest update from the local council. The landlord’s response was reasonable and addressed the complaint.
In her stage 2 escalation, the resident said the persistent damp and mould made their living conditions extremely challenging, especially for her daughter’s asthma. She felt the criteria for an urgent move should consider the cumulative impact on the family’s wellbeing and the failure to adequately address the issues over an extended period. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that it provided a comprehensive response to the request and its position remained the same.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the resident met the criteria for management transfer and this report has already considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding the household’s health. The landlord outlined the steps for the resident to appeal the decisions should she wish to do so, which was reasonable and in line with its policy.
On 7 October 2024, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her complaints regarding her neighbour. She said she had previously requested the landlord move her because of the neighbour’s behaviour. She said following the most recent incident, the family were traumatised, and she was afraid to be in her home.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord provided the outcome of the rehousing request and the reasons why the threshold had not been met on that occasion. As already stated, it outlined how the resident could appeal the decisions and the other options available for her to move. It said its Housing Resident Liaison officer had been supporting her with a move and mutual exchange. The landlord’s records have shown that an ASB case was opened for the resident at the time, safeguarding referrals were made, and a risk assessment was completed. The landlord’s response was again, reasonable, and in line with its policy.
The Ombudsman has noted that the property is overcrowded and that is likely contributing to the living conditions. This report has acknowledged the landlord’s failures in its handling of the damp and mould and we are sympathetic to the resident’s situation. However, the landlord has no obligation to move residents due to overcrowding and the tenancy agreement states that the number of people allowed to reside in the property is 3. Therefore, where a household is overcrowded due to natural family growth, this should be appropriately considered as part of a housing application to the local authority, with applicants’ bandings reflecting this.
To conclude, the landlord has evidenced that it followed its policy in relation to the resident’s transfer requests. While the resident is yet to find another suitable home, the landlord has evidenced how it has worked with the resident to explore the options available to her. As such, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord operates a 2–stage complaints procedure. It states that at stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. It says if it needs additional time to respond, it will agree this with the complainant and not aim to extend this by more than 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It states that when that occurs it will always provide the resident with details of the Ombudsman.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response 65 working days after the formal complaint. It provided its stage 2 response 46 working days after the stage 2 escalation. The delays were not appropriate or in line with its policy. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £100 for the delays and said it was due to high customer contact at the time. It did not provide the reasons for the delays at stage 2 but it did offer an additional £100 to reflect the failing. In line with its procedure, it should have updated the resident, agreed an extension, and provided the details for this Service. There is no evidence of it doing so.
The landlord offered a total of £200 for the delays in responding to the resident. This amount was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which would have an adverse impact on the resident. Therefore, we will not order further compensation for the delays. However, we would still expect the landlord to evidence how it had learnt from its mistakes, to ensure it does not happen again. It has not provided evidence of this.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had identified a few areas where it failed to follow its policy and resolve matters within the timescales it held itself to. It said it had added the specific information for those matters in the response. While the landlord provided a detailed response to the resident, it was not clear what the specific failures it referred to were and what action it had taken to put them right. This is particularly evident in the conclusion and compensation section of the response where the landlord only offered £100 compensation for the time taken to respond to the complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have summarised the failures it was initially referring to and outlined the steps it had taken to put them right.
It has already been acknowledged that the landlord’s complaint responses failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding her household’s health and that it had discriminated against her daughter under the Equality Act 2010. In not doing so, the landlord appeared dismissive and likely caused time and trouble to the resident in having to repeatedly raise the issue.
To sum, while the complaint responses were comprehensive and showed an attempt to address the issues raised, the landlord did not address all the issues. It did not follow its policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in relation to responding to the complaint. And although it offered £200 in compensation which was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, it did not show any learning regarding what it would do differently in future. The stage 1 response could have also been clearer regarding the failures identified. These failures alone may not have constituted an adverse finding, although, taken altogether, we have found service failure.
The landlord must pay the resident a further £100 for the additional failures identified, this is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which the landlord has not fully put right. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to reflect on any changes it has or could make to improve the time taken to respond to complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident for the additional failures identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
The landlord must provide its findings from the chimney inspection and “vericon cube”. The landlord must also confirm its position on what it believes the cause of the damp and mould in the property is. If further repairs or investigation is required, it must provide an action plan with defined timescales for it to complete the work.
The landlord must complete a risk assessment in line with the HHSRS and taking into account the vulnerabilities in the household. If any risks are identified, the landlord must outline what steps it is taking to mitigate the risks in line with its responsibilities under the HHSRS.
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £600 in compensation, this is broken down as:
1. £200 it previously offered for the complaint handling delays, if it has not already done so.
2. £100 for the additional complaint handling failures.
3. £300 awarded for the failures related to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord should reflect on any changes it has or could make to improve the time taken to respond to complaints.