Clarion Housing Association Limited (202436394)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202436394

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property.
2. The resident’s report of subsidence to the kitchen floor.
3. The resident’s request for a replacement front door.
4. The bath replacement.
5. Its communication on the pre-action protocol process and compensation on the issues.
6. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a house owned by the landlord. The tenancy started in October 2023. The landlord recorded several vulnerabilities for the resident on its system, including renal and mental health issues.
Between January and June 2024, the resident reported several issues in the property including a leak, damp, mould, a sloping kitchen floor, and a bowed front door.
In April 2024, the landlord received a “letter of claim” and “schedule of disrepair” from the resident’s legal representative.
The landlord recorded the resident’s formal complaint on its system on 12 June 2024. It said she complained via telephone that it had made no progress with fixing the subsiding kitchen floor. During a follow up call, she discussed the outstanding repairs.
On 9 August 2024, the landlord responded at stage 1. It said that while it had inspected the reported issues, its surveyor had left the organisation and there was insufficient information recorded on its system about the repairs. It explained it had arranged further inspections and deemed the property required a structural survey. It also advised it would engage a specialist via its insurer concerning the suspected subsidence. It informed the resident that if she needed a larger bath for medical reasons, she should seek approval from an Occupational Therapist (OT). It recognised the delay completing the repairs and offered £650 compensation.
Towards the end of August 2024, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure as the repairs had not progressed.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 17 December 2024. It said the insurer’s loss adjuster inspected the flooring in August 2024 and did not identify subsidence. It explained its disrepair surveyor inspected the property and set out a schedule of works relating to the claim. It offered the resident an additional £100 compensation for the delay responding at stage 2 and £50 for an overdue repair to the kitchen floor, resulting in total redress of £800. It explained that it would assess any additional compensation as damages within her disrepair claim. It would not comment further on the issues so as not to prejudice the outcome.
The landlord’s final complaint response dissatisfied the resident and so she referred her complaint to this Service. She said she informed it on several occasions prior to its stage 2 response that she did not progress with the disrepair claim. Furthermore, she was unhappy the repairs were outstanding. To resolve the complaint, she wants it to provide a clear breakdown and timeline of the repairs it is going to do, consider a decant while it completes the works, and further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said the way the landlord managed the issues caused significant stress and impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with her. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
The resident said she moved from her previous property to her current tenancy as part of an incentive scheme with her local authority. However, the local authority delayed moving her into her new home after she had signed the tenancy agreement, meaning she was responsible for both rents. We cannot consider complaints about allocations by local authorities where this is regarding their duties as a council. This is better suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
We may only investigate matters which have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, as per paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. After it issued its final complaint response, the resident expressed other concerns to us, such as the conduct of the landlord’s operatives. It is open for her to contact it directly and make a separate complaint if she is unhappy about matters that occurred post-stage 2.

Repairing obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it should complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The landlord provided a copy of the tenancy agreement to this Service. However, it has not submitted a copy of the document titled “Terms and Conditions of Tenancy” that it references within the signed agreement.

Leak, damp and mould

The landlord’s leaks, condensation, damp, and mould policy explain that in cases where the issues are not straightforward, it may need to conduct further investigations to diagnose the problem. It will carry out any repairs in accordance with its repairs policy. It will track and manage cases relating to leaks, condensation, damp, and mould.
Where severe or recurring damp or mould issues are identified, the policy explains the landlord will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment which may result in a range of actions to support residents depending on their circumstances. Actions may include providing and funding dehumidifiers, installing ventilation systems, dry lining walls or applying mould resistant coverings, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis.
Our spotlight report on damp and mould states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord evidenced that it self-assessed against the 26 recommendations set out in our spotlight report.
Following a report of leaks, damp, and mould within a property, it is reasonable for a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
The landlord’s records show its neighbourhood officer reported penetrating mould under the window in the bedroom above the main entrance door in October 2023, prior to the resident moving into the property. The void team responded that the “stain under the window has had a second stain block and is no longer visible.” The landlord failed to evidence that it properly considered the cause of the stain. This was a failing. Applying stain block alone is an insufficient remedy when mould is suspected. The landlord’s actions here indicate it did not take the report of mould seriously or conduct appropriate investigations at the earliest opportunity.
Repair records show the resident reported a leak from the bathroom into the kitchen on 2 January 2024. The landlord attended on 10 January 2024 and 26 January 2024 to remedy the issue. This was in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
There was further contact from the resident concerning a bathroom leak in March 2024, however comments from an operative dated 17 April 2024 state upon attendance, the ceiling and wall were dry. From the limited evidence available, we cannot determine if the same bathroom leak continued after January 2024.
Records show the resident reported damp and mould in the kitchen in January 2024. An operative inspected the mould on 8 January 2024. The survey stated that the kitchen smelled of mould and follow on works were required. It evidenced it reattended on 15 January 2024 as she asked them to return to show them mould growth on a kitchen pan. The operative recorded, “[the] whole kitchen needs to be removed to treat mould behind the units.” At this stage, we find the landlord attended within a reasonable timescale following the resident’s initial report of damp and mould.
The landlord’s call records demonstrate the resident chased it for a response on 19 January, 5 February, and 14 February 2024 as there had been no further work to resolve the issues. This establishes it failed to take meaningful action following the previous inspections or manage her expectations appropriately.
A surveyor inspected the property again on 21 February 2024. It recorded a very heavy smell of mould in the kitchen and recommended the removal of the base unit to check the wall for damp. At stage 2, the landlord said an operative attended on 15 March 2024 and removed 2 backboards from the kitchen units, found a leak on the mains water pipe to the boiler, replaced the defective pipe and refitted the unit backboards. Records show the resident called the landlord again on 19 March and 5 May 2024 chasing action as the mould in the kitchen continued. It failed to evidence whether it evaluated the moisture level of the kitchen walls at this time or identified any mould growth behind the units. This was unreasonable.
Another survey took place on 27 June 2024 in which the surveyor recorded that an historic leak saturated the plaster and drying out was required behind the kitchen units. They said a follow up visit would take place with a manager. The landlord’s records indicate it arranged a joint inspection for 18 July 2024 and there are records of a second joint inspection on 23 August 2024. While we recognise the landlord was also investigating other outstanding repairs around the same time to decide how best to proceed, it is evident it failed to take decisive action to remedy the damp and mould.
The landlord conducted a survey as part of the pre-action protocol on housing conditions on 7 November 2024. It stated there were no visible signs of damp or mould within the kitchen apart from staining following an old leak from the bathroom above. It said the some of the kitchen base units may need removing to check the condition of the wall and plaster. The landlord told this Service it had scheduled the works for May 2025. The resident explained she was unavailable due to a hospital appointment and so it rescheduled the works for August 2025. We note that in the interim, its repair records show she continued to report problems with damp and mould inside the kitchen cupboards.
In our view, the landlord’s appointed experts told it on several occasions since January 2024 that kitchen units needed to be removed for further investigation. It is a concern that 18 months later, this has not yet happened. This goes far beyond the timescales set out in its repairs policy. After considering the evidence available, we conclude it failed to act in a timely manner or in accordance with its policies. This is a failing in its handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould. We recognise the landlord offered compensation within its complaint response and have addressed this separately below.

Kitchen floor

We recognise that investigations and repairs concerning suspected subsidence can be complex and will often incur delays while the landlord and experts involved decide the best way to proceed. This is why it must manage investigations effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify the cause of the damage and potential ground movement as soon as possible.
Emails provided by the landlord show a member of its staff reported suspected subsidence to the voids team in October 2023, stating that the kitchen floor was not level, certain areas were raised, and it felt like subsidence. They also expressed concern that the unlevelled flooring may be a trip hazard and noted that white goods and other kitchen furniture would not balance which could also pose a risk. The void team said to level the kitchen floor would be a substantial amount of work and would involve removing the kitchen, digging down to the footings of the building and replacing the entire floor. At this stage, the landlord was on notice that there was an issue with the flooring that required investigation, yet it failed to take appropriate action within a reasonable period. Furthermore, it has not evidenced that it assessed the safety of the flooring for the future occupant. This was a significant failing.
Records show a surveyor attended in February 2024 and said the kitchen floor needed levelling. Further investigations took place the following month, whereby it stated that to remedy the issue, all the floorboards needed lifting, and a new central support fitted. Additionally, it said a main gas pipe needed to be re–piped to move the joists. An internal note from May 2024 demonstrates the surveyor was minded that the resident would need to be temporarily moved out of the property to complete extensive works.
In our view, no meaningful action took place until the landlord referred the matter to its buildings insurer on 1 August 2024. This was an avoidable delay of approximately 200 working days from when subsidence was initially suspected in October 2023.
The insurer’s loss adjuster appointed an expert to inspect the kitchen in August 2024. It notified the landlord on 28 August 2024 that subsidence did not cause the damage, rather it was a failure of the underlying timber flooring. It said the defect could be linked to possible condensation issues caused by insufficient airflow to the floor void. It recommended that it exposed the floor and conducted an intrusive investigation to confirm the extent of the repairs.
The landlord explained that as the flooring formed part of the resident’s disrepair claim, it was unable to progress the matter until its surveyor had compiled a housing disrepair inspection report and repair schedule as part of the pre-action protocol.
Records show the inspection took place on 4 November 2024 in which the surveyor considered whether the property was fit for human habitation, accounting for sections 9A and 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. It was fair and reasonable for the landlord to consider this within its assessment. Within the schedule of works, it said it needed to further investigate the kitchen flooring. This would involve lifting a further section of the floor to fully investigate the condition of the timber joists & supports.
We appreciate the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s proposal as she expected a more intrusive investigation as the next step, as recommended by the insurer’s expert. In terms of the suitability of the landlord’s proposed investigation, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether it is suitable or not. It has made suggestions it feels are appropriate, based on the opinion of its qualified surveyor. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault.
The resident explained she has been living with a hole in the floor since February 2024. She said the landlord told her not to put down any flooring or continue decorating, as the floor needed to come up. Records show it informed her it would need to temporarily move her from the property due to the extent of the works required. She also expressed concern about the safety of the gas pipe that the surveyor referenced during the initial investigations. Taken altogether, this has impacted her enjoyment of her kitchen and caused considerable worry to a vulnerable resident.
In this assessment, we understand the disrepair protocol may have affected the timescales of the landlord’s response to the flooring issues. This will be discussed further within this report. However, when deciding what is reasonable and appropriate, we have focused on its repairs policy. In this case, it is evident the landlord was on notice about a problem with the flooring before the tenancy started and to date, further investigations are outstanding. This suggests a lack of repair management which meant the substantive issue has been outstanding for a drawn-out period. This is indicative of a failing in its repairs service. We note the landlord recognised some of its shortcomings within its complaint responses. We have considered its redress offer below.

Front door

The resident informed the landlord that she had experienced domestic violence and did not feel safe with the bowed and ill-fitting front door.
Repair records show the landlord’s operative addressed the front door on 17 January 2024 and reported that the door was slightly bowed but with draught excluders and adjustments, it worked fine. It noted the resident disagreed and so it raised a work order for a surveyor to inspect the door. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
In the surveyor’s inspection of 21 February 2024, it reported that it could see light from inside the front door, and it required easing and adjusting. From the records available, it is not evident that the landlord attended within the timescales within its repair policy to action this.
The resident said the previous surveyor told her that it would replace the door for a like-for-like model. The most recent door inspection took place in November 2024 in which a surveyor reported the front door has some minor gaps between the frame and the door, but these could be remedied by fitting draught excluders and by overhauling, ease & adjusting the door. The landlord provided internal and external photos of the door as part of its evidence submission.
The Ombudsman recognises social landlords have limited resources and should manage these responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. As such, it is not unreasonable for a landlord to first seek to repair rather than replace a component. A landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. As such, we do not find the landlord’s position of attempting a further repair to be unfair. However, we find its record keeping concerning its communication with the resident over the front door to be lacking. This has impacted our investigation and is a shortcoming in its information management.

Bath

The resident informed us that she did not request a larger bath, rather the landlord’s surveyor offered this as a gesture of goodwill. Her version of events is not disputed. An internal email demonstrates the landlord’s surveyor approved a large bath on 30 July 2024.
The landlord since explained within its stage 1 complaint response that its repair team was unable to authorise adaptations and if the resident needed a larger bath for medical reasons, she should seek approval from an OT.
The landlord’s website explains that for major adaptations, residents need to contact their local authority to obtain an OT referral. The OT will complete a home visit and identify any adaptations required. They will then send their assessment to the landlord so it can plan the works.
While we recognise the landlord had incorrectly raised the resident’s expectations regarding the bath, we find that it acted in line with its adaptation process. Nonetheless, it would have been appropriate for it to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its miscommunication and apologise within its complaint response. In our view, its response concerning this matter was unempathetic and inadequate.

Pre-action Protocol and Compensation

In April 2024, a legal representative of the resident submitted a disrepair claim to the landlord under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Disrepair Cases (England).
The resident told this Service that a teenaged family member initially started the disrepair claim without her knowledge, and she decided not to proceed with it. It is unclear from the evidence available when she abandoned the claim and what information was provided to the parties concerning this. We note the landlord has not submitted copies of the full claim correspondence between the resident’s representative and its legal team. Therefore, we cannot fully comment on its actions here.
The evidence available demonstrates the landlord conferred with its legal team on 22 October 2024 who confirmed it had an active case for the resident. In the absence of any evidence to indicate she had abandoned the claim, it was appropriate for it to follow the pre-action protocol and, in the absence of filing for court proceedings, consider the complaint through its internal complaint procedure.
Within our investigation, the landlord informed us that the resident stipulated at the time of completing the disrepair survey that she wished to withdraw the claim. However, as it had no “formal written confirmation” from her or her legal advisor, it still has it listed as a live claim. It said its legal team are currently aware of the circumstances but has not evidenced this. It also has not explained what the resident needs to provide to formally withdraw her claim, should she wish to. This is unfair and unreasonable. It is unclear whether her legal representative continues to communicate with the landlord on her behalf and it must be noted that the landlord has provided no evidence to indicate recent correspondence.
Within the contact history provided, it is clear the resident informed the landlord in writing on 7 and 29 November 2024 that she did not proceed with the claim. In these circumstances, it would have been appropriate for it to advise its legal team of this so they could follow up with her. The landlord has not demonstrated that it did so. Further, the complaint handler failed to acknowledge her comments concerning this. This was a shortcoming which impacted how it considered compensation within its final complaint response. This is evidenced by the landlord stating at stage 2 that, “any additional compensation will be assessed as damages” within the claim.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it apologised for delays in completing repairs. At stage 1 it offered £600 for the delay in completing the survey, repeat visits, household vulnerabilities, inconvenience, lack of communication and the resident regularly having to chase for responses. It offered £50 for the delay resolving the damp and mould. At stage 2, it offered an additional £50 for the delay completing the flooring repair. The landlord did not provide a comprehensive breakdown of how much redress it offered for each issue. In our view, although it attempted to address its failings, it did not go far enough to recognise the extent of the delays completing the outstanding repairs and investigations, or the impact caused.
Our remedies guidance suggests redress between £600 and £1000 is appropriate where there were failings that had a significant impact on a resident. We are minded that £700 was not proportionate in the circumstances to reflect the impact of the shortcomings identified as there were several elements to be considered in this case.
These issues have impacted a vulnerable resident and her enjoyment of her home. The communication failings throughout caused further distress and it is clear she spent time and trouble pursuing a resolution. The compensation offered by the landlord did not go far enough to recognise the detriment caused when considering all the circumstances of the case. For these reasons, we find it fair and reasonable to order more redress in addition to further action.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 response should be issued in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a 10 further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. Its complaint handling timescales are in line with the Code.
The resident made a formal complaint on 12 June 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 9 August 2024, 43 working days later. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 August 2024. It issued its stage 2 response on 17 December 2024, 80 working days later. The Code serves to illustrate that it kept this complaint open for an excessive period, beyond the timescale set out in its policy.
The landlord has a duty as a member to respond to complaints in line with the Code. Its failure to do so meant it missed opportunities to remedy the resident’s concerns, address and resolve the wider aspects of her complaint, show empathy, and improve the landlord/resident relationship. This had an impact as she kept chasing for responses and felt frustrated and ignored. It also prevented her from accessing this Service and contributed to delays resolving her concerns.
Under our dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While it apologised, it could have done a lot more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint response to improve its service provision.
At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged the delay issuing its final complaint response. It offered the resident £100 for the failings in its complaint handling. After considering all the circumstances of this case, we consider this to be fair and in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property.
2. The resident’s report of subsidence to the kitchen floor.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The bath replacement.
2. The resident’s request for a replacement front door.
3. Its communication on the pre-action protocol process and compensation on the issues.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident £1,200 compensation. This replaces its previous offer of £700 for the repair shortcomings identified within its final complaint response. This is comprised of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of suspected subsidence.
  3. £50 for the communication shortcomings concerning the bath.
  4. £50 for the communication shortcomings concerning the front door.
  5. £100 for the communication shortcomings concerning the pre-action protocol.
3. Write to the resident setting out a detailed repair schedule for the works that are due to take place between 6 – 8 August 2025. It must set out each repair it will undertake and provide a copy to this Service.
4. Contact the resident and discuss bringing the works forward to investigate behind the kitchen units and the floor void. It should also specify the dates for the commencement of these works.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord compensates the resident £100 it offered for its complaint handling delays, if not already paid. This compensation recognises genuine elements of service failure. We made a reasonable redress finding on the basis that it pays this to her.
We recommend for the landlord to contact the resident to establish if she requires a replacement, like-for-like, bath.
We recommend that the landlord should consider whether any additional compensation is due to the resident for any avoidable delays resolving the issues post-stage 2. We recognise it may decide to open another complaint instead to assess this in more detail.