Clarion Housing Association Limited — case 202345190

Decision Case ID 202345190 Decision type Investigation Landlord Clarion Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Shared Ownership Date 18 March 2026 Background The resident lives in a newly built flat under a shared ownership lease. The property was subject to a 12-month defect period. After the period ended, the resident reported an issue with damp and mould which he believed to be caused by a latent defect. He complained and asked the landlord to deal with the repairs.

The landlord said the issue was created by lack of routine maintenance and the repairs were the resident’s responsibility under the lease. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s: Reports of damp and mould in the property. Associated complaint. Our decision (determination) The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its: Response to his reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling. Summary of reasons The resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord’s decision, that it was not obligated to carry out repairs for the damp and mould at the property, was in line with the resident’s lease. There were delays in its responses to the resident, which It acknowledged and offered appropriate compensation for. The associated complaint. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. It offered the resident appropriate compensation for this.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 05/10/23 The resident complained to the landlord about its refusal to repair the damp and mould problem which was coming from his ensuite bathroom. The shower cubicle was tiled but there were cracks in the grouting, which the resident felt was a new-build defect. This was allowing water to get into the wall and through to the next room, a store cupboard. The wall in that room was wet and mouldy. The resident asked the landlord to put it right.

10/10/23 The landlord acknowledged the complaint and confirmed a reply would be given in 20 working days. 14/12/23 The landlord sent its stage 1 reply. It apologised for the delay. The landlord said the repairs were the resident’s responsibility under the terms of the lease. It repeated that the problem was being caused by a lack of routine maintenance, rather than it being a hidden defect or a workmanship issue. The landlord suggested the resident make a claim against the new-build warranty for the property.

If the warranty provider accepted the fault was a latent defect, it would pay the excess under the policy for repairs to be carried out. Alternatively, if the claim was refused then it was a maintenance issue and it was for the resident to pay for and arrange the repairs. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in giving the resident guidance and information and that this amounted to a failing in its service. It offered compensation of £200, £150 for this delay and £50 for its delayed complaint response.

05/02/24 The resident escalated his complaint. He said his warranty claim had been refused but he still felt the landlord held responsibility. Also, he complained the landlord’s contractor had caused further damage removing tiles to investigate the damp and this needed to be resolved too. 08/02/24 The landlord sent its final complaint response. It said its view had not changed. However, it acknowledged further delays in raising a complaint and offered compensation of £100 for this.

It also offered to compensate the resident for the broken tiles at £300. Finally, it offered £50 to reflect its handling of the stage 2 response. This totalled £450. The landlord explained that this was on top of the £200 offered at stage 1. Its total compensation offer was therefore £650. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident was unhappy with this outcome and referred the complaint to us for investigation. Whilst he has had the grouting repaired, and the damp has dried out, staining remains.

He also wants the plasterboard between the shower and storage rooms to be removed and replaced. By way of remedy, he wants the landlord to take responsibility for these outstanding repairs. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property Finding Reasonable redress The resident accepts that he has a repairing obligation under the terms of the lease. He is responsible for routine maintenance. However, he complained that the damp and mould issue was caused by a latent defect and it was therefore the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord undertook some investigations, but concluded the issue was caused by a lack of maintenance. This brought the situation to a stalemate.

This property has the benefit of a warranty policy. It covers defects (snagging) for the first 12 months after construction and structural problems for another 11 years after that. By the time the resident noticed the damage complained of, the defects period had ended and only the structural cover remained. The landlord invited the resident to make a claim under the warranty for the property. If the warranty provider accepted the claim, then that decision would act as confirmation that the fault was a defect after all.

In that case, the landlord was prepared to accept the decision and pay any excess due under the policy. The provider would then arrange and pay for the repairs. If the provider refused the claim, then, in the landlord’s view, it was fair to say this was a maintenance issue. The resident made the claim, and the provider rejected it. It said that water leaks were not covered by the policy as defects and this would have been the case even if the damage had been noticed and claimed for in the relevant defects period.

This supported the landlord’s view. The provider also noted that damage from the leak would not be covered under the structural cover either for the same reason. It is beyond our remit to decide whether the problem amounted to a defect or whether it was a maintenance issue. The resident has not provided any independent expert evidence to support his contention on this point. Furthermore, the warranty provider, and its decision, is also outside our remit. The key point made by the provider was that the warranty did not cover problems of the kind the resident experienced.

Given the terms of the lease make clear the resident’s internal repair and maintenance obligations, the possibility of a structural defect (which is what a new build warranty usually centres on) would be the only way the landlord could reasonably be said to bear some responsibility. Accordingly, the landlord’s conclusion was based on the evidence it had available and its lease obligations. Its decision was therefore reasonable. Nonetheless, the landlord identified delays in some of its actions and responses to the resident.

It offered compensation of £150 which was appropriate to its compensation policy. Further, it assessed compensation of £300 for the tiles the resident said its contractors had broken, and the resident did not dispute the amount. There is no evidence of these delays having a greater impact than frustration and inconvenience for the resident, and the remedies the landlord offered were in line with both the landlord’s and our compensation guidance. Accordingly, the landlord provided suitable remedies.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s interim complaints policy of June 2022 applied to this complaint and set out a 2-stage process for handling complaints. The first stage involved an initial investigation with the 2nd stage operating as a review. Complaints were to be acknowledged within 10 working days with replies being given in 20 working days and 40 working days for stages 1 and 2 respectively. The policy did not comply with our Complaints Handling Code in terms of these timings, but the landlord has now published an updated policy on its website which does comply.

The landlord has pointed to a delay on its part in treating contact from the resident as a complaint. Once the landlord had heard from the resident’s councillor it acted and provided the stage 1 response which was approximately 20 working days late. The landlord has accepted that its complaint handling overall was not prompt enough. It has offered compensation of £200 in total which is appropriate to its compensation policy, and a reasonable remedy for its delays. Learning The landlord identified that it needed to update its relevant staff on how to advise residents in this situation.

It confirmed that relevant feedback had been given. Knowledge information management (record keeping) No record keeping issues were noted during this investigation. Communication The landlord’s communication with the resident was acceptable in terms of tone and content.