Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202413823)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413823

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A leak from the wet room and a leak in the hallway at the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. At the time of the resident’s complaint, she was undergoing treatment for a severe illness which the landlord was aware of.
  2. On 21 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to inspect the wet room at her property. She said that the floor was bubbling, and she was worried it would start to rot away and fall through. In May and August 2023, the landlord carried out repairs to the toilet in the wet room as the resident had reported that this was leaking.
  3. On 10 April 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that there was water leaking from the wet room down into her lounge. A landlord’s operative attended the same day. The operative said it was likely that a pipe had not been sealed properly under the floor.
  4. On 20 April 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that there were pools of water in her hallway. A landlord’s operative attended the same day but could not find the source of the leak.
  5. On 23 May 2024, the resident reported that she had no heating or hot water. The landlord’s heating contractor attended on 24 May 2024 and carried out a repair.
  6. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 31 May 2024. She said she had not heard anything further from it regarding the leaks.
  7. On 3 June 2024, the resident reported that she had no heating or hot water again. The landlord’s heating contractor attended the same day and freed a valve on the boiler that had become stuck. The contractor noticed that there was water damage to the ground floor, so they contacted the landlord to advise that it lift the floor to investigate the source of the leak.
  8. On 10 June 2024, the resident told the landlord that a member of its staff due to attend her property had not shown up. She said the landlord had advised that the staff member would call her, but they had not done so.
  9. On 20 June 2024, the heating contractor found that a valve on the resident’s boiler needed replacing. They carried out a temporary repair to the boiler so that the resident had heating and hot water.
  10. Sometime in June 2024, the landlord installed 2 temporary access hatches in the resident’s lounge ceiling. The exact date is not clear from the evidence provided.
  11. The resident told the landlord on 25 June 2024 that she had not received a response to her complaint. On 1 July 2024, she requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure.
  12. On 4 July 2024, the landlord’s heating contractor replaced the pump and valves on the resident’s boiler.
  13. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 4 July 2024 about the landlord’s handling of the leaks from her wet room and in her hallway.
  14. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 July 2024. It apologised to the resident for the delay in it responding to her complaint. It said:
    1. Its operative had attended to inspect her wet room following her reports of a leak. However, there were no records of what repairs had been carried out. It apologised for this. It had arranged an asbestos check of the lounge ceiling, so it could further investigate the leak. It had arranged an appointment for 12 July 2024 to check the waste pipes in the wet room.
    2. Its heating contractor had identified an issue with a valve the resident had had fitted to the boiler. It advised the resident not to carry out any repairs to the boiler without its permission as by law any work to the boiler must be carried out by a qualified engineer.
    3. It asked that the resident lift the laminate flooring she had fitted so that it could investigate the source of the leak in the hallway.
    4. It offered the resident £250 compensation broken down as follows: £150 for the inconvenience caused, £50 for the delay in it completing the repairs, and £50 for the delay in it responding to her complaint.
  15. The landlord advised the resident on 11 July 2024, that it had awarded her £15 compensation for a missed appointment. It said it had added this to her rent account. It is not clear from the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, which missed appointment this compensation related to. It is also unclear from the evidence whether the appointment the landlord had scheduled for 12 July 2024, went ahead.
  16. On 23 July 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She said the repairs were still outstanding. She said the damp in her property had resulted in flies and a bad smell.
  17. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 August 2024 to inform it that the pipes were still leaking. On 20 August 2024, the heating contractor found evidence of mice underneath the floorboards in the hallway. The contractor said the mice had chewed through insulation and had likely damaged pipes resulting in the leak. The contractor asked the landlord to arrange for its pest control contractor to attend.
  18. The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2024. It acknowledged its heating contractor had moved a morning appointment to the afternoon without informing the resident. It had asked its heating contractor to arrange a joint appointment with its pest control contractor. It acknowledged that there had been a delay to this appointment taking place and awarded the resident £50 for this. It said if the resident had not heard anything regarding this appointment by 24 September 2024, she should contact it to chase this up. It awarded the resident an additional £100 compensation broken down as follows: £50 for the fact that the delay was within its control and £50 for the delay in it responding to her stage 2 complaint. It said it would ensure that in future if different contractors needed to work together, an operative would be appointed to take the lead and coordinate any works.
  19. The resident reported to the landlord on 10 October 2024, that the wet room was still leaking.
  20. On 22 October 2024, the landlord’s heating contractor established that the leak under the floor in the resident’s hallway was not heating related. The contractors’ records show that the radiator pipes ran down the walls and there were no visible leaks or water marks on the walls or the floor near the radiators.
  21. The landlord’s pest control contractor inspected the property on 22 October 2024 and 15 November 2024, and laid bait to control the mice infestation. The pest control contractor arranged a further visit for 4 December 2024 but was not able to gain access to the resident’s property.
  22. An independent surveyor completed an inspection of the property on 21 January 2025 as the resident wished to start a legal claim for disrepair. The surveyor drew up a Scott Schedule (a survey used in disrepair claims), dated 27 January 2025. The Scott Schedule identified that the leak from the wet room was due to an unsealed gap between the wall tiles in the corner of the shower, and the fact that the junction between the floor and the wall tiles was not sealed. The surveyor recommended that the landlord seal gaps in the wet room and that it make good the lounge ceiling. The surveyor could not find any evidence of an ongoing leak or any damp in the resident’s hallway. They recommended that the landlord lift the damaged chipboard flooring in the kitchen, replace the damaged chipboard and undertake a further inspection of the subfloor for further evidence of a leak. The surveyor advised that the recommended works could be carried out whilst the resident was in occupation of the property.
  23. On 14 May 2025, we asked the landlord to provide an update on what works it had carried out to remedy both leaks, since its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord was unable to provide any further information. On 28 May 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that the wet room continues to leak. She confirmed that the landlord had carried out an asbestos survey of the lounge ceiling. She said that water coming down through the ceiling had damaged her laptop and some chairs.
  24. On 4 June 2025, the resident told us the leak in the hallway had stopped. She said she had had to dispose of the laminate flooring in the hallway as this was damaged.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that her laptop and chairs were damaged by the leak from the wet room. The resident’s reports of damage to these items are outside the scope of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue this damage further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.  
  2. The resident has mentioned in her complaint that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the leaks at her property. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about her health. It is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. We can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Policies and procedures

  1. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the resident’s property. This includes ceilings, and waste and water pipes.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and to routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. Its complaints policy states the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The policy states that if the landlord needs more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2.

The landlord’s handling of the leaks at the resident’s property

  1. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily mean there was a service failure by the landlord, provided it was making reasonable efforts to identify the cause, carry out repairs and keep the resident updated.
  2. The resident first raised concerns about the wet room floor in February 2023. The landlord carried out repairs to the toilet in the wet room in May and August 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider that in repairing the toilet it had resolved the problems with the wet room floor as the resident did not report any further concerns about the wet room until April 2024.
  3. The resident reported a leak from her wet room into the lounge on 10 April 2024. The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy in sending an operative within 24 hours to determine the extent of the leak. The landlord carried out another inspection on 30 May 2024. However, in its stage 1 complaint response of 10 July 2024, the landlord accepted that it had not taken any further action in relation to this repair. It apologised to the resident and offered her £200 compensation for this delay. This was appropriate compensation at that stage and recognised the time, trouble and inconvenience the delay to it resolving this leak will have likely caused the resident.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord told the resident it was awaiting an asbestos report in relation to her lounge ceiling. It said it had also arranged an appointment for 12 July 2024 to check the waste pipe connections in the wet room. The fact that the leak from the wet room remains unresolved over a year after the resident reported the issue in April 2024, and over 4 months after the Scott Schedule identified the likely cause of the leak, is a significant failure. The landlord is ordered to seal the gap between the wall tiles in the corner of the shower and seal the junction between the floor and the wall tiles. It must also remove the access hatches in the lounge ceiling and install new plasterboard, replaster and redecorate the ceiling. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to leave the hatches in place for a short time to allow it to check the leak is fully resolved once it has been repaired.
  5. On 20 April 2024, the resident reported that there were pools of water in her hallway. In its stage 1 complaint response of 10 July 2024, the landlord told the resident it was her responsibility to remove the laminate flooring she had fitted in the hallway so that it could investigate this leak further. As the flooring needed to be removed to identify and remedy a leak, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to lift the flooring so it could prevent the leak from getting worse and/or causing damage to the structure of the property. The landlord could have considered asking the resident to sign a waiver in relation to any damage its operatives may cause during the lifting of the flooring. Whilst it may be reasonable to ask residents to move their own belongings and floor coverings to allow repair access in most cases, in this case the landlord was aware that the resident had a significant illness which might make it more difficult for her to move the flooring herself. It should therefore have offered to help her move it.
  6. It was reasonable that the landlord arranged pest control visits to the resident’s property in response to the concern that an infestation of mice may have damaged pipework under the flooring. The landlord’s heating contractor found that the leak was not caused by an issue with the heating system. Both the Scott Schedule surveyor and the resident have said that the leak has stopped. It is recommended however that the landlord write to the resident to confirm whether it intends to carry out an inspection of the subfloor in the kitchen as recommended by the Scott Schedule.
  7. The resident said she had disposed of the laminate flooring in the hallway due to it being damaged. The landlord is not obligated to replace the laminate flooring as flooring installed by the resident is the resident’s responsibility to replace and there is no evidence that the flooring was damaged as a result of the landlord’s actions.
  8. The landlord’s inability to provide us with updates in relation to the leak from the wet room and the leak in the hallway is of considerable concern. The landlord did not inform the Ombudsman that a Scott Schedule inspection had been carried out. We had to rely on the resident to provide us with a copy of this report. It is vital that landlords keep copies of all records relating to a complaint. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for updated correspondence and documentation. If the landlord is not able to provide this, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its repairs policy. We recommend that the landlord reviews its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its repair responsibilities and can provide updated evidence relating to any works it carries out, when required to do so by the Ombudsman.
  9. Due to the wording of the landlord’s complaint responses, it is not clear how much compensation it has offered for the delays in it completing repairs to resolve the leaks. On 14 May 2025, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to confirm the total amount of compensation it awarded the resident. It has not done so. Therefore, we have calculated the amount of compensation the landlord has awarded for this aspect of the complaint as £315, broken down as follows: £200 compensation in its stage 1 complaint response of 10 July 2024, a further £15 offered on 11 July 2024 and a further £100 in its stage 2 complaint response of 20 September 2024. Given that the leak from the wet room has not been resolved, the compensation the landlord has offered the resident for this aspect of the complaint does not fully reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience, this issue will have caused her, particularly as the landlord was aware of her illness which would have increased her level of inconvenience. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, states that where we find maladministration which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation for this aspect of the complaint, bringing the total to £515.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 31 May 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 July 2024, over 2 weeks outside of its timescales for responding to stage 1 complaints. This was a failing as the resident was kept waiting for a response to her complaint for longer than she should have been. The landlord acted appropriately in awarding the resident £50 compensation for this delay.
  2. On 23 July 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord acted appropriately in sending the resident updates on 20 August 2024 and 10 September 2024, to let her know that it needed more time to respond to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2024. It was reasonable that the landlord awarded the resident an additional £50 compensation for this delay.
  3. The delays in the landlord issuing its complaint responses will have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience. However, the compensation offered by the landlord for these delays of £100, was proportionate and fair and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that where we identify service failure, £50-£100 compensation should be considered. Therefore, the landlord has made an appropriate offer and does not need to do anything further in this regard.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaks at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report, and to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance by the same date:
    1. Seal the gap between the wall tiles in the corner of the shower, and the gaps between the junction between the floor and the wall tiles. Once it has checked that the leak has stopped following this repair, it must remove the access hatches in the lounge ceiling and install new plasterboard, replaster and redecorate the ceiling.
    2. Pay the resident a further £200 compensation for the trouble and inconvenience caused by its errors in its handling of the repairs. This is in addition to the £315 compensation it offered the resident through its complaints process, which should also be paid, if it has not been paid already.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord:
    1. Writes to the resident to confirm whether it will carry out the Scott Schedule recommendations in relation to the leak in the hallway. If it will not carry out any of the recommendations it should explain the reasons why and where applicable set out what works it proposes to do instead to resolve the repair issues the resident has reported.
    2. Reviews its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its repair responsibilities, and can provide updated evidence relating to a complaint, when required to do so by the Ombudsman, including any survey reports.